The Masters of War

Where is Biden's moral compass?

On the Sunday following the start of the war, Biden gave an interview to the CBS show 60 Minutes. Here was his opportunity to speak to a large American audience, to provide clarity, to make the case for a de-escalation of violence, to demonstrate some kind of moral wisdom. Instead, he assured interviewer Scott Pelley that the United States could easily participate in wars in Ukraine and Israel at the same time. “We’re the United States of America for God’s sake,” Biden said, “the most powerful nation in the history—not in the world, in the history of the world.” Like George W. Bush two decades ago, he asked Americans to focus on terrorism as the evil that justifies war. He chose to express that view in a way that was not only factually absurd but repugnant: “Israel is going after a group of people,” he said, “who have engaged in barbarism that is as consequential as the Holocaust.”

It was this sort of fevered rhetoric that put the United States on a war footing after September 11, 2001. Biden’s “moral compass” led him to vote in 2002 for Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Later, Biden admitted he was wrong. In his visit on Wednesday to Israel, he vaguely referenced the “mistakes” the United States made in Iraq while cautioning Israelis not to be consumed by rage. But here we are again: Hamas must be “eradicated” by any means. Rage is marshalled to justify a genocidal attack on people described as “animals.” As bombs rain down on Palestinians, Israel and the United States are claiming to be the enforcers of civilized norms; again we are expected to believe in a “war on terror.” Meanwhile, especially in the heat of the moment, one must not equivocate by discussing other evils: one must not talk about oppression, apartheid, or the everyday brutality that comes with occupation in Palestine. More civilians in Gaza will surely suffer, but only by accident—they are collateral damage.

And the blame for merciless new rounds of killing in Gaza is not to be attributed to Israel or the United States. Hamas made the Israeli army do it—just as the 9/11 bombers gave us no choice but to launch a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Israel, Biden said, has a duty to respond, presumably in whatever way the far-right regime of Netanyahu thinks duty requires. This argument about the ultimate responsibility of Hamas for the unfolding war crimes in Gaza has been made in a specific way, by both centrists and reactionaries. The even-handed, moderate view was articulated by New York Times columnist David French, who drew on his experience while deployed in Iraq of giving legal advice to U.S. soldiers. Writing last week in a Times newsletter, French explained the “law of war,” which he believes both the United States and Israel do their best to honor. “Even in its rage and pain, Israel may not level cities without regard for innocent life,” he conceded. But Hamas, he asserted, disregards the “principle of distinction”—the obligation to fight openly in marked vehicles or in uniforms. By doing so, “Hamas is responsible for the civilian damage that results.” He added: “If Hamas fights from a hospital—or stores munitions in a hospital—damage to that hospital is Hamas’s responsibility. If Hamas fighters shoot at Israel Defense Forces from a home that contains a Palestinian family, then Hamas is responsible for the civilian casualties if that family is harmed in the resulting exchange of fire.”

It’s a short distance from David French’s objection that Hamas does not observe the proper rules of warfare to the bloodthirsty fulminations of the likes of Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas. In an interview on Fox News, Cotton said, “As far as I’m concerned, Israel can bounce the rubble in Gaza. Anything that happens in Gaza is the responsibility of Hamas—Hamas killed women and children in Israel last weekend.”

As many have pointed out, this notion that Palestinians should be collectively punished for violence organized by Hamas is not sanctioned by the law of war, or international law, or any decent understanding of human rights. And yet it was explicitly stated by Israeli president Isaac Herzog in the first week of heavy bombing in Gaza. Herzog claimed, “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. . . this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true.” This conveniently ignores the history of Israel’s own role in bolstering Hamas to divide support from other Palestinian movements. It ignores the daily constraints Israel has put on ordinary Gazans just to survive. Yet, Herzog insisted, “They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat.” Since they did not, he said, “We will fight until we break their backbone.”

War fever always attempts to impose a uniformity of thought, a suppression of dissent. The government of Israel and its American defenders have been relentless in insisting one must acknowledge Israeli casualties and suffering first and foremost, while treating Palestinian suffering as the just deserts of a violent population, or at least as a secondary concern.

by Dave Denison, The Baffler |  Read more:

Image: Legitimate violance. via

[ed. See also: Retire the Word "Terrorism" (It obscures the things it is supposed to illuminate) (HTW).]