[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: The unwatched pot (click to view)
Date: January 10, 2009
Fair-weather friend of Israel though I may be, I have a hard time evoking too much sympathy for the country in its present conflict against the Hamas-led regime in the Gaza Strip.

The Gaza Strip, was once part of the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian government headed by the moderate president Mahmood Abbas. However, in late 2007 there was a coup in the Gaza region led by members of the terrorist group Hamas, who successfully drove representatives of Abbas' government out, and consolidated their own power.

The government of Israel, headed by Prime Minister Olmert, for its part, protested the move, but didn't really do much. Mr. Olmert was in a difficult political situation at the time, and likely did not have enough capital to start a war over the matter. So the Hamas crew were able to get cozy, and in the months that followed began regularly lobbing missiles into Israeli territory.

Finally, now, Israel has said enough is enough, and have begun bombing Gaza in retaliation. This is very politically convienient, because it allows Mr. Olmert and his ministers to look tough and decisive right before next month's election, in which national security — as usual — looks to be the defining issue.

The war is tragic, as all wars are. And of course no one sympathizes with the Hamas missilie-lobbers. But being a democratic society, I think we often overlook the fact that Israel has a tendancy to coordinate its wars with moments of political opportunism for the ruling regime. Such obervations tend to get lost amid the unwaveringly rah-rah Israel sentiments of the Jewish nation's western supporters.

[Psudo]

I like the depiction of "Politics" as a cross between a Nintendo DS and a Super Game Boy.

[gadial]

I believe you are missing two key points in the current situation.
1) It is simply wrong to say that only after the Hamas' coup in Gaza, they "began regularly lobbing missiles into Israeli territory." Rockets were shot from Gaza already in 2001, when the current conflict was still young; and the real fun began at 2004, when the Hamas realized that its other methods (e.g. suicide bombers) are failing and that shooting rockets is very convenient (it creates a lasting terror among the citizens, costs nothing, is easy to accomplish and Israel cannot retaliate without endangering civilians).

As a matter of fact, 2006 holds the record so far in rockets - over 900. So no, this hasn't begun with 2007, and there was no particular reason to intervene when the Hamas took control of Gaza.

2) So what DID lead to the current war? It's obvious that the upcoming elections were taken into account, but I don't think Olmert is to blame - he's not leading any party, and for now he seems to be politically finished. It's the minister of defense, Ehud Barak, which stands go gain from this conflict - so far he's been the laughing stock of this elections, and now no one is laughing anymore.

HOWEVER, the timing of this attack is not to blame on the government at all, but on the Hamas. In June, Israel and the Hamas agreed on a six-month truce - which, of course, wasn't followed completely by any of the sides, but kept the situation relatively quiet. The day BEFORE the truce was supposed to end, the Hamas began a massive attack on Israel - 60 rockets in one day, with clear intentions to continue. Their excuse was Israel's blockage imposed on Gaza - a blockage which resulted from the Hamas shooting rockets during the truce in the first place...

All in all, it was clear that Israel must respond to the end-of-truce aggression. The question was only when. The government could have waited for two months, until the elections were over, but does it really make sense just to wait, while the Hamas is constantly attacking, and the army is prepared to retaliate?

The timing is perfect for Barak, but it was set up by the Hamas. If the Hamas could remember that he is supposed to be the ruling party of Palestine and that his best shot at stopping the blockage is a complete cease of the rocket launching, this war would have been spared from us all.

[CanadianJeff]

well said. That whole region is a mess and Israel needs to shut up and sit down with the rest of them as it's just as guilty at times.

[Zipperfish]

I think what I see is a vicious cycle: terrorism by the Palestinians followed by collective punishment by the Israelis. Without getting into the morals of the issue, it's pretty clear that firing rockets has been an ineffective. Not just ineffective at actually killing civilians, which I suppose is why they do it, but ineffective in making life any better for the Palestinians. Similarly, massive retaliation by Israel, by which they mean to deter the Palestinians from tolerating Hamas (in this instance), has not worked either. Like the Palestinian terror attacks, it is not effective at killing intended targets. If it was as easy as crushing Hamas with overwhelming military power, they would have been gone a long time ago.

So you have two ineffective strategies being used repeatedly in a vicious cycle. I don't see how this current flare-up will end any differently.

Another interesting aspect is the propaganda war. Perhaps because both populations have large contingents spread throughout the globe, they seem to send a disproportionate amount of effort trying to spin the war according to their resepctive mythologies. Perhaps they have been too successful. This issue seems so polarizing and emotional for people, they seem incapable of viewing the conflict outside of the propaganda models created for them, which may feed the cycle.

Just about every wise person (admittedly a personal judgment) I've heard on the issue recognizes the need for a political solution. To my mind the Palestinians have to instigate the political solution, as the weaker of the two parties, or continue to suffer disproportionately. The focus of Canada, I believe, should be deterring escalation due to involvement by other parties, notably the US and Iran.

[gadial]

Zipperfish, I believe you are twice mistaken.

