There’s a helpful analysis of the situation in Gaza at Thinking Faith: the online journal of the British Jesuits. I’ll cut straight to the conclusion
It is highly unlikely that the Israeli war against Hamas can completely destroy the movement. However much it may be possible to limit the paramilitary capabilities of the organisation, the civil casualties and levels of destruction will further embed opposition to Israel within Gaza, and more widely among Palestinians in the West Bank. It will also result in much more widespread anti-Israeli and anti-American radicalisation with unpredictable consequences.
There have been many major conflicts involving the establishment and consolidation of the State of Israel, including 1946-8, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982-5, two intifadas, and Lebanon in 2006, but the Gaza War of 2008-09 may end up being the one conflict that finally makes it clear that sustainable security for Israel cannot be achieved by the intense use of military force.
That’s the point I keep coming back to. There’ll never be any sort of military solution to the situation in Israel-Palestine. And sooner or later, however repugnant it might be, the different factions are going to have to talk to one another. The talking shouldn’t start when the atrocities (committed by all sides) stop and good faith is shown. It’s talking that will bring this conflict to an end.
{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }
DH 01.13.09 at 9:36 pm
How can talking begin when it is Israel who bent over and allowed for a two state solution in light of Hamas not agreeing to that? How can a person negotiate with someone who desires oneself to be nonexistent? It makes no sense. Israel supports a two state solution why are they looked at as “bad” when it is Hamas who won’t even consider that? It makes no sense.
To me I look at the Israeli success in all of these events a sign that Israeli’s ARE the ones that should be looked at in a better light than their counterparts. In each of those it was the opposition that began these conflicts. The existence of people who desire the annhilation of Israel as a nation is the problem.
Kim 01.13.09 at 10:32 pm
To talk with terrorists is not to endorse their agenda, and despite protestations of “Never!”, talks are what happen in the end (initially usually secretly). There was no one our Lord himself would not talk to, from Roman occupiers to Jewish zealots.
As for the Israeli “success” being a sign of divine “approval” - which is straight out of the Jerry Falwell school of thought (sic) on special providence - how theologically asinine can you get? One picks and chooses quite arbitrarily, ideologically. On this line of reasoning, why not conclude that the terrorist “success” of 9/11 was a sign of divine approval of the attacks (as terrorist sympathisers did say) - or divine disapproval of liberal America (as Falwell himself did say)? Once again DH brings the faith into disrepute. Not to mention the kind of God such a suggestion presumes. Jesus wept.
PamBG 01.13.09 at 10:55 pm
I agree with the post. Both about the effects of the violence and the fact that sooner or later all sides will need to talk to each other. One wonders how long it will take to ‘hit bottom’. My bet is - unfortunately - not in our lifetimes.
Phil 01.14.09 at 1:00 am
One of the problems that I see is that some US Christian evangelicals support Israel in every aspect of its conduct. As a Christian, I understand that the Jewish people are God’s Chosen, after all the Lord was born Jewish. But I think we dont separate this fact from the actions of the Israeli government. I dont think it is Scripturally sound to always support the Israeli government, when God Himself withdrew support many times historically.
Further, I think that the US incurs dangerous moral hazards within the region by supporting monetarily both sides of the dispute. If two warring sons of a father were given recompense despite their violence, what motivation is there to stop the violence? In fact, the impetus to continue the violence is inherent in the support both are given. The US needs to remove foreign aid to both sides, and to allow the free people of this nation to use the excised money in support of whomever the citizen sees fit.
J 01.14.09 at 3:49 am
I’m curious how you’d define “solution” here. In the sense of enmity between ideologies or groups, military action can result in a stabilized situation, but complete destruction of a “movement” isn’t going to happen. It was unlikely the allied war against the nazis would completely “destroy the movement”, for example, and it didn’t. Like Pam, I don’t see this conflict going away anytime soon, regardless of what happens here.
