Leave aside the legal and moral arguments, and assume for the purposes of this post that Israel is entirely justified in its actions. The question I have is -- Are they effective?
Israel bombs Gaza. Wipes out some Hamas leaders. Does it further their long-term security goals? Even if they send troops back into Gaza they will have to pull out again. World opinion, Israeli public opinion, and cost will force the withdrawal. In that context, what does this accomplish?
Now, I can hear the retort that it is better than no response. But are those the only two options that Israel had a few days ago? Military strikes or nothing?
I'm conflicted because I don't have an answer either. I would argue that Israel should try to publicize the unprovoked rocket attacks before responding in an attempt to win over world opinion. Whatever world opinion means. But that's tilting at windmills.
Was there no third option? Were third options attempted that I am unaware of? Something has to be more effective than this, doesn't it?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I have come to the conclusion that this conflict will not head toward resolution until one party or the other surrenders the low-moral ground. Both sides have taken tit-for-tat as permanent strategy. Neither has succeeded. Neither gets the sympathy and support they could.
Some years ago, we had Israeli politicians saying that the peace talks would not continue if extremist groups, who wanted the talks to fail, did not stop suicide bombings, thus giving the initiative to murderers, who needed only to keep doing what they were doing.
Israel's success as a peaceful nation, establishing friendly relations with its neighbors will defeat the worst aims of Hamas, forcing them to tend to the task of helping the Palestinians. Witness, for example, Egypt's current stance.
On the other hand, Israeli use of its military has been an increasingly ineffective approach. Today's score was Palestinians 4, Israelis 356. That number was posted while we witnessed many pictures of dead Palestinian children. So, who is winning?
I said leave the moral argument out of this. Because clearly you believe Hamas' and Israel's actions are morally equivalent. Scratch that.
You believe Israel's actions are more repugnant because they killed 356 and Hamas only killed 4 and all lives are equally valuable and therefore Israel holds the moral low ground that needs to be surrendered.
No, I do not. As a founding point for any argument I make, I start with killing is wrong. I abhor political violence as anti-Democratic. The numbers matter, but they reflect capacity to do harm. Both sides equally seem to share intent and willingness to act in harmful ways. Hamas would likely be conducting the more harmful and terrifying suicide attacks if it had that ability.
As a practical matter, the Palestinians earned international support when they waged the first intifada with rocks and slings while facing Israeli jeeps and rifles. Israel has the support of Egypt because the two states signed a peace accord and because Hamas has surrendered the good will won by young rock-throwers. (Peaceful marchers would have been even more effective as Ghandi and King have shown. Both achieved their goals; the Palestinians have not.)
Israel could focus on defense against rockets that are more of a bother than an actual threat. (It appears one Israeli was killed before Israel launched its attack on Gaza, not dissimilar to the 2006 attacks on Lebanon after a comparatively minor attack on military forces by Hezbollah.) Meanwhile, the Israelis could easily win the additional support of Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan through peace agreements, or perhaps the entire Arab world by beginning talks on the Saudi Arabia plan.
While Arabs protest in the streets--Iraqi students have asked their government for permission to launch suicide attacks on Israel--Arab governments are doing very little. This threatens internal security for most Arab countries. So why are the governments resisting their own citizens? They are resisting because Hamas refuses to surrender the low-moral ground to Israel. Many feel that Hamas is getting what it deserves. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are not.
Your question includes reference to world and Israeli public opinion, both of which are directly influenced by the moral question. There is no possibility of removing the moral question from this conflict. The closest we can come is to argue that Israel demanding that Hamas rein in Paletinian rocket makers and launchers while retaliating by attacking Hamas police stations is counterproductive. But the Israeli attack is fueled by moral outrage, which likely blinds Israelis to the consequences.
Two good essays on Gaza are up on iht.com/opinion this morning--afternoon where you are.
Israel has publicized the rocket attacks, endlessly; no one listens. It has tried every (non-suicidal) alternative, repeatedly. There is no alternative to force. The question is how much force is necessary. The Israelis are trying hard to use as little as possible; the Palestinians, by their continued aspirations to genocide, may yet provoke their expulsion, en masse, from all of Gaza and the West Bank.
Clearly, Israel is in an exceptionally, perhaps uniquely, difficult position--some of which, as noted in the IHT essays, is actually linked to its actions. (Just as Muslim attitudes toward the US are affected by US actions.)
I do think, however, that Arab attitudes toward Israel are more useful to the Israelis and detrimental to Hamas when the former can portray themselves as cooperative toward Abbas and the Palestinians DESPITE the actions of criminals in Gaza. I strongly feel Israel's goal should be to unite with its Arab neighbors in support of the the Palestinians and Abbas and against Hamas as much as possible. That requires yielding the low-moral ground to Hamas, and that is relatively easy to do.
Hamas, of course, is the elected government of the Palestinians, so its proper and lawful behavior must be met with rewards if it should occur. If, for example, Hamas agrees to work with Israel to remove violent elements launching attacks across the border, Israel must cooperate and try mightily to include representatives of Arab governments in the effort.
With the noteworthy exception of Iraq and the rather insignificant exception of Yemen, the Arab countries have not engaged in any serious conflict in thirty-five years. That bodes fairly well for Israel, which, even if it were to engage in driving the Palestinians from all of (historic) Palestine, would still have to live with Arabs. Given Israel's demographic trends, it must start living peacefully with Arabs very soon.
Post a Comment