These countries allow homosexuals to serve in the military: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Britain, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
In a time when the U.S. needs as many military personnel and specialists as possible, why don't we join the list by repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Generation Green
I was sitting in a square in downtown Amman, Jordan one evening this summer, observing as people went about their business. All of a sudden, a window opened on the third story of a building across the street. A woman peeked out her head, then took out a full trash bin and proceeded to dump it onto the side of the street below, where a pile had already formed from other residents doing the same thing.
Now, some older students may remember a time when Thurston residents would similarly throw various artifacts out of their own windows (though I wasn’t around back then). But more recently, GW’s environmental consciousness profile has changed. And it’s not just an institutional shift, as some recent articles in The Hatchet have reported about – it’s our generation.
My summer experience in Jordan taught me to value the evolving American attitudes on waste management, pollution and environmental preservation. Our parents and grandparents did not grow up in a society stressing lower carbon emissions and recycling. Being raised to value these initiatives as ways to help our planet, we have the ability to reach out to older generations, as well as set a positive example for developing countries and societies that may not place as much emphasis on saving the environment.
Sure, GW’s administration, its students and the US as a whole could show much more seriousness on this subject. Although GW did rise in the Sierra Club green rankings this year (to 81st out of 135), that still puts us in the list’s bottom 50 percent. New York University, an urban school like GW, beat us by 41 places.
But we can only get better from here. Our green generation is increasing in size, and as it grows it will help sharpen the sense of shared public space and concern for our natural surroundings among Americans, and hopefully also among our friends around the world.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Not a Global Green
Black clouds of pollution in China, overfishing off Japan, forest destruction in Brazil, poaching in Ethiopia. Worldwide, there is no doubt that there is substantial destruction occurring to the environment. This does not even factor in the impact of third world nations on global carbon emissions. We have to ask ourselves – what do we want to save? It is not possible to save everything; from an economic standpoint we are faced with a scarcity problem. With only a limited amount of resources and an unlimited demand something is doomed to be lost. The real question is what we want to save the most.
Unfortunately, this question is not being asked in the halls of the US congress, the UN, AU, or really any other governing body. Instead issue usually gets diverted to bickering about responsibility, blame, funding, etc. What really needs to be decided is not who caused the problems up until this point but rather which problems we want to solve in the future. Germany recently decided to phase out the use of nuclear power plants and there is fear this could set off another wave of anti-nuclear backlash across the globe. Yet there is an interest group that has a problem with everything. Coal and other fossil fuels have their obvious critics. But some dislike wind because is kills a few birds and solar because it is hard to dispose of the panels.
As can be seen, the lack of consensus is doing more harm to the environmental movement than good. The rise of globalization has only encouraged this problem with people being less able to focus on local problems which are actually solvable. Unless consensus grows in terms of which issues are most important to be solved the international community risks not solving anything - which could ultimately endanger us all.
Unfortunately, this question is not being asked in the halls of the US congress, the UN, AU, or really any other governing body. Instead issue usually gets diverted to bickering about responsibility, blame, funding, etc. What really needs to be decided is not who caused the problems up until this point but rather which problems we want to solve in the future. Germany recently decided to phase out the use of nuclear power plants and there is fear this could set off another wave of anti-nuclear backlash across the globe. Yet there is an interest group that has a problem with everything. Coal and other fossil fuels have their obvious critics. But some dislike wind because is kills a few birds and solar because it is hard to dispose of the panels.
As can be seen, the lack of consensus is doing more harm to the environmental movement than good. The rise of globalization has only encouraged this problem with people being less able to focus on local problems which are actually solvable. Unless consensus grows in terms of which issues are most important to be solved the international community risks not solving anything - which could ultimately endanger us all.
Monday, July 13, 2009
A New Direction For Africa
Africa has been known as a continent in peril since the independence of the first African nations fifty years ago. The following is a short list of the ideal goals each African nation should follow in order to achieve development, growth, and stability.
