Here are two big things to worry about for the New Years. I'm sure there will be others to come.
1) Israel's ugly and ultimately criminal bombardment and invasion of Gaza. There's just no excuse for this nonsense. And no, Jewish apologists everywhere, a few Qassam rockets do not an excuse make.
There's this thing known as proportionality of response. Interesting thing about the concept of proportionality is that when it's violated, those who are signatories to the Geneva Convention by law consider it a war crime.
Objectively speaking, Israel just blew that wide open with its vicious bombing and invasion of Gaza...But of course, Israel does stuff like this about once every year or two.
I found it ironic and sad that representatives of Israel could very well find themselves sitting in the same docket Eichmann warmed over half a century ago because they refuse to recongize the very laws put in place to prevent the same kind of horror happening again.
Of course, that won't happen, but here's hoping it does, nonetheless. The attack on Gaza is merciless and inexcusable morally, politically and legally.
2) Obama--a handful of very worrying trends: Allowing Rick Warren to deliver his invocation, his refusal to denounce the slaughter in Gaza and finally his absymal ideas on an economic stimulus package. A 300 billion tax cut is probably the least efficient way to stimulate the economy. He's obviously doing this to get the Republicans on board and it's just a bad, bad idea. Because Republicans are not about getting on board for anything. They will play obstructionist games and try to wrangle a 700 billion dollar tax cut because they are ideologically rigid that way--and not just a little blind to their own hubris and stupidity. Krugman has a lot more to say about this here.
I knew Obama was more centrist than I was. I just hope he doesn't let the whole post-partisan good guy riff go to his head. The Warren decision was ugly and unncessary, his silence on Gaza is political and cowardly and playing 'tax cuts' games with the Republicans is politically and economically dumb. It cedes the economic frame to their own grossly inept ideologoical bent and will be bad for the economy to boot.
Naturally, if he gets a deal done that includes some tax cuts, I suppose half a loaf is better than none and all of that, but I'm not holding my breath.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I'm addressing my commentary to the latter statements concerning President-elect Obama. This isn't because I have no opinion about the Palestinian-Israeli "troubles," but because the issues there are simply too complex and, sadly, you have dealt with them too simplistically.
On to Obama.
1. Allowing Rick Warren to deliver his invocation.
First, I'm pretty certain that Rick Warren was invited; that his role was not thrust upon the President-elect; that Obama has not merely "allowed" the evangelical Pastor to give the invocation at the Inauguration. Why? Because Rick Warren gave his vocal support to California Proposition 8.
I think debate over "gay" marriage is about as useful as discourse over the "role" of the Ten Commandments in US jurisprudence; it's just not worth the hot air expended. But, demanding the banishment of someone because she or he gives voice to a position that offends others is...well, such acts are the treasured legacy of Joseph McCarthy and others. I suspect that, had Warren kept his mouth shut about Prop 8 and about homosexuality, his invitation would still be controversial because he carries the label of (gasp!) evangelical.
2. [Obama's] refusal to denounce the slaughter in Gaza
Yeah, Obama should jump right in and possibly undermine any consistency in US foreign policy before the responsibility is his to bear. We're really lucky, though. Our geography has prevented another state from tossing missiles our way; the only nation that could would toss payloads far more destructive than a Qassam rocket, that's for certain. Consider, though, what might have been if our Civil War had turned out differently. How would we react if Yankee rockets landed in our neighborhoods? How would they respond to "ours?" Just a thought...
3. [Obama's] absymal ideas on an economic stimulus package.
I suppose Democrats have never cut taxes. I suppose all tax cuts are inspired by Republicans. And, therefore, all tax cuts are evil. I think the new Administration should follow the example of its closest Democratic predecessor and submit an ideologically pure economic package; one that contained no cut in any tax. Forget that promise to cut taxes for middle- and lower-income individuals and families!
Forget the Republicans! Don't seek common ground, as promised. Give it to them in spades!! Raise taxes, instead. Push a plan like that, because we don't want anymore of the Republicans and their "grossly inept ideological bent." Instead, substitute our own fiscal ideology.
The man isn't in office, yet. We should've taken him at his word; that he is a centrist and that he intends to seek common ground. He hasn't had time to fail, yet; let's see what happens. Keynesian deficit spending won't go away soon: the Congressional Budget Office projected a looming deficit of 1.2 trillion before Obama submits his stimulus plan. (Which is likely to be changed in Congress, anyway.)
So, hell, relax: we'll be paying interest into the 22nd century on the loans needed just to keep us afloat now.
1) Rick Warren was invited to do an invocation for Obama--an invocation is
a) voluntary--don't need one to be President--if I had my drothers we wouldn't have it at all in keeping with the spirit of the seperation of church and state.
b) an honor conferred on those asked to perform it.
In short, Obama decided to honor a right wing religious flack who has notably regressive and homophobic views, thus undermining one of the many progressive constituencies that got Obama's ass into office.
I have a problem with that, as you would probably have a problem if he decided to have Jeremiah Wright do the invocation (which by the way I think would be far more appropriate for his constituency, but politically a disaster as well--for obvious reasons).
I don't have a problem with evangelicals in general. There are lots of worthwhile evangelicals in this world. There are also a lot of evangelicals who are unmitigated assholes. Warren falls into the later category.
Saying Obama has made a bad decision isn't the same as 'bannishing' Warren. Suggesting this is somehow McCarthesque is a clumsy rhetorical device that I'll forgive without comment this time around. I'm used to it.
2. Denouncing the slaughter in Gaza is the least that Obama should have done--as a President elect and a human being.
Our so called 'foreign policy' regarding Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is a running joke. Ideally, not only would Obama denounce the rabid and unnecessary invasion of Gaza as a gross violation of international law, he'd cut off military supplies and funds to the belligerent (Israel) and demand that Israel come to the negotiating table in good faith, withdraw to the 1967 borders and quit playing demographic games with what's left of Gaza and the West bank.
I think a longer post is needed to address your ridiculous assertion that a handful of Qassam rocket attacks by belligerents from an occupied territory warrants massive group retaliation out of all proportion to the hurt inflicted.
As I noted upstream; such acts are a war crime. You apparently think the Geneva Convention is simplistic as well. It's not, but Israel and the US's actions are--brutally simplistic and callous.
I'd like to hear a specific argument to refute the notion that the bombardment of civilians and the the incursion into Gaza is not an out of proportion response.
When I hear a salient argument, I'll respond in kind.
3) My argument vis a vis tax cuts are based in part on simple framing of the debate and in part on economic efficacy. To begin with the later, as Krugman (Nobel Prize in Economics winner) has noted tax cuts are the LEAST effective way to stimulate the economy. The most effective is straight out government funding. So my contention is first that it's an inefficient means to an end. If you want to stimulate the economy there are much better ways to do it. 2nd, tax cuts cede an ideological frame to Republicans by suggesting that 'lowering the tax' rate is a better way to stimulate the economy in general. It's not.
Now, I know we have to have some support of Republicans, but they need to understand tax cuts are not the only economic mantra around. They've been singing that single note for 20 years and what it has done is devastated our infrastructure, run up our deficit and created one of greatest economic disparaties in our society since the great depression. Not good.
I understand that a tax break for the middle class may help stimulate the economy but there are better ways to do it. Generally the base tax rates on the wealthiest is already too low so suggesting we need 'more' in the way of tax cuts is just a deeply flawed idea both economically and politically. The Republicans will simply flog the frame of 'more tax cuts' and disregard the intended target audience (middle class) or inflate it to include everyone from Kenny Lay to Maddoff--call me cynical but after 8 years of their, I think it's warranted.
I'm not sure what you might offer as a bone to Republicans who have shown themselves to be largely deaf to the needs of the American middle class and the American poor. I'd suggest a happy compromise might be simply not sending them to a penal colony for governmental negligence.
But, of course, I'm an idealist.
~DM
Idealist? C'mon, DM; you're an ideolog. Sheesh.
Rick Warren
Warren is conservative, but he's hardly a "right wing religious flack." His inclusion of Obama and McCain showed that. If it isn't enough, there's the condemnation he received from right-wing (semi-)religious flacks for his support of Obama.
That you and I disagree with Warren about homosexuality and homosexuals does not make the man an "unmitigated asshole."
