Andrew Lichterman
“…[B]oth individuals and entire peoples must order their lives on the basis of the saying recorded in the Tosefot to Baba Kama 23: ‘A man should concern himself more that he not injure others than that he not be injured.’ For when a man tries to keep watch that his fist not injure others, by that very act he enthrones in the world the God of truth and righteousness and adds power to the kingdom of justice; and it is precisely this power which will defend him against injury by others.
This does not happen, however, if a man is preoccupied with watching out only for himself and keeps his fist always poised to prevent others attacking him; for by such a pose he in fact weakens the power of justice and stirs up evil. When a man constantly portrays to himself scenes of terror, when he asserts that everyone wants to obliterate him and that he can rely only on the power of his own fist, by this he denies the kingdom of truth and justice and enthrones the power of the fist. And since the fist is by nature poor at making distinctions, in the end defense and attack become reversed: instead of defending himself by means of the fist, such a man becomes himself the assailant and destroyer of others. Hence, like begetting like, others repay him in kind, and so the earth is filled with violence and oppression.” Rabbi Aaron Samuel Tamaret, excerpt from a sermon, titled “Liberty,” 1906, and published in Musar Hatorah v’Hayahadut (Vilna 1912). Translated by Rabbi Everett E. Gendler. Published on the web by the Shalom Center
There is little surprising about the latest spasm of carnage in the Middle East. As many other observers have said, the people of Israel, and of the Palestinian lands it occupies are largely at the mercy of extreme elements on both sides who thrive on violence. By far the greater violence continues to be inflicted by Israel, having at its command the full panoply of destructive weaponry from tanks, warships, and high-performance warplanes up to nuclear weapons, subsidized by many billions of dollars of military aid from the United States. Who “started it” on this particular occasion is an arbitrary matter, determined a priori by the political predispositions of the viewer. Yes, Palestinian resistance forces in Gaza kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers. But roll the starting point back a few weeks and Israeli gunmen–who happen to wear uniforms and fire far more destructive weapons from a great distance–decimated a family of Palestinians taking a day at the beach. Yes, Hizballah forces kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers, a provocative act. But the line they crossed transects a war zone where there has been no peace for decades. In recent years Hizballah–which emerged as a dominant local political and military factor resisting the Israeli invasion and occupation of Southern Lebanon –and Israel’s IDF have fought a running low-level war on the border, largely limited to attacks on each others forces. Israel fires at Hizballah with tanks, artillery, and bombs, its air force routinely flaunting both its military superiority and its contempt for international law with frequent overflights deep into Lebanon designed to terrorize the population with sonic booms. Hizballah plants roadside bombs, launches rockets southward at Israeli forces and fires anti-aircraft weapons at Israel’s planes, sometimes causing casualties in Israel. Or reverse the order if you like, it’s up to you.
There is little doubt, however, that Israel’s response, both in Gaza and Lebanon, has been disproportionate, wildly excessive, and contrary to the laws of war. In Gaza, a territory never fully released from military occupation, and now invaded once more, Israel is following a clear policy of collective punishment, destroying a vital electric power station and reducing the water, food and medical supplies accessible to a population already impoverished and immiserated by decades of Israeli military rule. Israel also has engaged in new rounds of targeted assassinations–a polite term for lawless murders–and “arrests” that amount to retaliatory hostage-taking, seizing a sizable portion of the Palestinian parliament. All of this violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits murder, reprisals against civilians and their property, and collective punishment, which limits destruction of public or private property to strict military necessity, and which makes the occupying power ultimately responsible for the physical well-being of the subject population.
In Lebanon, the entire country is being punished, with attacks on villages, cities, and infrastructure ranging from power stations to grain silos, pharmaceutical companies, and dairy farms that have killed and continue to kill many civilians. This devastating onslaught bears little relationship to the purported goals of the campaign, to recover Israel’s soldiers and to prevent further Hizballah rocket attacks. Israel’s military justifications are so pro forma as to appear transparently cynical–the main civilian airport was used to supply terrorists, terrorists could move the captured soldiers across the many bridges and highways Israel is systematically destroying, a convoy of civilians incinerated by helicopter gunships as they flee have no one to blame but Hizballah, who allegedly fired rockets from their locale. Hizballah too seems willing to engage in escalating open warfare, firing its rockets with no more discrimination than is being shown by Israel (although with far less devastating effect). Both are engaged in a game in which civilians are conceived as pawns and pry bars; each hoping to inflict enough carnage and suffering to leverage the discontent of adversary populations into pressure on adversary governments. Both pursue a fantasy as old as the ability to deliver explosives by plane or missile, a strategy whose only reliable outcome in war after war has been uncontrollable spirals of violence and mass death.
It has become apparent, however, that Israel has taken the seizure of its soldiers in both Gaza and Lebanon as an opportunity to pursue far larger agendas in both places, including the destruction of the elected Palestinian government and perhaps of the elected government of Lebanon as well. Reacting to relatively minor border incidents with massive assaults aimed at something very much like “regime change” is clearly disproportionate. But such actions been enabled by an international climate created by the actions and preventive war doctrine of the United States, a climate in which even the Japanese government, which enshrines peace in its constitution, has threatened strikes against North Korea in response to missile tests that while provocative are not unlawful. (Long-range missile tests are a routine practice of a number of countries, including the United States).
