fearlesshistory

As I predicted on my last post, and as supported by The Nation, Israel has exactly as Hamas wanted to: Bogged itself down in a no-win situation in Gaza and now the ENTIRE WORLD is against them. In a strange twist, the Bush administration - who not long ago was a hawk’s nest that allowed Israel to increase settlements in the West Bank by 48% (according to David Gregory of Meet the Press ) - has withdrawn its unthinking, uncritical support of Israel’s actions and at least stood by as a UN resolution condemning Israel’s actions and calling for a unilateral cease-fire WITHOUT assurances that Hamas rocket fire will not resume. Way to go Israel!

How are the Israelis and AIPAC taking it? In an op-ed in The Washington Post, AIPAC and Steny Hoyer insinuate that not backing Israel in it’s”time of crisis” is a moral failing. THe reality is that the incursion into Gaza was a moral failing; by treating Hamas as a military organization, Israel has granted them the privilege of being a patriotic insurgency and treated them as warriors. If, rather, Israel had continued to treat Hamas as an outlaw regime, and as criminals, the position of Hamas would have continued to disintegrate.

But what I’m most curious about, and what Robert Dreyfus brings up so forcefully, is why are the Democrats so silent on the actions of - or worse, so supportive of  - Israel? THere are many layers of reasons, ranging from the superfluous to the profound, most fo which we should discard; Some may argue that Dems are looking to solidify their jewish vote for 2010 when they can hope to increase their hold on the Congress - the problem with that is the Jewish vote a) isn’t as overwhelmingly Democratic as it used to be and b) a majority of Jews in America do not adhere to AIPAC’s vision of Israeli-American relationships. Others may argue that it is weak leadership in the Congress, but I would only give that partial credit; it is well known that Pelosi is not a “weak” leader, nor is Reid - the problem there is that two or three seats (which could potentially go Democratic) as well as other “transition” issues are taking up the majority of the Dems’ time. That, however, is a weakexcuse and one rightfully ripe for censure. The most prevalent reason seems to be that the Dems are the party in power and parties in power like to seem in command of the situation and are reluctant to “flip flop” on issues.

I would like to add my own censure of the Dems; by NOT speaking out on the tragedy of the Palestinian plight - if not the barbarity of Israel’s incursion - they are complicit in the Bush-style cowboy foreign policy agreements they so vociferously opposed in the elections - shame on all of you, even Mr. obama.

As to the absurd assertion that Israel’s mission into Gaza is either justified or holds any chance of accomplishing its goals, there is very little evidence that a strictly military approach will prevail in any meaningful way. In addition, the chances of actually finding a non-uniformed, asymmetrical insurgent amongst a civilian population while riding in a tank, or an Apache helicopter, or even on foot is nearly impossible. The French had a problem with that in Algeria, the Russians has a problem with that in Afghanistan, the British had a problem with that when facing off against Irgun or the Stern Gang, and the Americans had a problem with that in Iraq AND Vietnam; why would the Israeli’s feel that they’d have better luck? I believe that many conservative hawks vis-a-vis the Israeli position are under the mistaken notion that finding enemies in such a situation is  as easy as fingind a “waypoint”in a video game; the Gaza military debacle is nothing like “Call of Duty 4″ or “Medal of Honor” - indeed, what is more likelyis that civilians will be hit, your military and politicians will lose credibility, and the situation will go from bad to worse.

Finally, unrestrained military action, as evidenced in Gaza or Iraq, or anywhere else, has dire consequences. In the case of Gaza, the israeli military has consistently fired upon UN and other relief agency convoys , UN-run schools, andUN overseen refuges under the flimsy pretense that the UN (of all people) were harboring Hamas insurgents. Let us put it this way; If Iran were toattack a UN convoy, or China were to bomb a UN school, or Cuba were to shell a UN refugee shelter, what would theWorld’s reaction be? Why should it be different for Israel? In addition, unrestrained military action, with collateral damage and innocent civilians caught by “accident,”against an opponent who is militarily pathetic only fuels “la resistance.”Hamas will be able to recruit thousands where before it may have been able to recruit dozens, or maybe hundreds, to its cause. In addition to Palestinians, Hamas will attract Syrians, Iraqis, Jordanians, and Egyptians called to defend their cousins, uncles, grandparents, or other relatives. On top of that, Saudi and Kuwaiti money will begin to filter toward Hamas and other anti-Israeli militant groups - not just Iranian money. Of course, this money will not be official money, but will be raised by charities which are either “shell companies” of Hamas or who donate to “shell companies” run by Hamas and, in the end, Hamas will have MORE money, MORE fighters, and MORE prestige than it did before which will allow it to execute MORE attacks against Israel.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS