Given the circumstances, I can't help talking politics a bit now.
When I think about politics right now, I mostly think about how sick I am of slogans. "Crush Hamas" - how? What do you mean "crush"? I don't think killing them all is going to happen. "Stop fighting, start talking" - to who?? Hamas? What kind of compromise can there possibly be there?
Anyway. I've been left with some questions for the Israeli political left, and some advice for the political right.
I'll start with the questions. Here is probably a terrible place to ask those questions (I'm pretty sure that after the several lulls in posting I've had in the past few months, the only people still reading are my mom and sister (hi guys!)). But I'll write them down here, to get it out of my head.
- The big question - what's the alternative the left is suggesting right now? A ceasefire without destroying the rest of the tunnels? A military operation that's run differently (eg, no airstrikes, or house-to-house fighting instead of bringing in the bulldozers, or vice versa)?
Right now it feels like all the focus is on how sad and terrible it is that innocent people are dying. Which, yeah, it is, but - not to sound like a horrible person here - what's your point? I think it's clear to everyone that we're in a situation where innocent people are going to die no matter what course of action we choose. (go in to destroy tunnels = war with Hamas = people dying, don't go in = tunnels used for attacks = people dying...)
I guess that's not just a question for the Israeli left, but for the world in general. So many politicians, so many words about how sad and terrible the loss of life is - so few concrete proposals as to how things could be different. (And no, buzzwords like "compromise" and "peace talks" and "ending the cycle of violence" do not count.)
- Do you take Hamas at their word re: wanting Israel destroyed? Or is there a sense that if Israel ends the "siege" and takes similar steps, Hamas would become more moderate (or alternatively, would be replaced by different leadership)?
- Why does the political left tend to treat Netanyahu as if he's anti-peace and doesn't really want to negotiate? What's the big difference between what Rabin offered and what he's offered?
*******
And advice for the right: we can't afford to let "racist" be a word that only the political left uses.
I think the political right got so used to hearing "racist" as an automatic dismissal of its own ideas that at some point it basically just dropped the word from its lexicon. Not good.
I don't think there's nearly as much racism on the political right as one might think from reading talkbacks and similar media (facebook feeds, etc). But there's enough that we need to take it seriously, and soon.
*******
My two cents? Yeah, you didn't ask for it, but you're going to get it anyway...
I think the main factor in this conflict, still, is the refusal to recognize Israel. Hamas keeps using tactics that have historically worked on foreign occupiers, not realizing that its own perception of Israel as a foreign occupier doesn't make it so.
Terrorism might drive out some colonialist soldier who just wants to get back home to Britain/France/wherever. But try that against someone in the only home they've ever known, and you're going to get a very different reaction.
******
OK, that's more than enough of that. I hope to return soon to our usually scheduled programming of random crap my kids said/ tales of terrible housekeeping/ poop jokes.
Hey....whaddaya mean that only your Mom and sister read your blog. Harrrumph!
ReplyDeleteMy mom, my sister, and the lovely, one-of-a-kind Aunt Foo :)
DeleteWhen you ask what the alternative is, there's a silent assumption that what we're currently doing is somehow better than doing nothing. I am not at all sure that's the case.
ReplyDeleteHere's a suggestion. Somewhat naive, pretty difficult, but bear with me for a minute. Let's say that we were to announce the following (and make sure it was heard by all Palestinians): "We do not wish to fight you anymore. We will not attack you in any way, nor interfere with your internal affairs. However, we will continue to blockade Gaza until a year goes by without a single terrorist/rocket attach of any kind against Israel. If a year goes by with no attacks, we will remove the blockade."
Obviously, the attacks will continue. This is what they know, and this is what they promised to do. But something small changes - Gazans now have incentive not to fire at us. As years go by, they might start thinking differently and putting pressure on their leaders to try to hold back fire. This could work especially well if there are steps involved ("stop shooting at us for 3 months and we'll let certain items through") and they can see that we're true to our word. Another benefit of this plan is that it helps us remove ourselves from the global picture of the conflict, and puts the spotlight on Gaza. Third parties will concentrate their efforts on making Gaza become a more normal place.