1. Stop supporting paramililitary actors in other countries.
African governments have a history of supporting guerrilla movements, financially and militarily, in neighboring countries for the purpose of destabilizing other African governments. Often, though, this support only causes more bloodshed, a degradation of nascent developmental projects, international criticism, and sometimes backlash.
2. Improve electoral practices.
Africa is known for having poor election history, with only four heads of government transferring powers peacefully over a 40 year period. An active government is known to bring stability, a sense of nationhood, and peace to countries, as long as elections are done in a fair and free manor.
3. Integrate with the global world and economy.
Over the last 50 years, Africa has been prone to resist integration with the world economy, not only because of corrupt leaders' tirades against Western "neocolonialism," but also because of the unwillingness of international corporations to invest heavily in the unstable countries of Africa. African leaders should make a commitment to liberalize trading policies and become open to imports from other nations. They should attempt to develop two or three "niche" market in which they have a competitive advantage. Also, as is already occurring, African leaders should continue the practice of bypassing old forms of technology for newer versions, to reduce expenses. For example, using cellphones as a means of telephone communications and building communication towers rather than laying phone lines.
4. Support and promote healthy practices.
African governments have been reluctant to promote health practice that are considered normal health procedures in the Western world. Especially with AIDS, African nations sometimes condemn the use of proven safety measures, such as wearing condemns. On other issues, some children are never taught of the importance of washing hands or following basic hygienic practices. African leaders need to promote these practices.
5. Focus funds and resources on developing rural areas.
Africa has a tradition of funneling money and attention to city centers, rather than rural areas. They do this because they know urban support is more valuable than rural support, and that an angry city populace has the potential to overturn a government. African governments should begin to focus on developing the agricultural sector so they not only can generate more food sources for the nation, but also to decrease the chance of violence from disenchanted farmers who join militias.
1. Stop supporting paramililitary actors in other countries.
African governments have a history of supporting guerrilla movements, financially and militarily, in neighboring countries for the purpose of destabilizing other African governments. Often, though, this support only causes more bloodshed, a degradation of nascent developmental projects, international criticism, and sometimes backlash.
2. Improve electoral practices.
Africa is known for having poor election history, with only four heads of government transferring powers peacefully over a 40 year period. An active government is known to bring stability, a sense of nationhood, and peace to countries, as long as elections are done in a fair and free manor.
3. Integrate with the global world and economy.
Over the last 50 years, Africa has been prone to resist integration with the world economy, not only because of corrupt leaders' tirades against Western "neocolonialism," but also because of the unwillingness of international corporations to invest heavily in the unstable countries of Africa. African leaders should make a commitment to liberalize trading policies and become open to imports from other nations. They should attempt to develop two or three "niche" market in which they have a competitive advantage. Also, as is already occurring, African leaders should continue the practice of bypassing old forms of technology for newer versions, to reduce expenses. For example, using cellphones as a means of telephone communications and building communication towers rather than laying phone lines.
4. Support and promote healthy practices.
African governments have been reluctant to promote health practice that are considered normal health procedures in the Western world. Especially with AIDS, African nations sometimes condemn the use of proven safety measures, such as wearing condemns. On other issues, some children are never taught of the importance of washing hands or following basic hygienic practices. African leaders need to promote these practices.
5. Focus funds and resources on developing rural areas.
Africa has a tradition of funneling money and attention to city centers, rather than rural areas. They do this because they know urban support is more valuable than rural support, and that an angry city populace has the potential to overturn a government. African governments should begin to focus on developing the agricultural sector so they not only can generate more food sources for the nation, but also to decrease the chance of violence from disenchanted farmers who join militias.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A Meeting With Professor Henry Nau on Poverty
On April 7th, four members of the Understanding Globalization LLC meet with Professor Henry Nau to discuss the problems and challenges that poverty presents in a globalized world. Previously, the LLC had watched and discussed Zana Briski's "Born into Brothels: Calcutta's Red Light Kids" as an examination of just how pervasively poverty can be interwoven into society.
