Not the Same Thing At All

Glenn Greenwald, a progressive blogger with whom I frequently agree (even if it means I criticize Barack Obama), has been getting it wrong of late about Israel's actions in Gaza. Today he levels a scathing attack against Thomas Friedman, a columnist for the NY Times, who defends Israel's actions. In his Times piece, Friedman even goes so far as to support the collateral damage Israel inflicted on civilians in Lebanon during her 2006 war with Hezbollah:

Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future.

Now, I'm certainly not one to say "who gives a shit" about civilian casualties, even when one is engaged in a military conflict with a terrorist army like Hezbollah. But if a central strategy of Hezbollah is to hide out in civilian neighborhoods, knowing full well that Israel's military will likely kill civilians trying to engage the enemy, then those poor civilians are going to pay a dear price for not getting out of the way (or, worse, standing their ground and letting themselves get shot at). Hezbollah shrewdly knows that the international media love to take pictures of dead civilians in the streets (and some bloggers like to use those photos to illustrate their points -- WARNING, VERY GRAPHIC). This is precisely why Israel is restricting media access to Gaza, by the way. Anyway, I digress a little.

Greenwald takes Friedman's words and basically calls it the very definition of terrorism, according the the U.S. State Department:

No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

(1) For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty.

Emphasis Greenwald's. Notice, that he doesn't emphasize the six words in the middle of that definition. He asks, "Other than the fact that Friedman is advocating these actions for an actual state rather than a 'subnational group,' can anyone identify any differences between (a) what Friedman approvingly claims was done to the Lebanese and what he advocates be done to Palestinians and (b) what the State Department formally defines as 'terrorism'?" Well, this is a BIG distinction. Israel is taking the conflict to the enemy, where the enemy resides. This, to me, is a war, not a terrorist campaign.

I'm not suggesting that when a country engages in behavior that resembles terrorism that it's not terrorism by virtue of its being conducted by a country. What I'm saying is that there is a significant context to understand and to consider in Israel's case. First is Israel's 60 years of existence under nearly constant attack by its neighbors. If anything can justify preemptive action to avoid further attack, I think this does. Second is the Palestinians' choice to elect Hamas, which is the wish to eradicate Israel turned into a movement, to govern them. Third is the choice groups like Hamas and Hezbollah make to turn women, children, and the elderly among them into human shields. If I'm Israel, I say, "If I've got to weigh protecting Israeli citizens against Hezbollah or Hamas attacks, or unintentionally causing civilian casualties because our enemies like to hide behind civilians, then we're going to issue some warning, and then we will open fire. If anyone is responsible for civilian casualties, it is Hezbollah and Hamas."

Unfortunately, Friedman misses a point. In the real world, the Palestinians are not going to knuckle under and turn against Hamas so that they are voted out in the next election. If anything, it appears as though Hamas is stronger now. That's to be expected. Israelis aren't going to turn against their own government because they are being attacked by an enemy, either. No, they're going to defend themselves and hit back. So the solution to this problem is not to bomb Hamas out of existence or terrorize Israelis into giving up their country. As Tom Segev, a controversial Israeli journalist noted today on PRI's The World radio program, it is preferable to think in terms of conflict management rather than peace. As someone who came to adulthood in the wake of the Six Day War in 1967, Segev said he is no longer a believer in peace with Israel's Arab neighbors. Rather, he believes that there are people on both sides who wish to avoid further bloodshed. And it is the proper thing to do to sit down with one's enemies and negotiate a way for two sides to manage something over which they are going to have deep disagreement. In the best of all possible scenarios, both sides stand facing each other, armed as necessary, and refrain from pulling the trigger for as long as possible. Dialogue continues and further understandings are reached. Segev, however, did not mention peace, or a road map, other than to refer to them as "fictions" of the Bush administration that needed to be abandoned by the incoming Obama administration.