[Reader-list] re: strange alliances

[Rana Dasgupta]

You know when you read an article (such as Ralph
Peters' posted by Yazad) in which criticism of Israel
is called 'reflexive anti-Semitism' (does this guy
know what the word 'reflexive' means, by the way?)
that the author is lost for arguments.  the hurling of
this particular term of abuse is one of the most
annoying elements of the international defence of
Israeli state violence.  In the liberal press (which
presumably includes the WSJ) it should be possible for
criticism of an individual or state to be given the
credit of not arising simply from raving, pathological
prejudice towards the group of which they are a part.

Of course the point of this kind of thing is to
bifurcate opinion - if you are not with us, you are
with them (Zizek's 'double blackmail').  As Ravi
points out, it is impossible to address the legal,
political and humanitarian issues involved if you are
offered only one of two equally absurd and extreme
positions to hold.

Nearly seven months after the establishment of the
state of Israel in 1948 the General Assembly of the
United Nations issued a document called The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.  This expressed outrage
for the "disregard and contempt for human rights
[that] have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind" and looked to
establish "a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and
want [that] has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people".

Needless to say, the two events were connected, both a
reaction to Nazi violence that had disproportionately
targeted Jews.  And this shadow looms over the
document: human rights are above all to be guaranteed
by the protection of human beings against abuses of
state power.  There is another sort of threat to the
security and happiness of individuals - criminal
behaviour; but even criminals must be given extensive
guarantees against arbitrary or unjust treatment.  

There is no separate mention of what Peters calls
'human monsters' ('This is not about diplomatic table
manners. It is a fight to exterminate human
monsters'), and there is no recommendation that states
suspend their peaceful and lawful relationship with
their own citizens in order to kill them.

There are good reasons to fear the violence of states
more than any other kind.  Their resources and
infrastructure are incomparably greater than anything
civilians can martial.  They have been responsible for
all the worst horrors in living memory.  (Someone is
going to find an exception to that, I know...)  And
they are able to exert many kinds of power beyond
simple violence - depriving people of access to
resources, education, expression etc etc - all of
which can in turn push a civilian population towards
desperate behaviour.  

But we seem to have become astonishingly complacent
about acts of war perpetrated by states on their
citizens and to have lost the sense - enshrined in the
Declaration of Human Rights - that such acts can never
have any justification.  The looming category of 'the
terrorist' has blown apart our normal understanding of
the relationship of a state to its citizens and its
criminals and made us rather used to things that
should be impossible to believe.

The acts of Hamas and the acts of the Israeli
government are in fact, despite the rhetoric of
retaliation, morally independent.  (They are mutually
dependent and defining in lots of other ways, but that
is not the point.)  Neither is a justification for the
other.  We cannot be pressured into excusing the state
because of the reality of Palestinian violence - or
vice versa.  Let us then not enter into this blackmail
where any criticism of a government that drops bombs
on its own citizens is painted as collusion in terror.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com