Marc Frans,

1.  I never claimed that the creation of Israel arose solely as a result of the Shoah.  Moreover, it was you who claimed that military aid to Israel, ostensibly in its current form, constitutes humanitarian intervention, when in fact it does not. 

2.  So Georgia shares none of the blame for the war?

3.  Unfortunately, most democratically elected representatives do not have the same stake in their country as do their undemocratic counterparts.  When sovereignty rests in the person of the leader, the leader tends to take slights very seriously.  Even Rousseau observed the difficulties of groupthink, and Ayn Rand declared that groups never made decisions, but rather that these were taken by individuals within the group.  I am not making a case for "virtuous dictatorship", but Aristotle's arguments against democracy come to the fore when one thinks of the West's response to Islam.

1) Some progress is being made, although one should not expect the kapitein to be able to acknowledge that.  There seems now some recognition that the founding of Israel resulted from world war 2, not from the Shoah.  There appears now further agreement - although it remains unstated - that the term "humanitarian" can (and often will) be used by almost anyone for anything.

2) Anyone who dares to claim that "Georgia handled South Ossetian separatism identically to the way Russia charged into Chechnia" is either woefully ignorant of the facts or consciously lying.  Reality is messy, but if propaganda succeeds in massively distorting reality, the consequences can be very costly for many people and for long periods.

3) Nobody is denying that wars can be very costly, be they defensive or offensive.  Resisting a burglar in your house can be very costly too. One better doesn't tell the burglar in advance that one would be 'mortified' in case of burglary, for that would be an invitation to burglary. Wishful thinking expressed as verbal posturing in a world of authoritarian/intolerant cultures is a sign of weakness, and invites aggression in multiple ways.

Marc Frans,

RE:

1.   Arguably, the South Ossetia War could be considered a humanitarian intervention insofar as protecting the South Ossetians, who were incorporated into the Georgian SSR at the behest of Stalin. Such an argument worked in 1999, as Putin noted then and now.  Stalin, of course, was infamous for deracinating ethnic minorities and imposing new boundaries so as to divide and conquer.  Georgian forces deliberately attacked civilians and internationally mandated peacekeepers during counter-insurgency operations, tactics that are unthinkable today and constitute war crimes.  Indeed, Georgia handled South Ossetian separatism identically to the way Russia charged into Chechia.   South Ossetia needed a much greater degree of autonomy than Georgia was prepared to offer, independence or unification with North Ossetia i.e. Russia.  Putin’s centralization of government aside, the Russian Federation is hardly unitary, especially where the Caucuses region is concerned.   

2.  Au contraire.  It is because offensive wars are costly – not just in men and materiel, but in political careers and lost economic opportunity.  The political price of pre-emption is of course, outweighed by the political price of unpreparedness and inaction.

3.  Duly noted.  The Westphalian concept is contested.  Moreover, it is part and parcel of the centuries-long transition in Europe from imperial dominion and tribal anarchy to the nation-state.  But it can’t be called a principle, even if it provided the underpinnings for the principles of national self-determination and sovereignty.  Of course, in 1648, sovereignty tended to reside in the person of the monarch rather than the people; hence, part and parcel...

1) Indeed, the term "humanitarian" can (and will) be used by almost anybody for almost anything.  For example, when 'pal' Putin 'intervened' in Georgia last year he certainly cast this intensification of his continuous intervention there in "humanitarian" terms.  The vaunted "Westphalian system of international relations" was nowhere to be seen, and the Kapitein's claim of Moscow's (and Beijing's) adherence to such a system was shown to be...wishfull thinking.  Note hat Marcfrans never claimed such adherence on the part of the Great Satan, nor of some Little (West European) Satans in practice.  His claim was that adherence must be to "a moral universe", admittedly a universe that is hard to recognise and difficult to agree on.  People who think that democrats and totalitarians could 'agree' on much of anything are deluding themselves.  

2) Balance-of-power arrangements certainly have their place as a cautionary measure, particularly if one is lucky enough to fall on the civilised and democratic side of the 'arrangements'.  They should not be viewed, however, as an ultimate goal in themselves, and certainly not as an excuse to abandon other democrats in the world.   In short, the term "balance-of-power arrangements" is too vague and too general to be able to act as a permanent yardstick. In fact, there is ample evidence that it can easily be confused with appeasement of a small tyrant before he becomes a big one.  None of the totalitarians have such delusions, but many of the 'democrats' do.  And the reason why the latter 'give themselves' such delusions is because moral virtues are hard to live by.

3) The distinction between "theoretical" and "practice" is a 'tricky' philosophical matter.  A "theory" is, by definition, an explanation of some observable reality.  If the explanation given does not seem to match up with much empirical observation, one may deduce that the theory 'stinks'.  Perhaps the Westphalian theory of international relations stinks.  One should not confuse theory with principle.    

Marc Frans.

