The Garden

Somewhere back in my grade-school basketball days, I once heard the line that the best defense is a good offense…or was it that the best offense is a good defense? Eh, I guess it doesn’t really matter much in the long run. Regardless of which one turns out to be true, I think the main idea behind both phrases is that the differences between “offense” and “defense” can be blurry at best, if not outright nonexistent. Nowhere has this been more obvious to me than in the popular characterization of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I am no expert on the Middle East, but the tried-and-true position on the Isael-Palestine conflict portrayed by U.S. officials and media pundits has been “Israel has a right to defend itself.” I have been hearing this for years, and heard it often throughout the Bush administration years. United States policy has been immensely supportive of Israel over the years, delivering billions of taxpayer dollars to the country annually.

Now, as I’ve listened to the phrase “Israel has a right to defend itself” over and over again, I couldn’t help but balance this idea of “defense” with some of the statistics coming out describing the resulting “defense”-related carnage. For example, democracynow.org reported last week that the recent 22-day conflict in Gaza resulted in the death of over 1,400 Palestinians, most of whom were civilians, and a third of whom were children. The same conflict resulted in the death of 13 Israelis, ten of whom were soldiers—four of whom were killed by Israeli friendly fire. So, if we accept the popular interpretation of this conflict, Palestine’s “offense” resulted in 13 Israeli deaths, whereas Israel’s “defense” amassed 1,400 deaths. Put another way, for every “offensive” kill perpetrated by Palestinians, Israelis killed approximately 107 Palestinians in “defense.” More concisely, 13 kills = “offense”; 1,400 kills = “defense.” Perhaps the best defense really is a good offense after all.

I suppose I should tell you that I never did make the high school basketball team. Perhaps this means that I never quite embraced, or much less understood, the notion that “defense” really means “offense,” or vice versa. I tend to like it better when words mean one and the same thing all the time. For some reason, I just find it problematic when a word really means its opposite. Maybe that’s why I would make a lousy politician or lawyer. But it’s particularly problematic for me when the massive slaughter of innocent civilians is colored as anything but what it is—an intolerable act of violent aggression. To describe the violent killing of 1,400 people as an act of “defense” is not only intellectually dishonest in my opinion, but a betrayal of human decency. No matter how many times Israeli supporters extol the merits of “defensive” killing, I will continue to interpret the slaughter of thousands as nothing other than “offensive.”

To make matters worse, our beloved new President Obama, slick politician that he is, has already demonstrated that he too likes to reverse the meaning of words. And I’m not only referring to the word “change.”

On Januray 22, after the 1,400 Palestinians were already killed by Israeli forces, President Obama spoke about the Middle East conflict in Gaza and made the following statement.

“Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats.”

Well, there it is again: Israel’s right to defend itself. Obama, the man of “change,” apparently sees this conflict no differently from the previous administration. I guess the best way to change is to stay the course?

In an interview on Democracy Now! this past Friday, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky stated that President Obama’s stance on the Gaza situation is “approximately the Bush position.” Chomsky went on to agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, but interestingly qualified this by adding that Israel does not have the right to defend itself by force. Now that’s a different way of looking at it! Instead of killing 1,400 people in “defense,” why not defend yourself without going on the offensive? Chomsky suggested that “Israel can defend itself by stopping its crimes,” and later added that by stopping the crimes, “resistance to them will stop.” I don’t know how well Chomsky’s suggestion would work, but I must say that I’m at least pleased with the idea that I’m not alone in thinking that the best defense isn’t really the best offense. From now on, how about we say that the best defense is the best defense, and the best offense is the best offense? That way, when thousands are slaughtered somewhere, we won’t just assume it’s okay because it was all in self-“defense.”

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 25th, 2009 at 18:38 and is filed under Ranger News Editorials. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.