Most astounding to the LLC was the poor technological resources that social workers in India used to keep tabs on these children. The systems were neither digitalized nor organized; the result was a wall of rotting papers and an overworked office.
When we approached Professor Nau with our opinions, he pushed us to the next level: was the real problem a lack of resources, or was it corruption in the bureaucracy supervising such offices? Furthermore, would more technological resources truly aide the societal ills that allowed the red light district in Calcutta to flourish? The human trafficking in the region along with widespread poverty were identified as two such factors. The professor pointed out that, in order to most effectively address the problem, there would be a need to examine all these variables and choose the best solution.
Professor Nau also emphasized a need in development to reconcile the macro with the micro, politically, socially and economically. Poverty and development, argued the professor, could not be addressed without making sure that the situation on the ground and governmental or inter-governmental agreements were synchronous. He used the Clinton Accords in the Palestinian conflict to illustrate this: although all major players have diplomatically accepted a fair two-state solution, the situation on the ground did not allow for a sustainable peace, allowing for Israel's enemies, such as Hamas, to gain strength. Until these two systems were reconciled, the professor contended, the problems would persist.
The discussion then changed to incorporate the ongoing global fiscal and economic crisis, particularly how they would affect development. The Professor was quick to defend the Washington Consensus (recently declared "dead" by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown), which he attributed to pulling millions of Indians and Chinese out of absolute abject poverty. The economic crises have largely been used as an excuse for government intervention in domestic economies along with consistent pushes for stricter regulation of finance at the global level. The Professor noted that such regulation was necessary, as risk taking had increased far too high during the lead up to the crisis. At the same time, he invoked the economic axiom that higher risk means higher rewards -- and that those rewards were what had done such wonders for the developing world. The professor remained optimistic that the spirit of the Washington Consensus would be preserved, and that the crisis would be an opportunity for improvement of international financial and economic institutions as opposed to a change of course that President Obama has called for.
The Understanding Globalization LLC would like to thank Professor Henry Nau for taking time out of his busy schedule to meet with our members: this discussion has given us a great deal to think about concerning the many aspects of poverty, which without a doubt will give us grounds for future discourses.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Sharecropping, Capital and Globalization
Globalization has done many wonderful things for the world. It has increased the wealth for multinational corporations and helped raise over 300 million Chinese out of poverty. At the same time it is also imperative to look at the other side of the issue: mainly, those not helped by globalization. One of those problems is an increase in Sharecropping around the world. Currently one of the largest places with sharecropping is Madagascar. In Madagascar sharecropping accounts for approximately one third of land use. But what is sharecropping exactly? Sharecropping is defined as “a land-rental contract matching a rich landlord and a poor tenant in which the landlord leases out her plot to the tenant in exchange for a share of the crop” (Bellemare).
Currently only 10% of landowners in Madagascar are women. In a society that has still been slow to increase the opportunities, women still do not have an equal economic chance. This is not to say, however, that sharecroppers are wealthy. In a study done by Bellemare the average landowner estimated that his time was worth $0.15 hourly, or about $1.20 per day. Obviously, the tenants who lease the land make far less than the owner. Most are illiterate and have not other job skills or opportunities.
But what does this have to do with globalization? Globalization is in a large part an economic occurrence. The growth of China, and almost all nations that have benefited from globalization, starts with capital. Only 40% of land owners stated that they had invested in infrastructure development. Assuming that deprecation occurs until the only remaining value is the fixed value we can assume that without any change in the system 60% of all owners will, in the long run, have property that is worth less than the original investment. According to the efficient market hypothesis property would not be sold for less than the fixed value, indicating that property purchased is either at or above the fixed value. Therefore, the best owners can hope for is that their original investment was at fixed value. Otherwise, they will be losing property value in the long run. A lack of infrastructure investment also proves that sharecropping is not profitable enough for owners. If it were then they would be reinvesting. Without an infusion of capital to provide for infrastructure development owners will continue with their current, unprofitable path because of a lack of other alternatives.
On the other side, however, there are the sharecroppers. These individuals are in an even worse position than the owners because they usually only have a small number of insignificant assets. Compare this to the owners who at least have the fixed value of the property. Sharecroppers are making less than $.15 an hour and have to deal with seasonal variations. Some academics state that land rights are necessary for the sharecroppers to rise out of poverty; but because the current owners of the lands are also unable to find a more profitable venue this suggest that land ownership is not the problem. It is the lack of capital for those who own the land. Without increased investment, only possible with capital, nothing will change and globalization will continue to pass by those in Madagascar.
Sharecropping also occurs commonly in Bangladesh, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Lesotho, Malaysia, the Philippines, and South Africa.
Currently only 10% of landowners in Madagascar are women. In a society that has still been slow to increase the opportunities, women still do not have an equal economic chance. This is not to say, however, that sharecroppers are wealthy. In a study done by Bellemare the average landowner estimated that his time was worth $0.15 hourly, or about $1.20 per day. Obviously, the tenants who lease the land make far less than the owner. Most are illiterate and have not other job skills or opportunities.
But what does this have to do with globalization? Globalization is in a large part an economic occurrence. The growth of China, and almost all nations that have benefited from globalization, starts with capital. Only 40% of land owners stated that they had invested in infrastructure development. Assuming that deprecation occurs until the only remaining value is the fixed value we can assume that without any change in the system 60% of all owners will, in the long run, have property that is worth less than the original investment. According to the efficient market hypothesis property would not be sold for less than the fixed value, indicating that property purchased is either at or above the fixed value. Therefore, the best owners can hope for is that their original investment was at fixed value. Otherwise, they will be losing property value in the long run. A lack of infrastructure investment also proves that sharecropping is not profitable enough for owners. If it were then they would be reinvesting. Without an infusion of capital to provide for infrastructure development owners will continue with their current, unprofitable path because of a lack of other alternatives.
On the other side, however, there are the sharecroppers. These individuals are in an even worse position than the owners because they usually only have a small number of insignificant assets. Compare this to the owners who at least have the fixed value of the property. Sharecroppers are making less than $.15 an hour and have to deal with seasonal variations. Some academics state that land rights are necessary for the sharecroppers to rise out of poverty; but because the current owners of the lands are also unable to find a more profitable venue this suggest that land ownership is not the problem. It is the lack of capital for those who own the land. Without increased investment, only possible with capital, nothing will change and globalization will continue to pass by those in Madagascar.
Sharecropping also occurs commonly in Bangladesh, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Lesotho, Malaysia, the Philippines, and South Africa.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Seven Positives of Globalization
Globalization increases resource availability.
Globalization leads to improved efficiency, increasing the ability for people to acquire more goods. The founding principle of economics is that collaboration and specializations increases the amount of goods and services produced. Therefore, individuals form societies and specialize within those societies. This significantly increases the production possibility curve. In the same way, globalization allows countries or societies to specialize, increasing the production possibility curve. This provides two important opportunities for consumers. First, specialization increases the quality of goods and services produced, which allows consumers to make the best possible choice. Second, the increased market competition and innovative activities reduces prices for consumers. The breaking down of trade barriers can increase the amount of specialization, which increases the production possibility curve.
Globalization reduces poverty.
In many developing nations there is a lack of infrastructure, education, human capital and the ability to take the steps necessary to secure the aforementioned necessities. When multinational firms provided citizens of developing nations with jobs they are providing a stepping block for the impoverished masses. There is a reason that these individuals take low paying jobs: because all other opportunities offer much less in terms of total benefits. In every case a low paying job is better than joblessness and starvation. In addition to providing a means of subsistence these jobs can create a ladder of opportunity for the individuals who may be able to save some of their income in order to get an education or allow their children to go to school and become educated. In every country where multinational corporations have provided jobs the average income level has gone significantly up and many of the poor eventually rise out of poverty.
Globalization helps the environment.