You are confusing humanitarian intervention with support for an allied or friendly country.   Employing the former in support of democrats would entail force against and within undemocratic states.  Civilians, esp. women and children, in developing and underdeveloped countries tend to be victimized by their respective states, irrespective of ethnic, religious or class divisions; this is why I referred to the plight of women in Islamic countries and civilians in war–torn Africa.   Instances of humanitarian intervention have usually been in response to natural disasters, epidemics, famine, civil wars and “crimes against humanity” e.g. ethnic cleansing, genocide. 

The “Westphalian” system merely established the primacy of the state or nation–state, as opposed to say religious dominion.  Rather than preventing aggression, it organized warfare.  Balance–of–power arrangements provided more peace and prosperity than any one benevolent great power.  Unfortunately, these arrangements inevitably collapse and chaos ensues.

I detected from Mr Wistrich a familiar sentiment that the Shoah was the defining aspect of the Second World War or of National Socialism.  This denigrates not only other democides and genocides that occurred during the war, but also the sacrifice of volunteers from all the Allied nations as well as the general havoc unleashed by German, Italian and Japanese aggression. 

To refer to IR as purely Westphalian is indeed naïve.  Like capitalism, it is theoretical and inspires rather than mirrors practice.

The kapitein seems to have a problem with reading what is in front of him. Otherwise he would not be making so many errors in his re-statements, nor would he be setting up so many false strawmen.

1) I have set 2 specific criteria (which admittedly are not simple to apply in concrete situations) for "humanitarian interventions", and I stated that Israel satisfies them.  In short, this amounted to endorsing aiding fellow democrats in a very undemocratic world.  In his nonresponse, the Kapitein embroiders on "Muslim women, African warlords, etc...".  Is this ignorance, or willful distortion? Obviously, it is the latter.

2)  The notion that the autocrats in Moscow or the tyrants in Beijing harbor great respect for any "Westphalian" system of national sovereignty is naive in the extreme.  It is certainly very much at odds with historical observation of autocrats and totalitarians.  Obviously, dictators always claim national sovereignty when it suits them, i.e. when their internal or external behavior comes under scrutiny and their (personal or clan) power could be threatened by some external greater power.  When they are not threatened, or when there is no EFFECTIVE outside constraint (be it an 'international' one or a national one) on them, the picture looks entirely different.

3) Indeed, the second world war was the catalyst for decolonisation and led to the creation of many 'new' states, including Israel.  The second world war should not be confused with - or reduced to - the Shoah.   Glad, I got at least that cleared up.

I repeat my main message: history tends to repeat itself (although the particulars keep varying), and the head-in-the-sand attitudes of the Western beneficiaries of the past 'Pax Americana' are a major example of that.  A "Westphalian system of international relations".... Mon Dieu, my foot! Dream on, and live with the consequences.

In a recent British survey of 2000 schoolchildren, one in twenty of them thought Adolf Hitler was a coach of the German football (soccer) team, one in six said they believed Auschwitz was a World War II theme park while one in twenty said the Holocaust was a celebration at the end of the war. Moreover, an astonishing 40% did not know what Rememberance Day was.

One in ten kids thought the SS stood for Enid Blyton's 'Secret Seven' and one in twelve believed the Blitz was a European clean-up operation following the Second World War.

Q: How long will it be before their children, or perhaps their children's children, are taught that 'Kristallnacht' was the name of a pre war Bavarian dry white wine and the favourite tipple of Hitler's live-in lover, principal speechwriter and biographer Enid Blyton?

Marc Frans,

Humanitarian intervention is a hallmark of “postmodern” foreign policy.  Indeed, one is more liable to find support for the “Westphalian” system of international relations and the nation-state in Moscow or Beijing, than in Brussels, London or D.C.   If you are so concerned about abuses of human rights, what are you prepared to do?  How many of your compatriots are you willing to sacrifice in order to liberate Muslim women from their men or African civilians from warlords and dictators?  The world’s sole superpower lacks the wherewithal to bring peace to Afghanistan and Iraq, much less deter Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.  Would even victory in the “War on Terror” and non-proliferation make a dent in human rights abuses? – Of course not.  Moreover, the Second World War was the catalyst for creating the State of Israel and for de-colonization. 

You are exaggerating the importance of US support to historical Israeli crises.  While a cornerstone of current Israeli national security, the US was a rather reluctant Cold War supporter of Israel, due to its perceived need to court Muslim countries.   The IDF had to contend with Soviet-manned aircraft and air defense batteries, whereas Israel’s enemies never had this concern, and only relatively recently was the IDF permitted to acquire more advanced US weaponry. 

Referring to yourself in the third person now?

Israel does not require a humanitarian intervention.  It is a fully functioning nation-state with a strong economy and military.  Humanitarian concerns are usually at the sub-national level and invariably face opposition from the state or governing institutions. 

It is remarkable to observe the moral emptiness that postmodernism has brought to many contemporary Europeans.

