Israel is a very useful country if you need to rally voters, arouse passions or raise money. It’s equally advantageous whether your intention is to stir feelings of national pride, or extreme hatred. It can be a convenient rallying cry whether used in an American election or if you happen to be a Middle Eastern politico. Egyptian President, Gamal Abul Nasser learned that lesson well in the 1950s, congealing political power around him and pulling his regional constituency into a “blaming rage.” If you want to understand the battle ground between Israel and Hamas going on right now in and from Gaza, where hundreds and hundreds have been and are being killed as shells and rockets fly back and forth, a little dash of history can’t hurt. This is an exceptionally abbreviated version, but perhaps it will make a point.
Nasser’s overpopulated, under-resourced nation (no oil) with very little arable land needed to find an excuse for failure. “Zionism” was a convenient scapegoat (Hitler wasn’t enough?), although the impact of Israel’s existence literally had to be marginal at best on the lives of most Egyptians, even though the nations shared a common border. Nasser made sure that Palestinians were kept in camps and not assimilated into the nations that harbored them. They were raised on hate and on a mantra that their only mission in life was to recapture their homeland, lost in Israel’s 1948 declaration of independence. This hatred and mission were handed down from generation to generation of Palestinian children.
Wars between Israel and her Arab neighbors followed, in 1967 and 1973 – Israel expanded into the West Bank and Gaza, absorbing Palestinians along with the hate they felt for their new conqueror. Jerusalem, a holy city to Christians, Jews and Muslims, had once been split in half, but was now entirely in Israeli hands. 1987-1993 and again 2000 saw the Intifadas (Arabic for uprisings or shaking-off) against Israeli rule, suicide bombings, as the Palestine Liberation Organization worked through parties like Fatah towards orchestrating an end of “Israeli occupation” of the Palestinian territories.
Fatah’s opposition party, Hamas (which is on America’s list of terrorist groups), pressed for driving Israel into the sea and considered Fatah a corrupt and powerless organization more focused on its leaders’ own economic well-being than any concern for the Palestinian people. As Israel permitted some limited autonomy for the Palestinian territories they had conquered, Fatah came into power – and was actually finally considered relatively “moderate” in Western and Israeli eyes. Fatah ruled until its own corruption cost it control of the Palestinian Parliament in 2006. Up till then, Israel had withdrawn significant military forces from the Palestinian regions and seemed to be working towards a more permanent disengagement and autonomy for the conquered regions.
The legitimacy of the 2006 Hamas victory clearly rubbed both U.S. and Israeli governments the wrong way – the majority of party diehards still cried for the destruction of Israel (more moderates were willing to accept the pre-1967 borders), and neither Israel nor the U.S. wanted much to do with this radical, terrorist faction. Following a battle in Gaza, the elected Hamas government was ousted from positions of authority in the West Bank in 2007 (and replaced with the Fatah moderates), but Hamas continued to mount a strong counter-offensive campaign from Gaza.
Why in a world that is crashing down in a flurry of economic chaos would Hamas choose now to provoke Israel by raining rockets randomly into Israeli towns and villages? Look at the response: Israel mounted a massive counter attack; ships, tanks, planes descended on the border and troops plunged across into Gaza. Rocket and artillery fire raged. Civilians and combatants died by the truckload.
Why did Hamas attack? Their honor-bound mission to fight and destroy Israel, the sacred vow of many Hamas members from birth, is their reason for being – in their eyes, their solemn obligation. And Hamas’ displeasure with the Fatah regime is profound. These attacks show that region is exceptionally unlikely to find a peaceful solution anytime soon. The December 30 New York Times: “‘It would be easier to dry the sea of Gaza than to defeat the resistance and uproot Hamas which is in every house of Gaza,’ the statement, from the military wing of Hamas, said.” And Israel, under pressure to accept a ceasefire, was equally strident in wanting to send a message to Hamas that its random attacks against Israeli citizens would be met with overwhelming force.
As the American President-elect watches this unfold before him, as the Secretary of State-designate prepares to assume her office, it is clear that while the economic world needs prompt attention, the world of politics cannot be ignored. Broadening the Secretary’s mandate to encompass too many economic activities necessarily requires that she spend less attention on the political quagmires that can sink the planet. Let her focus be clear; we need a Secretary of State who can drill down on the massive political risks that face us without distraction. There are enough other well-qualified new cabinet-level secretaries with the authority as well as the capacity to deal with economic mandate.
I’m Peter Dekom, and I approve this message.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment