The murderous, collective punishment - war crimes - being meted out upon Palestinians in Gaza by Israel - with the US government's approval - is sparking outrage around the world. Not only must people of conscience speak out about this, but a deeper understanding of what's afoot is urgently needed. I offer the following towards that end (this is not intended as a comprehensive analysis):
First, we need to understand the difference between the outer realm of politics and the inner realm. The outer realm is what is offered to the general population as the "reason" why X is happening. It is the pablum and misdirection given to the people so that they will not actually grasp what's going on and will not understand their true interests and thereby act appropriately. In the present instance, the outer realm explanation for Israel's actions is that Israel is punishing Hamas for Hamas firing rockets on Southern Israel. This explanation, however, is merely a pretext for Israel and its godfather the US government's actual agenda.
The inner realm of politics is where decisions are actually made and where the real motives can be seen. In this instance, Israel is trying to create a different situation on the ground and, as Robert Parry of Consortium News wrote yesterday, establish lasting security for itself against the Arab world. (I would add here that the US, for its part, is not blocking Israel from carrying out its savage attacks, is blocking any efforts such as by the UN to end the fighting (the US just vetoed a UN resolution to this effect), and is providing Israel the weaponry for these attacks, because it wants to try to crush the same people and forces that Israel does):
"For the past three decades, Israel has charted a course that invites its own destruction by relying on two risky propositions: first, that it could extend its security perimeter beyond the reach of a devastating missile attack, and second, that it could permanently control the political debate inside its crucial ally, the United States.
"Israel’s current assault on Gaza is only the latest manifestation of this dangerous strategy, but – whether or not Israel succeeds in its stated goal of stopping the launching of short-range Hamas rockets – the more troubling writing for Israel remains on the wall.
"If Israel continues to engender hatred across the Muslim world – and thus feeds the growth of Islamic extremism – eventually some radical government or group will get hold of a missile or some other means of delivering a payload against Tel Aviv that would wreak mass devastation.
"In that event, Israel would almost surely turn to its sophisticated nuclear arsenal and launch a massive retaliatory strike. But to what end? Whatever counter-devastation could be delivered, it would not solve the strategic dilemma facing Israel.
"Indeed, retaliation would likely make matters worse by engendering even a stronger determination among Muslims to eliminate whatever would be left of Israel. The situation might even be beyond the military power of the United States to set right.
"Yet, this Israeli conundrum is not discussed inside the United States, where – for the past three decades – American neocons have led a powerful propaganda apparatus that demonizes any public figure who dares question hard-line Israeli strategy.
"Even Americans with strong affection for Israel are denounced as 'anti-Semites' or 'pro-terrorist' if they challenge the Israel-is-always-right conventional wisdom that dominates modern Washington, where Democrats and Republicans alike line up to pander to the annual American-Israel Public Affairs Committee conference."
* * *
Lasting security for Israel cannot be purchased based upon the folly that you can destroy those who you oppress through dispensing ever more savage repression.
In an intimately related story, see this article about John Bolton's predictions that the Israeli invasion is a prelude to an attack on Iran here.
The US government and its proxy settler state Israel want to dictate what happens in the Middle East. In order to do so they must try to destroy any remnants of opposition to themselves. They can only try to do so by committing more crimes against the people. But they cannot succeed in this.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
Watching Frogs Boil
Karen McKim
Erica K
Jennifer Prestholdt
Julie Morse
Salon.com
Comments
"If Israel continues to engender hatred across the Muslim world...." Hmmmm, and what did they do to do that? I think it started just by their being there. Just like they engendered hatred by being Jews just by existing.
Wow, guys.
"collective punishment - war crimes - being meted out upon Palestinians in Gaza by Israel"
What are suicide bombings if not collective punishment ("war crimes!) committed deliberately against people who are known to be innocent, like children?
Why are supporters of the Palestinians weirdly oblivious to what the Palestinians actually do? One might think that it really doesn't matter to them. All that matters is an opportunity to criticize Israel.
This is the argument that's really at the heart of the matter. The blithe certainty with which the cause-and-effect relationship is asserted strikes me as more than a bit disingenuous. I'm very far from certain that the brute force assault on Gaza will have any desirable outcome, but the implications that a) only Israel's conduct "engender[s] hatred [for Israel] across the Muslim world" and that b) a change in Israel's conduct is now or would ever have been the necessary and sufficient condition to prevent a massively destructive attack on Tel Aviv strike me as excessively hopeful, at best. Professor Loo ought to know better than to buy into these premises, as Catamitebastard's update of Richard Wagner's recommendation for the resolution of the Jewish problem helpfully demonstrates. (By the way, points to Catamitebastard, too, for self-inflicted irony: the concession that not "every country" has an Israeli embassy unintentionally underscores the peculiar challenge of being Israel.)
