Let us start with the facts – IDF forces are withdrawing from punitive expedition into the Gaza strip leaving up to 100 dead Palestinians behind them, many of them civilians, some of them children. All this in response to near-continuous rocket firings by Hamas militants into Israeli towns and villages close to the border, including one that killed a young man in Sderot earlier in the month. The misery exchange rate is already being declaimed by UN representatives as an “excessive and disproportionate response.”
But it’s equally clear that this is precisely the result Hamas desired. It’s tempting to view the rocket firings as a kind of kinetic graffiti, the consequences of ill-educated ruffians acting out. Not for a lack of will on the part of those firing them, the homemade Qassams and Iranian-provided Katyusha rockets launched into Sderot and more distant Ashkelon have no real military effect – they will not fundamentally alter the regional balance of power, nor kill half the Israelis who die in any given month from traffic accidents. Their only real purpose is to harass and incite retaliatory violence upon the Hamas militants who surround themselves with innocent non-combatants. Their goal in doing so is not to escape retaliation so much as it is expressly calculated to generate photographic evidence of Palestinian suffering which is then joyfully provided to Al Jazeera outlets and beamed as death pr0n into living rooms throughout the region.
And this is precisely the point. Knowing that no democratic government of a society that values human life can long survive the dissatisfaction of citizens subjected to continuous, violent harassment, the Hamas death cult intentionally targets Israeli citizens in the hope that a counter-attack against the militants might draw in Palestinian innocents as collateral damage. The images of their suffering will bring attention (and funds) to their cause from neighbors quite willing to fight to the last Palestinian, while in the West, yuppies who drive Volvos with “COEXIST” stickers on their bumpers decry the effect but not the causation. This is like blaming the broken window for having been struck by a brick.
It appears that Israel’s only options are to 1) suffer quietly under a constant, murderous assault, 2) counter-attack and risk hurting innocents or 3) accede to Hamas’ demands and negotiate the terms of their own destruction. You know you’re living in a bad neighborhood when the only options available to you are either intolerable, undesireable or suicidal.
I guess that Israelis can take some small solace in the knowledge that, even if their military counter-strokes against Hamas were pefectly free of collateral damage, the militants would still find a way to make something up.
“There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours.” – Golda Meir
I think the Israeli’s are fantastic in their “take no guff” attitude towards Palestine. As someone who studies Krav Maga, I can definitely see the national attitude reflected in their self-defense system, where the main principle is to counter an action with an overwhelming reaction.
To use another Golda Meir quotation – “The Muslims can fight and lose, then come back and fight again. But Israel can only lose once.”
Or 4) Fight to the last Palestinian.
Lex, nice summary of a difficult situation. Seems to me there are no winners in this, only losers. By the way, I liked the “kinetic graffiti” analogy. Hope you don’t mind, but I’m gonna use that one!
R/Lee
It is well past the time for there to be a final fight to end the continued BS from the “Palestinian” side. No holds barred. I guess that disqualifies me to ever be Sec. State, not that I ever would want a job where I’d preside over people who identify with our enemies more often than not.
I’ve been embarrassed for years by the serial peace processes conducted by the US government – every administration tries what the previous administrations have done despite that fact that anyone living during the past 40 or so years can see that no only have the efforts not worked, and will never work, but the Palestinian side continues to be the problem even when Israel gives in.
It is said that the definition of insanity is “Continually doing the same thing over and over, and expecting to get a different result each time. That defines the middle east and the stupid repeated tries to “make” peace when one side doesn’t want it. Just get it over with.
11 years ago I was in a total car wreck with both my children in the car. I had NO IDEA that I was making a political statement when I bought a Volvo as a replacement vehicle.
There is one other option not mentioned, AND I AM NOT SAYING USE IT, but there is the Capt. Kirk approach.
Line up a bunch of untargetable rockets and set them off in the general direction of Gaza. Return the “gift”. Its not the high road, but as you mentioned -the high road is useless. Palestinian support is based on the fact they are basically safe. If they were not the blaim would shift toward Hamas. “Arabs” love a ruler who protects them and will not tolerate one that cant.
Although I really like (5) above, I propose:
(6) Israelis stage another Exodus (destination TBD, but not in the Mid East). And as a final gift, nuke the ground within their borders so that it glows for a million years.
I realize there are a few details to work out, but at least they don’t kill all the Palestinians.
Oh, and if a few shots dropped long into Syria and the Bekaa Valley – too durned bad.
The Palestinians do not want peace. They are not interested in peace, they are not interested in compromise. The sooner everyone realizes that the easier it will be on everyone involved. For one, it would save countless Israeli lives, and it would prevent subsequest US administrations from looking like failures and fools when Israel is attacked again… Or according to the current bogus narrative being pushed by the international media; when Israel attacks the poor innocent Palestinians again.
Jim C
Here is the conundrum, as posed by Martin Indyk (former US ambassador to Israel), as quoted by Ken Silverstein at Washington Babylon:
Them, of course being Hamas.
The problem with Indyck statement, is that the second part of his statement (“and including them doesn’t work, either”) has never been tested.
More germane to this discussion is Paul Pillar’s statement, as quoted by Mr. Silverstein:
Who is Paul Pillarand what is he doing now? Sorry, you are going to have to go to Washington Babylon to find out.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002538
Please note: I have presented no opinion, only provided information.
I agree with you on the “conundrum” aspects. This will be very hard to solve so long as Israel doesn’t talk to Hamas. It doesn’t help of course that Hamas won’t agree to even the minimal precondition of acknowledging a theoretical right to exist for their Israeli counterparts, and remains committed in charter to the destruction of the Jewish state.
