More Reasonableness of State Terrorism versus

0
41

Is the U.S. government sponsorship militarily and economically of the Israel government’s terrorization of a nation of people more reasonable from an humanitarian standpoint than the U.S. government’s non-sponsorship militarily and economically of the Israel government’s terrorization of a nation of people?

Situation: In order to establish a land buffer for its country, the Israel government has militarily occupied Palestine with the intent of politically taking it over. To carry out its occupation and eventual overthrow of the Palestine government, the Israel government has resorted to terrorization of the people and leaders of Palestine in the form of overnight military raids, assassination of leaders, international marketing of propaganda against Palestinians, military checkpoints throughout the occupied lands, physical fragmentation of the occupied lands by using concrete barriers, attacks and patrols using fighter jets, helicopter gunships, and tanks, curfews, restrictions on trade in the occupied lands, bans on certain groups, and dilution and division of the Palestine population through Israeli settlements in Palestine. In retaliation out of a need to defend their homeland and very existence, several resistance groups from Palestine and Lebanon have emerged to respond military, in the form of bombings, suicide attacks, and assassination of Israeli leaders, to the aggressions by the Israel government, while other groups and individuals have emerged to inform the world of the unjust, inhuman occupation.

While not directly involved in the occupation, the U.S. government supplies economic aid and military equipment including fighter jets, helicopter gunships, and tanks to the Israel government (total of 5.5 billion in U.S. economic and military aid to Israel in 1997) [1], and defends the occupation by ignoring or downplaying the actions of the Israel government in the occupied lands, labeling the retaliatory responses by resistance groups as terrorist, putting diplomatic and economic pressure on the leaders of Palestine to give in to the occupation, and paradoxically proposing a Palestinian state if the Palestinians and Israelis stop their conflict for a sustained period of time.

The U.S. government considers the Israel government an ally.

Palestine itself poses minimal threat to the survival of Israel and the United States.

The basis for the determination is the well-being of humanity from the choices of either the U.S. government’s sponsorship of the Israel government’s terrorization of Palestine or the U.S. government’s non-sponsorship of the Israel government’s terrorization of Palestine.

The well-being of humanity refers to what is in the best interests of the human species’ survival.

Non-contradiction:

Sponsorship of state terrorism:

1.       The U.S. government sponsorship of state terrorism establishes a precedence that state terrorism is acceptable.

2.       By the U.S. government supporting economically and militarily the terrorist actions of the Israel government, the U.S. government is not only complicit in the act of terrorism by the Israel government, but condones terrorism as a form of warfare.

2.1   The Israel government’s terrorization of the people of Palestine, which the U.S. government’s supports, is an act of disrespect for human life, whereby the suffering of other human beings is known to the perpetrators of the suffering, but does not matter to them. (Viz., self-interest precedes collective interest.)

2.2   The U.S. government support for the Israel government’s terrorization of the people of Palestine is a support for self-interest at the expense of human life.

3.       The U.S. government’s support of terrorism shows a complete disregard for humanitarian and legal norms, thereby establishes a dangerous precedence for other governments, organizations, and individuals.

4.       By the U.S. government supplying military weaponry to the Israel government for its occupation, the U.S. government is encouraging the proliferation of lethal arms. (Viz., spreading lethal arms, and providing grounds for their use.)

5.       The notion of warfare as a necessary regulation of the human species’ population, appears close to obsolete, due to advancement in lethal arms and their diversity viz., chemical, biological, nuclear, conventional, and space arms, and the increasing trickle down of lethal arms and their technology to smaller countries, organizations, and individuals.

6.       Due to the interconnectedness of things, the terrorization of the people of Palestine will likely continue to result in retaliatory responses to the Israel government, and the U.S. government–its supplier of military and economic aid viz., the conflict will likely continue the cycle of violence, which acts as a drain on the energy of humanity like a wound that is continually rewound, thereby instead of healing, it only gets larger and increases the likelihood of infection.

7.       State terrorism establishes the rule of brute power over civilized power, which can only lead to a world of human conflict instead of human cooperation.

8.       Human conflict in terms of warfare is not necessary because there are enough challenges to human survival viz., malnutrition, illiteracy, civil conflict, conflict with nature in the form of diseases and viruses, natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, floods etc., human caused disasters like ozone depletion, global warming, coral bleaching, deforestation, large-scale water and air pollution, and human alteration of nature through genetic engineering.

 

Non-sponsorship of state terrorism:

1.       From the standpoint of strength through struggle, the U.S. government’s support of the Israeli occupation, encourages conflict between Israel and Palestine, thereby gives both countries and the individuals who make them up an opportunity to strengthen.

2.       Warfare even in the form of terrorism is a natural part of the human species, which helps to strengthen the species by eliminating weaknesses in it, and regulating its population.

3.       State terrorism demonstrates the resiliency of countries to deal with threats to them, or the determination of countries to advance their interests irrespective of morality and law. In other words, state terrorism establishes the staying power of countries to avoid being constrained by morality and law, thereby the staying power of humanity. (The focal point of humanity is not countries because they are fabricated constructs. Also, it can be argued that countries are a major hindrance to humanity because they divide it, instead of uniting humanity in a collective struggle to survive.)

3.1   Without state terrorism, countries would limit their response to threats, thus make their existence less secure.

Non-ambiguity:

Sponsorship of state terrorism:

There is no relevant ambiguity.

 

Non-sponsorship of state terrorism:

1.       It is unclear whether or not Israel and Palestine need the struggle from their conflict to strengthen, or will strengthen overall from their conflict.

Non-incompleteness:

Sponsorship of state terrorism:

1.       It is unknown to what extent the Israel government’s state terrorism will lead to the proliferation of arms.

2.       It is unknown the extent of resistance to the Israel government’s state terrorism. 

2.1   It is unknown how future resistance to the Israel government’s state terrorism will manifest itself.

3.       Though there are a lot of challenges to human existence than warfare, it is unknown whether these other challenges with advances in the medical sciences and technology, will be enough to regulate the species’ population.

 

Non-sponsorship of state terrorism:

1.       It is unknown whether the non-option of state terrorism would make a country less secure than if it did have the option.

Determination of comparative reasonableness

Since the survival of countries is not necessarily tied to the survival of humanity viz., the existence of countries is not a necessary condition for the survival of humanity (Non-sponsorship of state terrorism, point 3), this determination is centered around what impact state terrorism in the context of the U.S. government economically and militarily sponsoring the Israel government’s terrorism, will have on the well-being of humanity. We see that the U.S. government’s support of state terrorism will lead to the proliferation of arms (Sponsorship of state terrorism, point 4), continued cycle of violence (Sponsorship of state terrorism, point 6), a dangerous precedence of brute power over civilized power (Sponsorship of state terrorism, point 7), self-interest over collective interest (Sponsorship of state terrorism, point 2.1), self-interest over wanton loss of human life (Sponsorship of state terrorism, points 2.1, 2.2), and the acceptability of state terrorism over non-acceptability of state terrorism. (Sponsorship of state terrorism, point 1) All these consequences of the U.S. government’s sponsorship of state terrorism will have negation repercussions on the well-being of humanity.

In contrast, there are arguments that warfare including state terrorism is necessary to regulate the human species’ population (Non-sponsorship of state terrorism, point 2), and Israel and Palestine will both strengthen from their conflict. (Non-sponsorship of state terrorism, point 1) However, with advancement in lethal weaponry and its proliferation, it is highly questionable that warfare benefits humanity especially in consideration of the other challenges like natural disasters and diseases and viruses which the human species faces. (Sponsorship of state terrorism, point 8) Similarly, it is highly questionable that Israel and Palestine will strengthen from their conflict, when it will likely lead to a perpetual cycle of violence, so that the conflict will become an increasing drain on the energy of Israel  and Palestine, and on humanity as well. (Sponsorship of state terrorism, point 6)

Therefore, based on the negative effects of state terrorism on humanity outweighing the questionable positive effects of state terrorism on humanity, it is more reasonable that the U.S. government’s non-sponsorship of the Israel government’s  terrorism is better for the well-being of humanity than the U.S. government’s sponsorship of the Israel government’s terrorism.

(It should be pointed out that though it is uncertain regarding the nature of future resistance to the Israel government’s state terrorism, the level of proliferation of arms stemming from the state terrorism, and the ability of other challenges to regulate the human species’ population, it is not in question that resistance to the Israel government’s state terrorism will continue, the proliferation of arms will be a consequence of the U.S. government’s sponsorship of the Israel government’s state terrorism, and advancement of lethal weaponry and their proliferation makes warfare unviable viz., warfare has become more of a danger to humanity than a benefit to humanity. Clearly, other means of population control like contraception will have to be relied upon.)

Note:

[1] Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, “Aid to Israel” (Several articles), October 14, 2002

Mr. Stephen Garvey is a philosopher and writer, and publisher for Inexpressible Publications who resides in Canada.

Buy Stephen Garvey’s book (s) now:

Beyond Weakness by Stephen Garvey (Preface)

Why I Am Right : A Philosophical Investigation of Consciousness

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.