Israel and Gaza: No way out

Daniel Larison opposes the Israeli attack on Gaza, and deplores what he considers the ruinously one-sided (pro-Israel) discussion in the US media. He also makes a legitimate point here:

Already a fairly poor, miserable place, Gaza became more so after it was punished for Hamas' victory and then even more when its fuel supply was cut off, which has hardly weakened the appeal of the most radical anti-Israel views. Gorenberg's post began with an account of the injuries and fatalities suffered by Gazans who were creating makeshift heating sources to cope with the fuel shortage. It has never been clear to me what political theory people use when they speculate that depriving a population of basic supplies will provoke dramatic political change for the better. Grinding a people down does not cause them to see the bankruptcy of their own leadership, but causes them to cling to it all the more as their last resort. Ousting a ruling party or faction is usually a luxury that besieged people do not have, as siege conditions tend to strengthen the grip of those who already hold power. Radicalized populations often possess a siege mentality already, but this is even more true when they are essentially cut off from the outside world.

That makes a lot of sense, but what was Israel's alternative? To allow a terror movement that explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel to build a garrison state on Israel's border. Hamas managed to do a decent job of that despite Israel's siege; can you imagine how much more powerful they would have become absent that blockade? Israel really is in a no-win situation. If they attack Hamas, as they've been doing passively, as they're now doing actively, they lose; if they do nothing, they lose.

What I don't understand -- genuinely, I don't -- is what Israel's critics would have her do, given the essential nature of the Hamas enemy. The usual "land for peace" formula will not work; Hamas explicitly rejects making peace of any sort with Israel. Hamas could not make it more clear that it wants war with Israel, until Israel ceases to exist. It's my guess that many otherwise well-intentioned critics of Israel cannot come to terms with the nature of Hamas's evil. Freddie de Boer has been his usual articulate and thoughtful self in criticizing what he considers the immoderately pro-Israel voices (like mine) in the blogosphere, but here, I think, is an essential difference between his side and mine. In that post, Freddie writes:

There is no referent for my intentions, just as there is no evidentiary way to disprove the idea that no Palestinian wants or could want anything else than to destroy Israelis. We have only the basic assumption that the Palestinians, like all people, ultimately want peace and prosperity. [Emphasis mine -- RD]

I reject that basic assumption. Why would one make it? It's not that the Palestinians are uniquely evil; it's that there is no reason to think that "all people" prefer peace and prosperity to dishonor and/or injustice. Twenty or so years ago, a (secular) friend of mine visited Ireland, and told me upon her return how startled she was to run across beautiful old buildings in Dublin that were being allowed to fall into ruin. She'd ask people why those buildings weren't being cared for, and was told that those buildings were British -- IOW, memories of the British occupation were still so raw that the Dubliners would rather see all reminders of the occupation fall to pieces than preserve something useful and beautiful.

That doesn't make the Irish uniquely evil. It just makes them human. Stupidly human, from a certain point of view, but human all the same.

Add religion to the mix, and the dedication of a people to irrationality (from our perspective) of a becomes even stronger. Why would Christians choose to go to their death instead of save their lives by collaborating with the regime? The martyrs chose martyrdom because they believed in a higher law, and were convinced that death in fidelity to Christ was a greater gain than life denying Him. Theirs was an entirely rational calculation from a religious (versus materialist) point of view. Similarly, if you believe Hamas's line that fidelity to the Islamic faith is inseparable from the cause of driving the Jews out of Palestine, then to give yourself over to making peace with Israel is to reject God. To ultimately desire peace and prosperity is to be unworthy of God, from this perspective. Freddie, being a good guy, can't imagine that there are people in this world -- and peoples, if you follow me -- who would actively choose death and material misery to what they consider dishonor and faithlessness to God.

But there are. This is how the Palestinians have come to make cultural heroes of their suicide bombers. And it is Israel's miserable fate to have to live next to such a people. It is hard for me to see how a state can effectively grind down a people who have embraced suicide killers as heroes. But it is impossible for me to see how a state can stand idly by while such a people build their military strength. This is the tragedy of Israel and Gaza. Israel has no good choices, only less bad ones. The Palestinians, on the other hand, had a choice -- and they chose Hamas, in a free and fair election. Are they not to be held responsible for those choices?

Sam Huntington was an old-school liberal who taught that the tragedy of our world, one that liberals (insofar as we're all liberals) have to face squarely, is that in order to protect the liberal social order, illiberal truths about human nature must be accepted and dealt with. This is what Israel is struggling against: an evil that literally threatens its existence. It doesn't make the deaths of innocents in Gaza right; it only makes them tragic.