First of all, you suppose that the purpose of the Hamas firing rockets is to kill civilians. This is wrong, and quite obvious to anyone living in Israel. The real purpose is not killing (although some killings are necessary for it to work) but to make the lives of the Israeli citizens a living hell. Imagine living in a town where rockets fall on you every day. Image growing in such a town. For some people is Israel, this was the everyday situation for the last few years (and yes, this is the situation now for the people of Gaza , I'm afraid).

One of the things I've noticed about this war is that everyone has a "death count" - since "not enough" Israeli citizens are killed by the rockets, Israel has "no right" to retaliate. No one counts the people that stay alive but are scared shitless.

So the Hamas knows exactly what he's doing when he's firing rockets, and he's not doing it wrong. A larger death toll would have caused a major operation much sooner (like the operation that went on in the west bank after an extremely bloody month in 2002), so they tried to keep the flames relatively down. By launching a massive attack against them, Israel have changed the rules.

Which leads us to the second point where I disagree with you. Israel had never tried to crush the Hamas like it is trying now. There was never an offensive of this scale on the Hamas (NOT on civilians; Israel does not intentionally target civilians, otherwise the death toll would have been thousands already), and it was never so obvious that Israel's intention is to disintegrate it. Sure, they might fail, but it's not a lesson learned from the past that they're bound to fail; and I'm not sure if this offensive won't indeed "change the rules" in such a way that the remnants of the Hamas would be more willing to go for a "political solution". Up until this war, it was obvious that they're not.

[Zipperfish]

gadial wrote:

Zipperfish, I believe you are twice mistaken.

First of all, you suppose that the purpose of the Hamas firing rockets is to kill civilians. This is wrong, and quite obvious to anyone living in Israel. The real purpose is not killing (although some killings are necessary for it to work) but to make the lives of the Israeli citizens a living hell. Imagine living in a town where rockets fall on you every day. Image growing in such a town. For some people is Israel, this was the everyday situation for the last few years (and yes, this is the situation now for the people of Gaza , I'm afraid).

One of the things I've noticed about this war is that everyone has a "death count" - since "not enough" Israeli citizens are killed by the rockets, Israel has "no right" to retaliate. No one counts the people that stay alive but are scared shitless.

So the Hamas knows exactly what he's doing when he's firing rockets, and he's not doing it wrong. A larger death toll would have caused a major operation much sooner (like the operation that went on in the west bank after an extremely bloody month in 2002), so they tried to keep the flames relatively down. By launching a massive attack against them, Israel have changed the rules.

Which leads us to the second point where I disagree with you. Israel had never tried to crush the Hamas like it is trying now. There was never an offensive of this scale on the Hamas (NOT on civilians; Israel does not intentionally target civilians, otherwise the death toll would have been thousands already), and it was never so obvious that Israel's intention is to disintegrate it. Sure, they might fail, but it's not a lesson learned from the past that they're bound to fail; and I'm not sure if this offensive won't indeed "change the rules" in such a way that the remnants of the Hamas would be more willing to go for a "political solution". Up until this war, it was obvious that they're not.

If the job of Hamas job is to make life in Israel a living hell, then they fail in that regard too. They may make Israelis in some border towns insecure, but a "living hell" for all of Israel? I don't think so.

AS for Israelis not launching attacks like this before--well it seems like many in this debate, your memory doesn't seem to go back further than the current imbroglio. Israel cracking down on the Palestinians has been a virtual constant in a world of change for many years in the First and Second Intifadas. I suppose that time will prove one of us right. Either the rocket attacks from Hamas will continue following the invasion, or they won't. My money is on the former.

[Psudo]

The reason the tactic is called "terrorism" is because the ultimate goal is to create horror on a societal scale. Israel, like everyone these days, is trying to find a tactic that can effectively fight terrorism. That's what military tactics are about: finding the other guy's weak spot and making it your strength.

I don't know nearly enough Israeli/Palestinian history to make a sourced argument about one side having the moral high ground, but most of the world is hoping an effective counterattack against terrorism can be produced. In that sense, at least, I'm hoping for an Israeli victory. If they can find that tactic that cripple this generation's military tactic of choice the way Soviet economic collapse quieted the spectre of global thermonuclear war, it might be worth the current chaos.

If they fail, on the other hand, Israel will certainly not gain any sense of brotherhood or peace from their international neighbors. They seem to be running a fairly suicidal risk.

On a purely emotional note, I can relate to someone retaliating against rocket attacks against them, but I can't relate to the reasons for firing the rockets in the first place. If I thought I was being oppressed or discriminated against, I think I'd just leave. Understanding the motivations of only one side likely leads me to favor that side.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish wrote:

AS for Israelis not launching attacks like this before--well it seems like many in this debate, your memory doesn't seem to go back further than the current imbroglio. Israel cracking down on the Palestinians has been a virtual constant in a world of change for many years in the First and Second Intifadas. I suppose that time will prove one of us right. Either the rocket attacks from Hamas will continue following the invasion, or they won't. My money is on the former.

