Thursday, October 25, 2007
Morality in counterinsurgency: Coercing the desperate
Humans rights NGOs have their panties in knots over the Israelis pressuring sick Palestinians to rat on the militants in their midst:
Human rights groups charge that Hiyya's case is one of nearly a dozen they've documented in which Israelis allegedly have tried to recruit ailing Palestinians as informers in the low-intensity war with the militant Islamic group Hamas .
Since Hamas won control of Gaza in a mid-June military rout of its rival, the secular group Fatah , Israel has worked to isolate the coastal strip and its 1.5 million residents. About the only people allowed out of Gaza these days are Palestinians who need emergency medical care.
Now, the rights groups charge, Israel is trying to turn them into collaborators.
"To prey on the most vulnerable is not only unlawful, it's also despicable,"
said Fred Abrahams , a researcher at Human Rights Watch who documented some of the Gaza cases. "It's a slow tightening of the noose, and people are dying."
I'm going to climb way out on a moral limb here and say that Fred Abrahams is wrong, at least about the morality of the matter. Coercion such as this is the stock and trade of any effective counterinsurgency, whether or not "international law" as interpreted by a left-wing NGO permits it.
Palestinian "militants" -- guerrillas, really -- are waging a war against Israel from behind an involuntary human shield of Palestinian noncombatants. The noncombatant Palestinians cannot inform on the guerrillas within their midst, because the insurgency will punish them, usually with death. Without information, the Israelis must choose between absorbing militant attacks without retaliation -- an unacceptable result for any state -- or killing the noncombatants that unwillingly provide camouflage and cover for the insurgency.
In order to avoid either of these terrible results -- non-retaliation or massive civilian casualties on account of retaliation -- the Israelis need intelligence. They are only going to get this intelligence from Palestinians who decide they are more afraid of the Israelis than they are of the militants. Because Islamic militants are so unbelievably brutal (as they have demonstrated time and again), it is understandable that there are very few Palestinians who are more afraid of the Israelis than they are of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other extremists of their ilk.
The Israelis have, however, a few things that some Palestinians want or need so much that they are willing to risk punishment by the insurgency. Israel's ability to deliver life-saving top-shelf medical care occasionally puts it in the position to coerce as effectively as Hamas, even if the coercion is expressed as an offer to rescue rather than a threat to kill. The Israelis are not saying -- as the Palestinian insurgents do -- "cooperate or we will kill you." They are, however, saying "if you want us to save your life you need to cooperate with us." It is the difference between threatening to drown a man who does not do what you want, and refusing to rescue an already drowning man unless he does what you want. Is it hardball? Absolutely. But no form of war forces more personal moral decisions about individuals than counterinsurgency. Indeed, given the choices available to the Israelis, hardball in the gathering of intelligence is the most humane course of action among brutal alternatives.
For more on coercion and intelligence in counterinsurgency, you might take a look at this post of mine from last summer.
As always, confirming or dissenting comments are more than welcome.
17 Comments:
By 
James, at
Thu Oct 25, 03:35:00 PM:
Off hand, it does seem despicable, to not treat a man because he won't rat out his brother. But on the other hand, how can one be expected to treat AND return a man to his home when one knows that he will provide aid and comfort to one's mortal enemies at the first opportunity?
It seems that Israel is the only country internationally asked to commit suicide.
By 
, at
Thu Oct 25, 04:47:00 PM:
"It is the difference between threatening to drown a man who does not do what you want, and refusing to rescue an already drowning man unless he does what you want."
In the first case, you may or may not drown the man, in which case he may or may not live. In the second case, the man will definitely drown if you do not act. Do you honestly think the second is morally "better"? That is a very strange kind of reasoning.
You also appear to have missed the point of the particular case cited. The individual was not asking for treatment in Israel, he was only trying to get to the West Bank - another part of his own country. Perhaps you should read the HRW release (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/10/20/isrlpa17139.htm) and then return to the topic.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Oct 25, 05:19:00 PM:
TH was only offering an example to illustrate how Israel con coerce people effectively without resorting to barbarities. I assure you, he's perfectly literate.
"Do you honestly think the second is morally "better"? That is a very strange kind of reasoning."
What, you don't think that it's worse to, say, set someone on fire than to offer to rescue them from a fire someone else set in return for a promise?
