Efficient Warfare

First Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and now Defense Minister Ehud Barak declare that the world needs to redefine the rules of war to allow armies to "deal efficiently with terror coming out of crowded areas and constructed areas." It seems that both Netanyahu and Barak fail to understand that the rules of war have as a sole purpose to protect non-combatants from harm during times of war. They aren't meant to allow armies to "deal efficiently" with anything. And when looking at the context in which these statements are made, one cannot help but think if what is meant by "dealing efficiently with terror" has something to do with what the Goldstone report is accusing Israel of having done: deliberately targeting civilians, bombing a mosque suspected of housing weapons during prayer time, using white phosphorous incendiary bombs in crowded civilian areas, and generally disregarding the weight of loss of civilian life compared to the potential military benefit of an action. In Israeli eyes, it seems, bombing a UN-run school housing 1300 refugees because shots had been fired at the IDF from that location is morally justified, and thus needs to be accommodated for in the new laws of war. How sick and twisted do you need to be to think that if it's illegal to kill 800 civilians out out of 1300 casualties in a 30-day conflict then there's something wrong with the rules?

Maybe I'm overreacting. But there's something about the use of the word "efficient" in the context of war that gives me chills.

The Blame Game

I once read about an interesting distinction made by American sociologist Harvey Sacks between two types of consequences for actions. Class 1 consequences are effects that naturally result from an action, for example, if you put your hand in the fire, you will get burned. Class 2 consequences are those that require the action of another human being, for example, if you murder someone, then you go to jail. You don't automatically get teleported to jail as soon as you pull the trigger. Someone has to put you there. This is very different from Class 1 consequences which are a direct result of your action. Human adults can tell the difference between the two, but children can't. That's why, when they're young enough, children don't bear grudges against their parents when they are punished, because to them the punishment is a Class 1 consequence of their actions, i.e. it could not have been avoided. The parent didn't CHOOSE to punish the child. A child then wouldn't hate his parent for spanking them in much the same way that an adult wouldn't hate a candle for burning him.

So what does all that have to do with anything? Well, it seems to me that it isn't only children that don't understand this distinction. A few days ago, Israeli president Shimon Peres made a statement about the threat Hezbollah poses to Lebanon. During a speech he said, "It's not Israel that is endangering Lebanon, but rather Hezbollah, just as Hamas is endangering the Palestinians." This is not the first time this type of talking point is used by an Israeli politician. Several times in the past the Israelis have attempted to get the Lebanese to turn against Hezbollah by convincing them that latter's actions lead to the destruction of Lebanon, as though they, the Israelis, have nothing to do with it. Now I don't know if Mr. Peres actually believes this to be true, or if he just says it hoping people are naive enough to accept it. To him, when Israel deals out death and destruction to its enemies, it is merely a direct consequence of Hezbollah (or Hamas) action. But we are not children, and while we may understand that Hezbollah's actions are what instigated a war to start with, we are old enough to realize that the individual atrocities committed by the IDF are not natural and unavoidable consequences of Hezbollah's behavior, but are rather Israeli actions implementing Israeli decisions.

So the whole "the Lebanese should understand that Hezbollah is their enemy, not Israel" paradigm doesn't work on rational adults. Sure it might make us dislike Hezbollah, but it makes us deeply despise Israel far more. After all, if some guy walks up to you and shoots you in the leg, you might blame the guy who provoked him, and you might even get pissed off at the guy who made the gun, but the person you're gonna hate the most and seek revenge against is the one who pulled the trigger.

The Tawteen Question

In Lebanon, Tawteen, Arabic for "settling," is a word that pops up every now and then in political discourse. It refers to the settling and naturalization of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, and it's one of the few concepts that the Lebanese seem to agree upon, in that they are all against it. Normally I like consensus generating issues; they make it seem like we have hope for building a common Lebanese identity. But then when you look at the reasons behind opposing Tawteen, you start to realize there's a disturbing side to this consensus. It seems to me that most Lebanese are opposed to Tawteen for one of three reasons:

1. Tawteen is equivalent to abandoning the Palestinian cause: this reason is cited by most, even though in reality, I think it is far less significant than politicians make it seem.
2. Tawteen disturbs the demographic balance in Lebanon: For Christians who don't genuinely subscribe to the first reason, they fear Tawteen because it tilts the balance further in favor of Muslims, making Christian an even smaller minority. For those Shi'as who don't care about the Palestinian cause, naturalizing a few hundred thousand Sunnis would cause them to lose their slim demographic lead. And finally there are some Sunnis who worry that these Palestinians would be too sympathetic with Hezbollah, and would thus weaken the widespread Sunni support enjoyed by Hezbollah's opponents.
3. Tawteen disturbs Lebanese identity. In other words, Palestinians aren't Lebanese and naturalizing them would weaken Lebanese identity.

The first reason is one that I find particularly strange. Abandoning or not the Palestinian cause should be solely a Palestinian question, not one to be discussed in Lebanese parliament halls. After all, the Palestinian cause is not an end in itself, but rather a means to a bigger end which is the well-being of the Palestinian people. Those who support the Palestinian cause at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of Palestinians seem to be confusing the cause as a struggle against Israel, rather than a struggle for Palestine. If we as a nation want to support the Palestinian cause, we must do so by aiding them in their struggle, not by forcing them to remain in it. In that context, the question of Tawteen is a Palestinian question, not a Lebanese one.

The two other reasons can be summarized by two words: sectarianism and xenophobia, and as a secular liberal I reject them utterly and completely. The Palestinians are not here by choice. They're not here to abuse our weak economy or usurp our fragile democracy. They are no more different from the Lebanese than we are from each other ethnically, politically, and culturally. And given the sheer number of Lebanese holding dual-citizenship, living abroad in hope of a better life - out of choice mind you - it makes me wonder where we get off forbidding the Palestinians in Lebanon a chance at a better life for themselves in our small country.

So putting aside our xenophobia and our sectarianism, the question of Tawteen is very easy to answer. Ask the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon to decide their own fate. If they decide they are tired of struggling, then let's find a way to help them achieve their aspirations and reach a better life. And if they refuse to live anywhere outside their homeland, then so be it.