Controversation.com

[Unpublished]

Israel has just marched across the border into the Gaza Strip, a territory they unilaterally vacated three years ago, in response to an incessant shower of Hamas rockets. While lamenting strife in the Middle East is certainly a clichéd futility, I find myself dismayed and troubled that so many know so little about Israel’s value in the region.

Further, I am surprised at the moral parallels drawn between Israel and Hamas in most newspaper and television coverage of late. The common wisdom, it seems, is that both powers are equally culpable for the ongoing bloodshed. This comparison is patently false, however the motivations are understandable, so the mistake is forgivable. Still, like any mistake, it should be rectified.

Perhaps a condensed bit of history would provide perspective. While Arabs and Jews have been like cats and dogs for thousands of years, I’m not going back quite that far.


History Lesson

Let’s start with the Ottoman Empire – or Turkey, as it is presently known.

From the beginning of the 14th century until its gradual decline in the 17th and 18th century, the Ottoman Empire laid claim to the lands of Southeastern Europe, the Middle East (including what is now Israel), and the coastline of Northern Africa. Internal discord and European expansion chipped away at the Ottoman Empire, and by 1900 it was teetering on the edge of ruin. In 1914, the Ottoman Empire allied with Germany in WWI, which ultimately led to its defeat and dissolution.

After WWI, the territories of the Ottoman Empire were partitioned and assigned as protectorates to various Allied powers (chiefly England, France, and Italy). The Protectorate of Palestine – a relatively tiny and unimportant piece of the Ottoman Empire – was allotted to England.

After WWII and the holocaust, the League of Nations (precursor to the UN), led by England, suggested that the protectorate of Palestine be remade into a Jewish state. England withdrew its garrison from Palestine as Jews from across the world emigrated into what would become Israel.

Due to the high number of Arab Muslims already inhabiting the Protectorate of Palestine, the original UN Partition Plan dictated that Israel would be separated into two intermingled and contiguous states: one Arab and one Jewish. Surrounding Arabs were discontent with the arrangement, to say the least. Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria attempted to invade Israel the day after it declared statehood on May 14th 1948. This invasion was repelled by Israeli forces, however Egypt captured and held a sliver of land on the Western coastline of Israel that would come to be known as the Gaza Strip.

During the war, a great number of native Palestinians fled to avoid being killed in the crossfire. After signing an armistice in 1949, the victorious Israeli government decided that non-Jewish Palestinians would not be allowed to freely immigrate back into the country. This decision contributed to (some might say created) the Palestinian refugee crisis, and spawned the argument over ‘Right of Return’ between Israel and the Palestinians: Israel claims it is not obligated to allow the immigration of any person or group of people, and the Palestinians claim that they should be allowed to return to what was once their homeland.


(I realize this is dry stuff, but some basic historical knowledge of the region is important)


Over the next thirty years, more attempts were made by surrounding Arab states to invade Israel, and each effort was decisively repelled. The greatest of these invasions came to be known as the ‘Six Day War’ of 1967, during which Israel actually pushed the three invading countries back across their borders, capturing the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Lebanon, and the entirety of the West Bank from Jordan. Israel returned Sinai to Egypt in 1979, but maintained occupation of the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and West Bank.

Since military conflict against the vastly better equipped Israeli Defense Force was a lost cause, thanks to military hardware purchased from the US, Palestinian rebels resorted to terrorism – bombing civilian locations and blindly firing rockets across the Israeli border in the hopes of striking soft targets.

In 1992, the Oslo Accords were signed by Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, granting rudimentary Palestinian self-governance to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Over time, Israel granted more concessions to the PLO, culminating in the unilateral withdrawal of all Israeli Defense Forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Shortly afterward, in 2006, an organization known as Hamas won a majority of seats in the parliamentary council governing the Gaza Strip.

Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by the UN. Both Israel and the US have refused to engage in negotiations with Gaza so long as Hamas is in power. Hamas has refused to recognize the nationhood of Israel, and has openly embraced violence as a political tool. And Hamas is funded by Iran.


