The recent conflict in Gaza has now escalated to a ground war, diplomacy has been lost in the carnage, all of the sides are claiming to be victims, and, as always, the media has not taken an objective stance when covering a complex situation with many "shades of gray."
Unlike the media, I believe that the actions of neither side should be condoned. Israel has fallen into an imperialistic fervor, invading Gaza with complete disregard for the obvious fact that they will not be able to destroy Hamas without spawning more violence and completely eliminating the human rights of the Palestinian people (which have already been neglected due to the apartheid coexistence of Israel and Palestine.) Hamas, on the other hand, has taken advantage of the Palestine's impoverished populace and resisted most attempts at peace, except for one.
In April of last year (2008,) former President Jimmy Carter went to Palestine and spoke with the leaders of the terrorist organization. These leaders, such as the exiled Khalid Meshaal, agreed to respect a two-state solution along the 1967 borders if agreed upon by a free Palestinian election. Unfortunately, U.S. and Israeli officials condemned Carter's talks with Hamas and failed to see the promise that they held.
With that, it has become clear now that the only solution is that of two states. Israel's violence will only increase Hamas' tenacity and resilience, and Hamas will not end its rocket attacks without Palestinian sovereignty. Moreover, if Israel supports the sovereignty and industrialization of Palestine, Hamas will lose support among the population of the Gaza Strip, which only supports them out of necessity.
23 comments:
Isreal has the right to defend itself when attacked. Even if they cannot destroy all of the rocket sites, they can get rid of a substantial number. And anyway, they don't single out civilians to die. If anything, it's Hamas who puts Gaza in danger bu operating in the presence of the civilians that they intend to "free". Israel is responding to a threat that's in it's back yard, and if America was attacked by terrorists, we would attack their country. We already have - Afghanistan.
Hamas is also doing an extremely good job of rallying Western support against the IDF. A person at my school sent me a message asking why I support "the idf if they keep on killing innocent people???" After I responded:"Gaza is too heavily built up for innocent people NOT to get killed. War kills innocent people. The IDF doesn't single out civilians to die, though. Hamas does," he sent this:
"i know war kills innocents and i know hamas does too but he does it so that israel would stop attacking them because all israel wants is to gain control over the palestineans and maybe over the whole arabic peninsula and they will do this if the U.S. (no offense) doesent stop selling weapons to them.they sell weapons to them because the big weapons industrys in the U.S. are hebrew so they support the israel cause .if u saw the last u.n. meeting they all agreed to make 48 hours of peace but israel said they would agree only if hamas gives all the weapons but if hamas does israel will just invade palestine faster and will massacre evreyone."
To which I responded:
"Hamas is a terrorist organization, and they kill innocent civilians not to stop Isreal - they've attacked Isreal long before this. No, they want war between Isreal and the Arab states, as has been done in the past. And if Isreal wanted to kill everyone, they would never have given up the entire Siani peninsula, and they would have built camps to kill the Palestinians - might I add, the same types of camps that the Jews were killed in by Der Furher of Germany in the 1940s, Adolf Hitler."
If Hamas wants Israelis to stop bombing them, Hamas has a simple solution: stop killing civilians.
DoS made a good point when he said that "if Israel supports the sovereignty and industrialization of Palestine, Hamas will lose support among the population of the Gaza Strip, which only supports them out of necessity."
The trouble is that Hamas knows this, and for exactly that reason any attempt at peaceful negotiation between Israel and Hamas is doomed to failure.
Hamas knows that its survival is contingent upon a disaffected Palestinian youth angry at Israel, and as such will do anything it can to perpetuate those conditions, and so signing a lasting peace deal is most definitely not on the agenda.
Rocket attacks into Israel on the other hand have the effect of gaining sympathy and support across the Arab world, at the expense of a few Palestinian lives. A government with the interests of the Palestinian people at heart would never make that exchange; sadly no such government exists in Gaza.