1) There are those who claim that "sovereignty trumps human rights".  An extraordinary claim!  Think about it. How could anything trump "human rights" in a moral human universe.  Obviously, reasonable people (forget about unreasonable and/or dishonest ones) can disagree about the extent and definition of INDIVIDUAL "human rights", but IN PRINCIPLE they can not be "trumped".  The silly claim that (national) sovereignty trumps everything would be comparable to claiming that parental sovereignty would trump everything, irrespective of how the parent in question would exercise that sovereignty. It would be the postmodern European's version of condoning incest and infanticide! No wonder there are those who don't give a hoot about gulags, shoas etc...Even today!!

2) It is tragic too, to have to contend with historical ignorance, again and again. For the record, the 'building' of the state of Israel was well underway BEFORE the Shoah! And the creation of Israel (and many other states!) was not a consequence of the Shoah, but rather of WW2 and the 'collapse' of the British Empire (among others).

3) It is certainly true that Israel has faced existential threats before. It has been able to overcome them for two major reasons: first, because of its own willingness to fight for its own freedom and, second, because of massive US support over several decades and many different US Administrations.

4) Indeed, the notion that moral considerations would enter the geopolitical 'calculations' of contemporary German and Russian governments is entirely fanciful.

5) Did Marcfrans indiscriminately or simplistically advocate "humanitarian interventions"? He did not, and the charge addressed to him is unfair! Moral dilemmas typically are not 'easy', and for serious political leaders they aren't either.

For the record, I would only advocate "humanitarian interventions" in cases were there is a reasonable chance that the benefits significantly outweigh the costs. In practice, that amounts to (A) helping those who have shown a willingness to fight for their own freedom and (B) in cases where it can be done or is practical. Israel, or its people, clearly satisfy these criteria. By contrast, there can be no moral obligation to assist in replacing one tyranny by another. And no sensible person would claim that moral decisionmaking and behavior would be 'easy'.

Heard about it, some shop windows were broken and people killed, fewer than one hundred. Why is never asked of course.
The Pales have had a non-stop crystal time but who cares?

Marc Frans,

You have become what you have beheld: a naïve left-liberal.  Sovereignty trumps human rights, and rightly so.  Humanitarian intervention, either by the UN or by various powers has failed miserably e.g. in Africa and the former Yugoslavia.  And on the contrary, it was Great Britain and various Arab countries that dealt with the consequences of the Shoah, the primary one being the creation of the State of Israel.

Israel has faced existential threats before and triumphed without relying on foreign military intervention on its side.  Germany is in no position to counter an Iranian attack or contribute to a pre-emptive strike on Iran.  Beyond the United States, and Israel itself, the UK could provide a measure of support.  Russia, of course, could conventionally decimate Iran’s nuclear programme alone, although at a much higher cost and with the sloppiness we’ve come to expect from the post-Soviet Russian forces. 

I gather that these talks have proved somewhat fruitful, especially as of late.  The question remains when Iran will reach the point of no return.  Most Israelis would say now, but so far the Fighting Falcons remain parked.   Germany may effect “feel good” diplomatic solutions to crises, but I am under no illusions that Berlin is prepared for a foreign policy commensurate with its economy and place within Europe. 

That the Western Allies did not sooner do anything substantial in response to Hitler's Germany's "treatment of its jewry" was/is not just "unfortunate" for Mr Wistrich, but for ALL Europeans (and Americans, too, who had to deal with the awful consequences). 

Mr Wistrich is NOT claiming that Germany's foreign policy should be dictated by Israeli concerns, but I have no doubt that he knows that contemporary Germany (and Europe) can no longer be relied upon to respond appropriately when the next "existential attack" on Israel will materialise (and, materialise it will, there can be no doubt about that).  If anything, the past decade's facade of empty 'talks' between the 'European three' and the islamo-fascist regime in Iran, are powerful evidence of that.

Perhaps, it is true that Mr Wistrich has no great "new insights". After all, he is merely recalling the past here, and observing that mankind hasn't really changed that much. In that he is right. 

As to "objectivity", that is a function of the character and abilities of the person in question.  It is not a function of whether one is a direct or immediate target of fascists or not.   

The moral of this story is that history tends to repeat itself (although the particulars will vary somewhat over time and place) and that human nature is pretty much 'set'.

Unfortunately for Mr Wistrich, none of the Allies declared war on Hitler's Germany in response to its treatment of its Jewry.  While an existential attack on Israel would demand a Western response, I don't agree that our foreign policy on Iran should be dictated by Israeli concerns.  This doesn't preclude means such as pre-emptive strikes on nuclear facilities, but rather focuses the ends. 

Mr Wistrich, is of course, far from an objective commentator on anti-Semitism or advocacy for Israel's defense by the Western powers, principally the United States.  That doesn't mean he is wrong, but he is unlikely to provide new insight into the issues with which he deals.