In one case you're committing murder. In another, you're offering service for a price. One is criminal, the other mercenary.
But hey, if you think actively drowning someone is the better choice, more power to you. I'm sure Hamas has job openings.
By , at
Thu Oct 25, 05:29:00 PM:
"What, you don't think that it's worse to, say, set someone on fire than to offer to rescue them from a fire someone else set in return for a promise?"
Say what now? Did a bad guy put a hole in Yasser Hiyya's heart? Quick, Dawnfire - not only are you pioneering a new morality, but a new medicine as well! Nobody "set a fire" - he just has a hole in his heart - and given that all that he was trying to do was get to a hospital, your analogy is weak.
It's even weaker because the choice offered by TigerHawk was not that choice. He talked about threatening to drown a man who does not do what you want, not actually drowning them. I'm fairly sure the distinction was lost on you.
"In one case you're committing murder. In another, you're offering service for a price. One is criminal, the other mercenary."
A mercenary act can also be a criminal act. And as I've now pointed out three times, in the instance cited in the article, he wasn't asking them for any service; he was simply trying to go to another part of his country.
What a strange little world you live in, and how little you value the lives of others. If you tried to go to hospital to get treatment for a heart condition, and the police stopped you unless you gave up some information about your criminal brother, I'm pretty certain that you'd scream bloody murder. Right up until you dropped on the spot from a massive coronary, of course.
By wretchardthecat, at
Thu Oct 25, 06:05:00 PM:
I believe a Palestinian can leave Gaza through the Rafah crossing. Holders of a Palestinian Authority passport can have a transit visa for 72 hours.
People from Gaza do seek treatment medical treatment in Egypt. For example, when the Rafah crossing was closed in 2006, hundreds of returning patients were stranded in Egypt, and presumably hundreds more headed the other way.
Yasser Hiyya is not being absolutely denied medical treatment. He is more accurately being denied medical treatment at any facility which requires that he transit Israel.
But the legal and moral question is why should anyone be denied treatment in "his own country"? I will leave that question for the nternational legal scholars to decide. And more generally, why should there be any restrictions on a citizen's travel anywhere within his "country"? The case for recreational travel between the West Bank and Gaza seems as strong as medical travel. Americans don't require another country's permission to travel to Hawaii to chill out. Why should Palestinians require to give any reason to go enter the West Bank?
But there's another factor which legal scholars may wish to examine. Does Israel have a compelling public interest in being able to choose who does, or does not transit Israel? Apparently, there have been instances where Palestinians traveling for medical treatment have been used as suicide bombers. It seems to me that Israel does have a compelling right to national self defense. Since Yasser Hiyya is not just anyone, but a person related to a highly placed enemy of Israel, there is some argument to be made for considering him a security risk.
However it may be objected that Israel controls the West Bank borders even through Jordan. No passage through that way either.
Ultimately the problem arises from the fact that Israel and Palestinian political entity are in a quasi state of war. Transit between the two parts of Palestine will be problematic for as long as this quasi state of war exists.
Lastly, I would pose the thought experiment of whether, if the shoe were on the other foot, the Palestinian Authority ought to be compelled by International Law to allow the passage of a retired Israeli intelligence officer to a hospital only accessible through Gaza.
My own thinking in this matter is that it is a human tragedy. Yasser Hiyya may have not have the money to travel to Egypt or elsewhere for an operation, but his well connected, wanted brother probably has the juice to get him treated adequately on the West Bank. The Israelis are playing George Smiley to the Palestinian's Karla. We know what Karla would do. But not all of us accept that Smiley should act in the same way.
"an unholy vertigo seized him as the very evil he had fought against seemed to reach out and posses him and claim him despite his striving, calling him a traitor also; mocking him, yet at the same time applauding his betrayal. On Karla had descended the curse of Smiley’s compassion; on Smiley the curse of Karla’s fanaticism. I have destroyed him with the weapons I abhorred, and they are his. We have crossed each other’s frontiers, we are the no-men of this no-man’s-land. . . . he did not want these spoils, won by these methods. ... They exchanged one more glance and perhaps each for that second did see in the other something of himself. . . . Smiley . . . stepped quickly out of the halo, passing very close to Ann’s lighter on his way. It lay at the halo’s very edge, tilted slightly, glinting like fool’s gold on the cobble. He thought of picking it up, but somehow there seemed no point and no one else appeared to have seen it"
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Oct 25, 08:58:00 PM:
What a strange little world you live in, and how little you value the lives of others. If you tried to go to hospital to get treatment for a heart condition, and the police stopped you unless you gave up some information about your criminal brother, I'm pretty certain that you'd scream bloody murder. Right up until you dropped on the spot from a massive coronary, of course.