Developing economies are significantly less efficient, at producing goods and services, than developed economies. This means that developing economies waste a significant amount of resources and damage the environment to a greater extent than if they were developed counties. Additionally, as members of the society become more affluent they are able to focus more of their time and resources on social causes, such as protecting the environment. As already stated globalization reduces poverty, from which it can be concluded that members of the society are in a better position to focus on the protection of the environment.
Globalization reduces ethnic tensions
Inherently with globalization ethnic groups that once may have never interacted are forced to conduct business and trade together. This can lead to a reduction in ethnic tensions as groups who once saw each other as competitors see the ’others’ as a valuable trading partners. Understanding that other nations are friends and not enemies can bring about increased communication with, and acceptance of, other cultures. This can directly reduce tensions and increase multiculturalism.
Globalization reduces the change of war.
Similar to the way globalization reduces ethnic tensions, globalization reduces the change of war. In a case of international differences the interdependence of nations reduces the change of war because going to war with one nation could be an act of economic suicide. Case to point, despite any tensions China and the United States might have with each other each nation has a direct economic dependence on the other and so could not risk destroying its relation through direct or indirect conflict. In this way Globalization reduces the chance of war and saves lives.
Globalization leads to freedom of speech and the protection of human rights.
As nations become more economically developed international scrutiny of their governments’ actions increases and it becomes increasingly hard to violate human rights. Also, as individuals increase their income and education they begin to demand increasing freedom of speech and individual privacy rights. These demands, combined with the increasing international security, leads to pressure on the regime to change their policies to grant more rights and freedoms.
Globalization increases knowledge.
It is known facts that as nations become more developed the number of educated individuals in the nation increases. Because it has already be shown how globalization allows for specializations, which increases the level of income of the nation, it can be assumed that globalization increase the number of educated individuals. These individuals can increase the amount of research and development, the level of entrepreneurship and the quality of the social capital. Overall, it can be seen that because globalization increases the level of national income it also increase the amount of knowledge.
Globalization leads to improved efficiency, increasing the ability for people to acquire more goods. The founding principle of economics is that collaboration and specializations increases the amount of goods and services produced. Therefore, individuals form societies and specialize within those societies. This significantly increases the production possibility curve. In the same way, globalization allows countries or societies to specialize, increasing the production possibility curve. This provides two important opportunities for consumers. First, specialization increases the quality of goods and services produced, which allows consumers to make the best possible choice. Second, the increased market competition and innovative activities reduces prices for consumers. The breaking down of trade barriers can increase the amount of specialization, which increases the production possibility curve.
Globalization reduces poverty.
In many developing nations there is a lack of infrastructure, education, human capital and the ability to take the steps necessary to secure the aforementioned necessities. When multinational firms provided citizens of developing nations with jobs they are providing a stepping block for the impoverished masses. There is a reason that these individuals take low paying jobs: because all other opportunities offer much less in terms of total benefits. In every case a low paying job is better than joblessness and starvation. In addition to providing a means of subsistence these jobs can create a ladder of opportunity for the individuals who may be able to save some of their income in order to get an education or allow their children to go to school and become educated. In every country where multinational corporations have provided jobs the average income level has gone significantly up and many of the poor eventually rise out of poverty.
Globalization helps the environment.
Developing economies are significantly less efficient, at producing goods and services, than developed economies. This means that developing economies waste a significant amount of resources and damage the environment to a greater extent than if they were developed counties. Additionally, as members of the society become more affluent they are able to focus more of their time and resources on social causes, such as protecting the environment. As already stated globalization reduces poverty, from which it can be concluded that members of the society are in a better position to focus on the protection of the environment.
Globalization reduces ethnic tensions
Inherently with globalization ethnic groups that once may have never interacted are forced to conduct business and trade together. This can lead to a reduction in ethnic tensions as groups who once saw each other as competitors see the ’others’ as a valuable trading partners. Understanding that other nations are friends and not enemies can bring about increased communication with, and acceptance of, other cultures. This can directly reduce tensions and increase multiculturalism.
