It Wasn't A War To "Win"
Spiegel online ran an article this week entitled "Gaza in Ruins: Who Has Won Here?" by Ulrike Putz. It was an excellent survey of the mess of lives, ideology and ruin among the Palestinians. But a journalist - or political envoy to the region, Sen. Mitchell - knows that asking the right questions is essential to understanding. And you have to understand that this wasn't a war to "win."
The right question is, "What is a civilized country to do when terrorists hiding amidst their own people fire ever-increasing numbers of ever-increasingly long-range and precise rockets into your civilian towns and villages?" Or, "What is a civilized country to do when a terrorist organization backed by a large, wealthy revolutionary country (Iran) announces that it will no longer honor a ceasefire previously honored largely in the breach anyhow, and the terrorists announce they will increase the frequency and range of the rockets and then proceed to do so?" Because while Israel was not retaliating, Hamas was making increasing headway in targeting Israeli towns and infrastructure, one might ask, "How long should Israel put the safety of Palestinian civilians, not on a par with its own civilians, but ahead of its own?" And, in the end, one might ask, "How long could Israel ignore the evident unwillingness or inability of Egypt to prevent the smuggling of increasingly lethal weaponry into Gaza?"
Israel answered those questions with restraint, restraint and restraint, until it was no longer possible for the government to look at its citizens and say, "Keep taking rocket fire, because something on the political horizon might make it worth it in the long run." Nothing positive was coming, people were increasingly traumatized and, in the end, it was the right, the duty and the obligation of the Government of Israel to do what it could to stop it or mitigate its effects.
Not to "win the war." Not to "destroy Hamas." Not to create disaffection between the Palestinians and Hamas in hopes that they would arise and topple the dictatorship. Not to restore Fatah to Gaza. Not to play the large, geostrategic game. Not to bring "peace" or a "two-state solution." Just to lessen the shooting, degrade the arsenal, destroy as many tunnels as possible and kill off some of Hamas's leadership. Just to respond to the crying need of the people of the south of Israel. It is what civilized governments DO.
If Hamas or Fatah responded to its people, what would they do?
Would they listen to 60-year-old Abu Abed, who told Putz, "'I've changed my mind about Hamas. I can't support any party that wages a war that destroys our lives.' He is particularly pained by the fact that Hamas is still selling the cease-fire as a victory," when a corpse of a Hamas fighter still lies, unclaimed, in his house. Would they listen to his neighbor who said, "Many people are now against Hamas but that won't change anything, because anyone who stands up to them is killed."
We expect nothing from them. But we expected more from other countries that claim to be civilized (the United States public largely excepted) who are furious with Israel for not continuing to suffer in silence. How would they answer the real questions? How will George Mitchell answer them in the name of the United States and President Obama?
|
No comments:
Post a Comment