Summation

- Palestine was originally part of the Ottoman Empire
- After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine was placed under the stewardship of England
- The creation of the state of Israel was primarily an international response to the holocaust
- The initial two-state solution was never popular with surrounding Arab territories
- Most of the surrounding Arab powers do not recognize Israel as a nation, and are openly hostile to its continued existence
- In the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, Egypt captured and held the Gaza Strip
- Israel has been under almost constant attack since it declared statehood in 1948
- Israel denied re-immigration of Palestinians returning after the war, sparking the debate over ‘Right of Return’
- During the Six Day War in 1967, Israel captured the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula from invading Arab powers.
- Israel returned Sinai to Egypt, but still occupies the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights
- After Israel vacated Gaza, residents voted Hamas – an openly terrorist organization – into power
- So long as Hamas remains in power, relations between Gaza and Israel (as well as the US) are frozen


The Realities of Occupation

With Israel occupying the West Bank, existence is unbelievably difficult for the Palestinians. Even though Israel has given administrative control to the PLO, all the roads and airports are still considered Israeli territory. This means most Palestinians are landlocked within small refugee settlements, making something as simple as traveling to and from a job almost impossible.

Israel maintains that it is unable to vacate the West Bank or Golan Heights, since these territories act as buffers against attacks from hostile neighbors. Indeed, if Israel were to vacate these territories, the urban and industrial center of Israel would be within a stone’s throw of the border.

Also, there are a number of Jewish settlements in the West Bank as well – and while it is argued that vacating the West Bank would make life more tenable for the Palestinians, it would simultaneously produce a legion of Jewish refugees.

For my part, I’m not entirely convinced that Israel vacating the West Bank would indeed benefit the Palestinians. To find out why, let’s look at what happened in Gaza...


Hamas in the Gaza Strip

After Israel vacated the Gaza Strip, Hamas was elected to power by the primarily Palestinian population. As noted above, Hamas is an openly declared enemy of Israel, and is internationally recognized as a terrorist organization.

If the desire of the Palestinians is to have a nation of their own, why then, in the last three years, has the Hamas leadership spent nothing on infrastructure, commercial expansion, or water cleaning facilities? Hamas has spent the vast majority of its capital on weapons of terror and recruitment propaganda.

It is not the goal of Hamas to have a Palestinian nation parallel to Israel. The blunt and oft-chanted goal of Hamas is nothing less than the destruction of Israel and the scattering of the Jewish people.

This is not to say that all Palestinians hate the Jews and wish to see Israel destroyed – far from it. In fact, there are a great many Palestinians who have been granted full Israeli citizenship. But in this case, the mandate of Hamas is at odds with the creation of a Palestinian state. One does not build a stable society by denying basic sustenance to the citizenry in order to fire rockets into Israel. Further, Hamas does not value the life and liberty of the citizens of Gaza, as discussed below.


Hamas Tactics

Hamas, being a collection of Islamofascist terrorists, loves it when civilians are killed. Preferably the civilians are Jewish, but Palestinians are a close second. Why? Because every Palestinian civilian killed by Israel is a 10 second sound byte on the news.

Hamas hides supplies and weapons under schools, mosques, and residential buildings. They do so because they know that any counterattack will surely lead to the death of innocent civilians. Hamas launches attacks from these locations, and when the response finally comes, they wail and gnash their teeth about the callousness and brutality of Israel.

In short, Hamas benefits from the deaths of the people it claims to represent. For Hamas, the deaths of innocent civilians are a means to an end. In this conflict, Hamas understands that newspapers are at least as important as bombs, and their propaganda is played to a worldwide audience.


Disproportionality

Ridiculous though they may be, the cries that rise up from the media every time Israel responds to terrorist attacks are disappointingly predictable: “disproportionate.” A rocket attack kills 2 Jews, and Israel destroys a Hamas weapons cache, killing 20 Palestinians. Disproportionate! Disproportionate!

Let’s take a deeper look at this accusation.

In the above example of 2 vs. 20, it certainly appears that Israel is being overzealous. If an incoming rocket attack kills 2 people, shouldn’t the response be limited to killing 2 people as well? Simple math tells us that killing 20 people in response to 2 is unjust.

While this comparison will seem morally repulsive to any sane person, allow me to illustrate why the 2 vs. 20 ratio is not mathematically disproportionate.

Consider that the Jewish population of Israel is roughly 5 million, and the surrounding hostile nations of Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iran have a combined Muslim population of 300 million, for a ration of 1:60. Therefore, to maintain complete proportionality, Israel would need to kill 60 Muslims for every one Israeli who dies as a result of a terrorist attack. So, in the 2 vs. 20 example above, Israel actually showed restraint. While the rule of “proportion” would dictate that they kill 120 people, they only killed 20.

