Thursday, January 1, 2009

The New Unconditional Surrender: How To Fight In Gaza

The latest Gaza crisis might finally present a series of opportunities for the Israelis to introduce a new set of political and diplomatic truisms into the Middle East theater.

The Israelis also can present a new set of examples in how to fight a War on Terror, as well as a war against a regime that supports terror, when their entire raison d’etre is terrorism.

The time has finally arrived when Israel can, through force of arms, sunder the territories and put to rest the diplomatic notion that there needs to be a contiguous Palestinian state made up of the West Bank and Gaza. One may need to come to grips with the fact that there are overwhelming Arab majorities in each respective territory, giving them the right to political self-determination in those territories. Granting that, it does not follow that the Israeli are responsible for correcting an accident of geography and creating another version of mid-20th century Pakistan, which tore itself asunder after 24 years. The Palestinians seems to have doing a good enough job of that anyway.

The “two-state” solution becoming a “three-state” paradigm will also serve to further bury any notions of a “right of return”, as there would now be 2 more Arab states for any Arab---Palestinian or other—to “flee” to.

On the battlefield, the Israelis should introduce two new elements of warfare which aren’t necessarily so new.

The first is that a defensive victorious power can force an unconditional surrender upon their foes without ever having to physically set foot on their opponents’ territory. This can be done through repeated incessant airborne assaults upon the offending territory until it completely reforms itself and pledges to forever cease all hostile behavior and intent and then follows through on that pledge. Any breach of that commitment is automatically construed as an act of war and invites instantaneous further repeated bombing until compliance is reestablished by force.

The second is that the almost inevitable “humanitarian crisis” that results should be laid exclusively at the feet of the entity that initiated the hostilities; in this case, the ruling Hamas gang in Gaza. Any civilian casualties, destroyed infrastructures, collapsed economies, even widespread starvation should be the complete and utter responsibility of Hamas. The Israelis should completely surround Gaza and not let anyone or anything in or out until the society reforms itself from within, no matter the human cost within the territory. This should finally put to rest any notion of the “Pottery Barn rule”’s application here.

Admittedly, this would be a hard act to follow in any other theater in the War on Terror. Most terror-harboring states are, to varying degrees, functioning nation-states. One might say that this is how the Americans should have fought the war in Afghanistan: reduce an entire society-state to absolute rubble if they promote or harbor. Ann Coulter wanted to convert the Afghan populace to Christianity. I would have converted them to pre-history. That would have set the proper example, as opposed to attempting to convert them to democracy.

The Israelis should use Gaza as THE paradigm of converting a people to pre-history. They have been deemed human refuse by their Arab brethren for the sake of their utility as political pawns, so there is no reason the Israelis should not take the Arabs at their word. Hamas was elected by the Gaza populace, so the Gazans have, through exercise of their political franchise, indicated their assent to Hamas’ program of Judeocide.

All the Israelis really have to do withstand the political and diplomatic opprobrium and treat it as background noise while they conduct business that has been unfinished for far too long.

No comments: