Israel Under Siege
Conor Lynch
As expected, the Middle East Quartet of the United States, the UN, the EU and Russia has issued a statement calling for a ceasefire in Gaza “that would be fully respected” by all parties. In reality, they are asking for Israel to back down and accept the status quo ante – as any truce will be unilaterally ignored by Hamas. If the world community had any moral backbone at all, it would stand with Israel against the dark tide of nihilism which has poisoned the Gaza Strip.
Many people forget that an Egyptian brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was already in place, as of June 19, 2008. It resulted in a six month lull, during which 223 rockets and 139 mortar shells were still fired on Southern Israel. Obviously, since the bombardment never ceased, there was never any reprieve for the citizens of Israeli towns like Ashkelon or Sderot.
Nonetheless, Hamas broke the ceasefire on Dec. 19, when their Izz le-Deen al-Qassam armed wing issued a statement saying “we announce that the calm between us and the Zionist enemy has finished entirely and it will not be renewed.” Afterward, Israel faced one of the worst months for rocket and mortar attacks since the first ever sortie was launched in April, 2001.
Apologists of terror, in the Arab world and in the West, fervently argue the Hamas terrorists were forced to act due to Israeli occupation. But no such occupation of the Gaza Strip existed immediately prior to the conflict. And, almost seven times as many rockets have been fired from Gaza since the withdrawal of IDF forces in August 2005 (3,484 in total) than were fired during the entire preceding period of occupation (584).
Others suggest Hamas aggression is justified by the severity of Israel’s economic blockade. This is to confuse cause and effect. Following the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, Israel pursued a policy of reducing border closures to facilitate the growth of the Gazan economy. Strict border control was only reasserted after the outbreak of the Second Intifada – when Hamas and Islamic Jihad suicide bombers began shedding civilian blood in Haifa, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Unfortunately, the Hamas regime seems to be too preoccupied with fighting an illusory occupation to provide for economic development, or even for the basic humanitarian needs of its citizens.
Another cherished cavil amongst the uninformed is the contention that the Qassam rockets fired by Hamas are little more than toys – and not of any real danger to the inhabitants of the Western Negev. While it’s true that the missiles are built in ad-hoc workshops, and lack any guidance system, the 10 kilos of TNT in the Qassam-3 will still kill you stone dead. Indeed, 15 Israelis have been killed and 433 have been injured since four-year-old Afik Zahavi became the first Israeli to be fatally wounded by Qassam shrapnel on June 28, 2004.
Some in the so-called intelligentsia will callously point out that more people are killed in Israel by car crashes than by terrorism. But do they seriously believe “Code Red” alerts, bomb shelters and rocket fire should be regarded as normal hazards of metropolitan life? What would they say to the children of Sderot – roughly 33 per cent of whom now suffer from crippling Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)?
Imagine if the leaders of a Mohawk nationalist movement were on record calling for the destruction of Quebec, the return of the Mohawk Nation, and the re-location of all “European colonial pigs” to Bourgogne or, perhaps, Calais. Imagine if Montreal faced a daily barrage of Qassam or Grad rocket fire, launched by shoot and scoot teams of blood-thirsty terrorists from civilian neighbourhoods of the Akwesane native reserve. Imagine if grown men broke down in tears on rue St. Catherine, psychologically broken, while schoolchildren fled their playgrounds at the quotidian roar of the air raid siren.
Would we, as Quebecers, show “restraint,” appeal to the UN and pursue an unenforceable ceasefire? Or, would we act decisively to lift the siege? How would we feel watching protesters march in London, Berlin, Paris, and New York with placards reading “Quebec: murderers!” or “End the Occupation!?” And, how would we respond to a commentariat urging us to turn the other cheek despite the murderous rain of “glorified bottle rockets?”
Israel is forever confronted with this intractable reality. It is under assault by an unmerciful enemy professing an ideology of death; an enemy who would gladly sacrifice his own progeny for a chance to drown the “Zionists” in the salty waters of the Mediterranean. It is held to exacting standards of ethics and international law by a world community which is more than willing to forgive, or ignore, the vilest acts of moral turpitude perpetrated daily by terrorist thugs like Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal of Hamas. Worst of all, it confronts this injustice largely on its own.
In remembrance of this, the Middle East Quartet should take a principled stand with the people of Israel against the scourge of terror and indiscriminate belligerence which is, even now, ravaging the Gaza strip.
———–
The One State Solution
Jeremy Gravelle
No state can ever be expected to stand idly by while enemy forces bombard their citizens, but one would hope a state that likes to be known as “the holy land” would be more willing to seek out a peaceful resolution.
The legitimacy of a Jewish state is not the question here, what is in dispute is not whether the Jewish people have a right to live in the holy land. What must be asked is whether a hegemonic occupation with little regard for the wellbeing of those people who were living there beforehand is condonable.
Recently it has been in vogue to bad mouth Israeli military actions as if Israel were an unrelenting force of evil. The Globe and Mail ran a cover story about the Israeli bombardment on Dec. 27, but had not previously bothered to mention the rockets that had been hammering Israeli boarder towns for weeks. When a state in Israel’s position is provoked it would be foolish not to expect a response – Israel’s enemies are many and its friends are far away.
Was Israel’s response disproportionate to the original attacks? Unquestionably, a spattering of rocket fire is in an entirely different league from a military invasion. Even so, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 2006 conflict in Lebanon are evidence that modern armies have little power to fight guerilla movements. The Israeli army could kill every member of Hamas, but what would that accomplish? It probably wouldn’t make the surviving citizens of Gaza more likely to embrace the Israelis.
A man who once walked in what is now Israel famously suggested that when an enemy strikes us on one cheek we should offer him the other. This simple notion offers an interesting viewpoint on the conflict. Obviously we can’t ask the citizens of Israel to bite the pillow and take it, but that doesn’t mean giving up on non-combat solutions – there is always a middle road and the nations of the world should push Israel to find it.
Unfortunately, those who govern Israelis and Palestinians have shown little to no willingness to cooperate. In the coming weeks diplomats will have meetings, talks and negotiation while those living in conflict zones will continue to suffer. A well thought-out ceasefire agreement that paves the way towards a peaceful future would be the ideal solution, but one is looking less and less likely as the offensive continues.
Allowing the military action to continue cannot be an option, even more so in the long term – when reports of dead children start pouring in it’s time to review the plan. At what point does it become acceptable to call into question the ability of the Israeli government? They are an occupying force, and in 50 years the situation hasn’t come very far. A two-state solution would be difficult to broker, and likely wouldn’t lead to vast improvements any time soon.
The real solution has to be based on the people. One idea would be a federal government that can guarantee every citizen’s safety and basic human rights. The very concept of a religious state breeds division – simple cultural and religious decisions can be made privately or even on a municipal level. Even though Israel has suffered untold injustices, they must realize their occupation is in itself an injustice. We can draw two flags on the map and say the people under them hate each other, but in doing this we miss a fundamental fact – there are people on each side of the border who do not hate each other and would be happier if they were able to go about their daily business without having to worry about enemy rocket fire or occupying armies.