( http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=72719 ). Some of it is reproduced below as I do not get the sense that many readers understand the much about the history of this quagmire. Dennis, if this is too long for a comment, then delete it and I can post as a separate blog addendum to your article.
Israel has been a nation since (1948) about the time I was born. The Jews and the Arabs have been at each other in various forms since then. This centuries old Arab-Israeli conflict will likely never end until one side annihilates the other. About 20 years ago Thomas Friedman published his now well-read and respected book titled From Beirut To Jerusalem. I remembered reading and thinking “at last I understand some of the intractability of this conflict.” Once again the conflict is in the news, and on our OS pages. Some have turned it into a “cause to fight about.” I commend Friedman’s book as one among many. What follows below is a really brief history of events offered up as a shortcut for OS bloggers/readers. I realize that many readers have a much better grasp of this subject than I do. I am in no way an expert on this topic. I just always find it useful to have some historical context on things when I read my current events. I am neither Jewish nor an Arab.
In 1882, the first large scale immigration of Jews to Palestine occurred as the result of persecution in Russia and Romania. In 1896 an Austrian journalist, Theodore Herzl (the founder of modern Zionism), called for the establishment of a Jewish state. In 1916 the Ottoman Empire is divided up after its defeat in WWI. Britain wins control over Palestine, and France over what is now known as Lebanon and Syria. British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour endorsed the idea of a “national home” for the Jewish people in Palestine. From 1936-39 the Arabs of Palestine attacked Jewish settlements (and some British army units) to prevent the establishment of a Jewish homeland. In 1943 Lebanon became a state independent of France, under a power sharing arrangement between Christians and Muslims.
In 1947 the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into two states: one for the Jews and one for the Palestinian Arabs, with Jerusalem to become an international enclave. In a comment to my original post, zwrite offered the following encyclopedia copied passage.
"Jewish leaders (including the Jewish Agency), accepted their portion of the (1947 United Nations) plan, while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it and refused to negotiate. Neighboring Arab and Muslim states also rejected the partition plan. The Arab community reacted violently after the Arab Higher Committee declared a strike and burned many buildings and shops
“The neighboring Arab states and armies (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Transjordan, Holy War Army, Arab Liberation Army, and local Arabs) immediately attacked Israel following its declaration of independence, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued. Consequently, the partition plan was never implemented.
“Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring Arab states eliminated Palestine as a distinct territory. With the establishment of Israel, the remaining lands were divided amongst Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The Arab governments at this point refused to set up a State of Palestine.”
In 1948 Britain withdrew from Palestine. The surrounding Arab states joined with the Arabs in Palestine to try to stop the development of an independent Jewish state, but Israel was established despite this effort. Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip. Since then it has been attack and counter-attack for land. Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula (with help from Britain and France) in 1956, but withdrew under pressure from Russia and the U.S. The PLO was established in 1964 and Yassir Arafat was elected head in 1969. In 1967 the Six Day War occurred and Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. In 1973 Egypt and Syrian attacked Israel and occupied the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1979. And so it goes….there are many more important moments…and they continue today.
Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel. Due to a largely corrupt Fatah party they were elected in Gaza and the West Bank. For now they have been ousted in the West Bank; however, they are the Palestinian elected party in Gaza. In January 2006, Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the previous ruling Fatah party took 43. I am totally sympathetic to “innocent” people being killed and maimed. In reality; however, the voters of Gaza elected this party. How do you answer that reality? The fact is that these guys have been lobbing rockets into Israel for sometime now, and they won’t quit. This current conflict is taking us right to Iran’s front door.
I do support an immediate ceasefire and any US efforts to achieve this are laudable. How come Egypt isn’t helping more actively to settle the peace here?
"This is justice."
Justice depends on the principle, not the casualty count.
As for the morally lobotomied, mentally botoxed, stone faced and robotic apologists for Israel, I just can't deal with them any more. they have mental issues that are beside the point.
Simply add me to the vastly growing crowd of outraged Americans who do NOT see what is going on as "Israels right to defend itself".
Regarding the question of action and reaction, I'm going to quote from an earlier posting of mine ("Gaza: Is a Nation State's First Job to Protect Its Citizens?":
"Hezbollah arose out Yassir Arafat’s capitulation to Israel in 1982, leading directly to the Sabra Shatila massacre in which thousands of defenseless Palestinian women, children and men were slaughtered by Lebanese Phalangists, effectively escorted to the site by the Israeli Army under Ariel Sharon’s leadership (who was then Defense Minister). With Hezbollah came the dreaded suicide bombing tactic – the public raison d’etre for Israel’s ongoing war on Palestine and the rest of the Arab world - as a direct consequence of Israel’s infamy.
"Hamas was encouraged and supported by Israel itself and Mossad in particular as an alternative to the PLO. As Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert said on February 12, 2007: 'Netanyahu established Hamas, gave it life, freed Sheikh Yassin [Hamas founder] and gave him the opportunity to blossom.'