Gaza
You cite "international law;" which is not codified law per se but "The norms of international law have their source in either custom (consistent state practice with opinio juris), globally accepted standards of human behaviour (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or codifications contained in conventional agreements..." For instance, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is nothing more (or less) than an advisory standard. There are four treaties commonly known as "the Geneva Convention;" not one addresses or provides a legal rationale for self-defense. Period. Instead, these address the treatment of prisoners of war and non-combatants in war. The separate Geneva Protocol, ratified by many nations (including the US) deals with the use of biological and chemical weapons, and the earlier Hague Conventions deal with other weapons (the famed "full-metal jacket" bullet, for instance).
Israel claims to wage this current war in its own defense. Whether you or I agree is moot.
While I feel that Israel's act in Gaza today is a "non-proportional" response, there is no international law that I've found that defines proportionality and establishes criminal penalties.
There's also the inconvenient fact that Hamas and its members are dedicated to the destruction of their nation and people.
A point of order: I did not assert that "a handful of Qassam rocket attacks by belligerents from an occupied territory warrants massive group retaliation out of all proportion to the hurt inflicted." Instead, my point was that a President-elect is not a President and that, however misguided or comical one may feel our foreign policy is, it is not a good thing for one who is not de jure President to step into that morass. Not until January 20th.
Tax Cuts & Economic Recovery
Democrat-led Congresses and Democratic Presidents have passed tax cuts in the past. Republican Congresses and Presidents have passed tax increases. I challenged your assertion that Obama would include tax cuts in his economic recovery package only as a sop to Republicans.
Personally, I hope that government starves itself of more money. There are lots of programs both of us, I reckon, would love to see become extinct. If it's true that middle- and upper-middle income families would take and put their tax savings into savings, I'll applaud. It's time for us, as a citizenry, to put more into savings, whether we do so through 401(K) plans, the Dow Jones, or our local credit unions.
No one forced us to go on a continued spending binge. No one really forced anyone to sign a sub-prime home loan. No one forced a buyer to enter into an interest-only ARM. The market provided these "products" because: (a) financiers are amongst the greediest peoples on Earth and (b) consumers are amongst the greediest peoples on Earth.
Government contributed mightily by either relaxing or throwing out key elements of its inefficient oversight apparatus. Although Phil Gramm wrote the law that allowed various type of financial institutions to merge (which had been prohibited) and set derivatives outside of regulatory review, Democrats voted for that bill, too. Democrats cajoled a not-too-unwilling Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to open up the mortgage market. I just don't see this mess as REPUBLICAN in nature. Not completely.
So, if our new President wants to let me keep more of my money, I'll not argue with him. As I pointed out, we'll be paying interest on the loans needed to keep our governments afloat far into the next century, anyway.
Shame on you for expressing so much disappointment with the person whom you so strongly supported. And, so soon. Before he's had a chance to screw up.
shame shame shame...
I know this is getting a bit long (not to mention tedious) but a few quick notes....
There's no shame in holding a politician's feet to the fire, especially when you helped to elect said politician. Keeping Obama on a progressive compass is not only my right as a voting citizen, I consider it something of a duty. Only slackers say 'shame'. The rest of us practice our constitutional right to petition (and scream like hell if we feel like it.)
That said, let me address your points...
1)Whether Rick Warren is a complete unmitigated asshole or only a partial unmitigated asshole is, of course, up to individual interpretation.
What should be relatively unconstroversial is suggesting that his stand on homosexuality is directly at odds with a constituency that helped to elect Obama's ass. This is poor politics in my opinion--my main point. An ancillary point, however, is that Rick Warren is, in fact, an homophobic asshole.
Let's review some of his less than enlightened statements:
RICK WARREN: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
STEVEN WALDMAN: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?
RICK WARREN: Oh I do. …
So to understand Rick in all his full glory is to suggest that homosexuals that marry are practicing incest, or polygamy or are pederasts.
Now let's do a single subtle change to the text so you can begin to understand how offended that key political constituency for Barack Obama might feel at this disparagement.
RICK WARREN: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
STEVEN WALDMAN: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having Lutherans getting married?
RICK WARREN: Oh I do. …
Hmm, I guess you'd be okay with all Lutherans who'd like to marry being called incest mongers, polygamists and pederasts, right?
Warren is pretty much an unmitigated ass--precisely because of his stance on homosexuality.
2) Oh, God. Gaza. Please make the legalistic bs stop. You don't get punched in the nose and then decide to burn someone's house down. That's a disproportionate response. It was codified in international law sometime back in 1947. Are you suggesting that if generally understood international law can not be intrepreted to a T to include death by hanging for the participant of a disproportionate bombing run, the point is moot?
