A report in the Jan. 23 New York Times on efforts by residents of Gaza to reconstruct tunnels from Gaza to Egypt includes this passage:
Israel has contended that the bombing is a way to drive a wedge between the people and Hamas, but it seems to be having precisely the opposite effect. A tunnel manager in his 30s named Mahmoud said he had felt closer to Hamas since the war, because, however flawed, Hamas was the one group that stood up to Israeli aggression.
Where else have we seen this seemingly perverse response to violence? Google the phrase "bombing had the opposite effect" and you get this:
Hitler's intention was to break the morale of the British people so that they would pressure Churchill into negotiating. However, the bombing had the opposite effect, bringing the English people together to face a common enemy. Encouraged by Churchill's frequent public appearances and radio speeches, the people became determined to hold out indefinitely against the Nazi onslaught
And this, from an eyewitness to NATO's efforts to depose Serbian strongman Slobodan Milisevic through aerial bombing:
I could feel the mood out in the villages – right in Milosevic’s heartland – was that they had turned against him, yet as soon as the bombing began, even my friends who hated Milosevic were going to the bridges being bombing wearing targets and yelling, ‘Bomb me!’ If I had thought the only way to get rid of Milosevic was bombing, I would have supported it. But the bombing had the opposite effect, and it wasn’t necessary anyway.”
And this:
Rather than scare the fledgling civil rights movement into silence, as the Klan wanted, the bombing had the opposite effect.
That last quote is from a report on the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham that killed four young African-American girls who were attending Sunday school.
My intent here isn't to compare the Israeli military to the Nazis or the Klan (although such comparisons become harder to avoid as Israel escalates the level of violence it uses against the Palestinians.) Rather, my intent is to compare the people under the bombs - to compare the people of Palestine with the people of London, and with the people of Serbia, and with African-Americans living in the south during the civil rights movement.
By now, it should be obvious that people who are subjected to collective punishment respond by setting aside whatever questions they may have about their own leadership and rallying to that same leadership, as their only means of getting back at the people attacking them (George W. Bush, a Supreme-Court-selected President loathed by at least half the country the day before 9/11, was himself a beneficiary of this effect.)
But, if this is obvious to you and me, why isn't it obvious to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, or to the Generals in charge of NATO? I can think of several possible explanations. First, having invested billions in the machinery of aerial bombardment, those in power can't accept the idea that all of this machinery is useless, or even counterproductive. Second, those in power think, "I know that we would respond to heroically to attacks that are intended to break our will, but they are not like us. Not being fully human, the people under our bombs won't respond the way humans typically do in such circumstances." And finally, the most sinister explanation of all: those in power know very well that bombing will have the "opposite effect", but that's the effect they're looking for. In Israel's case, Olmert may want the Palestinian people to rally to Hamas, because Hamas provides a convenient enemy with which to justify continued Israeli efforts to appropriate Palestinian land.
One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe this last explanation. Wars often involve a symbiotic relationship between warring parties, where each attack by the enemy helps to solidify the leadership's hold on its own people. Just as Al Qaeda's attack was a political windfall for George W. Bush, Bush's occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq was of benefit to Al Qaeda, helping it to recruit new members to the cause, and to spread its organization around the world. No outright collusion is necessary, each side simply vows to "continue the struggle" - heroically, of course.
And, while I've emphasized the wrongheadedness of those in power, we shouldn't let the public off the hook for its instinctive "rally behind the leadership" tendencies. By now, it should be crystal clear that rallying behind George Bush was exactly the wrong response to the 9/11 attacks. Isn't it possible that rallying behind Hamas - or behind Milosevic - is also the wrong response?
