Jonathan Vincent’s Reviews > The Slopes Of Lebanon > Status Update

Well he got that one right...

This aged like milk

Isn't it the opposite? This could have been written yesterday

Its the root of an ahistorical controversy. One which treats this as just another news item. But it creates a false equivalency between Israel and those it bombs. It’s true that this tired line of questioning persists but it forces us to ask on whose ideological grounds we are fighting when we allow such crude decontextualisation. If you look at the historiography, this is not the root of the controversy. Neither is it the the root politically or ideologically. This stale debate is in itself a symptom. But do you condemn Hamas? ;)

Honestly not sure what you mean 😄

I don't think he's treating this as "just another news item though." He was involved in the Israeli peace activist movement for decades and has clearly put a lot of thought into this. I didn't quote more context, but he's using these questions as a jumping-off point to discuss morality in war, and why it's important. And when I say this could have been written yesterday, I mean that I'm sure you can find a recent article in a left/center-left Israeli paper dealing with these exact same points.

Isn’t the fact that you could find a recent article in an Israeli paper precisely Emilie’s point ? That this kind of statement shifts the argument into terms that pretend it’s an intellectual moral discussion. If we concede to Netanyahu that this is a war, we bypass the context of the last century. A false moral equivalency solidifies the ‘other’ as a dehumanised immoral actor against whom it is ludicrous to justify oneself.

In this way, the framework of ‘just’ retaliation forcibly bypasses morality. For if we think of this as a reaction while not permitting Hamas’ attacks the same cause and effect, we reveal why this as a jumping off point for “morality” is built over concrete and not water.

Its recurrence as an argument is not a natural emergence from events but exactly what happens when you “jump off” a point built on decades of propaganda.

I think I need to give more context to this quote, just so everyone knows what exactly he's saying. He's making the point that these are question some on the Israeli right are asking, and that he feels a duty to rebut them and state clearly why acting morally (including in times of crisis, such as war, even existential wars) is good, both for pragmatic reasons and the obvious "not doing Bad Things" reasons but also to avoid a corrupting (ends justify the means) influence on society as a whole. The examples he's using aren't only from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also from earlier wars against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.

Okay, so that said, getting back to it... I'm not sure what Emilie's point is 😅 I've reread what she wrote now and I understand it better but not completely. Emilie, if you read this, it's helpful to use subjects in a sentence other than "it" or "this" 😛😛

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying though. You're saying that the current fighting in Gaza isn't a war, but rather the latest manifestation of Israel attempting to control the Palestinians, and therefore illegitimate and unjust by default.

(Correct me if I'm wrong.)

The thing is, though, none of that really addresses Oz's point, in my opinion. Even if a war/fighting is inherently unjust, there are still more and less moral ways to conduct it. That's why the Geneva Conventions are neutral on the type of war they cover- if you say they don't apply in unjust wars, then countries that start unjust wars will not have a reason to follow them.

Like to pick a random example, let's say a country invades another in a naked attempt to conquer it and steal its resources and enslaves its population. Old fashioned Imperial stuff basically. If there's a battle happening in a town and the unjust attacker has two options: A. use precision guided weapons to only target soldiers or B. Drop a nuke on it, killing tens of thousands of civilians, A is clearly the morally better option, even if the war on the whole is unjust. That's what Oz is arguing for. He's saying that there's always the temptation to go with B, as it's easier, cheaper, solves the problem of resistance, etc., but that there are real reasons it shouldn't be done. (Except scale down the examples, he was talking about why its correct to hold Israeli government officials accountable for the deaths of Palestinian prisoners). This applies whether a war is unjust or not. Like, he considers the Six Day War a just war from Israel's side, but still was against executing prisoners there.

The reason I was saying that this could have been written yesterday is that this issue just doesn't go away. Any country that engages in fighting for any reason is going to have to reckon with these arguments. The temptation to take the "easy", but less moral route always exists, it's important to hash out why it should be rejected.

Yes in much the same way that I started off arguing that the language of “just war” dangerously obscures nuance, there are gradations in colonial repression. Whether the imperialist project is upheld with guns, nukes, or an open air prison is uninteresting to me when we’re currently faced with “just war” as a far more pervasive over-simplification. (I tried to be more clear in this one :))