That's legalistic bullshit, Don, and I'd hope you'd recognize there's a far larger ethical and--practical-- and political argument to all of this that indicates further enraging an occupied (and miserable) population by bombing their schools and institutions and murdering their mothers and children is prima facie fucked up thing to do--on all those levels.
One last note, your comment about Hamas seeking to 'destroy the nation and people' of Israel is a debatable point. I'd direct you to this Jerusalem Post article for a more nuanced perspective on Hamas. To wit:
***************
I dream of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it," Zahar said in the interview. "I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize)."
...
However, Zahar, who is the overall leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, said he didn't rule out the possibility of having Jews, Muslims and Christians living under the sovereignty of an Islamic state, adding that the Palestinians never hated the Jews and that only the Israeli occupation was their enemy.
*************
I think the larger point here is that Hamas is indeed after a political settlement that doesn't include an Israel that dominates all of Palestine. They may want the political entity of current Israel nation off the map (and even this translation is probably suspect, Juan Cole has more information on the translation of the statement over at Informed Comment, if you're interested) but there's nothing in his statement to suggest that they continue to want to destroy the 'Jewish people'. In fact, he's saying pretty much the opposite, so you may want to qualify your assertion that "Hamas and its members are dedicated to the destruction of their nation and people."
It just ain't so.
3) Finally, your note in defense of tax cuts strikes me as a little flacid, and ill thought out.
You say "Personally, I hope that government starves itself of more money." which reminds me of that quip that Grover Norquist made regarding government. Hoping he could starve it just enough so that he could drown it in a bathtub.
I'd suggest Katrina drowned New Orleans sufficiently well to make those who desire to 'starve' government' a bit more cautious in their zeal.
Apparently not.
When you suggest that 'we've' gone on a spending spree, I'd counter that I haven't been doing a helluvalot of spending and neither have you. Real wages have remained flat for the middle class since the mid-70s. The people that have gone on a spending spree are militaristic neocons who were sufficiently empowered to blow our budget three times over. The other way our budget was blown was by cutting the top tax rate to the bone. Under Eisenhower it rested somewhere around 90%, it's now at parity or below (when considering the full assemblage of available tax shelters) than the middle class rate of 28%.
Ask yourself when we were truly more prosperous? There's a direct line between maintaining a healthy federal government--in terms of infrastructure, education, health care etc., and having a healthy country. Only libertarians--and the libertarian leaning--who are themselves rigidly ideological, by the way-- refuse to understand that pretty obvious connection.
Finally, there's no real parity in terms of the amount of the money burnt up when you compare a standard family defaulting on a mortgage loan (even if you extend it all across the country) and the massive side bets that were made via CDS(s) on either their paying off the loan or their failing to pay off the loan--or both. I'd suggest a figure of about a 1000 to 1 might be right. So saying there's equal blame to go around is convenient horseshit to shield the true villians in this set piece: Phil Gramm and the Republicans and Democrats who voted to deregulate our financial industry. The folks who have over extended loans have very little blame in all this. But I'd agree and be more than happy to blame both Republicans and Democrats for the cluster fuck of deregulation that's occurred under both Bush and Clinton's watch.
In general, however, deregulation is a popular Republican idea and is party and parcel of their ideology.
The Democrats who voted for it I consider 'bad' Democrats who should be punished in the polls (in particular in primaries) as a consequence.
Cause, you know, that's the way our Democracy works.
Caio bubba,
~DM
Point: Counterpoint (Redux)
Only slackers say 'shame'. The rest of us practice our constitutional right to petition (and scream like hell if we feel like it.)
Slacker, eh? Okay. Another day, another unfounded epithet. By the way, I have never, ever disputed anyone's right to petition or scream. Except in my ear.
Rick Warren is, in fact, an homophobic asshole.
Although I am not a physician and, if I was, I am not physician to Rick Warren. But, I suppose Mr. Warren has an asshole. (I don't want incontrovertible evidence either way, however.) On the other subject, though, I don't know that Mr. Warren fears homosexuals, either. I've neither read nor heard any statement of such fear attributed to him. Instead, we call someone "(x)phobic" when we wish to silence the person or call down upon that individual shame and derision for daring to have an opinion that differs from our own.
