I'm just not getting the logic of the ambivalent responses to the situation.
Thought experiment: Mexico's Zapatista rebels claim a territory and declare it autonomous from Mexican government rule. They declare that NAFTA and the border fence along the Rio Grande are profoundly damaging to their economic opportunities. They begin shooting low-grade, but lethal, rockets into Tuscon, El Paso, and other border cities. Dozens of American civilians are killed and hundreds are injured.
Everyone who thinks the sensible US response would be "proportional"--i.e., that we would forgo the use of our most sophisticated military options in favor of a militarily level playing field--raise your hand.
Why have a defensive military capacity at all if you're unwilling to use it for that most basic of national priorities, protecting the lives of your citizens?
I am genuinely confused by commentators who seemingly share, generally, my liberal/western values but simultaneously support "proportionality," "dialogue," and even "sympathy" for the terrorist organization that targets innocent, non-combatant civilians. And not merely enemy (Israeli) civilians, but their own civilian citizens, whom they deploy as human shields by positioning combat personnel and materiel in their densely populated midst. The actions of Hamas in this respect are essentially akin to cannibalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Your imaginary scenario doesn't quite match the reality on the ground. It misses a lot of historical context and understanding of the Palestinian political culture.
Over 75% of Gaza residents are refugees or descendants of refugees were expelled (or fled) in 1948 from mandate Palestine during the Arab-Israeli War and birth of the state of Israel. They live in highly impoverished conditions and are essentially wards of the international community. 1.5 million people in the desert in an area roughly twice the size of DC. Life in the Gaza Strip is very, very hard, in the best of times.
50 years go by without a peaceful resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Camp David fails. The 2nd intifada begins.
Since the 2nd intifada began, there have been Qassam rockets flying out of the Gaza Strip. This goes on 2 or 3 times/day, and is primarily effective only at terrorizing people. Relatively few are physically injured, and in 8 years, less than 20 people killed. Overall, there is very little destruction, since it's mostly farmland around there. Sderot and the surrounding kibbutzim take most of the damage, but recently they have started to reach Ashkelon. This is scary, because Tel Aviv wouldn't be much further. Sderot has 19,000 people, and Ashkelon has about 100,000 people. Ironically, many of the Palestinians who live in Gaza used to live there, so they are firing rockets into their old homes.
Since the 2nd intifada began, hundreds of Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip, thousands injured. There regular incursions by the Israeli army, air strikes, home demolitions, etc. Damage is heavy. Usually these are done in the name of security, but the evidence of the true degree of the threat is flimsy. We have to rely on the word of the aggressor against the word of the victim, because there is no international oversight of the occupied Gaza Strip.
In 2005, the brilliant powers that be decide that there should be elections to the Palestinian Authority. Against the advice of many political observers, who warn that Hamas is likely to win, they move forward.
In 2006, Hamas was democratically elected by the people of the Gaza Strip. Not because the majority of people want an Islamic state, but because Fatah was viewed as the more corrupt.
Fatah won in the West Bank, so they formed a Unity government to control the PA. Israel and the U.S. don't want a unity government, they want Fatah. So first they cut way back on humanitarian aid. (Remember the 1.5 million people in Gaza? They need aid). This is supposed to pressure Hamas, but really, it just ticks people off at Israel and the U.S. Then Israel and the U.S. decided to back Fatah, and Fatah tried to overthrow Hamas. They fail, there was several weeks of bloody infighting, and then many members of Fatah flee to the West Bank. Hamas strengthens its hold on the Gaza Strip.
Then the U.S. backs Israel in instituting a blockade on the Gaza Strip. They didn't just damage the fragile economy, they killed it, and also created a humanitarian nightmare. Aid trucks go down to under 100/day (sometimes ZERO), for a population of 1.5 million people. Most people get one nutritionally poor meal/day, and over 50% are anemic. Gaza is cut of by air, land and sea from the rest of the world. Fishing vessels are shot at by the navy.
Rockets continue to fall in the Negev. The Israeli Army continues its attacks, home demolitions and bombings.
