February 2009

Issue 1, Volume 7

“Qassam Count: One or more rockets hit Israeli civilian areas today.” In recent weeks you're likely to have seen variations of this message on Facebook. It's a statement made in solidarity with the Israelis who have been subjected to Hamas' rocket fire. And there's nothing explicitly wrong with that, but it becomes problematic when Israel's supporters fail so miserably to see the other side of the coin. This one-sided approach to Israeli affairs is pervasive throughout our politics, it is why we're aren't taken seriously as peace brokers, and it is why staunch Israel supporters are so misguided in their thinking about the issue. To get a better picture of the situation, there are two separate but equally important questions to ask when thinking about Israel's offensive in Gaza.

Was it the right thing to do? After the temporary ceasefire agreement ended, Hamas began launching rockets into southern Israel. Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by a number of countries, and part of their mission statement blatantly states that Israel has no right to exist. Israel had a right to defend itself by using whatever means necessary. Well, not exactly. This is the narrative used by many proponents of Operation Cast Lead, and it is riddled with holes.

Eight non-governmental organizations released a report revealing that conditions inside the Gaza strip are worse now than at any point since 1967. 80 percent of the Gaza population is reportedly now receiving food aid, unemployment is measured at 40 percent, water and sewage systems are breaking down, and hospitals have frequent power shortages. Israel has been complicit in these worsening conditions through its blockade of the Gaza strip. According to international law, a blockade is an act of war.

The Israeli press strategy of starting the timeline when the first Hamas rockets landed in Sderot is completely disingenuous. Hamas rocket attacks did not happen in a vacuum. They were a clear response to the blockade. Yet the discourse in American media reflects a willingness to accept this revised timeline. We are asked, “What would America do if missiles were being lobbed into upstate New York from Canada?” The problem is that this question is not analogous to the set of circumstances in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A more suitable framing of the question would be, “What would America do if Canada blocked off all of our major port cities, leading to a humanitarian crisis?”

Another faulty argument made by Israel goes something like this; Israel got rid of its settlements in Gaza and in turn Hamas was elected There has been trouble ever since. The notion that Gaza has been allowed autonomy since the settlements were removed is not taken seriously by the Arab world. The first reason is that Israel still maintains leverage by controlling Gaza's borders; the second is that the Gaza settlements were vacated simply to double down on the illegal Israeli settlements maintained in the West Bank. To quote one journalist observing the conflict, “If you stick a knife in my chest and another one in my foot, then you pull out the one from my foot but drive the one in my chest even deeper, do not expect me not to kick you with my foot that is still bleeding from the wounds you have inflicted.”

Israel's ultimate goal here is to undermine Hamas. They're choking off the Gaza strip in order to turn the Gazans against their duly elected government and towards Fatah - the party that Israel would rather see in charge. Which brings about the next big question regarding Operation Cast Lead: Was it smart?

Hamas has been emboldened and is being increasingly viewed as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Hamas' support in Gaza is at higher levels than it was before the invasion. More troubling is that they lead Fatah in the polls in the West Bank, where Fatah was thought to be favored. So if the goal was to persuade the Palestinians to pick a more reasonable leadership, it's difficult to view Israel's attacks as successful. It seems as the New York Times described recently, "The more bombs in Gaza, the more Hamas's support seems to be growing at the expense of the Palestinian Authority." From a strategic standpoint, it's hard to see what Israel's endgame looks like. Before we can even start thinking about a peaceful two-state solution, Israeli policy needs to be more attuned to reality, as do Israel's supporters.

The Israeli elections, ongoing at the time of writing, don't seem to be providing much hope for a more reasonable set of policies. The centrist Kadima party and Right-wing Likud each won a roughly equal proportion of the vote, as expected. What's striking is the party that won the third largest number of votes, Yisrael Beiteinu, is a radical nationalist party led by Avigdor Lieberman. The implications of this are pretty depressing, as put by Joe Klein, "It will be much harder now for the U.S. to continue its unambiguous support if Israel's government prominently features a blatantly anti-Arab party. The ripples of Israeli intolerance will reverberate through the Middle East.”

Josh Krantz is a sophomore Management major