OK, let's see where we are. In 2005, Israel withdrew its troops and uprooted its settlements from the occupied Gaza Strip, turning over limited sovereignty to the Palestinians. It was a land-for-peace gamble; if the Gazans showed they could live in peace with the Israelis, there was every expectation that the Palestinians would gain full control of their affairs.
In 2006, the Palestinians of Gaza elected -- that is: chose -- Hamas to govern them. Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the imposition of Islamic theocracy. Hamas carried out an internal coup that crushed all internal opposition. Hamas then began smuggling weapons into Gaza, and firing rockets into Israel. Hamas also hid its military assets in civilian areas, guaranteeing that any Israeli self-defense would unavoidably hit civilians.
So when Israel finally got sick and tired of theocratic fascists openly dedicated to their destruction shooting rockets into their territory, they hit back, hard.
Naturally, many in the West see the Israelis as villains. Plainly, then, the Israelis should do what no other country would ever be expected to do, and commit suicide. Bafflingly unlike many in contemporary Europe, the Israelis seem disinclined to hate themselves into bloody oblivion. Paul Belien gets it:
People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
The situation reminds me of a little dog that keeps teasing and annoying a big dog. Finally, the big dog lets the little dog have it. It's not a pretty sight to watch, but to condemn Israel as the aggressor when Israel is responding to the barrage of rocket attacks on its civilians makes no sense.
What was the purpose of the cease-fire? It seems to me that, for Hamas, it was to give them a chance to regroup.
"lance the boil," Doug? What does that mean to you? Does that mean exterminating Palestinians until they can no longer offer any resistance? No matter how many women, children, and non-combatant men you have to kill in the process? Face up to the consequences of your proposals, don't hide behind a misleading metaphor. (And a particularly unfortunate one at that, since it reduces Palestinians to the status of bacteria.)
"The leaders of Hamas are the implacable enemies of Israel in just such a way," says Lancelot. Which is interesting, in view of the fact that Israel actually funded Hamas for years, in an attempt to create factional strife between Hamas and the PLO. It looks as if they committed the same mistake the U.S. did when we fostered the growth of the Taliban.
The Palestinians used to do a thriving business in export of citrus fruit. The Israelis bulldozed their orange groves, claiming they gave shelter to snipers. They also bulldozed olive groves and allowed illegal settlers to shoot at and beat up Palestinians trying to harvest their crops. They've bombed factories, either by accident or on the theory that large buildings might harbor terrorists. How is it possible for people to lead a normal life, develop a peaceful economy, and create a future for themselves under those circumstances?
I'll save you all the trouble of pelting me with straw man body parts by emphasizing that NONE of this means I support Hamas, or any kind of terrorism. I don't want Israel destroyed, and I am not an enemy of Israel. But I'm astonished that so many good Christians still embrace the idea that killing large numbers of people and reducing more of them to destitution is the best and most expedient road to peace. Is that what Jesus taught? Is that what you mean by "Prince of Peace"--the guy with the most tanks wins?
Israel is using smart targeting. I'm pretty sure of it, given that much of their weaponry is U.S. grade or higher, and that they have demonstrated tactical competence several times over in the past forty years.
With airstrikes there is always a risk of civilian casualties, the dreaded "collateral damage," the man crying because five of his seven daughter were blown up in their sleep. But the fact of the matter is, no bomb is smart enough in such a compact and crowded area as Gaza. You can have 100% positive proof that your bad guy is in that building, and you can hit just that building, maybe even just his rooms. But we are talking shoddily built refugee cities - handbuilt out of the cheapest concrete available. The whole structure is likely to go if anything is dropped on it. And there's always going to be women and kids, the place is crowded. This is why us Army types tend to prefer ground ops, though with the back up of air support, of course. Not really an option since Israel withdrew from Gaza, though...
Part of what Israel is after is using overwhelming force as deterrence. But it seems to me that the harder they hit, the more HAMAS digs in its heels, and so forth, and so on. Israel is going to have to internalize some very counter-intuitive counter-insurgency thinking, and as I've mentioned, that will be very hard given that it is their children that are endangered by incoming rockets, not just their forces. From the Army and Marines' Counter-insurgncy Field Manual (available commercially): "Sometimes the more you protect your forces, the less secure you are; sometimes the more force you use, the less effective it is; sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction."
Good points, again, AnotherBeliever. It seems to me that when positions are so entrenched, as they are among so many on all sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there needs to be really fresh thinking about how to move forward.
There are many peace initiatives and peace groups that encompass both Israelis and Palestinians, and there are people like me who want a two-state solution, and there are people who think there will never be peace. But the truth is (IMO) that it doesn't seem like anyone's entrenched position, whatever it is, is actually working to bring about any progress.
Peace isn't breaking out despite the efforts of so many well-intentioned people. And Israel is probably not going to commit suicide or go away, in spite of those who hate Israel. And Hamas leaders aren't going to wake up one morning and tear up the charter.
It seems to me that nobody has the solution. To state the obvious...
I hear ya, Alicia. Nobody's entrenched position is getting anybody anywhere. Sort of sums up the whole situation.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.