(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
America's Role in the Asymmetry of Middle East Warfare [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2023-11-06
The intricate web of international relations spins a narrative that repeatedly confronts us with the conundrum of military assistance and the sale of arms to nations embroiled in conflict. At the forefront of this contemporary saga stands the United States' administration, currently presided over by President Biden, which finds itself ensnared in the enduring debate over military support to Israel. What's at stake here is not merely the geopolitical chess game of the Middle East, but rather the flesh-and-blood consequences that such aid implies—particularly when the scene has been stained with the blood of civilians in the conflict-torn canvases of the region.
At the core of the discourse lies a stark, disquieting truth: American-supplied weaponry has been deployed in offensives that have caused considerable destruction to civilian infrastructure in Gaza—ravaging schools, hospitals, and homes alike. The ethical labyrinth is intricate, peppered with questions of moral complicity, the legalities of warfare, and the defenses posited by the Israeli government in its countermeasures against Hamas.
Peeling back the cold veneer of numbers, we confront a harrowing human tragedy. Live updates from outlets like Al Jazeera reveal a toll that chills the blood: 10,000 Palestinian and at least 1,405 Israeli lives extinguished, a count that mournfully includes children. Reports from the United Nations echo this lament, tallying over 10,000 lives lost in Gaza amidst heightening hostility. Data from the Gaza Health Ministry is particularly heart-wrenching, signaling over 8,000 Palestinian fatalities with a substantial portion being innocent women, elderly and little children.
This imbalance in casualties highlights the asymmetrical nature of the conflict. Israel's military sophistication, the densely inhabited locales of Gaza, and the guerrilla tactics of Hamas have all played their part in this discrepancy. The loss of youthful lives amplifies the critical need to revisit the ethics of military support in such turbulent theatres of war.
The original circumstances that ignited the ongoing conflict, involving attacks on Israeli soil resulting in the tragic loss of lives, are deeply distressing and deserving of unequivocal condemnation. The grief that follows the loss of 1,400 Israeli lives is profound and touches a raw nerve in the collective consciousness, with civilians having borne the majority of this suffering.
However, it is essential to contend with the subsequent trajectory of the conflict which has witnessed an alarming escalation, culminating in a significant number of Palestinian casualties, including countless non-combatants – men, women, children, and the elderly. This extensive loss of life, particularly among those with no part in the hostilities, is a grave and unforgivable affront to humanitarian norms and moral conscience.
The perpetuation of violence, especially when it appears to be a retaliatory act, must be scrutinized through a lens that sees beyond the immediate reprisal and considers the broader human cost. When retribution results in such a stark toll on civilian life, it transgresses the bounds of what many might consider acceptable or justifiable under any ethos.
In light of these circumstances, the United States’ role in providing military support to any nation engaged in what could be characterized as indiscriminate or disproportionate retaliation raises serious ethical questions. It is a position that warrants introspection about America's involvement and the implications of its actions. If indeed the assistance rendered contributes, even inadvertently, to the continuation of a cycle of violence that ensnares the innocent, then it would be prudent to reconsider such alliances and the conditions under which support is given.
It is a fundamental moral imperative for any nation, especially one with the global standing of the United States, to ensure that its resources are not implicated in actions that could be interpreted as contributing to the tragedy of civilian casualties or the escalation of conflict. The principles of humanity and justice must prevail in guiding decisions on foreign aid and arms sales, affirming a commitment to peace and the protection of all lives, irrespective of the complexities of international politics.
In Gaza, the humanitarian canvas is bleak. United Nations officials have shone light on the extreme deprivation, painting a picture of residents who survive on no more than the equivalent of two slices of bread a day. Vital infrastructures, the sinews of modern life—healthcare, water sanitation, communication—are either disrupted or decimated. This collapse of services in our interconnected era throws into stark relief the fragility of life in the crosshairs of conflict.
The tremors of this strife reverberate, spilling over Gaza's borders into Lebanon, shaking the already unstable grounds of East Jerusalem—a region still shadowed by the legacies of the 1967 Mideast war. The smoldering embers of that history threaten to ignite anew amidst current conflicts.
Yet, amidst the rubble, we witness gestures of humanity: Jordanian aircraft dispensing medical supplies, Egyptian convoys delivering provisions, and the perilous movement of the wounded and vulnerable out of harm's way. Such endeavors, while crucial, represent fleeting solace in the protracted narrative of conflict. What boggles the mind to me is while these nations are helping civilians to find health and security our own United States of America, land of the free is supplying weapons like a common gun runner, smuggler or illegal arms dealer to murder those same civilian populations. I am appalled and ashamed.
Further, the conduct of this war has not eluded global scrutiny and criticism. Israeli assertions of pinpointing Hamas figures and infrastructure are juxtaposed against the palpable loss of civilian life and the razing of non-military structures. In other words it's a big lie.