As conditions deteriorate and the rockets become increasingly untenable, a ceasefire agreement is made. Hamas will stop the rockets if Israel eases the blockade.
During the ceasefire, the rockets stop, with very few exceptions (there are militant groups that will not listen to Hamas). The blockade does not ease up significantly...maybe 150 trucks/day instead of the 700 or so needed to meet basic humanitarian needs.
On November 5, Israel bombs south Gaza, claiming that they are destroying a tunnel used to smuggle bombs. Several people are killed.
After this, the number of rockets starts to increase, and the blockade is clamped down to zero trucks. As things deteriorate, Hamas decides that there is no point in renewing the ceasefire as it is, as it did not significantly change the status quo for the people in the Gaza Strip. They did say, repeatedly, that they wanted a ceasefire, but that it must permit an opening of the border. Request denied. Seeing no improvement WITH a ceasefire, Hamas permits Qassams to fly again.
Bombing of Gaza with heavy artillery ensues, killing 1300, injuring thousands, and massive destruction of civilian infrastructure.
---
This could have been avoided in so many ways that have nothing to do with Hamas.
It would be wise for people in the West to get over themselves and learn how to deal with Islamic political parties in a way that will enable people in the region to move forward. If they don't, and they continue to use punitive tactics like this, they will only succeed in radicalizing more people and decreasing their security overall.
It would also be wise to recognize that Palestinians have rights, including a right to self-defense. Historically, that has largely meant non-violent struggle, since it is almost entirely an unarmed people with no military.
Sending Qassams into Israel doesn't qualify as self-defense or resistance of the occupier, and it should absolutely be stopped, but there were diplomatic levers that could have been applied to stop them. The ceasefire was initially successful, and it would have been extended if life on the ground had been improved. The ceasefire was broken, not by Hamas, but by Israel. After Israel broke it, they both gave up until it officially expired. Nearly every ceasefire Israel has had with Palestinians has been broken by Israel first, when someone gets an itchy trigger-finger.
Ultimately though, no ceasefire will work until Palestinians have full autonomy of their own state, or until they are full participants in a one-state solution. What Palestinians want more than anything is to have dignity and to live a full life. They can't have it under occupation.
Collectively punishing Palestinians because a handful of them are radical is not the path to peace. There are plenty of radicals on the Israeli side, who have killed many more Palestinians than vice versa...and yet I don't hear you saying that it would be justifiable to drop a few hundred mega-ton bombs on Tel Aviv.
My personal experience from living in the Palestinian territory is that the average Palestinian knows that the PA isn't serving their interests, and neither is Hamas. In general, the PA is a big joke to most people, because it is essentially impotent and largely corrupt. The main problem, if you ask anyone, is the occupation.
This last round of violence may have just spelled the death knell of the peace process as it has existed for the past 15 years. If Netinyahu wins, it will be the final nail in the coffin. He has never been a two-stater, and the reality on the ground is that two states are becoming more and more unlikely because of the massive number of settlers living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. He won't move them out, unless the U.S. cuts off all military aid to Israel and stops the loan guarantees. Then he MIGHT. I'm not sure that Barak or Livni would be much better, but perhaps a little bit.
If there can no longer be a two state solution, there are only two options: giving Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem the right to vote in Israeli elections (not likely), or and Israeli apartheid state. Well, there is a third option--genocide. Forcing all of the people in the Gaza Strip into Egypt and the others into Jordan.
The global war on terrorism is going to destroy the world; the only way to effectively stop terror is to undermine recruitment, and the only way to undermine recruitment is to ensure that basic human needs and dignity are ensured for all people. The global war on terror can not be won with missiles. For every alleged terrorist target you hit, you will create, 100 new terrorists will rise up from the rubble because they were victims of "collateral damage" and lost everything they had - their home, perhaps their family. It's a shame how many people have bought into the idea that the best defense is a powerful military, and the idea forcing people into submission is the same as making peace. If the U.S. spent a fraction of the money it spends on refurbishing its military infrastructure on international development and diplomacy, the world would be much, much safer. But war is profitable...at least for some.
Post a Comment