DH 01.14.09 at 3:14 pm
Kim, you totally misunderstood what I said. My statements are not even close to what Jerry Falwell said. What I’m saying is that in everyone of these things Israel and/or the Israeli people were attacked first and/or observed a build up by the enemy that was clear a devastating attack was apparent. To me the successful defending of these attacks on innocent people can be a sign of how Israel should be looked at in a better light. That is not the same as the events of 9/11 as you suggest.
Phil, Israel is dealing with a terrorist organization that desires the elimination of Israel as a nation entirely. Do you support a situation where Israel is NOT a nation? I would asume not. Then why would you play both sides when one and only one side desires that? Why do you say what you say when in fact a majority of Arabs governments support what Israel is doing? Why do you say what you say when in fact over 42% of the Palastinians don’t support Hamas? It is easy to say both sides are wrong but when one looks at the facts and details then one can see Israel had no choice but to do what they are doing.
Angela Shier-jones 01.15.09 at 7:04 am
Sorry - bottom line stuff here - there is always a choice -
bomb a child or don’t bomb a child.
What would make YOU do it?
DH 01.15.09 at 3:01 pm
Bottom line here there is always a choice have “human shields” or not to have “human shields”. What would make you allow for terrorists to launch bombs from a kindergarten? How would you try to solve the situation where terrorists are launching rockets from kindergartens?
Angela you also didn’t address all of the other points that are rational that address more of the problem directly. It is clear to generalize or be simplistic but when the situation is more complex then one must come up with more complex answers that prevent future atrocities from occurring in the future.
Angela Shier-jones 01.15.09 at 3:49 pm
I agree - a wriggling, giggling, bundle of DNA with a potential to be the next Picsso, Barth, Hitler, or Ghandi is a complex issue..
but there is no generalisation in my comment - it is VERY specific..
You seem to think its valid to choose based on what the building which was housing the children at the time was being used for,
Personally I choose based on what that complex bundle of flesh is being used for - to carry a child of God. And I try hard not to prejudge how God might use that life to make a difference to the world
You really DO have a choice - bomb a child or dont bomb a child.
It’s not a game or balancing act.
There’s no way of evading the fact that a choice was made - for whatever reason - a choice was made
I repeat - what would you choose?
Bomb a Child or dont bomb a child.
DH 01.15.09 at 4:20 pm
I repeat “How would you try to solve the situation where terrorists are launching rockets from kindergartens?” Again I feel sad for the children in that they are the innocent casulties. Yet one can only answer your question when you answer mine. I will not answer your question until you answer mine. Again “When the situation is more complex then one must come up with more complex answers that prevent future atrocities from occurring in the future.” How would you prevent these current things from occurring in the future?
Again you are not addressing the main issue which is that Hamas is using human shields of weaponry. Why not address the bigger problem of that as compared with what you are addressing.
DH 01.15.09 at 4:22 pm
How cowardly that terrible organization like Hamas resorts to children as human shields. To me people who do that sort of thing clearly show a heart that is so hard that they have reached the hardness of Pharoah, etc. and thereby commiting “blaspheming of the Holy Spirit”.
Beth 01.15.09 at 8:08 pm
Angela, if the question really were as simple as you make it seem, then the answer would be “don’t bomb a child”, without any hesitation. But imagine a situation where a woman holding a child is firing a machine gun at you and your family, and there is a cop trying to take her down in order to save your lives. Is his choice “shoot a child or don’t shoot a child”? No, it isn’t - his choice is “allow the people I am meant to protect to die - or run the risk that the child will die when I kill the woman holding it”. It’s morally a far harder choice than the one you set out.
Israel isn’t actively choosing to kill children; it is too accepting of the obscene number of non-combatants killed. But when a people’s leaders refuse to make any demarcation between civilians and the military, clearly with the cynical aim of making their enemies seem inhuman, the situation becomes far more complex than “bomb a child - don’t bomb a child”.
Kim 01.15.09 at 8:43 pm
Beth, there are two things fundamentally wrong with your analogy. The first is that a woman holding a child and firing a machine gun at one’s family with a policeman present is unbelievably hypothetical and far-fetched. The second is that even if it were it not, the conclusion you want to draw from it is that taking the woman out at the risk of killing the child is the only available option, which, even if it were (I can think of others, like taking cover), is inapposite because the Israeli’s do have other options that would at least fit classical just war criteria - their attacks don’t - quite apart from the diplomatic one.
