Posted by
Patrick Henry on Sunday, January 11, 2009 11:56:36 AM
War rages and casualties soar in the Gaza conflict between Hamas and Israel. Where
will it end and what has the world learned from it? Please note: the observations that
follow are extraordinarily frank. If you have a weak stomach, a penchant for political
correctness or a leftist bent, the full text may prove hazardous to your mental and
emotional health.
(1) The hypocrisy of the "international community" knows no bounds. (International
community" appears in quotes because it is a myth. There is no international community,
only a callous gaggle of nation-states pre-occupied with their own self-interest that
occasionally support one another on specific issues when those interests can be served).
In 1948, when Israel became a state, the "international community" basically washed
its hands and said "you're on your own." Outside of America (and sometimes inside)
the Jews weren't well liked. International "outrage" over the holocaust was really
more like embarassment, because it exposed the apathy, impotence and amorality
of the "international community." Carving out a piece of Palestine for Israel and
giving Jews an international mandate to form a state was a salve for the internaional
conscience, a catharsis that would allow them to move on as though the holocaust
had never happened. In both the simmering war against Arab terrorism and the
several "hot" wars Israel has fought, the so-called international community has
been harsher, by far, in its condemnation of Israel than any of the other parties. Part
of that can be explained by the politics of oil -- i.e., the world needs the Arabs' oil
so why anger them by siding with Israel? But a big part of it is that the world still
doesn't like Jews. They cost too much. they expect too much and they need to find
a way to live with their Arab neighbors. Like it or not, that's what the majority of
the (non-U.S.) world thinks, and it's how they act. It's evident in the international
media coverage of Gaza, and in the various "peace proposals," most of which are
heavy on demands for Israel to cease attacking Gaza, but much lighter on demands
that Hamas stop shelling Israel and arming to the teeth. Rank hypocrisy is the
"international community's" modus operandi, and it is nowhere more evident than
at the "United" Nations.
(2) The conflict between Israel and Hamas is not about politics or land. It is about
irreconcilable hatred. Hamas, like Hezbollah, desires and actively seeks the destruction
of Israel, just like Iran and Syria, their two principal state sponsors. A state may be
susceptible to negotiation, international pressure and compromise. However, it is
impossible to negotiate with hatred because the one thing that is certain is that the
haters will NEVER keep any promises they make. That is what makes it impossible
for international intermediaries to negotiate a peace. Hatred never accepts or honors
a peace, and its objects are well aware of it. The only way to deal with hatred is to
either insulate oneself against its venom, or exterminate it. Israel has tried the former
without much success. It should surprise no one that they have now resorted to the
latter.
(3) Recognizing terrorists as legitimate political parties is suicidal folly. One of the
most successful strategies of Hamas and Hezbollah has been to couch themselves as
political parties with "military wings." Utilizing the age-old antipathy of the Arab
masses toward Israel and the none-too-subtle influence of their patrons, Iran and
Syria, they have successfully insinuated themselves into the political landscape of Palestine
and Lebanon by winning some elections. Promising to end corruption, with which those
governments have been rife, and to confront Israel, they have laid claim to political
legitimacy in those states. (Incidentally, if one votes for Hamas, and Hamas then
goads Israek into a war that Hamas cannot win militarily, are the voters not,
in large measure contibutors to their own demise)? It is impossible to negotiate with
hatred. According Hamas and Hezbollah political legitimacy because they exploited
hatred to win elections is international folly that has, in signifcant measure, led up to
the catastrophe in Gaza and will eventually do so in Lebanon without foreign intervention,
It is telling that Hamas has rejected the French-Egyptian peace initiative precisely
because international monitors would put an end to their incessant shelling of Israel and
make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to re-arm. They WANT license to kill
Israelis and will only accept such terms once their military defeat becomes inevitable.
Then, at the first opportunity, they will violate them.