Hamas has absolutely no reason to seek peace with Israel, and for this reason it must be destroyed as a prerequisite for any lasting peace deal. Sometimes total war is a sad necessity, and preferable to prolonged violence and terrorism. This is one of those times
The invasion into Gaza is clearly demobilizing Hamas. Hamas relied on the fear that the Palestinian youth would revolt against an Israeli invasion. Unfortunately for Hamas, Israel called their bluff. Now, Hamas is scrambling as its weapons suppliers and lower level leaders are being killed by mortar fire. Hamas's message is not getting out to the Palestinians because its messengers have been subdued. Israel's invasion will cause civilian casualties unfortunately, but in my opinion, it will a scramble a complex terrorist organization.
Even with the utterly overwhelming force of the Israeli Armed Forces (which is utterly inappropriate for the situation), it is impossible to eradicate, through military means, an ideology. Unless Israel plans on annexing the Strip and imposing "Big Brother"-esque conditions on the Palestinian people so they cannot dissent, militancy and radicalism will be constant, shared, reactionary feelings amongst the Gazans. They migh put a new name on a political party, but it will only be Hamas with a little nip/tuck. This is assuming Hamas...dissolves...or disapparates. Whatever Israel thinks this is going to do.
And let's not forget the elections in Israel; this is at least in part related to Ehud Barak and the Labor Party's desperate, most hopeful grab for power. Maybe he can't stand to see Ms. Livni being the first woman to hold the PM post? I don't know; the power hungriness and corruption in Israeli politics has been notable of late, though.
In general, the West (America, mostly) needs to stop treating Israel like its proxy and more like another Middle Eastern nation. Maybe it's just a case of oppositional defiant disorder when westerners are showing "solidarity with the Palestinian people" in popular protest, but I like it. The day America favors anyone in the region over Israel; they see this as the day they admit the entire idea of Israel as a state was a mistake. And we all know THAT's not happening.
Rishubhav:
Hamas was caught between the proverbial "rock and hard place" after former President Carter's visit. Not only were they recorded "agreeing" (even though their word means absolutely nothing in regards to their actions) to a two-state solution along the 1967 borders, but an end to the apartheid coexistence of Israel and Palestine could also disenchant the population of Gaza. The only way for Hamas to avoid this disenchantment was to lure Israel into what I call "Lebanon Part Deux," which they did.
Even if Hamas found a way to avoid the political implications of turning down a display of Israel's magnanimity (i.e. an attempt to pursue the diplomatic progress made by Carter,) Israel could contribute to the industrialization of Gaza (remember, more than half of Gaza's civilians are impoverished) end apartheid, and consequently rally support for peace and antipathy toward Hamas.
War will only increase anti-Israeli sentiment among Gazans. Therefore, Hamas will only be strengthened by this ground war, not decimated.
Israel had to have seen the trick that Hamas was playing (then again, Georgia did not see what Russia was doing in South Ossetia.) But, alas, as always, "war" makes a better campaign slogan than "end apartheid." Therefore, Israel either has poor military foresight (which is highly doubtful) or political power is more important to Israel's leadership than a perfect opening to destroy Hamas once and for all.
WashDCDemocrat:
Where else is Hamas going to operate? Though they are causing civilian deaths by luring Israel into "Lebanon Part Deux," it is Israel's leadership that fell into Hamas' trap in order to win an election.
Hamas wants perpetual war with Israel, which cannot be achieved by another Arab-Israeli War, which raises the possibility of Israeli economic or even national collapse. Such collapses would put Hamas in a higher position of power that, in itself, will only disenchant the Palestinean people (in the same manner that caused the French Revolution and other mass uprisings) and create domestic issues that Hamas will not have the power to deal with.
I just noticed a spelling error in my comment:
Last paragraph, line six: "Palestinean" should be Palestinian.
It is impossible to eradicate an ideology, but it is very possible to eradicate the support structure and network used to disseminate that ideology.