Globalization reduces the change of war.
Similar to the way globalization reduces ethnic tensions, globalization reduces the change of war. In a case of international differences the interdependence of nations reduces the change of war because going to war with one nation could be an act of economic suicide. Case to point, despite any tensions China and the United States might have with each other each nation has a direct economic dependence on the other and so could not risk destroying its relation through direct or indirect conflict. In this way Globalization reduces the chance of war and saves lives.
Globalization leads to freedom of speech and the protection of human rights.
As nations become more economically developed international scrutiny of their governments’ actions increases and it becomes increasingly hard to violate human rights. Also, as individuals increase their income and education they begin to demand increasing freedom of speech and individual privacy rights. These demands, combined with the increasing international security, leads to pressure on the regime to change their policies to grant more rights and freedoms.
Globalization increases knowledge.
It is known facts that as nations become more developed the number of educated individuals in the nation increases. Because it has already be shown how globalization allows for specializations, which increases the level of income of the nation, it can be assumed that globalization increase the number of educated individuals. These individuals can increase the amount of research and development, the level of entrepreneurship and the quality of the social capital. Overall, it can be seen that because globalization increases the level of national income it also increase the amount of knowledge.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Self-Defense
This column was originally written for the Hatchet, but they decided not to print it because they do not want to publish opinions dealing with national/international events.
Fifteen seconds. That’s how long the residents of Sderot, Israel, have to find shelter between the time when a siren announces, “Code Red” and the time a rocket – or a rocket barrage – hits their city. For years, this has been happening daily in Sderot and other communities in Israel’s southern region, with only a few short lulls in between. Some days, the siren would sound only a couple times; others, eight to ten.
Imagine living like that for many years – in a democratic country. Imagine your country’s sovereignty and your security being regularly violated by terrorists. Imagine the effect on your physical, material and mental wellbeing if your city was constantly attacked with rocket barrages that were meant to terrorize, destroy and kill. What would you expect of your democratically-elected government?
No sane person enjoys war. During this latest conflict, I tried to keep in touch with my anxious family and friends in Israel. My cousins, who live in the coastal city of Ashdod, were directly affected by Hamas’ longer-range rockets. Ironically, the Palestinian terrorist group had stockpiled these rockets during the six-month ceasefire that had existed between it and Israel, a ceasefire which nevertheless saw occasional rocket salvos by Hamas and its allies.
Over the past couple weeks, my cousins in Ashdod experienced a taste of what Sderot residents had been going through for years. About two times every day, residents of the city would hear sirens and would have to run for shelter. Since Ashdod is farther than Sderot from the border with Gaza, residents had more time to hide before the rockets hit: 45 seconds. The tension was high, and the streets were almost completely empty of pedestrians. My relatives told me the story of one woman who, unable to find a bomb shelter in time, hid at a bus stop. Seconds later, a missile slammed into the platform, killing her.
I also spoke with my other cousins who live outside of Tel Aviv, the largest metropolitan area in Israel, which is 20 miles north of Ashdod and out of range of the Hamas rocket danger zone. At the time of writing, the danger zone posed a threat to around 1 million Israelis. These cousins, like many Israelis, were constantly glued to the news. Life can be tense when you live in a country that experiences war all too often.
These people – my relatives and other ordinary Israelis – did not enjoy war. They sat and watched worriedly for developments, or ran into bomb shelters after hearing a siren. But one thing could confidently be said: most of them supported their government’s decision to try to put an end to the terror which Israel’s southern residents had been forced to live with for years.
Disproportionate?
A lot of media attention the past few weeks has been focused on the conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. I wrote the following article in my high school newspaper in March 2008, after Israel conducted a short operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. I think the arguments hold true in todays conflict as well:
Headline: Disproportionate?
Sub-head: The world condemns Israel for acting against terror that no other country would tolerate
Imagine what our government would do if terrorists took over part of Mexico and started firing rockets into our sovereign borders – rockets that were aimed at our civilians, wreaked havoc upon our border towns and were gradually increasing in range. Obviously, America would rise up to defend itself against this terrorism – quite forcefully – and there would be no problem with this. No one in the in the world could expect us to tolerate such flagrant violations of our national sovereignty and security.