The analogy fails, of course, because intelligence gathering in war and the investigation or deterrance of crimes are entirely different things, both in law and morality. For starters, culpability (as opposed to apparent identity as a combatant) is irrelevant in war, and all the difference in the enforcement of criminal law.
By , at
Thu Oct 25, 11:05:00 PM:
Israel is in a fight to the death with an enemy who's made their intentions all too clear. It's easy to assume the high ground from the sidelines, but at the end of the day, it's Hamas actions that have prevented easier transit for the ordinary citizens that voted them into office.
By Gary Rosen, at
Fri Oct 26, 02:31:00 AM:
Did HRW get all hot and bothered when Hamas threw its Arab political opponents off of buildings? Or when the Palestinians sent a *retarded teenage kid* out as a suicide bomber? No, they're jim-dandy with any bloody human rights atrocity in the Middle East as long as they can't blame it on the Joooos.
By , at
Fri Oct 26, 08:04:00 AM:
Tigerhawk: But your analogy about a drowning man succeeds? That's an incredibly weak argument; the situations are clearly comparable, otherwise your own analogy of the drowning man fails in exactly the same way. Military or civilian, the law is clear - people have the right to medical treatment regardless of their status, unless they are combatants - and even then they have that right as soon as their weapons are laid down.
By , at
Fri Oct 26, 08:05:00 AM:
Iowa_John:
That is a wholly fallacious argument on three counts. First, you have no idea how the individuals in question voted, or even if they voted - in fact, you don't know if they support Hamas at all. Second, Palestinians can cross into Israel, so its clearly not Hamas that is preventing these particular cases from making that crossing. Third, if you acknowledge that they are ordinary citizens - not "terrorists" - then there are no substantial grounds for stopping them from crossing in order to receive medical attention.
Luckily the Israeli authorities agree with me, since following approaches from Physicians for Human Rights, they have reversed their decision (http://www.phr.org.il/phr/article.asp?articleid=494&catid=55&pcat=-1&lang=ENG). That's what I truly respect about Israel; despite the horrific and complex situation the country is in, it still maintains its democratic principles.
By , at
Fri Oct 26, 08:05:00 AM:
Gary Rosen: Yes, they did get "hot and bothered".
Following Hamas throwing their opponents off buildings, HRW said this: "These attacks by both Hamas and Fatah constitute brutal assaults on the most fundamental humanitarian principles. The murder of civilians not engaged in hostilities and the willful killing of captives are war crimes, pure and simple." (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/06/13/isrlpa16156.htm)
Following the Husam Abdu incident (and a spate of other teenage suicide bombings), HRW said this: "Any attack on civilians is prohibited by international law, but using children for suicide attacks is particularly egregious. Palestinian armed groups must clearly and publicly condemn all use of children under the age of 18 for military activities, and make sure these policies are carried out." (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/02/isrlpa9591.htm).
I think we can agree that Hamas's actions and the use of children as suicide bombers is morally indefensible and absolutely foul. However could we also agree that maybe you should read what HRW actually publishes before saying things that are clearly false about them?
By Habu, at
Fri Oct 26, 10:14:00 AM:
Israel isn’t the only one in peril.
David Horowitz had been booed offstage at Emory University during his lecture on Islamofascist Awareness Week. This apparently is the rule not the exception, as campus police stand by, video cameras in hand, and ignoring the right of free speech. Somehow I missed the amendment that mentioned videotaping trumping enforcement of the Constitution. What a useless waste of money the campus police are.
I posted a piece on another site on just how our prisons are being turned into recruiting stations for radical Islam Some asked what we could do. There are of course a myriad of things that could be done, each ending up in front of the Supreme Court after years of adjudication. I am no authority on the “rights” of prisoners but common sense tells me if you’re in the big house your rights have been sharply abbreviated, up to a total abrogation of the Bill of Rights. Have prisoners serve time and break rocks and forget the rehabilitation mumbo jumbo that has proven itself a fool’s errand.