The aim of this attack is twofold: decimate Hamas' leadership structure, and demonstrate very clearly to the Palestinian people that there will be reprisals for any and all attacks on Israeli soil and Israeli personnel.
DoS is right when he says that Hamas wanted to provoke a Lebanon redux by firing rockets into Israel, and provoking and Israeli attack. However, the real trap that Hamas has set is not for Israel, but for the rest of the world.
Hamas knows that by winning the sympathy of the international community it can severely hamper Israel's freedom of action, and perhaps leverage the rest of the world to "win" a war that Israel could easily end on its own. Carter was part of this trap - by agreeing to his proposal, which they knew wouldn't get anywhere Hamas could trumpet their pacifist credentials before the international community without risking an actual peace.
I would compare the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict to the endgames of the American Civil War, as well as World War 2. In both cases the "losing" nation had to be completely destroyed, and unconditionally defeated before reconstruction and aid could begin. Luckily, Sherman and Patton didn't have the international community accusing them of war crimes.
The burden of funneling aid into Gaza will fall on Israel after Hamas is destroyed; otherwise Israel would merely be throwing money at a sworn enemy. As bad as it sounds, Israel needs to crush any hope the Palestinian people might have of winning the war and prevailing over Israel before it can begin rehabilitating Palestine
Both Livni and Barak have thrown their support behind the offensive, and both their political fortunes will rise or fall in tandem with the success or failure of the attack. If anything, this could be Livni trying to show that she can be counted on to be tough on the Palestinians.
America and the West treat, and should treat Israel like they do Australia - a nation that while geographically separated is culturally and economically very much a Western nation. A significant number of Intel chips have Hebrew codenames. Why? Because they were completely developed and designed in Israel. No other Middle Eastern nation has the degree of economic integration with the US and the West that Israel does.
I would agree with you that the creation of the state of Israel is a mistake, but now for better or worse Israel is a state, and deserves to be treated like one.
Krubenaynay said that "force of the Israeli Armed Forces" is "utterly inappropriate for the situation." It is not. They are responding to a threat to their nation by trying to remove said threat. They are not trying to kill innocents - this is obvious because they are using precision munitions and not cluster bombs or carpet bombing, which are less costly and wasteful, in terms of strategic bombing.
Disciple of Science asked "Where else is Hamas going to operate?" Isreal must make sure that Hamas can't operate at all. The destruction of the ideology is not necessary, only it's relative containment so that rocket attacks are not a daily occurance.
Sadly, it is possible to eradicate an ideology; kill all the people who believe it.
I find that the comparison to the American Civil War is not apt for many reasons:
1. The rebelling nation was the oppressor, not the parent nation.
2. The rebelling nation could be "unconditionally destroyed." War against the South was feasible because both sides wanted to conquer the opposition. Moreover, because the war was caused more by tariffs than slavery, the people of the South were not emotionally tied to the cause of the war.
3. (this ties into both #1 and #2) The North offered economic solutions for the South and sought reconstruction. Therefore, unlike the Gaza conflict, the civilians in the opposing nation at least saw a government that would not be wholly oppressive if it were to win the war. This would subsequently dampen Southern ideology after the war.
Rishubhav, you said that "The aim of this attack is twofold: decimate Hamas' leadership structure, and demonstrate very clearly to the Palestinian people that there will be reprisals for any and all attacks on Israeli soil and Israeli personnel." But this is the very reason that the attack will fail just like the attack on Lebanon did: the ideology of the enemy will be strengthened by such motives. Even if Hamas' leadership is destroyed, more will come to take their place, for the Gazan populace will be greatly angered by these actions. Hamas is not the proverbial child, and Israel is not the proverbial parent as is implied by your assertion that this attack will show the Palestinian people that there will be repercussions for their actions. Rather, both are proverbial children and, as the children that they are, they will treat each other like children.