My problem with (if you like) “Angela’s choice” is that it is not radical enough: it should be “bomb a civilian - don’t bomb a civilian.” Of course I actually think that even that choice is not radical enough. But I have learned from Yoder that pacifists like myself cannot simply morally withdraw with an either/or, they must work to keep what violence there is to a minimun by holding to account those who engage in and/or justify violent actions on the grounds of just war theory. The Israeli assault fails the test. And if the reply is “Bugger just war theory!”, then if the replier is Jewish or Christian he repudiates his own theological heritage and joins the ranks of the barbarians.
Richard 01.15.09 at 8:48 pm
But Beth, we don’t have to imagine anything. The simple fact is that schools and hospitals are being targetted by the IDF. We can’t simply dismiss the deaths of 300 children with a but-what-else-could-they-do shrug of the shoulders.
What should they do? I’m not going to pretend that I can think of any quick and pain-free solution. But you knew that. There’s some good sense in this Jerusalem Post article.
DH 01.15.09 at 9:43 pm
Richard, the problem is there are NO simple facts. The complex fact is that Hamas is using schools and hospitals to fire rockets and to have children as human shields. Beth’s analogy is perfect in the sense she is absolutely correct in reconizing the complexity of the issue. Beth and I don’t dismiss the deaths of 300 children but you, Kim and others are dismissing the fact that Hamas is using these 300 children and others as human shields. You all also assume that all diplomatic attempts always work. The fact remains that diplomacy in fact fails more times than it works. I’m not saying we should stop diplomacy but when it fails no one other than Beth and I are coming up with solutions. We all agree that we should pray.
It is easy to criticize when one doesn’t come up with solutions other than pray. I will say prayer is a big one and it works but I believe you all know what I mean.
Beth, again your response was perfect. I particularly loved your second paragraph on your most recent response. Beth, we’ll just have to keep speaking until the criticizers can come up with some clear solutions. It might be like pulling teeth but Lord knows I believe in miracles.
Beth 01.15.09 at 10:20 pm
Richard, are they being targeted because they are schools and hospitals, or because they are bases for terrorists firing bombs into Israel? I had understood that the latter was the case. That still doesn’t make what is happening right, but I think it makes the question “what else should they do?” a legitimate one. If, on the other hand, the IDF is attacking these places for the single purpose of killing non-combatants, that is a very different issue.
Beth 01.15.09 at 10:22 pm
Kim - this is what I’m trying to get from someone - what are Israel’s other options? Under “just war theory”, what should they be doing differently?
Bene D 01.15.09 at 10:36 pm
And now they Isreal has bombed a UN building where people fled for refuge.
The UN is chosing not to withdraw staff, aid or stop dialogue.
They want the Isreali military to prove thier reasoning for bombing them.
And people will hopefully listen, white phosphorus was used.
When Human Rights Watch said the Isreali military was using it last week, they were pooh poohed.
DH sounds more like John Hagee than Jerry Falwell Kim.
The Israeli army admitted they used white phosphorus in 2006 when they bombed Lebanon.
Tony Buglass 01.15.09 at 11:00 pm
Israel tell us, whenever they bomb a school or hospital, that they were taking fire from that building. Now, it is a normal part of modern land warfare to emply tracking radar, to read the trajectories of incoming artillery, so that the source can be pin-pointed and taken out with counter-battery fire. This has been the case for decades, now. And it is clear that there have been cases where Hamas has cynically used such places, knowing that Israel would retaliate, and cause more bad press for themselves.
However, Israel justified bombing the UN compound on the grounds that they had taken anti-tank fire from that building. The UN denies that - they say no fire issued from the compound. Now, I would not wish to argue that Israel deliberately bombed the UN, and made up an excuse for doing it. Experience suggests cock-up rather than conspiracy. Anti-tank fire is not trackable on radar in the same way as rocket or mortar shells. I suspect a round was fired from nearby, and the Israelis got the wrong source. Fog of war.