But the peril we face is real and growing and my question is where are the thugs on the right to counter those on the left? View this piece from Zombie Times http://www.zombietime.com/darwish_berkeley/ … which displays pictures of what happened at Berkeley during the night the Islamofascist Awareness Week speaker was due to speak? I understand we’re talking about Berkeley in this case so having a contra force to the leftists’ is moot. But what of other campuses and areas?
During the Vietnam War protest at the University of Florida, I went. I was in the Marine OCS program I went to the protest to make life physically uncomfortable for many a protestor. My back was covered by a few other Marines and several Green Beret reservists. We even tracked a few of the harder to get to loudmouths, ‘cause everybody ends up somewhere when the sun goes down.
It is time for action by the right. There is no peace, nor is there any dialogue worthy of the name, there is only action left for resolving this Islamic threat. If we continue to allow the leftists’ factions to rule the podiums and what few forums left for discussion then we will lose, just as we did inside this country with Vietnam. The difference now is that Islamofascists have infiltrated our country with the objective of all Islam….to kill all infidels…Osama BL issued a fatwa two years ago for Muslims to specifically kill Americans.
Prepare yourselves in small groups of three, perhaps four and begin an offensive. Do not join a militia or large group. The ways and means are out there. There are many ,many former servicemen who could supply the know how and if not the internet is awash with the information needed for counterinsurgency operations. Believe me the police, FBI, et. al. can not get the job done. Buy a gun and learn to use it. Have an abundance of ammunition. People, this is ratcheting up beyond mere words. There is genuine danger here right now.
If all this sounds a bit too radical then a deeper study of Islam is before you.
Or are we to simply “trust” but never verify. We are a fat nation of soft people who today are ripe for the picking. Act now for,
“There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.” Wm Shakespeare.
By , at
Fri Oct 26, 01:40:00 PM:
Merkur,
1- I never said the individuals in question supported/didn't support Hamas. I made a general point about the Hamas government making life difficult for the average citizen. The issue you bring up of whether these particular people voted for Hamas or not is a red herring. On a practical level, Hamas is in control of the area and needs to be guarded against. Continuing on that level-any Palestinian who successfully asserted non-terrorist bonafides would put themselves in immediate peril from their fellow citizens who would suspect them of collaboration.
2- So Hamas' continued rocketing and attempts to murder Israeli civilians has nothing to do with how difficult the border crossing needs to be? Nothing at all?
3- That's the thing-the man in question is not an ordinary citizen. He's the relative of a sworn enemy of Israel. It's unfortunate that he's in the position he's in, but his brother's embrace of terror went a long way to putting him in this situation.
For that matter, in any counter-insurgency, there is no such thing as an ordinary citizen as the continued slaughter of Israeli citizens has made entirely clear. Hamas, Islamic Jihad et al have chosen the path of terrorism and existing outside the rules of war. I'm sure Israel would be pleased to fight a conventional war against Hamas, but until that time it is insane to expect Israel to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules. Counter-insurgency leads to some tough choices and this is one of them.
By , at
Fri Oct 26, 02:15:00 PM:
"The issue you bring up of whether these particular people voted for Hamas or not is a red herring."
I agree. You said that "it's Hamas actions that have prevented easier transit for the ordinary citizens that voted them into office" but it has also prevented easier transit for the ordinary citizens that didn't vote them into office. The nature of the Hamas government is completely irrelevant to the point, which is that people are being denied medical treatment as a form of inducement, which is illegal under the laws of war and (apparently) Israeli domestic law.
"2- So Hamas' continued rocketing and attempts to murder Israeli civilians has nothing to do with how difficult the border crossing needs to be? Nothing at all?"
That depends on who you talk to, but luckily it's also irrelevant to this discussion. They're not being prevented from crossing the border because of security concerns, as the Israeli authorities have shown by reversing those decisions (see the link I provided above) after pressure from Israeli NGOs. So that plank of your argument is completely removed.
