the global site

subscribe 

 

the new era of war 2001-03

just peace

 

Israel-Palestine

 

 

Martin Shaw's column

costs and consequences

sabotaging the ICC

when is a massacre not a massacre? 21 April 2002 

the linkage Iraq and Palestine: two theatres of war Paul Rogers: 'The survivalist logic of the Iraqi regime may bring war closer even than the Americans are planning for. Meanwhile, the covert aim of the Israeli assault – pulverising the nascent Palestinian state – has only steeled its people’s resistance.'

impending abyss Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed warns of planned 'transfers' of Palestinians from Israeli-occupied territory

time to intervene in the Middle East Mariano Aguirre: 'even if it means openly disgreeing with Washington, Europe must explain to the US that, for the good of all, it is absolutely necessary to change its policy towards Israel.'

sackings threaten boycott of Israeli universities

Israeli boycott divides academics Suzanne Goldenberg and Will Woodward: The decision of Mona Baker, a professor at Manchester Institute of Technology, to removed two academics from their roles on journals she edits, simply because they are Israelis, brings the wider boycott of Israeli universities into question.

Ethics and academic boycotts Hilary Rose, co-drafter of the boycott petition, acknowledges the difficulties.

 

Israeli Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has initiated an  international conference of lawyers from the US, Russia, China, Israel, etc., aimed at restricting the power vested in the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague. Netanyahu said if the court's power is not examined, IDF soldiers and commanders could be personally indicted in The Hague.

Human Rights Watch: Jenin

immortal heroes of Jenin Uri Avnery: 'In 1897, the day after the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Theodor Herzl wrote in his diary: "In Basel I founded the State of the Jews." This week, Ariel Sharon should note in his diary: "In Jenin I founded the State of the Palestinians."'

evidence of Israeli contempt for Geneva convention Suzanne Goldenberg

what price Oslo? Edward Said: 'Due weight must be given to the enormous human costs of Israel's destructive policies: this is the only possible framework for negotiations.'

Martin van Creveld, a military historian at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, believes that Israel stands on the brink of a full-scale war, which would begin with the banishment of Mr Arafat, and end with the mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. "I think Mr Sharon is waiting for the day when he can throw out all the Palestinians. It is not so very difficult. I think these attacks are playing straight into his hands," he said. "I think he wants to escalate the situation because he feels there is no way Israel can make peace with the Palestinians, and he is just waiting for the opportunity to throw them all out. ... Israel is becoming desperate, and people who even a few months ago would never dream of such a solution are beginning to think it is the only possibility."

accusations of ‘Western’ malevolence and ignorance Sandra Halperin: 'many who oppose "Western" democracy as "inauthentic" seem not to have similar concerns about systems of dictatorial rule which are envisioned by some Islamists'

'Islamism': a Muslim reacts to Sandra Halperin Julian Symes

the original Sussex open meeting on 911 and the 'war on terrorism'

17 October 2001

audio

The Vice-Chancellor, Professor Alasdair Smith

o

Avi Shlaim (Oxford)

o

Isam Al-Khafaji (Amsterdam)

o

Sandra Halperin post-Cold War political topography of the Middle East (text)

o

Stephen Burman scope of American ambition 

o

Martin Shaw justice for the victims of massacre and war

o

Thanks to Media Services Unit and David Berry for help with recordings.

The simple answer to this question would seem to be, when it is committed by the Israeli 'defence' forces. 'Brutal yes. Massacre no', writes Peter Beaumont in The Observer, while a correspondent takes me to task along similar lines: 'your reference on theglobalsite to the Jenin "massacre" is highly misleading since it gives the impression that something like Srebrenica happened. What does seem to have happened is that (a) the IDF showed a criminal disregard for civilian life and thereby caused very high casualties and (b) that some illegal executions took place. It will be easy for the Israelis to show that nothing like Srebrenica occurred, and by appearing to make that the issue their critics will hand them an easy victory - especially in the eyes of US public opinion.' 

There is a serious issue here. The term massacre is becoming a litmus test of illegitimate versus legitimate war: 'your killings are massacres; ours are legitimate defence against terrorism/ legitimate resistance to oppression.' Proponents of possible just war, like Michael Walzer, have always made separating war from massacre a key part of their argument. But this is ahistorical: few wars avoid them. The truth is simpler than either apologetics or just war theory. Massacres are not categorically distinct from war, but are a regular feature of what war is about. Deliberate plural killing, carried out in a more or less one-sided way, is all it takes. Massacres come in many shapes and sizes and they are committed by almost all sides in almost all wars. 

The Americans, in their 'war against terrorism', have committed many (albeit 'accidental') massacres of Afghan civilians. I have written therefore that 'repeated small massacres are an understood feature of the new Western way of war' (and no one took me to task for that). The Russian army in Chechnya, the perpetrators of the apartment block bombings in Moscow ... massacres are the stock in trade of armies and guerrillas alike. They can even involve 'mutual' slaughters of combatants, as in the massacres of the Somme.

Certainly, the Israeli army did not do a Srebrenica on a wholly unarmed population. There were Palestinian fighters in the Jenin camp, and many of the victims were fighters. So the Israeli killing and destruction was not simply genocidal, in the sense of being directed only at Palestinian civilians as such. But a 'brutal' action of this kind, with its 'criminal disregard for civilian life ... high casualties and ... illegal executions' can hardly be called anything else than a massacre, in the sense that Tanya Reinhart describes opposite.

Jenin is a striking demonstration of the degeneracy of the Israeli war against Palestinian fighters/terrorists. It is simultaneously a war against the Palestinian people, and for this reason it cannot be just and cannot be fought in a just way. The degeneracy is however mutual. The massacres of Palestinian 'suicide' bombers are genocidal in a simple sense (directed at Israeli Jews as such) albeit as an extension of a war against the Israeli state. The manifest legitimacy of the Palestinian national cause is dragged into the global gutter by these horrific killings, and Arab/Islamic culture is besmirched by the 'honouring' of such murdering 'martyrs'. 

What is clear, then, is that here as always war as such is a huge problem: unjust killing is its norm. Peace 'at any price' may not be the answer. But war between armed forces and groups in densely populated zones cannot aid justice, or  only at an unacceptable cost. It was clearly a historic catastrophe that the recent peace negotiations did not produce a solution. The possible outcomes were not perfect. But it is difficult to believe that either Palestinians or Israelis have benefited from their rejection.

For further development of the general arguments here, see my forthcoming On Slaughter: From War to Genocide (Polity Press)     

m.shaw@sussex.ac.uk

comment on the war and on the views you read on this site - email us your response