The problem is that war always generates a fog, always makes tragedy more and more likely, and in a crowded urban context cannot fail but cause mayhem and civilian deaths. We’ve heard all the rhetoric from both sides - the time to stop fighting is long overdue.
DH 01.15.09 at 11:02 pm
Bene, you didn’t answer Beths questions. Beth I appreciate your responses. Bene, Israel can prove it and I’m sure there are witness that rockets were launched near the UN facility. Actually I’m not surprised it is a known fact that Hamas is using schools and hospitals as human shields.
Bene sounding like and being a person are two different things. It is easy to overgeneralize and you need to refrain from it. There are some things that I totally disagree with John Hagee. While I agree with some of what he says, please do not lump me in with him.
Tony Buglass 01.15.09 at 11:07 pm
Kim: “the conclusion you want to draw from it is that taking the woman out at the risk of killing the child is the only available option, which, even if it were (I can think of others, like taking cover), is inapposite”
OK, to extend Beth’s analogy (let’s call it a crazed gunman sheltering behind a hostage, if you want to make it less incredible), you can take cover when he’s shooting, but what do you do when he comes after you?
There are situations when a violent response is inevitable, and ‘collateral damage’ will take place. Angela can press the point as much as she lies, but there have been many occasions when we have bombed civilians so as to take out a military or strategic target. The situation is a mess, and Hamas is exploiting it. Israel is over-reacting, I agree, but they have been pushed into a situation in which they may have to make that decision - bomb a civilian or not.
DH 01.15.09 at 11:09 pm
Tony, you comments assume more that the UN was correct in saying that no rocket fire was launched. The fact is it was. Israel said it was rocket fire not anti-tank bombs. The facts support Israel on this one. However, they were very curtious in apologizing for the bombing that it had to be done but they are not taking back that there was rocket fire.
The situation from the UN reminds me of the movie “the Dirty Dozen”. In the movie there is an invdividual who is an observer. When questioned by the General for the inappropriate actions by the “Dirty Dozen” the observer responds “I’m just an observer. I make no statements for or against any actions.” That is the UN. Rather than take responsibility (which makes their condemnation of Israel look bad) they choose to deny it. The only rhetoric that I have a problem with is the diminished nature people have to Hamas using human shields. It seem the concept is so repulsive that people just don’t want to believe the facts.
Kim 01.16.09 at 12:58 am
Proportion, discrimination, non-combatant immunity are classical just war criteria. Contemporary just war theorists like Michael Walzer would add the preservation of urban infrastructures and jus post bellum, including (I would add) sewing the seeds of post-war peace, not humiliating a people and spreading anger, hatred, and renewed militancy. Israel can’t tick the boxes. And the weapons - white phosphorous bombs (these would be prohibited under the discrimination rubric, but I mention them as I’ve just heard on the news that Gaza is becoming an inferno).
Oh, and “collateral damgage” - when people start using such language served up by the military-political establishment itself, well, as George Hunsinger observes, it’s “a term Orwell would have appreciated.” Such language, Orwell wrote, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and give the appearance of solidity to sheer wind.”
dh 01.16.09 at 2:33 am
Lies? Why not continue to deny thehuman shields that Hamas is using in the terror campaign? It appears that Pam your counterpart has seen the light and recognized that Hamas is using human shields. Tto me being cowardly like Hamas is the worst thing a person can be. Orwellian? I don’t believe that Israel is trying to be “big brother’ in this situation. I see them trying to defend themselves and prevent future attacks and reduce the military capability of Hamas.
Kim 01.16.09 at 9:43 am
DH, you just don’t do joined-up thinking, do you? Or is it that you willfully ignore the points others try to make as you pursure your idées fixes? Which is it, stupid or obscurantist?
“Orwellian” as a description of the term “collateral damage” does the specific work in my comment of referring to the manipulation of discourse in order to cover up or distort the truth.
