June 3, 2010 The Western
the events that occurred off the coast of Gaza, the tragedy that is coming down again on those lands, you can watch all three legitimate points of view but which are liable if opposed, to play out of tune: the moral level, the legal one, and finally the political aspect. The first is the most fragile and it is necessarily to be dragged by the other, the second represented by international law but, as we know, in the absence of an arbitrator with real power, rule, only part of the totality of relationships, the last strategic plan is the political contest in which a master is by far is the reality principle.
The Israeli story, for it embodies the symbolic value, is likely to provoke heated debate and bring along with them a confusion with the result of plans to give reason for Hamas and Israel's enemies.
The truth is that the levels of the discussion should be clearly separated and particularly from the legal and strategic. Now looking at the aspect of international law that goes below the assessment morality, there is no doubt that Israel has acted to protect their interests and that the fleet of so-called peace activists were forcing a naval blockade in total disregard of international rules and those of common sense.
But this point of view solves the whole problem? No, it remains the policy level. On this level, you are right on the law and morals is not much and nothing will tell the Israeli commission of inquiry precisely because you are thinking of errors of assessment policy. Here is an obvious misunderstanding on the part of Tel Aviv of the threat posed by the protest sponsored by Turkey. The modern conflicts - "asymmetric", "hybrid" or "among the people" definiteli as you please-those who see a democratic face each other infinitely more powerful in terms of technology, weapon systems, organization and an opponent made up of irregular militias, have the particularity of not playing on the military. Indeed, because of the disproportion of forces and of the impossibility of arriving at a final military showdown, which would result in the defeat to the limits of the defeat of the weak and largely avoided by this fact, the purely military aspect is intended to fill a role secondary. Policy goes here all the time, at any time, the war by denying the saying that when the weapons speak, the policy is silent. Indeed, precisely because of the asymmetry of forces, the challenge of the democratic country will be using all possible means, just trying to circumvent and neutralize the disproportion of forces. The objective of the irregular and always will be only to prevent the army of a democratic country able to use the power it has. The means used will be the most diverse, but the purpose is always and only one: if you can not beat the strongest army in the field, you can tie or break the political will of that country. How? In two ways. Wearing out of the will to resist the democratic state, dropping the enemy at any provocation - using the most brutal terrorism, use of human shields, etc.-and forcing the army to use inhumane or illegal methods with the result of building a real moral wall between it and his country, allowing them to open an internal front, breaking the relationship between the armed forces, people and institutions, and here is the second mode, building a International barrier of mistrust between the state of democracy and international forum.
is nothing new. It 'been so in the war of Algeria, during the Vietnam conflict in Gaza in 2006. In these conflicts, the central mistake of the West, beyond the individual and huge differences and possible solutions and possible policy was to reduce the confrontation to a purely military matter and the enemy played a comparison the round by moving on several levels. Perhaps we have forgotten that the Battle of Algiers, coincided with the discussion of the issue to the UN in Algeria? Or words to that general of North Vietnam who candidly confessed to its corresponding U.S. to find out how the conflict would go every morning the staff listened to American radio in Hanoi? Or the ability of Hezbollah to pass themselves off as victims, bringing the arm D'Alema in Beirut and constructing scenes of bombing the ad hoc with the shoes of children who traveled from place to place depending on the needs of international TV?
The fact is that for Israel for many reasons to consider the complexity of modern "War among the people" is very difficult. To his mind, because Israel feels, rightly, the victim of history and therefore is used to fighting with their teeth for life and see every conflict as existential in terms of safety for the history of Israeli-Palestinian conflict legacy of war Israeli Arab armies faced each other where traditional to the nature of the confrontation with Hamas and Tel Aviv, and rightly so, because all currency insoluble nature of ideological religious and not political.
But if Israel does not want to start from scratch every time, in an endless game of goose, it should consider the multiple dimensions of strategy and understand that the management of public international media and diplomacy are facing perhaps the most important military confrontation where Palestinians are hardly in a position to threaten its existence.
0 comments:
Post a Comment