You're wrong though, this is different. The first and second Intifadas were insurrections, in a sense, against Israeli occupation. Even though the second Intifada was based on rather well parroted Palestinian propaganda, instead of an actual incident.

And you believe it'd be the former, but even after Lebanon, the rocket strikes ceased, for the most part. Hamas, in Gaza, wants the same propaganda victory that Hezbollah had in 2006, but Israel learned its lesson, specifically with their efforts to counter Palestinian propaganda.

Another thing, you keep mentioning a political solution, but so far, political solutions have been the ones that led to the point we are now. Israel made the political decision to leave Gaza, and it has backfired.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai wrote:

You're wrong though, this is different. The first and second Intifadas were insurrections, in a sense, against Israeli occupation. Even though the second Intifada was based on rather well parroted Palestinian propaganda, instead of an actual incident.

And you believe it'd be the former, but even after Lebanon, the rocket strikes ceased, for the most part. Hamas, in Gaza, wants the same propaganda victory that Hezbollah had in 2006, but Israel learned its lesson, specifically with their efforts to counter Palestinian propaganda.

Another thing, you keep mentioning a political solution, but so far, political solutions have been the ones that led to the point we are now. Israel made the political decision to leave Gaza, and it has backfired.

As stated, time will tell if this incursion successfully eliminates Hamas as a terrorist force. I have my doubts. Somehow, I think I'll be picking up the paper this time next year or the year after and re-reading a different iteration of this same story. I could be wrong.

Hezbollah is still active in Lebanon. I doubt we've heard the last of them.

[Chautauquan]

Psudo wrote:

On a purely emotional note, I can relate to someone retaliating against rocket attacks against them, but I can't relate to the reasons for firing the rockets in the first place. If I thought I was being oppressed or discriminated against, I think I'd just leave. Understanding the motivations of only one side likely leads me to favor that side.

Let's not be too hasty here. I agree with retaliating against rocket attacks from an emotional perspective. But also from an emotional perspective, I can see why some nut jobs would go to the point of launching rockets. If someone came to my home (perhaps even my family's home. My family might have lived here for over 200 years!) and then I am forced off of this land, I would be ticked. I would not let them move me (maybe I would HERE [see: where I've been living for the past month]) but if a bunch of Californians came into Reno (my real home) and told me that it was part of California, and their land, and I needed to leave, I wouldn't be too rational, probably. I'd be a stubborn git and hold it out. I'd grab my blackpowder pistol and tell them to try and take it from me.

Well, in Palestine, many Arabs feel that they have been disfranchised. The state of Israel is relatively recent, and since it's creation has been a Jewish country. Without the right to vote, I can see why some nut jobs would go to the point of making life a living hell until they can get back to having some say in their lives. It's not right, I don't condone it, but I can appreciate where they could be coming from.

I know that if my right to vote was stripped from me because I was (insert value here) I would be infuriated, and I think it's safe to assume that for Canadians and Americans. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Good comic, JJ. Sums it up nicely, I dare say.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

The reason the tactic is called "terrorism" is because the ultimate goal is to create horror on a societal scale. Israel, like everyone these days, is trying to find a tactic that can effectively fight terrorism. That's what military tactics are about: finding the other guy's weak spot and making it your strength.

I don't know nearly enough Israeli/Palestinian history to make a sourced argument about one side having the moral high ground, but most of the world is hoping an effective counterattack against terrorism can be produced. In that sense, at least, I'm hoping for an Israeli victory. If they can find that tactic that cripple this generation's military tactic of choice the way Soviet economic collapse quieted the spectre of global thermonuclear war, it might be worth the current chaos.

If they fail, on the other hand, Israel will certainly not gain any sense of brotherhood or peace from their international neighbors. They seem to be running a fairly suicidal risk.

On a purely emotional note, I can relate to someone retaliating against rocket attacks against them, but I can't relate to the reasons for firing the rockets in the first place. If I thought I was being oppressed or discriminated against, I think I'd just leave. Understanding the motivations of only one side likely leads me to favor that side.

I don't favour either side. I think the Palestinians, as the weaker party, should be the ones to make peace, since they suffer disproportionately in any conflict. You'd think it would be more in their interest to do so. I guess this is an old problem--the Romans could never understand the troublesome Middle East either.

I hate Hamas and Hezbollah for their cowardice and terrorism more thatn I can sympathize with them for their legitimate greifs. I dislike Israel for its duplicity and collective punishment, but if I had to pick one side, it would be Israel. I think they've both been ot the well to many times trying to elicit my sympathy.

Most of my wrath is aimed at the UN, who somehow thought it was a bright idea to carve out a state in the middle of Arab land. I used think of the UN as somewhat well-meaning but feckless. Now I see them as a destabilizing force almost everywhere they go.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

Now I see them [the UN] as a destabilizing force almost everywhere they go.

I certainly won't argue with that.

[GenericHito]

So some people think military action is the solution and others think that political action is the solution.

It's interesting to me that people assume there is an actual solution to begin with.

[CanadianJeff]

As long as we are mortal there is a solution. As long as you are mortal there are things you will always value and virtues or evils that you will uphold.