Gaza, Slight Return

A reader has recently left an extensive comment on my recent post on the situation in Gaza (as it was at the time of the post). While much of what he said really went well beyond the very limited scope of the original post, I only have myself to blame for having opened that can of worms in the first place, so I feel obligated to respond. Since a proper response would have been too long and unwieldy to leave as another comment, I am doing it in this post instead.

Before I get to the individual points, however, I think it would be useful to remind ourselves of two facts. One is simply that Israel exists. The other is that although Gaza and the West Bank were acquired by force, Israel itself was not. Its founding was certainly enabled by the European colonial powers, but in physical terms, it was largely bought, one plot of land at a time, from local Arabs. With those facts as a backdrop, I will consider my commentator's points one by one.

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.

While I could (and should) challenge some of the terminology, that is not my intent, neither here nor in the original post. Fact is, I agree with this... mostly. If there are any good guys here, it is the ordinary Palestinians trying to live some semblance of a normal life under adverse conditions. Given that Hamas's embrace of reason and reality is not forthcoming, it is they, and only they, who have any chance of changing the situation by taking matters into their own hands. That is really all that I was trying to argue in the original post. Nothing more. I certainly did not set out to propose a comprehensive Middle East policy.

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?

It's simple, really – Israel's tactical aim is to stop the rocket fire, but the strategic one is to topple Hamas. I think we all know this. I personally think that aim is reasonable as long as Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist. Changing that is fundamental, and a prerequisite to anything else. I know many will disagree, and that's their right, but I really do believe that with respect to Gaza specifically (not the entire Palestinian problem), Hamas must either recognize Israel's right to exist or be eliminated. Both Israel and the West have failed to achieve the former either by negotiation or by isolation; the next step is war. This really opens up a huge topic that I am not prepared to get into here. Suffice it to say that if Hamas provided de facto recognition by stopping 100% of the rocket fire, stopping 100% of the weapons smuggling from Egypt, etc., Israeli tanks would not be rolling into Gaza. Yes, I know that had Israel not conquered Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 in the first place, we would not be where we are right now, but like I said – a whole separate discussion. The facts on the ground are what they are, and both sides need to deal with them as they are.

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...)

The Palestinians' decision to elect Hamas, however democratically, was, in my opinion, a grave mistake. I understand why they did so, and can sympathize. But short term gains in basic necessities have carried with them the cost of a long-term threat to their lives. Note that I am not exonerating Israel of anything by making that statement – I am merely pointing out the predicament in which the Palestinians placed themselves. I suppose I am expecting an unreasonable level of political sophistication from an ordinary Palestinian by expecting him to reason as I do. Perhaps.

Yes, of course it would be better if Israel offered all of these things. But the fact is, that is not about to happen, and hoping for it to happen in the short term is naïve in the extreme.

As to the New Republic, I have never read it, so cannot comment.

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.

This seems to equate “Hamas” with “Palestinians” -- an equivalence I am not willing to endorse. I am, in fact, saying to Hamas, give up and recognize Israel, or be eliminated. There is no third permanent solution. What I am saying to the ordinary Palestinian, however, is exactly the opposite – you need to worry more, because no one else will do it for you, not the people you elected, nor their adversaries.

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.

The American Indian analogy still does not make sense to me. As to the last sentence – I am not going to take that bait. Sorry.