Wait! Did I not read a spirited defense of your ability to disagree, petition, and scream in your advocacy for a position? Well, does this make you, perchance, an "unmitigated asshole?"
By the way, I haven't defended Rick Warren's support of Prop 8 or his statements concerning homosexuals or homosexual marriage. I only said he has the right to his voice. If we debate his points, I think we should stick to his points and not make general attacks on what we presume to be his, or anyone else's, personality.
Please make the legalistic bs stop. You don't get punched in the nose and then decide to burn someone's house down. That's a disproportionate response.
Hmm. I wrote that, in my opinion, Israel's attack against Gaza is not a proportional response.
It was codified in international law sometime back in 1947.
Negatory, shipmate. I cited facts regarding the Geneva Conventions and international law. I don't see facts returned.
Are you suggesting that if generally understood international law can not be interpreted to a T to include death by hanging for the participant of a disproportionate bombing run, the point is moot?
I wrote nothing of the sort and implied nothing similar. Dealing with this, though, I point out that "generally understood" law is not law in fact. That which we may hope to be law may not be, in fact, law. Going from your words, each Allied aircrew who participated, under orders, in the bombings of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, etc. should be hung because the attacks they conducted were "disproportionate bombing runs?"
...a more nuanced perspective on Hamas
Hamas, as an organization and as individuals, are dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel. Since Israel is a self-proclaimed Jewish state, its destruction implies the destruction of Israeli Jews.
Hamas is indeed after a political settlement that doesn't include an Israel that dominates all of Palestine.
Slight correction: Hamas (and Hezbollah) are after a political settlement that doesn't include an Israel. Period. Oh, and by their distinctly non-political actions and complete disavowal of the Fatah-Israeli and Egyptian-Israeli accords, we might infer that Hamas (Hezbolla) do not pursue a non-violent political agenda. But, that's my "interpretation."
Economic Recovery and (a)Grover Norquist (b) Katrina
Don't believe I spoke about Grover Norquist and your analogy to the Katrina fiasco doesn't hold water regarding this subject.
...saying there's equal blame to go around [shields] the true villians...
Yeah, we don't want to go so far as to really analyze a situation and offer solutions. Instead, we're far more comfortable with declaring who are the "true" culprits and letting it go with that. Death to all Republicans, eh?
Democrats who voted for it [banking deregulation] I consider 'bad' Democrats who should be punished in the polls
No doubt about that. You do.
I'm sorry, trlbldr, regarding Warren, no matter how much you defend Warren’s homophobic shrieking, I'm hard put to buy any of it.
I've made my case as clear as I can. You apparently are okey dokey with Lutherans being called pederasts, polygamists and incest mongers. Shame, shame, shame.
As to your defense (or offense of my offense or whatever) of the Repugs...
This is really simple, and relatively nonpartisan. Tax cuts are the most inefficient means for economic stimulus, lead to a stark stratification of wealth and ultimately a deterioration of our infrastructure. Republicans love them especially for the upper bracket and seem to know almost nothing else about the economy except that they love tax cuts. I assume at some point it's just a useful political tactic that has certain ancillary benefits from their perspective-- polarizing our class structure, making the poor needy, enlargening our labor pool while driving down labor costs and maintaining the healthful superiority of the upper class-- either that, or they're idiots.
In neither case do I want to take what they say at face value. Did you miss the last 8 years? Hello? Were you out for lunch?
My tendency is to think that much of what Republicans say simply lacks substance--they are acting almost entirely out of a need to survive the next 4-8 years in the political wilderness and have gone entirely reactionary (not that it’s noticeably different from the way they usually act). Ask yourself when's the last time they had an economic idea that wasn't a 'tax cut'?
Seriously. If you can defend a Republican economic plank vis a vis the current economic meltdown feel free to respond, otherwise, you really needn't waste more time on Republican boosterism. I don't ignore Republicans because I have an irrational hatred of Republicanism, I ignore them because they've proven themselves to be idiots. Economically, and otherwise.
