Five more comments on the situation

2008 December 29
by Alex

1. Normally, even those opposed to Israeli attacks will attempt to distinguish between civilians and combatants. Today, that no longer seems to be the case. I’ve already noted the attempt to ‘civilianise’ the victims of Operation Cast Lead, specifically the graduating policemen who – had Hamas not been so naive – wouldn’t have been so exposed.  But how many civilians have been killed? Writing in the Guardian, Andrea Becker relates the experiences of a colleague in Gaza. “Several major attacks were near her home. One of the worst – with reports of 40 dead – was a mere 50m from her children’s school.” In other words, not at her children’s school. Much has been made of the fact that the attack started while children were leaving school, but is there such a thing as a good time to launch an operation such as this? Furthermore, shouldn’t the timing be of Israel’s choosing? According to figures I have read, estimates suggest that 20 children and 10 women have been killed, out of around 300 fatalities thus far. While this is awful, it is important to note that a vast majority of those killed were members of the Hamas infrastructure, and hence the responsibility of Hamas. Those why cry for proportionality  might like to imagine what would have happened if Israel had lobbed Qassams back at Gaza’s densely populated cities. I suspect that the civilian casualty rate would have been much higher. In any event, the primary responsibility lies with Hamas. 

2. Writing in the American Prospect, Ezra Klein can’t get out of his head the idea that seven years of constant rockets from Gaza meant that Israel had to use military action. “No Death and no injuries,” he writes, as if life in Sderot was a picnic. Even the Binge Trader, no supporter of Israeli policy, tells me that “nothing I experienced when serving in the army compared to the fear of those in Sderot.” If you’ll forgive the irony of the analogy, life in Sderot is like something out of a Saramago novel: rockets falling randomly from the sky, an ever-present threat despite their ineffectiveness, only luck preventing tragedy. Should Israel have waited until a rocket wiped out a class of kindergarten children? According to Klein, it should have waited even longer – until the cows come home. ”But sometimes, Israel is simply wrong.” True indeed, but not today.  

3. Here’s some pre-emptive blogging. Soon, some will argue that Israel’s attack was “pre-planned”, that it has “nothing to do with the rockets launched on Sderot” but is part of a broader plan to “destroy Hamas and the Palestinian people”. Some are already moving in that direction. Feasting like vultures on the Haaretz analysis regarding the genesis of the operation, Ian Black reveals to the world Israel’s ”six months of secret planning”. He points out that plans for the current operation began soon after the ceasefire with Hamas kicked in six months ago. It’s clear that – in the absence of peace – enemies use ceasefires to regather their forces. Hamas did so by increasing the range and quality of its rockets, amongst other measures, while Israel did so by gathering vast amounts of intelligence regarding Hamas control over Gaza. This seems pretty sensible to me. A government that does not plan for all eventualities is remiss in its duties. As it became clear that Hamas did not intend to continue the truce, putting the plan into action became the only reasonable thing to do.

4. More on Israeli militarism: today’s Yediot Ahranot reports on the jostling between the elite Golani and Paratrooper units regarding who (in the event of a ground invasion) will get to go into Gaza. I understand that soldiers want to “do stuff”, but the idea of a rhetorical bloodbath over who gets the difficult task of entering the Gaza swamp is tasteless in the extreme. Israeli militarism is an unfortunate reality; it should not be heralded as an positive aspect of our culture.

5. Apart from – surprise surprise – Hezbollah in 2006, is there any example in history of a resistance/terrorist movement succeeding to liberate territory from the occupier, only to do all it can to invite the occupier back in again? This seems to be what Hamas wants. Hummus in the vineyard on me to anyone who can point to another time when this has happened.

8 Comments leave one →
2008 December 29
Arieh Kovler permalink

Alex, this piece and the last one were excellent.

Thanks for the insight

2008 December 29

“Apart from – surprise surprise – Hezbollah in 2006, is there any example in history of a resistance/terrorist movement succeeding to liberate territory from the occupier, only to do all it can to invite the occupier back in again? This seems to be what Hamas wants. Hummus in the vineyard on me to anyone who can point to another time when this has happened.”

Correct: it never has.

