The Jacksonian response: America, Israel, and Gaza
This automatic Jacksonian response to the Middle East situation overlooks some important complexities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in the past America’s Jacksonian instincts have gotten us into trouble. But anyone trying to analyze the politics of the Middle East struggle as they unfold in American debates needs to be aware of the power of these ideas about war in American life.
In any case, when Israel brings the big guns and fast planes against Gaza’s popguns and low tech missiles, a great many Americans see nothing but common sense at work. These Americans aren’t mad about ‘disproportionate’ Israeli violence in Gaza because they don’t really accept the concept of proportionality in war. They think that if you have jus ad bellum, and rocket strikes from Gaza are definitely that, you get something close to a blank check when it comes to jus in bello.
If anything, rather than weakening American sympathy for Israel, Israel’s response in Gaza (and the global criticism that surrounds it) is likely to strengthen the bonds of respect and esteem that many Americans feel for Israelis. Far from seeing Israel’s use of overwhelming force against limited provocation as harsh or immoral, many Americans see it as courageous and wise. It strengthens the sense that in a wacky world where a lot of foreigners are hard to understand, the Israelis are honest, competent and reliable friends — good people to have on your side in a tight spot.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I must be totally a Jacksonian in my outlook–Israel should pound Gaza until they lose their will to attack Israel. And Hamas is at fault for starting a war they cannot win in order to create civilian casualties for propaganda use.
Just end it, Israel. If it takes pounding Gaza back to the Middle Ages (or earlier) then do it. Gaza wanted war so give it to them good and hard.
iconoclast on November 18, 2012 at 9:23 PM
No such thing. It’s Islam versus Jews.
OldEnglish on November 18, 2012 at 9:23 PM
Wow, he nailed it.
jhffmn on November 18, 2012 at 9:36 PM
Curious how those who are so upset with Israel have nothing to say about Hamas hiding amongst its population.
They have nothing to say about the propaganda, fake videos, photoshopped images, etc.
Nothing to say about how the Filistiniyoon trains their children from birth to hate Jews, yet there are Muslims who live peacefully in Israel, and any person is allowe to practice any religion they please (not so in Palestinian territory).
Those who want to engage in the wailing and gnashing of teeth about Israel are willfully ignorant of the absolute moral depravity that permeates throughout the Palestinian territories.
blatantblue on November 18, 2012 at 9:37 PM
Proportionality doesn’t mean what he thinks it means. Proportionality refers to an action proportionate to achieving a just goal, not proportionate to one’s opponent’s actions. So, one can respond to a knife with a gun if a gun is required to assure the defeat of the knife-puller. Using a gun to oppose a knife meets the criterion of proportionality in this example. One cannot respond to a drawn knife by carpet bombing the block. That is disproportionate to the just goal desired. Here, bombing a military target is a proportionate response. Using overwhelming military force is often a proportionate response. Nuking the entire Gaza strip (or all of Iran) is not proportionate and is unjust.
boko fittleworth on November 18, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Well nuking the Gaza Strip, while no doubt tempting, would also be foolish since the radioactive fallout would blow across all of Israel and then some. The Israeli response I’ve seen thus far, however, is entirely justified. Hamas started this, no one stepped in to help and they have a duty to protect Israeli citizens. No nation would endure for long the rocket attacks Hamas has done against Israel. None. So Egypt and the rest of Israel’s critics can bugger off. Once this immediate threat is neutralized if anyone has a good idea to move peace talks forward, great. Surrendering though ain’t an option.
JohnAGJ on November 18, 2012 at 10:23 PM
I agree that the Israeli response, as we’ve seen it thus far, has been justified. And just. My point is that one reason why it has been just is because it has been proportionate to the just aim of eliminating an ongoing threat and deterring future violence. Mead’s explanation of proportionality as a component of jus in bello was simply wrong. “Proportionality” is a term of art and Mead does not know what it means.
boko fittleworth on November 18, 2012 at 10:31 PM
United States: Powell Doctrine.
Israel: Disproportionate!!
Ben Hur on November 18, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Israel is trying too hard to be “proportionate”. The will of the Gazan population to wage war has to end. Whatever it takes to achieve that goal short of nuking the entire region is proportionate.
iconoclast on November 18, 2012 at 10:50 PM
FIFY. We’re just the canary in the coal mine. *cough*cough*
Shy Guy on November 18, 2012 at 11:05 PM
We Israelis have giant fans to blow the fallout into Egypt. The fans will also simultaneously resolve the problem of global warming. World saved!
Shy Guy on November 18, 2012 at 11:07 PM
If some one firing a 22short into my neighborhood I don’t feel the need to find a rifle smaller than my 8mm Mouser to stop them.
Slowburn on November 18, 2012 at 11:33 PM
boffo, boko – you are exactly correct about Mead’s misuse of proportionality. A common error, too.
I notice Mead is regarded as some great heavyweight by so many fairly intelligent blogosphere denizens. I say he’s OK, rarely very impressive. Of course these days being anything other than a blithering idiot in foreign policy (or economics, or history, or constitutional law) makes one some sort of genius by comparison with the horribly degraded “norm”.
But aside from his misuse of the concept of proportionality, it seems Mead is just wrong. His case is “over-determined” – tremendously. That is, the explanation for common American sympathy for Israel in this case is fairly simple, and far simpler than some far-fetched Scots-Irish parallel. Israel is being attacked, heinously, without provocation, by folks who have long shown themselves wedded to war crimes, hatred, and futile violence, not to mention insane anti-Americanism (celebrations on 9/11).
