George Handlery about the week that was. Radicalizing the radicals. Will “Gaza” strengthen the moderates? Proportional warfare or disproportional outrage? We are responsible for the actions of those who are able to govern us. If you cannot win a war resort to diplomacy. The Dictator’s Tantrum #6.
 
1. This week’s Duly Noted’s content has been shaped by the salient events of the Near East. There is a justification. The reaction to, and the handling of the conflict predicts the way we will cope with the tension accumulating between modern societies and Islamism.
 
2. It is fashionable to qualify as a visionary analyst by observing that Israel’s actions in Gaza will radicalize the Palestinians/Moslems. One might be wondering how a Himalaya of hostility can be significantly raised by adding a few grains of sand. Even so, let us accept a part of the statement. If Hamas gets the right to rocket Israel while shooting back is labeled as an atrocity then, the radicals will certainly be confirmed in their attitude. Some of the undecided will also lend their support to the zealots because, as an argument, nothing is more convincing than the ability to bring results. On the other side of the coin, however, if Hamas’ wings are cut back significantly by the application of a counter force, then the radicals’ way will appear to be an excursion into a political desert. This will have an effect that allegedly “everybody” desires. It is that radicalism’s failure will strengthen the moderates.
 
3. Often, in judging the events in Gaza, the supposed morality of the principle of proportionality is invoked. Presumably, this moral commitment will hold true as long as Israeli counter strikes are more effective than Hamas’ triggering actions. Expect the abandonment of the principle should Hamas get the means to hit the “Zionist Entity” harder than it can strike back. Regarding the proper application of the “principle”, the question is not how many Israeli (civilians) are intentionally killed and how this number compares to the unavoidably mixed casualties in Gaza. The issue should be the intention of missile attacks and the likelihood that, if improved weapons can be acquired, (during the next cease-fire?) Israel’s losses will grow. Here we need to separate “intentions” from “ability”. The Israeli have the ability to destroy almost everything that moves in Gaza. Accordingly, the IDF’s actions are, obviously reflecting its “will” to engage in limited actions, designed to reduce collateral damage. Also, consider here that Hamas has an interest in keeping non-combatant casualties high. Newly Hamas has acquired improved means to damage Israel. Regarding its intentions, we are to underline that these are apt to shape events more once the arsenal improves. Here two points are to be made. First, Islamists radicals wish to wipe Israel off the map. Second, even now, cities are targeted without regard for where the (dumb) missiles strike and the resulting expectable civilian losses. In the case of Gaza, reflecting the fashion of disproportional outrage, the term would be embellished with the adjective “innocent”. Therefore, based on the hither record, Hamas does not distinguish between military and civilian targets and both appear to have equal value to this outfit.
 
4. Topically, a repressed issue might fit here. During the event an after the fact, as a child and as a young man, I experienced Anglo-American bombardments. (For my risks, I was rewarded by witnessing beautiful air-battles with “Ploesti” having been the best one.) The consensus in “my circles” – it did not include “everybody” – regarding the damage had been clear. We were under the control of a government that chose to wage war. As its subjects, we had the misfortune of having to suffer the consequences even if, for ethical reasons, we wished for our own defeat. The point to be made with the reminiscence is that, ultimately, we have to accept a practical principle. Every people is responsible for the actions of the government that is able to act in its name. In this it makes no difference whether the system had been chosen by a duped majority (such as the Germans who endorsed Hitler) or imposed upon them by a local coup or foreign conquest. Whether originally dumbly innocent or swindled, the burden on those who have to suffer the consequences might be tragic. However, this tragedy is not a reason to tolerate the actions of political criminals who act in behalf of a kidnapped country/people whose means they control.
 
5. Everybody is talking about “diplomacy” to be applied to end the renewed near Eastern bloodshed. Especially those circles are loud advocating this that wish for a Palestinian victory. The problem is that diplomacy has little to offer. At least as long as no one seriously thinks that Hamas will, as a prelude to talks, end the rocketing and that if it makes a pause, the action will not be resumed once an improved technology becomes available. For Israel, this kind of diplomacy means that in the eyes of the Arab street it has lost. The consequence of that is that soon there will be more of the same going around. For Hamas diplomacy is a savior from the consequences of its failed attack. It is also an upgrade in that the provoker is put on the same level as the provoked. A further problem of diplomacy is that Hamas does not react to positive incentives whether these are political concessions, or economic advantages. It is also refuses to bend to negative sanctions because it is unmoved by civilian suffering. The upshot is that only those measures can work that include a military component in their mixture. In the interest of a stable peace, that military component needs to be sufficient to downgrade Hamas to the point where its approach is discredited.
 
6. The trouble with those pandering “diplomacy” is that they use it as a placebo: therefore, they accept unserious tactical statements as negotiating positions. Such is that Hamas is ready for a cease-fire wile it remains not unequivocally prepared to stop its indiscriminate shelling of Israel. The un-coded version of this is that, if accepted, one side agrees not to retaliate. Meanwhile the other party seems to promise to persevere in its activities but a bit below the level that had caused the current phase of the conflict. This, if allowed to pass, is not less than war in the context of suppressed counter-action.
 
7. A warning that is often encountered on the internet sheds, unintentionally, light on the confusion of our time. Visual depictions of violence or its consequences tend to carry, next to where one is to click on, a warning. It tells that the content might disturb some. What besides bloody scenes of suffering are to be expected from the visual records of combat? Analogously, pictures illustrating the inner workings of a house of inequity do not need labeling as “lewd” or “watch out: material might contain exposed bodies”. This pious innocence is paired with the popularity and the toleration for exhibiting the picture of mass murderers on the clothing of folks who regard themselves as paragons of virtue.
 
8. Those who want to have the Sharia introduced for Muslim persons residing in industrialized countries demand, because of a religious particularity, a licene for religion that supersedes the public order. This is ironic if you consider that those to be accommodated know no religious freedom for non-believers. This is therefore a demand of something in behalf of a group and its ideology that it, where it can, denies others. (Chauvinistic nationalism does something analogous in the secular realm.) Thus, we have a demand for the application of legalized intolerance in the name of religious tolerance.
 
9. The co-habitation of diverse races, religions and ethnicities rests upon the assumption that very diverse elements can be integrated and so form a society held together by shared values that enjoy priority over the traits of diversity. The Sharia is not only not a tool of integration but a means of separation. If the Sharia is proclaimed to be a “necessity” for a group then thereby an unintended claim is made. It is that the integration of said group is impossible. If so, the implication is that Moslems need to be judged by the Sharia because, as the advocates imply, Moslems are unable to adjust to an advanced legal system based on universal human rights. If this is the case then we are confronted with a group-based claim that one might locate quite close to racism.
 
10. The Dictator’s Tantrum #6. (And it is still not over!) Here is a refresher in case you forgot the background of the arbitrary politics that, typically, tyranny exports. In July, local police in Geneva arrested Hannibal Gadhafi and his wife. The charge: they beat two Moroccan employees. The pair spent a night in custody and then it was released. The Ruling Daddy (officially Revolution Leader) locked up a two Swiss businessmen, talked about an oil boycott (another argument for energy independence!), forbade flights and was rather angry. Later the hostages were released but must stay in Libya pending the investigation of their residency-permit related case. Now the spat has reached a new phase. The Dictator wants an apology and a fine paid. With a delicate touch for the fine points of diplomacy, the money is to be to be paid to a charity.