The proposed unethical and immoral arms deal by the Biden administration to Israel has, therefore, come under severe examination. The deal, amounting to $735 million in precision-guided weaponries, was presented to Congress for review—a mandated step. Yet, given the historical bipartisan favor towards Israel in U.S. halls of power, the likelihood of Congress blocking this sale is slim, even in the shadow of escalating violence and the murdering of innocent civilians.
This arms transaction propels to the forefront a tapestry of ethical, strategic, and humanitarian concerns. Weapons, as extensions of foreign policy, carry connotations that stretch well beyond their immediate martial purpose. They are emblematic of a nation's geopolitical posture and its stake in international skirmishes. The congressional review, though largely a formality, echoes the moral and legal onus resting on nations that engage in the trade of arms.
In essence, the decision by the Biden administration concerning military aid to Israel transcends the conventional boundaries of diplomacy or military tactics; it is inextricably linked to the principles of international humanitarian law and the ethical obligations of states. As decision-makers in Washington mull over the trajectory of U.S.-Israel ties, their deliberations unfold against a tapestry that is profoundly human—a tapestry woven with the lives of thousands and that continues to etch the geopolitical contours of the Middle East.
The ongoing developments in Gaza and the broader ramifications of the U.S. arms deal with Israel will undeniably serve as a litmus test of the Biden administration's allegiance to human rights and its acumen in maintaining the intricate equipoise of international affairs. As the global audience watches in horror, the verdict rendered in Washington will echo beyond the marbled corridors of Congress or the borders of the United States, influencing the lives of millions in the Middle East and potentially establishing benchmarks for international conduct in the theater of global conflicts.
In conclusion, the denouement of such deliberations around military aid and arms sales, particularly as they pertain to zones where the architecture of peace is perennially fragile, there rests an undercurrent of thought that calls for a more radical reevaluation of a nation's role on the international stage. The United States, with its considerable influence and prowess, stands at a crossroads where it must decide not only the nature of its foreign policy but also the ethical and moral framework that underpins it.
There is a growing chorus that argues for America to relinquish its role as an arms dealer to the world's conflict zones—a move that would signal a shift towards a foreign policy that promotes and protects democratic freedoms without the exchange of currency for arms. Such a stance would mark a departure from a practice that, to some, mirrors the clandestine transactions of an illegal arms trader rather than a beacon of democratic values. It would be an assertion that influence should not be brokered through the barrel of a gun and that the tools of war should not be commodities traded for profit or geopolitical leverage.
Envision, then, a policy where America's intervention in global affairs, particularly where the thread of democracy is thin and fraying, is conducted solely through the provision of support—support given not as a transaction, but as a gesture of solidarity with those striving for self-determination, liberty, and the safeguarding of human rights. Imagine a policy that sees arms not as goods for sale, but as somber instruments to be offered only in the most dire of circumstances and even then, as gifts aimed at defending democratic freedoms, not as fuel for the fires of conflict.
Such an approach would not be without its complexities or challenges. It would require a nuanced understanding of the global landscape and an unwavering commitment to the principles of national sovereignty and the universal rights that form the bedrock of democratic societies. It would necessitate a form of diplomatic engagement that is proactive, that builds alliances and fosters international cooperation on the basis of shared values and mutual respect.
To pivot away from the arms trade is to make a bold statement about the character of a nation. It is to choose to be seen not as a merchant of death but as an arbiter of peace. It is to embrace a doctrine that says the worth of a nation lies not in its ability to supply the machinery of war, but in its capacity to cultivate the seeds of peace and democracy. Such a policy would reflect a commitment to integrity, decency, and the moral values that should be the hallmark of international relations.
As the United States confronts the intricate dilemmas posed by its involvement in regions like the Middle East, the path it chooses will reverberate through the annals of history. To opt out of the arms dealing enterprise is to embark on a path less traveled—a path that demands courage and conviction, that seeks to align power with principle. This is the challenge and the opportunity that lies before America: to redefine strength not by the might of its arsenal but by the moral force of its actions. In the quest for a world where democratic freedoms are the norm rather than the exception, such a pivot could be America's most profound legacy—an emblem of leadership in a world yearning for peace and freedom.
Sources:
For general information on US military aid to Israel:
Wikipedia on US support for Israel: en.wikipedia.org
For details on the civilian casualties and the humanitarian impact of the Israel-Gaza conflict:
United Nations News: news.un.org
Associated Press News: apnews.com
For information regarding the US precision-guided weapons sale to Israel:
Reuters: www.reuters.com
The Hill: thehill.com
Army Technology: www.army-technology.com
POLITICO: www.politico.com
You can visit these websites and use their search functions to find the specific articles or information you're looking for.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/11/6/2204060/--America-s-Role-in-the-Asymmetry-of-Middle-East-Warfare?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=latest_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