My response to a commenter over at mine read:

“Israel has the right to defend herself. But are you convinced that eliminating 280 Hamas fighters will put a stop to the rockets? Will a fully fledged ground invasion? Is the outcome not relevant to the action itself? How will such actions somehow turn the Gazans against Hamas? Show me one (just one single) historical example where aerial bombardment turned a people against its leaders. Didn’t happen in Nazi Germany, didn’t happen in Britain during the Blitz, didn’t even happen in the country that received the biggest aerial explosive payload ever (Vietnam).”

No example was offered by said commenter because there are no such examples. Yet isn’t ‘regime change’ what Olmert, Livni and Barak mention as a prime motive for Operation Lead Balloon?

Is Falsedi forgetting that in extreme conflict situations opponents often turn out to look like mirror images of one another? Or is Alex Stein becoming a tad too ‘Israelised’?

Israel should be deeply ashamed of itself for this crude over-reaction and repetition of previous blunders.

And the root-cause of the problem remains the Occupation, not Hamas.

2008 December 30

The root cause of the problem is the inability of the two sides to recognise that the land contains two groups with distinct national rights and aspirations; that problem long predates the Occupation. Perhaps I have become more ‘Israelised’, but I must confess that that’s the reason I came here. I was once a Jew, then a Zionist, and now I am an Israeli. I like to think of that as a sensible evolution.

2008 December 30

Israelis always want to separate the terrorism issue from the occupation issue, as if the former arrived out of a vacuum, a la Bush; “They don’t life our way of life”. A la Livni and “Our values are better than their values”. In that sense you are indeed ‘Israelising’.

What will happen now? The IDF will not dare go in and try and finish the job on the ground: too many body bags isn’t good for the election. But finishing off the job is rationally the only real option: the rest means loss of life and infrastructure for nothing: the next negotiated truce will be as fragile as the previous one. Bang, bang, a few shots from either side and we’re back to square one.

I really look forward to seeing the usual apparatchik sock-puppets like Livni, Barak, Olmert, Herzog etc etc paraded on my screen with their endless “de Gamas, de Gamas, de Gamas…” chant.

Another 10 years down the line and there’ll be a proportionate increase in WB settlements, that’s another thing we can definitely bank on.

In that sense your analysis really constitutes no more than belletterie, a la Harry’s Place. I see you’ve got the usual sycophants like Stephen Hoffmann to go with the territory…

2008 December 30
Avram permalink

You’re still a Jew Alex, and still a Zionist … now you’re just an Israeli Jewish Zionist.

2008 December 30

Gert – I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make in the final paragraph. I’ve never tried to separate the issue of terrorism from occupation. I am, however, trying to separate the issue of Hamas sponsored rockets from the Gaza strip from that of legitimate resistanc. Maybe we will be back to square one afterwards, maybe that’s the way of the world…
How ironic: 5.45 by Gang of Four is playing on my iTunes. As a northerner, I hope you know the tune!
A

2008 December 30

Aren’t we all playing with words here?

“I am, however, trying to separate the issue of Hamas sponsored rockets from the Gaza strip from that of legitimate resistanc.”>/i>

What then constitutes ‘legitimate resistance’? The kind of resistance Hamas cannot exercise? Does it have the means to attack the IDF? The IAF?

By holding back, the IDF is in a certain sense depriving Hamas from some legitimate, ‘military-on-military’ action. Here the oppressor not only defines what constitutes legitimate ‘resistance’, he also defines which kind of confrontation to wage and which not.

As regards ‘Israelisation’, I’ve been falling victim to it too and I’m not even Jewish! ‘Other’ and ‘Self’: don’t fall for it hook, line and sinker, falsedi!

After 20 years or so of debating this question (I/P) and I find myself parroting the Israeli line all too often. Demonisation really does pay off. I’ve yet to read one single line that dares write about the other things that Hamas also does and is. But no need for a defence for the defenceless, I guess.

F-O-R-T-Y Y-E-A-R-S O-F O-C-C-U-P-A-T-I-O-N, anyone?

Gang of Four, are these the ones from ‘I love a man in Uniform’? That would be a strange coincidence…

2008 December 31

They are the one and same!

Leave A Comment

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS