"Any" thoughts

So here I go not being political.

One of those chants that I hear at protests regarding the conflict in the middle east (and this was something chanted, repeated and championed at a protest in the town where I live -- I can actually find the video if you don't believe me, but I'm requesting that you believe me so that I don't have to produce anything which will give oxygen to that hateful rhetoric) is the phrase "Freedom/resistance (or some other thing) by any means necessary."

I don't think people spend enought ime really thinking about that statement. In fact, I had someone challenge me online when I labeled a protest that used that language as "pro-Hamas." He insisted that the protest was "pro-Palestine" and not pro-Hamas and if it had been pro-Hamas, it would have been shut down and gotten much media coverage. I explained that the phrase "any means necessary" is implicitly (if not explicitly) pro-Hamas and gave the evidence. Unsurprisingly, the other person never responded to my show of facts.

Here's how I see it -- if you support the use of ANY means to achieve the end you desire, then you must condone the things that fall under the banner of "any." This would include (but is not limited to) murder, sexual violence, terrorism, invasion and then also a whole buch of really bad things. If you endorse those methods then you are endorsing the organization/movement that uses those "any means" to achieve your desired end. Thus, you are in favor of the groups that use those "any" means otherwise you would draw a line separting yourself from them.

"Any" is a troubling word here. Does the average protester really believe that using rape as a tool for liberation is a reasonable approach? Is using using human shields, or cynically operating out schools, mosques and hospitals an acceptable wartime strategy? Does that marcher think that it is reasonable to kill babies, kidnap the elderly and burn people in their houses in order to resist? Let's assume for just a moment that the opposition were actual combatants. The Geneva Convention still has rules about how to treat the enemy (and everyone loves to throw the Geneva Convention in Israel's face when trying to explain how it is guilty of one crime or another) so if a resistance force is practicing 'any menas necessary" even in the course of fighting an opposition's army, it is already running afoul of international war. But no one seems to mind, or remind them that resistance can't be by any means, if one wishes to remain remotely moral.

Then there's the other problem. This is the goose/gander angle. If Isael were to turn around and say, "ok, if we are playing by any-means-necessary rules then the gloves are off and we say 'Security by any means necessary." Or maybe it would be "freeing the hostages by any means necessary." Or maybe something else, but would anyone have a problem if protesters were to march through the streets, block traffic or disrupt airports during a busy holiday season championing Israel's right to use carpet bombing in Gaza to achieve its desired end? Already, Israel has been taken to task for not using the right kinds of bombs, or for using too many bombs, or for exploiting its technological advantages. Israel, who calls ahead and drops leaflets. Israel, which protects refugees in safe corridors against the any means of their own leadership. Israel which uses pinpoint, targeted weaponry and calls off strikes if it sees civilians in the area. All of this has been lambasted -- but isn't included in "any means"? In fact, wouldn't a refusal to warn, or a plowing through human shields to get to the embedded enemy combatants simply be another iteration of "any means"? Why would that be acceptable for one side and not another. Gee, that would be the bases hypocrisy. 

According to the discussion of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, the following is included:

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

The leadership in Gaza was duly elected all those years ago. Note what this means -- if one is to support the use of "any means necessary" for Israel's enemies that it is (by definition) anti-Semitic not to allow Israel the same lattitude in its military strategy. So no one should blink when Israel's supporters walk around screaming for blood, and murder and mayhem. People should then be ok shouting for joy when civilian clusters are attacked in Gaza, as this is one of those "any means" now considered in-bounds and fair game.

The next time you hear someone shouting for liberation by any means necessary, use those words right back and make sure that the protester knows that he is either suborning the violation of the accepted rules of humanity, or is shouting an anti-Semitic slogan. You can also remind that petrson that "genocide" of the Jewish people is included in "any means necessary" so touting that bumper sticker slogan is tantamount to endorsing the genocide of Jews as an acceptable path towards the desired resolution.

Let's just label people what their words allow us to -- supporters of murder, rape, genocide and terrorism. These are the "any means" that those chanters desire and they should man up enough to admit it, and then lose any moral high ground when they object to any other government's use of the same methods.