If this line of reasoning seems chilling, that’s good. The utter ridiculousness of the “disproportionate” argument should be readily apparent to anyone with a functioning moral barometer.

Morality is not a mathematical concept. One does not weigh lives as one weighs cheese, and one does not use a mathematical ratio to govern the defense of a people against terrorism.


Rain of Fire

To further illustrate, let me share a quick hypothetical with you: Imagine that a rocket is fired out of Tijuana and lands somewhere in San Diego. What do you imagine would be the response?

It’s a good bet that the press would be all over it, and that there would be an investigation led by the CIA and Interpol. Terrorists would be blamed, and the Mexican government would cooperate fully.

The next day, a second rocket is fired.

Now you’ve got military mobilization, if for no other reason than to assure everyone in San Diego that Steps Are Being Taken. You’d have a buzz of law enforcement activity in Tijuana, and continuing news coverage on all stations. Moreover, the Mexican government would emphatically and repeatedly announce that these attacks were not initiated, condoned, or performed with their approval.

Next day, third rocket.

At this point, the US would – for all intents and purposes – annex Tijuana. Not permanently, you understand – but the entire city would be placed under martial law and dismantled.

And that’s 3 rockets in 3 days.

Since 2005, at least four thousand rockets have been fired into southern Israel from various locations throughout the Gaza Strip. The cease fire, which was broken by Hamas last month, lasted six months. This means that these rockets were fired over a period of roughly 3½ years, for an average of 3.13 rockets per day.

Can you imagine 3 rockets per day raining down on San Diego? And all the while, the international community is telling the US to show restraint? To Give Peace A Chance? Then, once a response is marshaled, the international community collectively stands on their chairs and denounces the US as unfair, immoral, and disproportionate for daring to protect its citizens from random rocket attacks?

The reason we find such a scenario nonsensical is that we intuitively understand the moral difference between launching a deadly terrorist attack, and responding to said terrorist attack with deadly force.


Moral Divergence

If Israel were to carelessly – or even casually – bomb civilian targets, they would immediately lose the moral high ground. Here’s an interesting note: during this campaign, the Israeli military has actually made phone calls to civilian residences near bombing targets, giving them a 15 minute window to clear out. When has that ever happened? And can you imagine Hamas doing the same thing?

The reason you cannot imagine Hamas making phone calls to warn Israelis of inbound rockets is that you understand their intentions, just as I do. Hamas wants to kill innocent people; this is their entire motive. Warning civilians to get out of harm’s way would defeat the purpose of their attacks.

Here are a couple more questions to ponder: 1) If Hamas did not fire rockets into Israel, how many innocent civilians would die as a result of Israeli reprisals? 2) If Hamas did not store weapons in areas surrounded by civilians, how many innocent civilians would die as a result of Israeli reprisals?

The right of a country to secure itself against attack is simply not up for argument, yet an endless torrent of flapjaws regularly take Israel to task for doing exactly what any sovereign nation would do in response to bombardment. Expecting Israel to sit on its hands while rockets scream across the border is not only unrealistic, but naïve. No country should be obligated to sit and suffer under an incessant downpour of explosives – regardless of the claims, arguments, or injuries of those firing the shells.

The mindset of those who blame Israel for the ongoing conflict is understandable, if sophomoric: if the Palestinians are oppressed, it must be because Israel is an oppressor. As history shows us, such a capsulized explanation is misleading at best. While there have clearly been hostilities on both sides, it cannot be denied the largest portion of blame for the present conflict lies squarely on the shoulders of Hamas and similar instruments of Islamofascist terror.

Bluntly, if Hamas was seeking peace, they would stop shooting. That they have not stopped shooting should tell you that they are not seeking peace.

And if one side of this conflict is to be held morally accountable, it should be the side who deliberately aims for the death of innocents.


Is there a Way Out?

The first solution that pops into our minds is to push both the Jews and the Palestinians together into a single country and compel them to work it out.

The chief argument Israel provides against homogenization is demographic – if Israel is to be a Jewish state, it should enjoy a primarily Jewish population. Israel houses roughly 5 million Jews and 1.5 million Muslims. There are over 6 million Muslim Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. If all three regions were to be joined into a single state, the Muslim population would outnumber the Jewish population by 50%, destroying the possibility of Jewish self-rule. So, according to Israel, granting blanket citizenship to the Palestinians is not an option.

