Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Gaza

I am surprised that the vast majority of writers and commentators, when talking about the current Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, use the word civilian without even pausing to consider that in the context of the Israeli-Hamas war, it has become meaningless. After September 11th, many pointed out that the nature of war has fundamentally changed. Wars had once been fought between two or more identifiable political entities such as nation-states and their governments. Even civil wars more or less fit that definition – the fighting was between a government holding power and another believing that it should be holding it instead. Wars against terrorists do not fit that definition, as just about everyone who had anything to say about the topic has been pointing out for the past seven years. What most of them failed to recognize, or at least state, was that this change of the nature of war has an inescapable corollary. If you cannot identify a political entity capable of raising and maintaining an army, you can no longer distinguish between soldiers and civilians.

This is exactly the case in the Gaza Strip today. The Qassam rockets that Hamas is firing at Israel are launched from people's yards, as the rocket man's family cowers in fear inside the house, or, more chillingly, goes about their business. The rockets are built in the basements of shops even as regular Gazans are buying groceries or clothes upstairs. How do you distinguish between civilians and fighters in cases like this? How do you target the rocket launching operations without killing “civilians?” You don't.

So what is the solution? Absent Hamas's abandonment of the core principle on which it was founded – the refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist, the abandonment that is obviously not forthcoming – I see two possibilities. One is a scorched earth policy on the part of Israel. Simply razing Gaza to the ground and killing all of its inhabitants will stop the rocket launches. For obvious reasons, Israel will not do this. This leaves only one other – Gazans themselves overthrowing Hamas. Hamas gained public support and eventually power by addressing people's basic needs – medical care, rule of law, a modicum of economic opportunity -- better than anyone else at the time could. However, they need not, and should not, continue to receive this support now that their mere existence has made Gaza a magnet for Israeli bombs and missiles. If enough houses are destroyed and enough people killed by the Israeli offensive, Gazans whose neighbor has a Qassam launcher in his yard need to walk over there and tell him stop immediately, or stop it for him. For their own good, they need to do this now, and in large numbers. It's not Tony Blair's babbling that will stop the war. It is only a grass-roots anti-Hamas revolution in Gaza that has even a remote chance of doing so.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The other alternative is for Israel to just stop the invasion, of course.

What you are proposing for Palestinians is basically the tactic that was taken by the Native Americans. How did that work out for them?

Tony said...

No, stopping the invasion is not an alternative if the goal is to stop the rocket fire once and for all. Israel already tried that once -- unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. And the rockets kept flying.

I do not see how what I am proposing for the Palestinians is the same the tactic taken by the Native Americans. Please explain.

Anonymous said...

Saying the goal is to "stop the rocket fire" is a very one sided way to look at it. One side fires rockets, and that upsets the other side. The other side, meanwhile, practices its own brand of genocide and terrorism, and that upsets uh... I lost track. There aren't any good guys here.

Israel tried this: unilateral withdrawl, but hey we'll keep up the siege, not allow you to leave, and make sure you can't feed or medicate your kids. Hamas responded with what, 98% less rocket fire? Who is being unreasonable here?

What if Israel offered a real peace solution, like: we'll make you a proper country; you have the right of return; you can leave; you can import food and medicine and we won't even look at it; you can have a real government and we will stop pretending that you aren't legit even if you were democratically elected? Then if Gaza still started firing rockets, I might join in with our friends at the New Republic and say kill 'em all. (disclaimer: I haven't read the trash at the new republic since Michael Kinsley left so maybe its all peace and love over there now...)

What you are saying to Hamas is this: give up, its hopeless, the Israels are much more powerful than you, don't worry so much, and just keep moving west. The problem is that eventually there's an ocean out there, and the Israelis will be perfect happy to drive the Palestinians into it.

Its very much like if we took all of the native americans and pushed them into tiny reservations, and then surrounded those reservations and said: you can't leave here, and btw you can't import enough food or medicine either. "Suck. On. That." Or "Don't Fuck With the Jews", or whatever is fashionable in the "mainstream" Amero-Israeli press world these days.

And then when they had the temerity to fight back at whatever level, we decided that something like 100 to 1 casualty rates were reasonable. Because the New York Times says that its not terrorism when Israel does it, amirite?

Tony said...

I've replied in a separate post