"Israel's strategy in Gaza is about
showing the Palestinians who is in
control and lowering their expectations"
Neve Gordon
Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak,
did not stammer
when he justified his decision to
experiment with famine;
he had no qualms about introducing a
policy that historically
only the most brutal leaders have adopted.
His argument sounds rational. Barak said that no
government in the world would tolerate the ongoing
bombardment of its citizens from across the border.
Since other measures - like harsh economic sanctions,
extra-judicial executions, the ongoing barrage of
northern parts of Gaza as well as the bombardment
of several critical infrastructure sites, like the electric
power plant and Palestinian government offices -
did not do the job, Israel had no other option.
This of argument was also advanced by Jonathan
Spyer who claimed in an article on Cif that the
"situation between the state of Israel and the
Islamist statelet of Gaza is by definition one of
conflict. In the event of a major Hamas terror
attack within Israel, it is likely to turn into open
war, on the model of Operation Defensive Shield in
2002. Gaza is ruled by an organisation committed
to destroying Israel, and replacing it with a state
based on Sharia Law. This was the case before
Wednesday, January 23, 2008. It is the case after it.
The events of the last days, from the Israeli point of
view, have served largely to illustrate and reinforce
this reality."
The problem with Barak's ostensibly rational argument
and Spyer's portrayal of Hamas is that they
conveniently ignore the fact that since its
victory in the January 2006 democratic
elections Hamas has proposed several ceasefire
agreements, the latest emerging just last week.
In these proposals, Hamas agrees to stop launching
missiles at Israeli citizens, in exchange for Israel
ending its incursions into Gaza, the assassinations
of militants and political leaders, and the
economic blockade.
Hamas's proposals underscore two important facts.
First, despite what Barak and Spyer say, the use of force
is not the only option Israel has: the government could
decide to open a dialogue with Hamas based on a
ceasefire agreement. Second, it emphasises, as Israeli
critic Uri Avnery cogently observes, that Israel is
cynically using the assaults on its own citizens as a
pretext for attempting to overthrow the Hamas
regime in Gaza and for preventing a Hamas
takeover in the West Bank.
Ultimately, though, even the courageous
Avnery does not spell out Israel's main objective.
The central issue for Israel is not Hamas, but rather
Palestinian sovereignty. The recent crisis reveals,
once more, that Israel's August 2005 unilateral
withdrawal from Gaza was not an act of decolonisation
but rather the reorganisation of Israeli power and the
implementation of neo-colonial rule.
Israel realised that in order to maintain
sovereignty all it would have to do is preserve
its monopoly over the
legitimate means of movement.
Very different from the withdrawal of British
forces from the various colonies of old, it accordingly
continued to dominateGaza's borders, transforming
the strip into a container of sorts whose openings are
totally controlled by Israel. Thus, when Spyer refers
to Gaza as a "statelet" he is deceiving his readers.
really about the bombardment of Israeli citizens or even
about Israel's ongoing efforts to undermine Hamas. It is
simply a new draconian strategy aimed at denying the
Palestinians their most basic right to self-determination.
It is about showing them who is in control, about breaking
their backs, so that they lower their expectations and bow
down to Israeli demands. The Palestinians understood
this and courageously destroyed their prison wall while
crying out into the wilderness for international support.
Instead of the expected outrage, the only response they
received was a weak echo of their own cry for help.
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment