When last I wrote about the prospect of Israeli intervention in Gaza
, I explained the dangers and pitfalls of such a move, or of any other potential solution. Several readers wrote to complain, not totally without justice, that I did not offer a solution.
The proper job of an analyst is to analyze. Most "analysis" that appears in Op-Ed columns is not really that at all. Rather, it is "engaged" political comment by the armies of spinmeisters who busy themselves in supporting one or another political candidate or party, and therefore must justify the solution that is favored by that party, regardless of whether or not it makes sense based on the data. The data do not matter. Ilan Pappe, who writes dishonest history, was honest at least about his own approach to writing history, namely, that facts don't matter. Facts are for pedants and empiricists. That is the basic approach of most analysts, who will not admit it. The important thing is to arrive at the result that is needed to support the position, party or candidate that you favor.
But analysis or no analysis, sooner or later something must be done. The matter becomes urgent, because of the following report from Israel radio, quoted by IMRA News Service :
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 20 May, 2007
Former COS Amnon Lipkin-Shahak suggested in a live interview broadcast on Israel Radio this morning that right now the situation is not serious enough to justify occupying Gaza but that if rocket attacks extend to include Ashkelon then there might be no choice but to occupy Gaza.
Israel Radio broadcast a report within a few minutes of the interview that Hamas has announced that they intend to cause Israel to evacuate Ashkelon just as Sderot is now being evacuated in the wake of the rocket attacks against it.
. Obviously, if the attacks continue, Israel will no longer be able to exercise "restraint," no matter how expedient this might be for the members of the EU or the US State Department. What would you do if rockets were falling on towns in your country?
Embedded in my previous article, there was also a hint at the direction of a possible solution:
Israeli soldiers in Gaza would be exactly where Syria and Iran want them: sitting duck targets.
. Hamas could not do what they are doing without the active aid of Syria, Iran and other countries. What does that suggest?
And Michael Oren, drawing on the lessons of the Six Day War, has now written an article that suggests the other part of the solution, and in fact alludes to both parts:
It would be worthwhile to take note of two lessons from the Six-Day War: First, instead of rushing into battle, we should utilize the period of (relative) "restraint" in 2007 to make Israel's case Ė we cannot sustain Qassam rocket attacks on a daily basis. The second lesson is that undue fears, rather than exaggerated bravery, could lead to escalation, and that there is no alternative to addressing the source of the threat.
In other words, we should be waiting enough time in order to strengthen, improve our just argument, and prepare to thoroughly address those who stand behind the attacks Ė the Palestinians and Syrians.
It should not be necessary to elaborate very much on the above. It is not easy to provide convincing evidence (convincing to the BBC and other Hamas fans at any rate) that Iran and Syria are providing arms and money and directions to the Hamas. However, it is certainly known to all that Syria houses Khaled Meshaal, who is the real head of the Hamas. It is unimaginable that the Hamas launches these attacks without the approval of Meshaal, or that Meshaal could give his approval for the attacks without the consent and support of the Syrian regime.
During the waiting period prior to the Six Day War, Israeli diplomacy, with far less means than are available today, was able to impress upon the world the aggressive nature of Egyptian moves and the danger they posted to Israel. The United Nations met in emergency sessions. The Israeli Foreign Minister flew to the United States to meet with President Johnson.
But now, Israel is silent. In all this time, Israel has made no public representations to the United Nations or the United States or EU governments concerning Syrian involvement. Israel has not even tried to get the constant rain of Qassam rockets discussed in the UN. The world can still make believe that the Palestinians are victims of the "occupation" (what occupation is there in Gaza?) and that Israel is the aggressor. Few media outlets are reporting about the constant terror created by the Qassam bombardment, in part because Israel has not done enough to present its case to the world. This allows the BBC, for example, to write that
"Israel has launched several overnight air raids in Gaza, which the Israeli army says are in response to recent Palestinian missile attacks on Israel." Those lying Zionists. They are doing target practice over Gaza for no reason, and claiming it has to do with some alleged Palestinian attacks.
Imagine this BBC headline:
"Britain has launched several overnight air raids in Germany, which the RAF says are in response to recent German air attacks on Britain."
Original content is Copyright by the author 2007. Posted at ZioNation-Zionism and Israel Web Log, http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000388.html where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Disributed by ZNN list. Subscribe by sending a message to ZNNfirstname.lastname@example.org. Please forward by e-mail with this notice, cite this article and link to it. Other uses by permission only.
Replies: 1 Comment
Isn't the Palestinian argument that while the occupation in the form of Israeli soldier being present in Gaza has comes to end, Israel maintains a total strangle hold on Gaza via controls on all its border crossing points. If I understand it coreectly Israel does exert control on the Gaza / Egypt border to prevent the movement of weapons etc into Gaza and therefore there is some legitimacy to their argument. Surely if Israel does intend that Gaza progresses towards independence then Israel should relinquish any control of the Palestinians cross-border contacts with other nations. While I can appreciate that Hamas etc would use the poorly policed border as a means to bring in more weapons that is something that Israel has to plan for. If Israel wants to reserve itself the right to police Palestines borders then not unsurprisingly the Palestinians will assert that they are still under effective occupation.
If the Palestbi8ans chose to spend their limited funds on weapons that is their choice. If they want to live in an environment where there is no effective law and order that is their choice. If they want to vote for Hamas and the continuation of an existential war against the Jews and their allies, that is their choice. If the Palestinians want to fire missiles into Sderot and elsewhere, it is their choice.
What Israel must do is simply articulate that the Palestinian actions are those of the popularly elected government and represent the will of the people, and therefore there is no peace process whatsoever. In fact it is the will of the Palestinian people to go to war with Israel with the objective of destroying Israel, commiting genocide against Jews, excuting any non-Jewish collaborators and applying an apartheid system to the region.
Rod Davies, Monday, May 21st
Constructive comments, including corrections, are welcome. Do not use this space for spam, publishing articles, self promotion, racism, anti-Zionist propaganda or character defamation. Inappropriate comments will be deleted. See our Comment policy for details. By posting here, you agree to the Comment policy.