Dipping My Toe Into The Middle East Debate

First post of 2009!

The holiday season has made me late for everything, and so I am for the attack on Gaza, but still, a post is in order. I’ve actually wanted to write one for several days, but I hesitated. Nothing with this conflict is simple or clean, and it’s always best to learn as much as possible before spouting off on the Middle East (this is true with any subject, of course, but here there is just so much more to learn and every detail seems to count for more).

In 2005, Israel pulled out of Gaza, though it has blockaded it since June 2007. Since 2007, Hamas is the government of the Strip. (I know I’m just giving facts, but this is actually for MY benefit, to get things straight in my head). Since the end of the cease-fire on December 19th Hamas had been launching rockets into southern Israel, hoping to pressure Israel to end the blockade. So far there have been around ten Israeli deaths vs. about 500 Palestinian deaths. The stated purpose of the attack is to fundamentally change the security situation for southern Israel. Since the initial air attack was not able to fully destroy Hamas’ ability to do this, a ground invasion has started. Israel plans to keep this up for days, maybe weeks.

From a simple moral calculus, Hamas launching rockets into Israel is unjustifiable and Israel has a right to defend itself, it seems to me. So, at the simplest level, the assault makes sense. It’s logical, even counting the massive discrepancy in power. But, the sticking point has to be: what are the ultimate consequences of the attack? Does the attack increase Israel’s long term security and the possibility of peace between the two groups? This doesn’t seem clear to me at all. If anything, it looks like a probable net loss for Israel. To permanently eliminate the threat of rockets into Israel, how far does Israel have to go in hurting Hamas? Does it leave it severely wounded, and destroy it’s ability to obtain military resources? That seems to mean destroying mosques, colleges, government buildings, and routes that supply regular goods to the Gazans as well as military hardware to militants. It means pushing more people of Gaza into the arms of Hamas and making more Arabs around the Middle East enraged with Israel. If wounded, even severly, Hamas will probably still declare a moral victory for simply having survived the assault. That’s how an asymmetric war – between two actors of vastly different capabilities -- works. Israel is fighting on the physical level, but Hamas is fighting on the moral level. And, it’s hard to believe that, if Israel leave Gaza with Hamas defeated, but not destroyed, the rockets won’t eventually be once again landing in Israel.

Then, does it stay inside Gaza? Occupation may be the only way to guarantee that no more rockets are launched. Does Israel depose Hamas and have to once again become responsible for over one million Palestinians? No one in Israel wants this, from what I’ve read.

So what then? Israel has rejected a cease-fire, so that’s out. It seems to me, from my very layman-esque perch, that the only real solution to this is for a third party to come in and cause intense pressure on both sides – political, diplomatic, economic pressure. But the Bush Administration isn’t going to do it. They’re blaming Hamas for breaking the cease-fire. So that leaves Obama, and he has remained quiet. My hope is that this is only because he’s being careful to observe the one-president-at-a-time rule, and taking the time to form a coherent response and strategy that he can reveal after he becomes president. It’s my hope, but I’m a bit skeptical – Obama has made fairly hawish statements in the past, regarding Israel specifically, so I think it’s anyone’s guess as to where he comes down.