What about Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt – can’t they take in the Palestinian population? Answer: Not all at once, and not if the Palestinians don’t want to leave. Forcing any of these nations, or even all of them, to naturalize 6 million Palestinian refugees would be economically disastrous. We’re talking about taking in and being responsible for 6 million people who have no money, no jobs, and no place to live. The governments would be forced to feed, clothe, and house them. The surrounding Arab nations are not quite as economically stable as you might think, and coercing them to adopt 6 million refugees would be treacherous both for the Palestinians and the adoptive nation. However, to their credit, Jordan presently houses almost 3 million Palestinian refugees.

More importantly, most Palestinians do not want to leave their homeland. They feel they have as strong a claim to the land surrounding Jerusalem as Israel does.

Perhaps the most heartbreaking discovery regarding this conflict emerged in a study done by geneticist Ariella Oppenheim in 2000. This study showed that the overwhelming majority of Jews and Palestinians in Israel share a common ancestry. Genetically, they are all but identical.

If all the people of this region share the same blood, this means that the Israeli-Arab conflict is entirely religious. It is, quite literally, cousin against cousin, and brother against brother. This may be the toughest pill to swallow, especially for Americans, since our religious egalitarianism knows no bounds.

And yet, while the revelation that the Hatfields and McCoys have turned out to be kin is ironically tragic, perhaps it also offers a dim spark of hope. With time, even the most estranged of siblings can reconcile.


My Humble Suggestion

We cannot force a merger, we cannot coerce foreign nations to take in Palestinian refugees who refuse to leave, nor can we compel Israel to vacate the West Bank.

It seems to me that there is only one solution to this mess, and the longer it is postponed, the more painful and expensive it will be.

If this is a Jew vs. Muslim conflict, then the two sides must be separated. The primary argument from the Israelis concerning vacating the West Bank is that they do not trust the Palestinians to refrain from bombing Tel Aviv. And the primary argument from the Palestinians is that they are forced to live under Israeli oppression.

A multinational force assuming governorship in the West Bank could simultaneously guarantee the security of central Israel and relieve the Palestinians of the specter of Jewish tyranny. Further, a disinterested multination force could set realistic timelines for the assumption of autonomous Palestinian governance, police the border, and ferret out terrorists without malice or preferential treatment toward either side.

This could not be a UN force, since a great number of member states in the UN are on questionable ground with the state of Israel. Moreover, there could be no assurance the UN soldiers themselves would be truly neutral.

The multination force would almost certainly need backing from both the US and England, and the consent of one or more of the Arab nations surrounding Israel. Most importantly, both Israel and the Palestinians would need to approve. This requires that both peoples realize that it is in their best interests to pursue peace. I think Israel understands this – but as long as Hamas runs Gaza, I can’t say the same for the Palestinians.


- Effects

The most beneficial effect this solution would have on the region would be economic. By separating the two warring powers, stability increases. As stability increases, confidence in continued stability increases. With confidence in continued stability comes investment.

Investment in the West Bank brings with it food, clean water, jobs, and infrastructure; all the things sorely lacking there today. If nationhood were placed within reach of the Palestinian people, along with a viable economy, suddenly two things begin to look less and less appealing: 1) The Right of Return – After all, why return to subsistence farming when you’ve got a new job and usable roads? And 2) Terrorism – Why blow up Jews when you could go spend your paycheck at Wal-Mart instead?


Wrap up

Is the above solution viable? Honestly, who knows – but it certainly beats having both sides trade warheads for another fifty years.

Clearly there is no easy way out. There’s plenty of blame to spread around as well. Could Israel be more compassionate? Probably. 50 years of rocket attacks might tend to harden some hearts. Should Hamas be dealt with severely? Absolutely. While I won’t go so far as to say that the population of the Gaza Strip had it coming by electing a terrorist party to power, I will say that Hamas should certainly be held to greater account.


And why should we care?

Because Israel is a capitalistic democracy, just as we are. And they are embattled by the totalitarian forces of Islamofascism, just as we are. But they are much worse off. While we are separated from Islamofascism by two oceans, Israel is in the lion’s den. The response on Arab Street to Israel’s actions in Gaza is a crystal ball – and if we, as a nation, plan to carry on neutralizing the terrorist forces of radical Islam, we should take a long deep look into it.

If we do not stand by Israel, they won’t last long. And if they don’t last, who do you think is Public Enemy #2 on the Islamofascist Most Wanted list?