A disadvantage of this plan, of course, is the indefinite continuation of attacks against us, by rocket, tunnel or however else. But let's be honest - that's going to happen no matter what we do. We might be able to periodically stem the flow, but it's not like military acts are going to make them decide to stop shooting at us. Also, while we're not doing any offensive things, we could spend some time and money on more defensive military solutions. Cheaper and more effective iron dome, tunnel detection, etc.
Another problem with the plan is the following scenario: Hamas wise up, continue collecting weaponry but stop using it. A year goes by, we stop the blockade. Hamas declares victory over the Zionists, gets a few big weapons shipments, and begins a massive bombardment of Israel. This would be a huge turning point, though I think that if we play our cards right it wouldn't be disastrous. Especially because at such a point, the world would probably be siding with us and want Hamas to quit it.
Anyway, this is just something I thought of yesterday because people were talking politics next to me. I'm glad I don't need to make decisions like these, because I sure don't know what's best, but I feel like there are many "alternatives" that many people don't spend time considering.
I do think that what we're doing now is better than nothing, for two reasons. 1. the tunnels - I don't know if the "Rosh Hashanah massacre" story is true (Hamas doesn't tell me their plans, unfortunately), but there were definitely several tunnels in/near towns that were ready to be used, and I think failing to destroy them would have meant a lot of deaths. 2. because Hamas seemed so eager to start a fight that I think it was pretty much inevitable. If we hadn't responded to the rocket attacks or the tunnel attack or the attack by sea, they would have just kept going until we did respond.
DeleteBut it's not that I think doing nothing isn't even up for consideration - it's just that I'd like to hear it presented as a well-thought-out proposal (like yours!). Or at least explicitly stated. When people just say "Palestinian children have names" or "Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies," I'm left feeling like, "Yes, absolutely.... and?"
Your idea is really interesting. I think you may be underestimating the importance of stemming the flow of attacks, though. I'm not sure how well the country could stand up to years on end of attacks (if nothing else, it would kill the tourism industry. It also would probably have a huge impact on the economy, on mental health on a national level, etc).
I also think the occasional "stemming" is a big part of what keeps Hamas' abilities limited. OTOH, it's probably a big part of what keeps them in popular support and donor dollars.
In terms of tunnels, I think what we'd need wouldn't be tunnel detection as much as a way to make tunnels useless without actually going into Gaza. Which would be pretty awesome technology to have no matter what happens in terms of diplomacy.
Last problem - if Hamas did start that big bombardment, everyone would want them to quit it, but how would we actually achieve that? Would we attack at that point? We'd have as many dead kids then, maybe more.
I do think it's a very interesting idea, though. Anything that would give the average person in Gaza a reason to think they could have a better life without using violence is worth considering.
It's late already, so excuse this quickly-written response.
DeleteRegarding your reasons why what we're doing now is better than nothing - Yes, they had tunnels leading to Israel and definite plans to use them for large-scale terrorist attacks. But we knew about them. Due to the fact that tunnels leading into Israel are in, well, Israeli territory, we can potentially locate them and block them from our side without barging into Gaza with guns blazing. True, we don't currently have a good technological solution for tunnel-filling, but I'm sure we can find one. Barring that possibility, we can try to stop tunnel attacks as they're happening. It's not as unlikely as it may sound.
Your other reason states that they would have kept attacking until we did respond. That's exactly what they're aiming for - they want us to respond. They currently have incentive to drag us into fights like these, so that they can achieve their goals. That's why we need to incentivize the opposite.
As to my underestimation, I admit that I cannot foresee the exact effects of my suggestion. But I feel like I should point out that Hamas had lots of ammo to shoot at us, but instead only "dripped" rockets at us for the last couple years, until this recent battle. They prefer to save up their ammunition for bigger events. Maybe we can avoid future big events...
That big bombardment - it's a tough call. I'm not sure it would actually happen, but if it would, fighting back might be inevitable. We could try to get third parties involved as much as possible, in an attempt to stop the rockets without racking up more civilian casualties and hatred of Israel, but it probably wouldn't be enough.
So yeah, I think there could be a situation where our hand is forced, I just don't think we were there a month ago.