Again, no one in this thread has defended either the strategy or the tactics of Hamas; indeed all have condemned them outright. With you we are simply trying to make the rather kindergarten point that two wrongs don’t make a right. (Have you been to kindergarten?) Yet you keep crying “Human shields! Human shields!” as if they gave Israel, in its calculated response, a moral carte blanche. You perfectly fit the bill of what Orwell, in another essay, calls a “nationalist” in his “indifference to reality”: “there is almost no kind of outrage … which does not change its colour when it is committed by our side.”
The best thing one can say about you, DH, is that in your moral stupidity/obduracy you are consistent. Always banging on about the evils of Saddam while refusing to condemn the evils of the American occupation of Iraq. Always banging on about terrorism while refusing to condemn the torture of alleged terrorists (to the extent of denying that torture - waterboarding for example - is torture: Orwellian again). It’s always my country - or my country’s ally - right or wrong - and whatever it takes to defeat the enemy. For you security always trumps human rights. But to adapt slightly a famous saying of Benjamin Franklin: “he who would put security before human rights deserves neither.”
Tony Buglass 01.16.09 at 10:21 am
DH: “Tony, you comments assume more that the UN was correct in saying that no rocket fire was launched. The fact is it was. Israel said it was rocket fire not anti-tank bombs. The facts support Israel on this one.”
Apparently not. My comments reflected the situation yesterday. This morning, according to my paper, Israel has acknowledged that they made a grave mistake. The PM, according to the BBC website, said troops were responding to gunmen firing from the compound. Reports this morning suggest the fire might not have been coming from the compound at all - as the UN said. The situation is not clear - fog of war, like I said - but whatever the final clarification, Israel has accepted it got it wrong in this case. Don’t be too quick to defend them, in case you find yourself having to eat the same kosher humble pie…
DH 01.16.09 at 3:17 pm
Kim, you say more about the what you feel are the problems of Israel than the problems of Hamas. I don’t understand how you can call me “morally stupid” when in fact Israel has for years negotiated in good faith and everytime Hamas has rejected every part of the negotiation.
Where in this thread have I mentioned the US, Iraq, etc.? Also, look at my position. I support the two state solution, I support the innocent Palastinians like children who are facing terrible things, I stated that the Israeli settlements were wrong, I support Egypt and other Arab nations in their condemnation of Hamas and support of Israel in their right to defend itself, etc. These issues don’t involve “US, Iraq, etc.” These issue involve a basic understanding that rockets being launched by Hamas, human shields and suicide bombing must be stopped (period). This isn’t “Orwellian or even Franklinian (interesting for you to know your talking about my 12th great uncle
). Israel deserves the right not to have these three things going on in their country. Again I have never said that I don’t support the Palastinians from having a country but if that involves no country of Israel then that should be rejected. Eliminating a country for peace never works. As we have seen in the past with what Israel has given up in land “land for peace doesn’t work”. At least it doesn’t work with people who desire you to be eliminated in its entirety.
Tony, Israel apologized but they are not taking back the fact that rockets were launched from the UN complex. At least they apologized and I acknowledge that but I’m not going to take what the UN says as set in stone. They have gotten it wrong many times. There track record is not very good.
Tony Buglass 01.16.09 at 7:36 pm
DH: ” Israel apologized but they are not taking back the fact that rockets were launched from the UN complex. ”
From the BBC news website yesterday:
“Mr Olmert met Mr Ban and apologised for the attack, but blamed it on Palestinian fighters firing from the UN site.” So it isn’t about rockets or counter-battery fire, but about gunmen. The Israeli response was to hit the compound with white phosphorus shells - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7831424.stm for the whole report. This morning my local paper carried reports suggesting that the gunfire had not in fact come from the compound - yesterday, the PM was reported as apologising for the consequences “I don’t think it should have happened and I’m very sorry.” This morning he is reported as admitting that Israel had committed “a grave error.”
The very least that can be put on this is that Israel has made a mistake in hitting the wrong target. Fog of war, as I suggested earlier. The worst possibility is that it was deliberate, as Pam pondered. Responding to small-arms fire with WP does seem to me to be over the top, especially when the consequences were foreseeable.
