|
December 30, 2008
One always hopes that things will improve in the Middle East. These are always dashed. This time round in the circle of violence Israel's strategic objective in bombing the Gaza strip appears to be to "neutralise" Hamas, and so forcing the movement to accept a new ceasefire on Israel's terms.
It is always more complicated than that, isn't it, given the imposition of a total blockade which prevented basic goods, like food stuff and medicine, from entering the Gaza Strip. Israel choked off supplies after Hamas won the elections almost 2 years ago. Israel wants to topple the Hamas regime, rather than end the siege of Gaza and allowing freedom of movement between Gaza and the West Bank could rehabilitate life in the Strip. The problem is that the state of Israel does not accept that Hamas rule in Gaza is a fact, and nor does it accept that it is with that government that Israel must reach a situation of coexistence.
What then is the justification for this kind of attack on Hamas' centers of operation in Gaza is justified? Tom Segev observes that both the justification given for the assault on Gaza and the chosen targets are a replay of the same basic assumptions that have proven wrong time after time. Yet Israel still pulls them out of its hat again and again, in one war after another. in which the lethal logic of belligerence dominates.
The first assumption is that:
Israel is striking at the Palestinians to "teach them a lesson." That is a basic assumption that has accompanied the Zionist enterprise since its inception: We are the representatives of progress and enlightenment, sophisticated rationality and morality, while the Arabs are a primitive, violent rabble, ignorant children who must be educated and taught wisdom - via, of course, the carrot-and-stick method, just as the drover does with his donkey.
The second assumption is that:
The bombing of Gaza is also supposed to "liquidate the Hamas regime," in line with another assumption that has accompanied the Zionist movement since its inception: that it is possible to impose a "moderate" leadership on the Palestinians, one that will abandon their national aspirations.
The head of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrall, has drawn a comparison between the Israel Defense Forces offensiv in the Gaza Strip and the 2006 Second Lebanon War, which Hezbollah waged against Israel in southern Lebanon.
What we can infer is that there is war between Israel and Hamas. Israel's opening salvo is not merely another "surgical" operation or pinpoint strike. This is the harshest IDF assault on Gaza since the territory was captured during the Six-Day War in 1967--it is "shock and awe" designed to deal as serious a blow as possible to the Hamas chain of command in order to throw its operating capabilities off kilter.
The third assumption is that all of Israel's wars assume that Israel is only defending itself. That ignores a circle of violence in which the Gaza Strip has been subjected to a lengthy siege that destroyed an entire Paalestinian generation's chances of living worthwhile lives.
|
Israel could march everybody in Gaza single file into a gas chamber and at the end still think they are right.