Back from the dead

The election took a lot out of me. I needed a break to recover from both the stress leading up to the election, and the utter relief of its outcome. It’s not like there was any shortage of topics that raised both eyebrow and dander…so now it’s back to work.

The first thing I’m going to touch on is undoubtedly more controversial than the election: Israel’s latest efforts to bring an end to Hamas (and terrorist) influence in Gaza. I don’t profess to be an expert – and I am deeply divided on the issue. But it evokes a visceral response…and I am sad to say that the current military action was probably inevitable.

There is one primary assumption that underlies my thinking: I’m skeptical about the desire of either side to resolve this diplomatically, whether by long-term cease fire or a two-state agreement.

Before he died in an Israeli bomb strike last week, Hamas’ leader Nizzar Rayyan rejected any long term peace with Israel (a hudna or cease fire) saying:
“The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel. There is no chance that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God... You [Jews] are murderers of the prophets and you have closed your ears to the Messenger of Allah.... Jews tried to kill the Prophet, peace be unto him. All throughout history, you have stood in opposition to the word of God.”

Peace is untenable as long as Hamas or any government threatens Israel’s sovereign (and god-given) right to exist. The mantra “never again” isn’t just a bumper sticker. Nevertheless, the cynic in me doesn’t totally disregard that there are also political motivations that go beyond Israel’s conventional justification for this current aggression (to stop Hamas’ ability to use Gaza as a missile-launching haven). I also don’t dispute that Israel’s diplomatic efforts have been feeble at times.

But the current landscape with missiles raining down daily from within Gaza creates fertile ground for Israel to evoke the Powell doctrine for military response. And the threat Iran poses (both Israel and the overall stability of the region) gives Israel justification to invoke the Bush policy of preemption. (Not that I am an advocate of Bush’s failed foreign policy.)

Israel is often criticized for not having measured responses – but what is the measured response for having dozens of rockets fired into your territory day-in, day-out? What is the response for having school buses, discothèques, pizzerias and public beaches bombed? What is the response when your neighbors pledge your utter annihilation? How do you prosecute an enemy that uses its own citizens as human shields by establishing military bases in hospitals, mosques and schools?

Many will criticize Israel for the recent incursion and the concomitant civilian deaths to follow. But if Israel cannot break Hamas’ grip (and by extension, Iran’s influence) in the region…then the cycle of violence will continue until some greater conflagration alters the landscape. Peace, obviously, is the preferred option. I just haven’t seen any indication that any of the parties are remotely interested in peace.