Hamas has won no international sympathy. The U.S., as always, has stood behind Israel 99.9% of the time, Egypt has closed its borders to Palestinian refugees, Syria and Jordan have simply stood idly by on the sidelines, and the E.U. is barely giving Israel the proverbial slap on the wrist. Furthermore, I do not see how Hamas could have "trumpeted their pacifist credentials" by agreeing to Carter's peace deal, for, even if that was their goal, the entire international community formally condemned Carter's actions. Remember what I said in regard to the diplomatic progress made by Carter: Israel, America, etc. could have manipulated Hamas' concession to win over the Palestinian people and put domestic pressure on the terrorist organization to let down its arms.
Israel can never hope to "crush any hope that the Palestinian people might have." The Palestinians not only have a religious ideology to cling to (which, in itself, is sufficient,) but they see Israel as an oppressor (which they are in the case of the apartheid Israeli/Palestinian coexistence.) What's more, there are very few historical examples of such tactics ever working: Africa, which has been colonized throughout history, has a recent history paved with revolution and genocide, Afganistan rose against the Soviets, the oppressed population of Canan rose against its leadership to establish Israelite rule, the French rose against Louis XVI, etc.
As I have said, Hamas would never want to seize complete power, for such a rise would only result in the disenchantment of the Palestinian people and events similar to the French Revolution up until the Reign of Terror.
If Israel's leadership truly wanted to destroy Hamas once and for all, as I said, all they have to do is end apartheid and press forward toward a two-state solution. This is the only way to disenchant the Gazan population.
Two things. One, a quick fact check for Krubenaynay: Israel has had a female PM before now; Tzipi Livni would be following in the footsteps of Golda Meir. Two:
"If Israel's leadership truly wanted to destroy Hamas once and for all, as I said, all they have to do is end apartheid and press forward toward a two-state solution. This is the only way to disenchant the Gazan population."
The problem that I see with both sides is that both governments are taking the hard-line stance and refusing to compromise. It isn't that Israel's leadership doesn't want to destroy Hamas, it's that they don't want a two-state solution. And don't even think about bringing up a one-state solution...
I concur with Sectori. What I meant was that Israel's final goal is to allow the dominant party to win another election while slightly hurting Hamas in the short term because, with their impeccable military foresight, they could not have ever thought that military action would destroy Hamas (unless they have not learned their lesson from Lebanon.)
Consider this. A secessionist party seizes control of New York City. They begin firing rockets at Jersey City, killing civilians. The New Jersey Air National Guard (NJ ANG) is mobilized to destroy the rocket sites, as well as the offices of the secessionist leaders. These are in urban areas, such as downtown Manhattan. However, to protect itself, The NJ ANG must destroy these targets.
This scenario is completely different from Gaza on many levels:
1. In your secessionism scenario, the opposition not only does not have a religious ideology, but they are not exploiting an "anti-oppressor" sentiment among the civilians.
2. The civilians are not the backbone of the secessionist support system.
3. The reason why the civilians support the secessionist movement is not that the U.S. is not supplying aid, does not have a readiness to accept the one plan for peace that will work, or has caused more than half of the civilians to live in poverty and squalor.
4. The Gazans are not secessionists. The land that they want (which is not the whole of Israel) was theirs to begin with.
5. The civilians in this New York scenario do not want peace and do not support the secessionists out of pure necessity.
Ignore ideology and historical background, as well as "north" and "south". This was not a CIvil War reference. Consider this from a purely military standpoint; you are looking too deeply into this.
The general question is: Should the NJ ANG strike in downtown Manhattan despite potential civilian casualties, or risk damage to their own city?
I never said anything about North or South in regards to your scenario.
I see your point, but every conflict is different. Some (like the Darfur genocide) call for military action, while others (like the current conflict in Gaza) do not. The decision to use military action should be based on the social, political, geopolitical, economic, ideological, diplomatic, militaristic, and socioeconomic circumstances of the given disturbance of peace or conflict.
Your question is too general to prompt a decisive answer.
