Gaza, Again

This is what I had hoped for when the Israelis unilaterally pulled out of Gaza three and a half years ago.

That is, since they had absolved themselves completely of the responsibility for governing and providing for a populace that was inalterably opposed to their (Jews’, that is) very existence, let alone their presence in Gaza, they would thereby reserve for themselves the right to conduct military incursions into the Strip whenever they deemed it necessary.

Unfortunately, they never seemed to believe that incursions were warranted, despite the incessant barrage of unprovoked terrorist rocket attacks from Gazan soil.

Until now.

I’m not entirely certain as to what precipitated this unprecedented response (which, to be certain, is exactly what it is: a purely defensive response. Not even preemptory: purely defensive). I surmise that, more than the electoral implications, it takes advantage of the transition period between the Obama and Bush administrations while at the same time giving a rather grand middle-finger salute to the US State Department, which, for all intents and purposes, has yet to recognize that the 1947 UN partition plan gave the Jews a homeland/state (although they obviously recognize their Arab counterparts’ land rights).

If the Israelis are smart and don’t repeat their mistake of letting up as they did in the 2006 Lebanon War, they will continue to bomb Gaza at least until the day Obama takes office, or until the entire Hamas leadership is dead or replaced with a governing body that will not tolerate the conduction of any terrorist activity from its soil.

Now what happens with the inevitable question of civilians, such as when Secretary Rice called for recognition of "the urgent humanitarian needs of the innocent people of Gaza"?

This time, there are no innocent civilians in Gaza. And it’s Rice’—and this Administration’s—fault, because they insisted upon the imposition of “democratic” elections before a fully functioning society was running in the Strip. This terror-ridden failed-state Hamas-driven entity was chosen by its people, and they bear the responsibility for the actions of their leaders, which they undoubetedly approve of wholeheartedly. The war IS with the Gazan population, and the Israelis have nothing to lose by saying so.

It was said around the time of the 2006 Lebanon War that a new set of “facts on the ground” could result. They did, but not in Israel’s favor. This time, let’s hope the Israelis have the fortitude to follow through.

Disengagement, Three Years On

There is a concept in Kabbalah that when an engaged couple calls off a wedding, both parties have to ask forgiveness from each other to avoid possible uncomfortable cosmic consequences.

The third anniversary of Israel’s “disengagement” from the Gaza Strip occurs today, August 15th. The question of the disengagement’s advisability has been inexorably tied to many larger issues at the forefront of the Israeli and Middle Eastern scene, so it continues to be debated vigorously inside and outside Israel.

Recently an Israeli soldier anonymously published an open letter apologizing to the former residents of the Gaza Strip for her participation in evacuating the settlers from their homes and ruining their lives. She invited former residents to air their feelings to her via email.

I would posit the soldier has nothing to feel bad about. One might retort the Gaza settlers should apologize to the rest of the Israeli nation for what might be termed as an act of political blackmail. In any case, though, any time for apologies has long passed.

It might be true that there has been incessant political bungling following the disengagement which reflects badly on the execution of the disengagement and its aftermath, but that shouldn’t necessarily reflect on the saliency of the idea that it was carried out in Israel’s best interests and no one else’s. I don’t say this because I am a partisan proponent of the “peace process”. Far from it. I don’t think any legitimate “Palestinian” political or geographic entity exists, certainly not one that entails a state that encompasses two geographically disparate territories. For the record, I would have loved to have seen Israel unilaterally annex the West Bank and Jerusalem after the disengagement, but that would have been a political impossibility. Unfortunately.

However, it just might be that the Arab—or non-Jewish populations—in either respective territory posses some degree of political self-determination. With the Arab population in Gaza outnumbering the Jewish population in Gaza on the order of at least 75 to 1, and the disparate allocation of security and defense resources to protect a civilian population that made up 1/500 of Israel’s population was becoming politically and morally untenable. Additionally, whether or not there was a “demographic time bomb” that truly threatened Israel’s existence as a democracy and a Jewish state, the evacuation took a large chunk of that number out of play, especially since the Gazan birth rate is undoubtedly faster (in spite of the area’s intense economic stresses).

What made the Israeli population and government so angry and unsympathetic toward the Gazans was not just their insistence that their civilian presence was critical, but the impression they gave that said presence was religiously mandated, which only served to add fuel to the fire. Additionally, any argument that the disengagement was a natural consequence of the Oslo process and a stepping stone toward the establishment of either a bi-territorial Palestinian state, a secular “bi-national” Palestinian entity, or worse, an Islamic emirate was rather spurious if not outright disingenuous. Sharon spokesman Dov Weisglas’ slip regarding the cessation of all territorial withdrawal after the Gaza disengagement should have given the lie to both of the Gaza settlers’ purported grievances. The disengagement was not about creating a viable Palestinian entity; it was about Israel unilaterally absolving herself of any responsibility for the administration of the Strip, even if (and probably because) it would render the Strip a political no man’s land.

Irrespective of whether or not the disengagement was a good idea that was bungled, the question remains is Israel better off without having a civilian settlement in the Gaza Strip? I would say that it gives Israel one less headache, though one could credibly assert that is has incurred worse ailments as a result.

I am not unsympathetic to the individuals and families suffering as a result of the forced evacuation, in spite of my absolute opposition to their political stance. However, I think a harsh lesson can be learned by everybody here, as to why expectations of remorse are irrelevant, if not counterproductive:

The government is not your friend, no matter who or where you are.