"3- That's the thing-the man in question is not an ordinary citizen. He's the relative of a sworn enemy of Israel. It's unfortunate that he's in the position he's in, but his brother's embrace of terror went a long way to putting him in this situation."
No, it didn't. The status of one's relatives is irrelevant in whether one should receive medical treatment. It is worth noting at this point that this is not an isolated incident - there is a pattern of ambulances being held up, often with fatal consequences (http://www.btselem.org/English/Medical_Treatment/Index.asp). What is novel is if this is being used as a means of coercion of innocent civilians to become informers.
"For that matter, in any counter-insurgency, there is no such thing as an ordinary citizen as the continued slaughter of Israeli citizens has made entirely clear."
Personally I object to the continued slaughter of Israeli citizens. The basis on which I object to that slaughter is that they are not combatants , and should therefore not be considered targets. You may find it bizarre, but I also believe the same about Palestinian citizens.
If you believe that there is no such thing as an ordinary citizen in a counter-insurgency, then you subscribe to the same argument that Hamas makes in justifying its attacks on civilians, and you lose any justification you might have for protesting against the continued slaughter of Israeli citizens.
"Hamas, Islamic Jihad et al have chosen the path of terrorism and existing outside the rules of war. I'm sure Israel would be pleased to fight a conventional war against Hamas, but until that time it is insane to expect Israel to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules."
Nobody expects them to fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules, but they do try to abide by the Geneva Conventions and for that I have a huge amount of respect.
By , at
Fri Oct 26, 03:40:00 PM:
Merkur,
Seems like we're talking past each other and I don't guess that I have much hope of changing your mind. That said, here goes
1- The nature of the Hamas government has everything to do with this point. Without Hamas terror, there is no problem. For example, Hamas could stop moving equipment and personnel by ambulance. My personal prediction is that Hamas and Islamic Jihad will use this decision to their advantage and Israel's cost.
2- According to your own link, the Israeli government reversed the decision "following concerted pressure and extensive exposure in local and international media" so it's hardly a decision made in a vacuum where only security issues were considered. To spell it out, your link reads that Israeli and other pressure groups got their way on this issue. Arguing, as you do, that this decision was made by Israeli government for purely security reasons ignores the pressure brought to bear by the sources that you cite.
In general, counterinsurgency is a balancing act-I'm sure the Israeli government weighed the actual security concerns that will be caused by this decision against the pressure from Israeli NGOs. The NGOs won and hopefully no one will be murdered by Hamas as a result.
3- I was more making a point about the reality on the ground in Israel with " in any counter-insurgency, there is no such thing as an ordinary citizen" I believe this to be true in practicality as opposed to any sort or moral sense. I could have been clearer on that point.
I look forward to the day when Hamas et al obey the laws of war rather then merely claim their protection. I find the targeting of civilians to be despicable but it's Hamas et al that set this chain of events in action.
In this particular case is Israel playing hardball with a civilian (assuming that he is, in fact, not a member of Hamas or Islamic Jihad? Absolutely. Is it morally questionable? You bet. I don't envy the members of Mossad or Shin Bet their duty.
The reality of war is that you can not fight it without getting dirty. Like you, I admire Israel for trying to stay clean in a dirty war.
By , at
Fri Oct 26, 03:59:00 PM:
3.40 comment was me-guess I forgot to sign in
Iowa_John
By , at
Sat Oct 27, 07:17:00 AM:
"Seems like we're talking past each other and I don't guess that I have much hope of changing your mind."
Let's get a couple of things straight. I am not disputing that Hamas and other groups have used medical evacuation as cover for terrorist activities. I am not disputing the right of Israel to establish stringent security measures, including checkpoints, in order to prevent this happening.
Luckily neither of these things are relevant in the case under discussion here. What is being claimed by human rights organisations is that the Israelis are using the denial of medical treatment to induce people who are not themselves suspected of terrorist activities into becoming informers, sometimes on their own families.
Tigerhawk and others here claim that this is acceptable. These human rights organisations (and myself) claim that is unacceptable. The Israeli authorities agree that is unacceptable, since they have reversed their decisions in a number of cases and denied that they implement such policies of coercion.
So it's not my mind that you have to change; it's the Israeli authorities. For the record, I should hopefully have made clear that I think that such coercive policies are unacceptable in any situation, including that of a counter-insurgency.