Finally, your Gaza nonsense. Before I get into this at length, let me just point out that I said Obama ought to tell Israel to knock it off. Nothing you've offered in the last three comments has actually refuted that except your original assertion that it would somehow throw off existing policy--to which I responded--our policy in the ME is a running joke. Apparently you missed that. If you are generally interested in accumulating information about the slaughter in Gaza, I’d direct you to read my last 4-5 posts in which I elaborate on everything from the Israel military’s successful propaganda efforts—so successful that only the slaughter of a moderate Palestinian’s doctor’s daughters on live television seemed able to pierce the veil--to the disproportionate number of children, women and civilians murdered in this onslaught.
Apparently, however, you are only interested in the legal particulars of my suggestion that what Israel is conducting—the slaughter and bombardment of an occupied people—is a war crime. You suggested I didn't supply sufficient evidence of my statement that the Geneva conventions were generally accepted law by the inception of the UN circa 1947--but of course that's nonsense, as well.
"Negatory, shipmate,” you declaimed, “I cited facts regarding the Geneva Conventions and international law. I don't see facts returned."
Well, actually, Don. You didn't 'cite facts' either. Just your opinion. You suggested for example that "While I feel that Israel's act in Gaza today is a "non-proportional" response, there is no international law that I've found that defines proportionality and establishes criminal penalties."
This is nonsense. The doctrine of proportionality has been around since 1947 at least. And there have been cases where the International Court of Justice has passed verdicts based precisely on this notion of proportionality.
In 1993, Israel's seven-day bombing campaign of Lebanon in retaliation for Hezbollah rocket attacks in northern Israel was condemned by the international community for violating the rules of proportionality. In 1981, Israel struck Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor without provocation, a preemptive action experts say violated international law.
The doctrine of proportionality has historically been upheld by courts on a wide variety of disputes and issues. It applies to states channeling funds and arms to insurgent groups. In Nicaragua v. USA (1986), the International Court of Justice ruled that U.S. aid to the contras in El Salvador did not constitute "collective self defense" because Nicaraguan support of the Sandinistas did not constitute an armed attack and, further, "self-defense would warrant only measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it." The principle applies to the use of weapons of mass destruction as well. In 1996, the United Nations asked the ICJ to decide whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons was ever justified in international law. The ICJ, in essence, does not exclude the use of nuclear weapons in self-defense provided the humanitarian laws on armed conflict are upheld.
Finally, the principle applies to disputes not even related to war or self-defense, such as the Gabcikovo/Nagymaros Project, a system of dams, locks, and hydropower plants on the Danube River originally conceived in 1977 between Hungary and then-Czechoslovakia. After 1989, amid environmental concerns, Slovakia carried out alternate plans and accused Hungary of abandoning work on the project. The ICJ ruled in 1997 that Slovakia's response was not a proportionate countermeasure and deprived Hungary of a vital shared resource (namely, the Danube, which divides the two countries).
But you might be curious about what other international treaties Israel’s invasion of Gaza has potentially violated?
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War --
It was adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, and was held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949 - entry into force 21 October 1950.
Several articles apply to the current situation.
Article 56
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties (Geneva convention).
http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/92.htm
Besides the Geneva Convention, the bombing and invasion of Gaza could easily be interpreted (since that's all the law you seem able to understand) to be against the U.S. Legal Code (Title 18-2331) that says terrorism is defined as:
...involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the US or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the US or of any State; appear to be intended:
a) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
b) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the US, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum
We are also signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which Israel and the US (In Iraq) have both violated on countless occasions.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
There is, of course, international recognized institutions and laws to deal with our and Israel's illegal behavior. The International Criminal Court was established for this purpose except again Israel and the USA are not signatories. However, the case of Pinochet established a precedent for those who can conduct prosecutions and that would include a country in which an alleged criminal was arrested, in the absence of another competent state who was willing to properly prosecute the crime. There is also a view that an arresting country could send the defendant to the ICC even if the parties were not signatories but the arresting country was.
(Maybe we'll get lucky and Bush will take a wrong turn when he flees to Paraguay and ends up in Paris where they'll be happy to take his silly ass to the Hague.)
As to your sanctimonious statement about the bombers who flew Dresden mission or Nagasaki. I think the world would be much better off if the slaughter of an entire city resulted in a serious criminal penalty and potentially a hanging or two or ten.
Imagine how much better than world would be if pilots that murdered hundreds of thousands were actually brought up on criminal charges?
Their defense "I was following orders"
(Now where have I heard this before?)