In any population, there seems to be a relatively small percentage of people who are immune to the "rally behind the leadership" response. A Pew Research Center poll taken two days after the 9/11 attacks showed President Bush with an 80% approval rating and only 9% disapproval. That 9% (which most Americans today would probably claim to have been a part of) may hold the key to breaking the endless cycles of violence that we find ourselves in. And we desperately need to find a way to inject the idea that "bombing has the opposite effect" into the discussion before the bombs start falling.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The same question can be posed upon you! Why is it so hard for you to understand the israeli reaction to the terror imposed by the arabs! You forget to mention that Israeli is and has been at war since 1948. Unlike the U.S. or Germany they are surrounded by enemies. the Arabs leaders of Palestine enjoy using children victims as their poster child for peace why planning their next stage of violence. The question should be what choices does Israeli have against an enemy who's ultimate goal is complete genocide. Israel has no concern their bombing will create more enemies, arabs and arab children are educated to destroy Israel. You also failed to mention where bombing has had the desired effect!
tw:
Thanks for leaving a comment, I think it's important for those of us who disagree about this important issue to be able to discuss our differences.
What you're missing is that Israel has options other than inflicting massive violence on the Palestinians, which doesn't even "work", as the above-cited NY Times article makes clear. For example, Israel could accept a peace initiative that's been accepted by all of Israel's neighbors and follows the terms - withdrawal to the '67 borders - set out and agreed to by every member of the United Nations except Israel and the U.S.
You're also missing the fact that Israel is no longer the "tiny democracy surrounded by hostile neighbors." Thanks to the $3 billion in U.S. military aid we send to Israel every year, the Israeli military is vastly more powerful than the militaries of all of its neighbors combined - and that's not even including the hundreds of nuclear weapons Israel now has. Also, those neighbors aren't so hostile anymore - as evidenced by their unwillingness to stand up for the Palestinian people during Israel's recent massacre in Gaza.
Israel could have peace, if it wanted it. The fact that Israel rejects reasonable offers for peace leads me to suspect that they want something else more than peace - perhaps Palestinian land?
As for my failure to mention examples where "bombing has had the desired effect", I hope you'll understand that WNPJ, as a peace organization, is not interested in providing examples of the successful use of violence. Also, such examples are exceedingly scarce. Can you give us a single recent example where Israel's vaunted military has actually "won" something for the Israeli people? (other than more war, that is.)
Thanks again for your comment.
I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just tired of Peace and so called "social justice" groups not being accountable for spreading injustice. I once believed in the left, but after living in Liberia and Nicaragua I've seen their idea of justice played out in the name of politics. You can't be for peace if you are defending lawlessness. Because you disagree with the U.S. governmnet does not take away your responsibilty to explore both sides equally. Your staff calls for the exit of our troops in Afghanistan, I agree- I think our troops have suffered enough, but the civil war that will follow will make gaza look like a pillow fight. Is it your not against violence as long as it doesn't involve the U.S. I hope the Israel's will give in to the demands of hamas, then like the Sandinistas we will see who they really are.
tw:
First of all, as U.S. citizens, and as a U.S.-based peace organization, we have an obligation to oppose the use of violence by our own government first. That's because: 1) Our taxes pay for the weapons that our government uses, which makes us responsible for the deaths caused by those weapons, and 2) Our own government is the government we have the most influence over, however small.
After criticism of violence by our own government (as in Iraq and Afghanistan), next we have an obligation to oppose violence that is supported by our government and our taxes, as in Israel's bloody massacre in Gaza.
Of course we deplore all uses of violence, but it would be hypocrytical, not to mention completely ineffective, if we were to crticize violence by others without looking first at the violence that we ourselves are responsible for.
Another point that should be made is that the U.S. and its ally Israel simply have greater means than other violent actors in the world to cause death and destruction. There was a brief period of fighting, for example, between Fatah and Hamas in Gaza after the 2007 Palestinian elections (which Hamas won). But neither side had F-16s, white phosphorous, or cluster bombs, so the death toll was much less than what Israel was able to inflict in just a few weeks.
As for your question about Afghanistan, it is a complicated situation and nobody can predict exactly what would happen if the U.S. withdrew. But at the same time, we should understand that imperialist countries (like the U.S.) always use the argument that "there will be a bloodbath if we leave" to justify occupying other people's countries. The threat of violence by the occupied people after the end of the occupation is always used to justify a much greater use of violence (because we have bigger bombs) to keep the occupation going.
Anyway, I'm glad we can agree on a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.
Thanks for continuing the discussion.
Post a Comment