Of course, it’s important to remember just how morally imbecilic most of the world is – they sympathize with the indefensible, utterly depraved side in this “fight”. Just as they were horrified when the US (and a few sane, moral allies) had the temerity to knock off one of the 5 most evil regimes of the 20th century in Iraq (for very sound practical and prudent reasons apart from the evil part).
IceCold on November 19, 2012 at 12:10 AM
No,we don’t. Why would we? The goal is to make the rockets stop. The best way to do that is to respond with enough force to assure people you will do what is needed to stop the rockets. An equal exchange of force is not likely to do this. To be proportionate is to incite violence,not deter it.
Rocks on November 19, 2012 at 12:48 AM
And Rocks fails to read and comprehend the previous comments.
boko fittleworth on November 19, 2012 at 12:52 AM
Yeah,I read and comprehended them.Then said what I think. It’s a free country right?
Rocks on November 19, 2012 at 1:02 AM
Proportionality is an altruistic christian concept in which the defender sacrifices himself to his attacker by sticking to “an eye for an eye”. And yes it leads to perpetual conflict.
Until Israel goes to the original 2 state solution (Israel and Transjordan), it will be mortally threatened. What people currently consider the “2 state solution” is really a 4 state solution: Israel, Gaza, West Bank, East Bank (Jordan). It’s unworkable.
The wars can only stop by doing what the WW2 allies did to Germany after WW2. All Germans in Poland were expelled to Germany, and Poland itself had it’s western borders moved to the Neisse-Oder river.
Israel is only sustainable if the Jordan river is its eastern border, and there are no enclaves within it – let the Arab palestinians of the west bank move to Jordan and take it over from the Hashemites. And Egypt should only have gotten the Sinai back in exchange for granting all the land to the Arab palestinians of Gaza.
Of course moving populations was made illegal by the WW2 victors… right after they moved every German from the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Denmark into Germany.
ebrawer on November 19, 2012 at 1:12 AM
I think it would be disproportionate to eliminate all Venusians because one or two might join with the Islamic terrorists … otherwise, go for it.
OldEnglish on November 19, 2012 at 1:22 AM
“Proportionality” in the context being discussed here is the English word that, for centuries, has denoted a concept that is at least 1600 years old (Augustine). It is lazy, or dishonest, or ignorant to use this word in the same context to denote a different concept. Are you free to do so? I suppose, although in many legal systems, including the American, I think successful suit could be brought against you for attempting to profit or induce others to act from your so doing. I agree with your third and fourth sentences. If you had understood what I’ve written, you would have realized that.
Sorry to be such a dick. I have a twelver of Pabst and no work tomorrow. I think we agree on what is to be done but we all need to get on the same page regarding the discussion of the morality of it. It’s not, I hope, that we don’t care that Israel’s response is immoral. It’s that we think it can be argued that Israel’s response is moral, consistent with the traditional understanding of jus in bello.
boko fittleworth on November 19, 2012 at 1:31 AM
Mead’s a moron.
There will NEVER be peace in the Middle East, vis-à-vis Israel, until one side completely humiliates and militarily annihilates the other. Period.
As time goes on, Israel loses its advantage (things like America electing and re-electing a Muslim sympathizer, Iran getting nukes, etc. may end up happening).
Call me a Realist based on history …
ShainS on November 19, 2012 at 1:37 AM
Exactly.
Absolutely right. This is another place where liberals have changed the meaning of the word to achieve the result they desire while still using all the same words as everyone else.
GWB on November 19, 2012 at 1:40 AM
Having the moral high ground is of no use if one is mired in the valley of death. If Israel constrains itself to administering punishment only, it has no chance of long-term survival.
OldEnglish on November 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM
I just don’t understand why it is so hard to understand that proportionality refers to the just goal intended and not to the actions of the other. Punishment is a just goal, recognized by both Augustine and Aquinas as such. So too are stopping ongoing acts of violence and depriving the other of the capability to commit such acts in the future. We all seem to agree but some here are wedded to an understanding of “proportionality” that is different from what it has been accepted to mean for centuries. Rejoice that you occupy the moral high ground! Stop defending a sin that you’re not even committing.
Again, sorry to be such a bore. It’s just frustrating that so many are mocking the beautiful just war tradition without realizing that we’re in conformity with it. Hooray for us!
boko fittleworth on November 19, 2012 at 1:59 AM
In today’s world, bringing a gun to a knife fight is a crime in many countries. My point about moral high ground is that Israel can never satisfy such countries as to their actions, because to do so would ensure its defeat.
We should cast aside proportionality, and allow Israel (and others so affected) to do what is needed in order to eliminate threats to its security. (just leave the Venusians alone).
OldEnglish on November 19, 2012 at 2:07 AM
And, boko’s point is that they would not be casting aside proportionality to do so.
GWB on November 19, 2012 at 6:31 AM
Israel wouldn’t, but virtually everyone one else seems intent upon condemning Israel’s actions. The days of the “just war” are over – in the eyes of the Western left.
Those of us who support Israel should not even bring proportionality into the equation – it only gives her enemies ammunition against her.
OldEnglish on November 19, 2012 at 7:58 AM