The humane response: "Orders that murder hundreds of thousands of civilians are inhuman and a war crime. Period. You're going to jail."
That would require a little rethinking about the use of our so called 'arsenal of Democracy' now wouldn't it?
I'm really surprised you brought this up as it's not an especially intelligent argument-- because for fifty years we didn't charge pilots with mass slaughter for the crime of, you know, carrying out mass slaughter means it's now okey dokey to participate in mass slaughter?
Um, no. It means we didn't effectively prosecute every one for war crimes that we should have. So maybe now you want to send them to the ICC to prove a point? Hey, I'm right behind you buddy. Can I write the NSA and tell them what you think?
Of course, it all depends on who gets to say whether mass slaughter is 'legal' or not, doesn't it? That's why the US would never become a signatory to the ICC--nor would Israel. Way too many skeletons in those closets, dude.
Here is Amnesty International on Israel's actions--let's just say I put considerably more faith in their interpretation of international law than your reading, or our own John Yoo or Gonzales.
"The Israeli authorities' deliberate and wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure and property in the Gaza Strip amounts to a war crime. The destruction and the disproportionate and arbitrary restrictions imposed by the Israeli army on the movement of people and goods into and from the Gaza Strip also amount to collective punishment of the entire population. This violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits punishing protected persons for offences they have not committed."
--Amnesty International
But there's something outside of your argument that I find kind of interesting in all of this. The same pundits who are cheerleading Israel's assault on Gaza once sold the occupation of Iraq to America, and with a nearly identical set of arguments. In their voices and those of the grim Israeli PR agents carted out for cable news, many Americans hear echoes of the Bush administration's most fantastical lies. When they see images of Gazans under withering bombardment, they flash back to Fallujah and the assorted horrors of Iraq. When they look at Israel, they see themselves during the darkest days of the Bush era.
Now, an increasing share of Americans know what Israel is doing to Gaza. And they reject it, even when Israel is "at its best."
What you or I think about this moment maybe is rather beside the point. What the mass of largely deluded Americans are beginning to understand is that in fact a successful propaganda campaign has been waged—but it’s not as successful as it should have been because they are beginning to understand it as propaganda.
Now, admittedly, I might be having a little blossom of optimism because Obama is about to ascend to high office, but I suspect our respective energies at this point might be better spent on figuring out ways to help Palestinians form legitimate models of governments (with or without Hamas) than debating whether what Israel does is ‘just’ or not.
The fact of the matter is—what Israel is doing is worse than not ‘just’, it is not working. And this criticism applies equally to either side in the Middle East conflict. Hamas’ pathetic attacks with Qassam rockets are no more determinant than Israel’s idiotic bludgeoning with everything from WP to cluster bombs. In the end, both sides end up only polarizing their communities further, locking themselves into a weird symbiotic relationship in which the Israel far right ‘needs’ the Qassam attacks to cover their continuing degradation of the geopolitical situation in the Palestinian state by increasing their far right religious settlement sizes. Hamas ‘needs’ Israelis massively disproportionate responses to prop up their own sliver of legitimacy as the only true ‘fighting force’ in Gaza (as opposed to the ‘sell out’ PLO). I believe the way out of this impasse has more to do with Ghandi and MLK than Qassam rockets or Willy Pete. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that it took me until today (MLK’s birthday) to stumble on this article written by a nice Jewish boy, Mark Levine, but posted on Al Jazeerza which is impressive for both its insight and evenhandedness. Give it a read if you’re interested in something beyond polemics vis a vis the current disaster in the Middle East.
I plan to do a more detailed post on this in the next day or so (health permitting) but just to wet your appetite, here's the lead:
"Off the record, lets put aside whether or not Palestinians have the moral or legal right to use violence against civilians to resist the occupation. The fact is, it doesn't work," I said.
Suicide bombings and other direct attacks on Israeli civilians, I argued, helped to keep the subject off the occupation and in so doing allowed Israel to build even more settlements while the media focused on the violence.
His[a Hamas representative] response both surprised me with its honesty and troubled me with its implications.
"We know the violence doesn't work, but we don't know how to stop it," he said
~DM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5488380.ece
http://www.alternet.org/audits/117475?page=entire
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/2009119102548942367.html
Sorry, fudged the link to the Al Jazeera article above. It's here
Post a Comment