This is why I asked that, earlier, you ignore background as far as the circumstances of the conflict. Isreal is reacting to a terrorist attack against it's country with a military presence in another. I may have said this before, but the United States in Afghanistan is very similar. Of course, not the same, but that's waht I opened this comment with. Try reconsidering the scenario I gave in this way: were you to destroy the sites in New York City, would you use a strike fighter with GPS-guided missile, or a slow-moving bomber loaded with cheaper, unguided heave bombs?
I do not see how I ignore background. What you are mentioning as "background" consists of only the aesthetic militaristic circumstances of the conflict. Without taking into account the socioeconomic, diplomatic, ideological, etc. circumstances of a conflict, one cannot make a decision about the necessity of military action.
In the case of "Lebanon Part Deux", I have already stated why Israel's actions were shortsighted and incorrect. Israel could have just destroyed Hamas from the ground up by giving aid to the Gaza Strip instead of forcing the majority of Gazans into poverty.
Afganistan is a completely different issue. There are no shades of gray in regards to the Taliban, and there is no way to stop the resurgence of the Taliban without policing the region.
In Gaza, the civilians have resorted to supporting Hamas for what they view as protection, but, in Afganistan, the civilians are resorting to the West for protection.
The very reason for the controversy is because more civilians are being killed in the airstrikes. If Hamas is destroyed, the civilians no longer have protection. In any case, you are showing a stubborn ability to ignore my questions and give completely different answers explaining why you shouldn't answer said questions. Now, please, ANSWER the question that I have given you. Because you have nothing to prove, and nothing to gain, in stubbornly going around the question.
How are my answers not coherent? I do not see your point in that regard.
The controversy is not necessarily that more civilians are being killed than air-strikes (though that is part of it,) it is whether Israel's actions will work.
In regards to your question, here is my answer:
No, I would not send the NJ ANG to attack a secessionist threat without knowing more than the aesthetic military circumstances.
1. Your answers were not "incoherent". They ignored the question altogether.
2. The success probability of Isreal's actions would not be called into question were it not for civilian casualties.
3. What more would you need to know before conducting airstrikes? I assume political background and a general summary of the full conflict. Understandable. However, your decision NOT to bomb would cost tle lives of innocents on your own turf. This is the basis for Israel's air and ground campaign.
As rear as it is that I'll praise a Democrat, you guys should listen to WashDCDemocrat. Israel was simply defending itself from Hamas, which is a genocidal Islamo-Fascist terrorist group. Read the Hamas charter. This post charges Israel of falling "into an imperialistic fervor, invading Gaza with complete disregard for the obvious fact that they will not be able to destroy Hamas without spawning more violence and completely eliminating the human rights of the Palestinian people ". First off, Israel dealt with rocket attacks for 7 years. There is video footage of the IDF not bombing terrorists at certain instances because there were civilians nearby; just as there is video footage of Hamas hiding among civilians. Israel was simply defending itself. This post implies that Israel is running an Apartheid system in parenthesis. Israel is not running any Apartheid system. Israeli democracy is the antithesis of Apartheid. The real Apartheid is all over the Arab and Muslim world. This post also claims that "In April of last year (2008,) former President Jimmy Carter went to Palestine and spoke with the leaders of the terrorist organization. These leaders, such as the exiled Khalid Meshaal, agreed to respect a two-state solution along the 1967 borders if agreed upon by a free Palestinian election. Unfortunately, U.S. and Israeli officials condemned Carter's talks with Hamas and failed to see the promise that they held." Actually, according to Jimmy Carter, Khalid Mashael said that he would accept a two state solution if the Palestinian people vote that way in a referendum.
Not only does this post fail to mention Hamas' repeated calls to eliminate Israel and to kill Jews in their historic homeland, but it also omits the fact that Sami Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, stated that putting the idea of peace with Israel on a referendum "does not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum". The US and Israel were right to condemn Carter's meeting with that vile terrorist group Hamas.
Post a Comment