Let’s take what has happened this year. For years, Israel has been patient, sustaining daily rocket attacks aimed at civilian areas. Residents of communities bordering Gaza have lived in constant fear: according to a recent study by the Israel Center for Victims of Terror and War, up to 94 percent of children in Sderot, the border town that has borne the brunt of the attacks, suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder after experiences with rocket assaults. Israel has tolerated what no other democratic, sovereign nation would tolerate.
But after increasingly destructive rocket barrages in the beginning of 2008, after protests by citizens who felt as if their government had abandoned them, and after examining and attempting different options, in early March Israel decided to act against this incessant violation of its sovereignty and prevent future attacks. It launched a five-day operation to do what any responsible government would do: go after the terrorists.
Predictably, international condemnations ensued. Not significant condemnations of terrorism being inflicted upon Israeli civilians (after all, that had been happening for years and no one had spoken out), but condemnations of the “disproportionate force” that Israel was using in its fight against Hamas combatants. The Israeli Defense Forces had destroyed rocket storage sites and other terrorist infrastructure. Unfortunately, Hamas militants had used human shields during the fighting; therefore, there were also a number of Palestinian civilian casualties. And so the world, neglecting to dig beyond the surface of civilian deaths, defaulted to blaming Israel. "Disproportionate force" was in the news once again.
It seems not to matter that while Hamas terrorists aim to kill civilians, the Israeli military strategizes on how to cause the least civilian suffering while simultaneously hitting terrorist targets. This can be hard, seeing as Hamas and its allies use their own civilians as human shields. They fire rockets from civilian areas, such as residential buildings and even playgrounds, and they position themselves in civilian enclaves while in combat. But Israel’s critics seem to ignore these facts.
It seems not to matter to the international community that Israel is acting in self-defense, against military targets, while the thousands of rockets landing within its territory have been unprovoked attacks on civilians. Israel voluntarily gave up its occupation of the Gaza Strip over two years ago, so Hamas cannot claim "resistance" as a motive. Its terrorist actions are clear violations of international law. Or is international law only applicable to one side of the conflict?
One side bears responsibility for the most recent flare-up in this decades-long conflict: Hamas. It bears moral responsibility for recent Palestinian deaths and suffering in Gaza, as well as the death and suffering of Israelis. Hamas is not just some rogue splinter group – it is the official representative and governing body of the Palestinians in Gaza. It won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, and just last summer violently seized complete power in Gaza from the more moderate and secular Fatah party. Gaining political power didn't do much to quell Hamas's militant ideology. It opposes the peace process, or even any recognition of Israel. It deliberately targets Israeli civilians just because they are Israeli. If Hamas stops firing rockets, the bloodshed ceases; if Israel does not defend itself, rockets keep falling onto its territory.
Meanwhile, Israel is blamed for unintentional civilian deaths, deaths that it mourns, but that are the result of actions taken in defense of its populace. And when there are intentional civilian deaths – then Israel's justice system prosecutes the perpetrators, quite the opposite of the terrorists it fights, who rejoice upon hearing of a child gunned down, or a home blown up.
Let’s get one thing straight: there is no “proportionate” response to terrorism. In fact, such a response would be completely immoral. Example: terrorists send a rocket over the border, striking an Israeli nursery school and killing a teacher and a two year-old girl (as happened on June 28, 2004). Does this mean that Israel must send a similar rocket targeting a Palestinian nursery school, trying to kill exactly the same number of innocent civilians and terrorize the neighborhood? This scenario is preposterous. Should Israel try such a “proportionate” response, I will be among the first to condemn it. Now, a “disproportionate” response – targeting more civilians – would understandably be even more terrible.
But targeting the terrorists who are responsible for making your children live in fear – that’s moral. That’s called self-defense, dignity and accountability.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)