Given that, perhaps we can begin to understand the reluctance of Washington under it-doesn’t-matter-who to “pressure Israel” to make concessions to the people who keep shooting rockets into their country when they aren’t trying to send children across the border strapped with suicide belts.
I just find the assumption interesting that the only way forward is for Israel to negotiate under fire the terms of its continued existence with those who are committed to its destruction. It’s almost as though we know that nothing reasonable will come from the other side.
Lex,
One option that you do not talk about is the role ofIran in support of Hamas.Hamas is receiving financial and weapons support from Iran through Egypt but Mubarak does seem interested in cracking down on it,What the hell is HIS angle ???Al Quaeda is trying hard to penetrate Gaza if that happens ,then What? What choice would Israel have but to go in and wipe them out ??
Lex wrote: “…It’s almost as though we know that nothing reasonable will come from the other side.”
Lex, there’s no “almost” about it – We KNOW, how can we not(?), from all these years that nothing reasonable will come from Hamas. It’s elike “maybe this time when we walk into the lion enclosure they won’t try to eat us.” That kind of thinking gets you on the Darwin Awards.
Even here we have people who think that after 9/11 we needed to ‘understand’ the attackers, and perhaps we needed to talk to them and say ‘we’re sorry we upset’ them. Such thinking is despicable (I wish I could spell that the way Daffy Duck would say it). But it’s all wrong. It’s like dealing with kids: You have to set clear boundries and you have to punish transgressions. If you don’t do both, you get a sp0iled kid – in the case of international politics, you get endless simmering wars.
A time comes when enough is enough. That time came a long time ago in the case of Israel and its enemies, but the powers that be in our government, as they tend to do, wring their hands at the harsh solution, which is to let Israel, maybe with our help, settle the issue.
Lex, I thought “conundrum” would peek your interest! Like certain words that dictionaries and thesaurus easily define, yet fail impart a real meaning to, it is the context of the sentence, or the authors intent that truly defines the word.
I only use “conundrum” when a dilemma as to a course of action presents itself which the intellect is unable to resolve. Visualize decision as to a course of action as being on an old time weight scale. Course X is competing with course Y. Every time enough evidence is placed on one of the pans of the scale to tilt decision in its favor, a counter argument is raised which begins to tilt in favor of the opposite pan. We do not have a dilemma which speaks to uncertainty, nor do we have an insoluble problem, as its solution can be achieved by definitively adding or deleting from one pan.
If you look at Martin Indyk’s quote, you have a classic conundrum as defined by this somewhat over bearing and bombastic quill and ink dualist (none of the humble correspondent stuff for me). Having defined Indyk’s statement as a conundrum, I immediately showed that it was not, by “taking off the pan” the fact that we had never negotiated with Hamas.
Thus, Indyk’s conclusion: “This is a situation that does not lend itself to a sensible policy” is invalidated, and immediately raises the question as what sensible policy is (there is my Germanic heritage, verb at the end of the sentence. Is there more to come?) .
And thus I bring in Paul Pillar, who argues that Hamas has to be a negotiating partner, as being germane to the discussion. You will note, that I still have not expressed an opinion, for “germane” is to bring in material that is pertinent or relevant to the discussion.
I stand by my original post: I have presented no opinion, only provided information. I could reference the fact that a majority if Israelis believe negotiations with Hamas should be undertaken, but that would require a file or web search, and I will leave that to those who have an inquiring mind… I could point out that in Gaza, Hamas is a dully elected government, but then an exploration of our history of regime change of dully elected governments to protect democracy I will leave to historians…
Conundrum is such a lovely word…
Lex, I thought “conundrum” would peek your interest! Like certain words that dictionaries and thesaurus easily define, yet fail impart a real meaning to, it is the context of the sentence, or the authors intent that truly defines the word.
I only use “conundrum” when a dilemma as to a course of action presents itself which the intellect is unable to resolve. Visualize decision as to a course of action as being on an old time weight scale. Course X is competing with course Y. Every time enough evidence is placed on one of the pans of the scale to tilt decision in its favor, a counter argument is raised which begins to tilt in favor of the opposite pan. We do not have a dilemma which speaks to uncertainty, nor do we have an insoluble problem, as its solution can be achieved by definitively adding or deleting from one pan.
If you look at Martin Indyk’s quote, you have a classic conundrum as defined by this somewhat over bearing and bombastic quill and ink dualist (none of the humble correspondent stuff for me). Having defined Indyk’s statement as a conundrum, I immediately showed that it was not, by “taking off the pan” the fact that we had never negotiated with Hamas.
Thus, Indyk’s conclusion: “This is a situation that does not lend itself to a sensible policy” is invalidated, and immediately raises the question as what sensible policy is?… (there is my Germanic heritage, verb at the end of the sentence. Is there more to come?) .
And thus I bring in Paul Pillar, as being germane to the discussion. You will note, that I still have not expressed an opinion, for “germane” is to bring in material that is pertinent or relevant to the discussion.
I stand by my original post: I have presented no opinion, only provided information. I could reference the fact that a majority if Israelis believe negotiations with Hamas should be undertaken, but that would require a file or web search, and I will leave that to those who have an inquiring mind… I could point out that in Gaza, Hamas is a dully elected government, but then an exploration of our history of regime change of dully elected governments to protect democracy should be left to historians…
Conundrum is such a lovely word…