Consul David Saranga wrote an opinion piece published by the New York Daily News:
Because of the sea of words and wave of articles that continue to flood the media regarding the war in Gaza, I decided to write something that would resonate with readers in a different way. Sometimes numbers speak louder than words.
See here for more.
We’ve received a lot of mail recently about arguments of proportionality in warfare. Today we found an interesting piece in The New Republic by Michael Walzer, Professor Emeritus at the Insitute for Advanced Study at Princeton University (who’s been doing this type of political philosophy for a while), on this very discussion. He also notes the questions that should guide our discussion of proportionality, as well as some unintended outcomes of that discussion.
An excerpt:
Let’s talk about proportionality–or, more important, about its negative form. “Disproportionate” is the favorite critical term in current discussions of the morality of war. But most of the people who use it don’t know what it means in international law or in just war theory.
For more, see here.
Consul General Asaf Shariv interviewed this week on Shalom TV, American Jewry’s National Cable Television Network. The interview will be available from Sunday, January 11 through Saturday night, January 17. It is Free Video on Demand and so the program is available all the time on those days.
Before then, you can watch a preview, available on the Shalom TV homepage. Also, if you have any questions about how to watch the show, see the station’s FAQ tab.
The New Republic over the past few days, has published a few thoughtful articles about what the end of Operation “Cast Lead” might mean. For now, we’ll note two pieces for your consideration.
The first article is by Martin Peretz; it’s from two days ago but is still quite relevant to the present circumstances. In discussing a cessation of fire, he notes, it must be made clear that Hamas will have to stop the rocket fire on Israel, and that assent by the Palestinian Authority to any measure will not necessarily bind Hamas to anything. An excerpt:
As I write, there is news that a cease fire may (or may not) be dawning over Gaza. Apparently, even if it is, it will be between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Hamas announced that it will not submit to a permanent truce. But if Nicholas Sarkozy, the prime broker in the arrangement, and Hosni Mubarak, who has also played a constructive role (and one very hostile to Hamas) since the fighting began, are to be believed, the terms of the truce assure that the jihadists will be kept from both shelling and rearming. These are Angela Merkel’s terms, as well.
See here for the rest of the article.
In the second, Bernard-Henri Levy argues that the Palestinian people will face a number of serious choices on the “day after.” They will have to decide whether they want to negotiate with Israel or whether they want to keep on with senseless fighting trying to destroy their neighbors. An excerpt:
Either Hamas leaders re-establish the truce that they broke, and, while they’re at it, declare null and void a charter founded on the pure rejection of the “Zionist Entity”: In doing so, they will rejoin the vast party for compromise that has not ceased–God be praised–to make progress in the region, and peace will be established. Or they will only, obstinately, consider the suffering of Palestinian civilians in terms of its fueling of their annealed passions, their insane hate, nihilistic, beyond words. And if that is the case, it is not only the Israelis, but the Palestinians, who will need to be liberated from Hamas’ somber shadow.
For more, see here.
Like