(4) Hamas and Hezbollah are only stalking horses for Iran and Syria. This is not
meant to undersell their deadliness or significance. It is just a stark reminder of what
the whole world knows but is mostly afraid to say publicly. Iran and Syria have formed
an unholy alliance aimed at exterminating Israel and extending their hegemony over the
Middle East. Thus, Iran and Syria are fighting a proxy war against Israel through Hamas
and Hezbollah. Focusing on Hamas (and, again, legitmizing their claim to power) is
a cardinal error of international diplomatic strategy. International hypocrisy was never
more evident than when the Arab League condemned Israel's action in Gaza. Moderate
Arab states are far more concerned about Iran and its ambitions than they are about
Israel. But their hypocritical bleating continues because Israel is the target they love
to hate.
(5) Wars (all of them) incur civilian casualties. Germany learned that at Dresden, as
did Japan at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So why is Gaza different? War is a broadsword,
not a scalpel, and its weapons are regrettably imprecise. World politicians, including
many on the American left, are presently engaging in hand-wringing and fingerpointing
because more than 400 (supposed) civilians have died in Gaza. Yet in no wars fought
by western nations, including WW I, WW II, Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Storm and Iraq
have civilian casualties been completely avoided. American collateral damage has been
justified because the aforementioned wars were wars of defense, either of the U.S. or
its allies. While civilian casualties have always been a matter for regret, only fools
have believed that such wars are possible with zero collateral damage. So why is
Israel being held, internationally, to a different standard. It is undeniable that Israel
has been attacked -- brutally and over a long period of time. The Israelis' stated
objectives are (a) to stop the rocket attacks and (b) to cut off the endless supply of
such weapons to their attackers. These are logical, reasonable and legitimate goals.
Hamas, like most modern terror groups, routinely hides its soldiers and materiel
among civilians, firing on Israeli troops from schools, hospitals, mosques and
private homes. What is Israel supposed to do? Fold its tents and go home because
Hamas terrorists refuse to play by the internationally acknowledged "rules of war"
that prohibit such behavior? Nations of the world should not be stupid enough to
believe that will happen, no matter how much derision and verbal abuse they and the
media heap on Israel, nor how many U.N. resolutions the incompetent Ban Ki-Moon
presents. What would the U.S. do if Mexico started lobbing mortars into Texas and
California, or the U.K. if missiles started falling in Wales from Northern Ireland,
or France if Belgian hit squads started kidnapping its soldiers? If you're intellectually
honest, you know exactly what they would do. Applying a double standard to Israel in
Gaza is both doltish and hypocritical, and believing that modern warfare can be engaged
in without collateral damage -- including civilian casualties -- is plain dumb!
(6) Israel has made some foolish miscalculations. Allowing their citizens to build
settlements in the conquered territories of the West Bank and Gaza, far from making
Israel more secure, only further fanned the flames of Arab hatred, Palestinian resentment
and world condemnation. Intransigence on that issue at the negotiating table has damaged
Israel in the court of public opinion, and raised questions about the purity of their own
motives. Further, the previous Israeli occupation of Gaza was poorly handled, and like
most sanctions, the blockades and border closings have done more to deprive Palestinian
citizens of life's necessities than they have to emasculate Hamas. Governments, too, are
clumsy and imperfect instruments, and it would be naive to hold that Israel's own
miscalculations have not exacerbated the situation as it stands today.
(7) Unabated conflict in Gaza invites a wider war. Rockets have already been fired
into Israel from Lebanon, as well as bullets from Syria at Israeli engineers working in
the Golan Heights. Iran and Syria will welcome any pretext to actively enter the war on
the side of Hamas. If the conflict is prolonged, expect the moderate Arab states to
begin modest material support to Hamas, as well.
These are some of the more obvious hard lessons from Gaza. What is less obvious
is what to do about it, whether it is, indeed, a first step toward Armageddon and what
role The United States of America, tarnished and wounded as it is, should play in
establishing and enforcing a final resolution. In the final post on this topic, available
tomorrow, those questions will be explored. Reader contributions to the discussion
continue to be welcome.