You are inclined to take as gospel everything which Israel says, but challenge everything the UN says? Then you will be in a very lonely place, where the truth never shines its light.
DH 01.16.09 at 8:48 pm
Again the truth I said DID come to light. There WAS rocket fire that Palastinian fighters were firing from a UN base. The apology didn’t reduce this fact. He just said it was a grave error to fire the complex which I agree. On your last paragraph I could say the same thing toward you. Nowhere did “not the right target” has been confirmed. Israel DID show they hit the right target but apologized because the proper protocol would be to advise “how to proceed?” when known firing is occuring from the UN complex. Nowhere has the comment that rocket fire actually did occur has been proven. Only the response has been acknowledged.
DH 01.16.09 at 8:49 pm
No proving against rocket fire from the UN complex been proven. Sorry. :(:)
Tony Buglass 01.17.09 at 9:42 am
DH: “There WAS rocket fire that Palastinian fighters were firing from a UN base. ”
No, there wasn’t. It was gunfire.
dh 01.17.09 at 6:29 pm
Tony was there any time that Israel say that it wasn’t a rocket fired? They say “fired on’ but they don’t describe what type of firing.
Tony Buglass 01.17.09 at 7:56 pm
Read what the PM said. “Palestinian fighters firing from the UN site.” The rockets they launch are like mortar-tubes, launching a high-trajectory weapon, and therefore visible on counter-battery radar. The discussion within which the PM made his comments appeared to be about small-arms fire on Israeli ground forces, which led them to call in artillery support. The Israelis knew the GPS co-ordinates of the UN compound (that was in a report yesterday) , so knew exactly where they were barraging.
Come on, DH. Why do you strain at the gnat of so many details when the picture has so obviously clarified ina direction you don’t like? It’s perfectly clear what happened, and it was nothing to do with radar. And the PM admitted they got it wrong. Stop trying to justify him for something for which has already apologised.
DH 01.20.09 at 4:13 pm
Tony, they apologized that they hit the UN compund but they have not taken back what they said that there was fire from the UN compund. They are doing investigations. To me one has to determine what is “small arms fire”. It was like a bunch of guys in the compund were using guns they were using something much more than just “guns” so much that they needed to call in artillery on the compound. It has nothing to do with the situation being “obvious” but looking at ALL that is being said by the Israeli’s on it. It is clear there was some level of high end fire from the compound and that they apologized for having to do what they did and that they would do an investigation. That is all they said. They never said that there wasn’t fire coming from the UN compound. That was never admitted because they believe there WAS fire from it. I’m glad the UN is doing there investigation to see what type of fire was coming from the compound. Although I don’t believe there going to admit there mistakes.
They knew it was a UN compound but they also knew there was much more inside that UN compound than meets the eye.
DH 01.20.09 at 4:14 pm
It wasN’T like a bunch of guys….
Sorry for the typo.
Tony Buglass 01.20.09 at 4:58 pm
DH: “they were using something much more than just “guns†so much that they needed to call in artillery on the compound.”
This is your supposition. In fact, the classic tactic in urban fighting is to use artillery or air support where available to take out enemy strong points, rather than engage with your own infantry. Sending troops into a prepared strongpoint means taking losses. Israel has used artillery and air support throughout this campaign, rather than take heavy losses on the ground. So the Israeli response proves nothing at all about the kind of fire alleged to be coming from the UN compound.
We’ll see. It will probably come out in the wash, if we’re allowed to hear it. But so far, the UN is adamant that there was no fire coming from the compound itself, and it is clear that there were no rockets fired. My guess is that small arms fire was coming from next door, and the Israelis mistook the source, and took out the compound. As I’ve suggested many times, fog of war.
DH 01.20.09 at 5:45 pm
“Small arms fire” could include “low level rockets” that are not detected by radar. To me just because the UN is adament that no fire came from the compound doesn’t mean they are correct. Your “guesses” could also be looked at as suppositions.
Like you say “We’ll see” but due to “counter intelligence” we probably never be satisfied to your satisfaction either way.