"Be careful what you wish for as you might get it, as they say."
Actions produce reactions. Israel is dealing with the product of its own actions in fostering Hezbollah and Hamas in an attempt to discredit and wipe out its former main nemesis in the PLO. Now it is pursuing an even more murderous strategy against that (Hamas) and against innocent civilians which it has brought into being itself.
grif's logic that Palestinians voted for Hamas and that therefore this makes them responsible for what Hamas is doing is a bad argument. Osama bin Laden, in justifying his terror attacks on America and Americans, has said the same thing: Americans voted for Bush and therefore are responsible. (Actually, in our case, Bush wasn't the winner, but that's not convenient for OBL).
"grif's logic that Palestinians voted for Hamas and that therefore this makes them responsible for what Hamas is doing is a bad argument. "
I am not taking sides here - plenty of "blame" all around, but that isn't going to fix anything. I am just pointing out that they were voted into office - something I really don't understand. I am just a believer in the people selecting their leadership. And yes, the USA voted in Bush, and yes his administration did some pretty outrageously aggressive things in the Middle East, and no that doesn't mean I support Osama Bin Laden killing American citizens. The Obama victory is a clear repudiation of Bush and his henchman. I don't support Hamas or Israel in doing this (killing) either.
Also, I would like a clear rationale for deleting GordonO's comments - unless they were personal attcks on you - I would like to see them. I'll keep looking...thanks.
I started watching DVD movies, ending up on Coppola's "The Conversation": If you recall, the plot turns on the difference between the phrases "He'd kill us if he had the chance" and "He'd kill US if he had the chance." The latter writ large encapsulates the Israeli position in their attacks on Gaza. A feeling of persecution justifies the most horrendous attacks.
Taking the larger view, Israel has a serious problem of geography: their homeland was carved out of territory taken away from people who are their opposite number in many aspects of religion and culture. They are right to feel threatened, as almost the first event of their history was all of their neighbors attacking them.
But Israel only has three options to mitigate this:
1.) Eradicate all said hostile neighbors, until all the land is theirs from sea to sea. This will take a generation or more, a great deal of capital, and a stomach of iron.
2.) Take some of the pressure off by going to the table and agreeing to significant concessions, including multilateral talks, to include Egypt and Jordan, to establish a true and autonomous Palestinian state. The neighborhood will never be safe and peaceful, but there will be a truce.
3.) Relocate the state of Israel to another location in the world. I know the arguments regarding the sacredness of this soil, but the whole problem is that the same soil is sacred to multiple folks with competing claims.
My personal feeling, and maybe hope, is that this time Israel has overplayed their hand. By the overwhelming asymmetry of their attacks against civilians-- and the rhetoric that such strikes as dropping a 2000 pound bomb on a house to kill a Hamas leader, his four wives, an all nine of their kids are necessary to send the right message: "don't mess with us"-- they have sacrificed the legitimacy of their claim to the world's sympathy and indulgence.
I can't resist saying something about this because what Amy posted on 1/6 in response to Stellaa's statement - "Score card : 800 palestinians 3 Israeli soldiers, maybe 6 3 killed from Israeli friendly fire. This is justice." - is just too hilarious to overlook.
It also underscores how Amy T will take whatever side suits her purposes at the drop of a hat.
Sayeth the good and wise Harvard educated doctor to Stellaa:
"Justice depends on the principle, not the casualty count."
The reason this is so amusing is that not two days ago Amy objected to my saying the EXACT SAME THING by claiming that I was being "intellectually lazy." (This was, by the way, the exchange that made me decide that it was not worthwhile trying to engage her in dialogue anymore). Here is the exchange in relevant part:
Amy: “I can only judge by your actions. Since you made no attempt to find out how many Israeli children are victims of deliberate terror attacks by Hamas, I'm forced to conclude that you don't really care at all. Dead Jewish children are evidently not a high priority for you.” 1/4/09
Dennis: “Jewish children killed by terrorism (or any other means) is something I condemn. It doesn't matter how many [children] have been killed in principle, one is too many.”
Amy: “Awww, c'mon. That is in an intellectually lazy answer. Of course the death of any child is a tragedy. That's about as keen an observation as ‘peace is better than war.’ Maybe it makes you feel good, but it does nothing for anyone else, certainly nothing for the Palestinian children you claim to care about.”
Dennis: “What's intellectually lazy about condemning the murder of a child, regardless of their nationality? It's a point of principle if one goes beyond merely mouthing platitudes which is what you have just done.”
I like the name: The League of the Intellectually Lazy and Dishonest.
I was struck by her use of the term "intellectually lazy" too because it's the plaint that Dershowitz uses against people who criticize him for apologizing for torture.