masthead

Powered byWebtrack Logo

Links

To get maximum benefit from the ICJS website Register now. Select the topics which interest you.

6068 6287 6301 6308 6309 6311 6328 6337 6348 6384 6386 6388 6391 6398 6399 6410 6514 6515 6517 6531 6669 6673

Crush Hamas and brave the backlash

CNN International's coverage of the weekend's fighting in Gaza concluded with a rush of images: mangled civilians writhing in the rubble, primitive hospitals overflowing with the wounded, fireballs mushrooming between apartment complexes, the funeral of a Palestinian child.

Missing from the montage, however, was even a fleeting glimpse of the tens of thousands of Israelis who spent last night and much of last week in bomb shelters; of the house in Netivot, where a man was killed by a Grad missile; or indeed any of the hundreds of rockets, mortar shells, and other projectiles fired by Hamas since the breakdown of the so-called ceasefire.

This was CNN at its unprincipled worst, grossly skewering its coverage of a complex event and deceiving its viewers.

Yet Israel should not have been surprised.

Over the past few weeks, as the tahdiyah ("period of calm" in Arabic, the term similarly preferred by the Hebrew press) unwound and finally dissipated, Israel's policy has been to refrain from responding militarily to Hamas rocket fire.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni went to Egypt and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appeared on al-Arabiya TV to bear the message that Israel did not want war with Hamas; instead, Israel was committed to renewing the tahdiyah. The purpose was to build up a moral case for retaliating against a recalcitrant Hamas and limiting the international fallout that invariably follows any Israeli attempt at self-defence.

But the tactic has never really worked and failed this time as well. Within minutes of the first Israeli air strike, the Arabs were screaming "massacre" and the media had all but forgotten the serial assaults that provoked it.

The press once again attached the word "disproportionate" and the term "continuing cycle of violence" to describe a supremely justified and largely surgical (the targets were exclusively military, the victims overwhelmingly Hamas gunmen) operation.

At the time of writing, the UN Security Council is meeting and will no doubt find Israel and Hamas equally guilty for disrupting the ceasefire and demand its immediate restoration.

One wonders why Israel even bothers. Instead of undermining the Zionist ethos of defending Jewish lives at all costs irrespective of bad publicity and perilously broadcasting weakness to its enemies, perhaps Israel should simply declare that the slightest violation of the ceasefire - a single Qassam - will precipitate an immediate and disproportionate response.

Since it's going to be condemned for it anyway, why shouldn't Israel smash Hamas promptly and massively and reap the benefits in terms of self-respect, deterrence, and a respite for its embattled citizens?

The confusion surrounding Israel's tactics in the Gaza - Israeli tank and infantry forces are now gathering for a possible ground incursion - is indicative of a deeper bewilderment.

The Government is purportedly divided over the operation's goals, with Livni and Defence Minister Ehud Barak in favour of toppling Hamas, while Olmert prefers to revive the tahdiyah.

Nobody seems to know how long Israel's operation will last or the criteria for deeming it successful. No Israeli leader, whether from Kadima, Labor or Likud, has articulated a clear vision for Israel's relationship with the obstreperous Strip.

Here, too, there is nothing original. In 1949, at the end of Israel's war of independence, Israeli forces surrounded Gaza in an attempt to conquer it and annex it to the nascent Jewish state. Frustrated in that gambit, Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion secretly sought to purchase Gaza from the Egyptians in the early 1950s, and then, during the 1956 Suez crisis, Israel briefly occupied the Strip.

Israeli soldiers in 1967 received unequivocal orders not to enter Gaza, but they did so anyway, and remained there for the next 20 years until prime minister Menachem Begin tried to convince the Egyptian leadership to take control of Gaza, fruitlessly.

Israel proceeded to build settlements in the Strip, but not enough to stake a firm territorial claim. It installed a Palestine Liberation Organisation administration there, but later disavowed it as corrupt and terror-ridden. It initially coddled and finally combated Hamas.

Finally, in 2005, prime minister Ariel Sharon, former champion of the Gaza settlements, uprooted all 21 of them and their 8100 inhabitants.

Once renowned for his brutal suppression of Gaza terrorists, Sharon also ignored the 1000 Qassam rockets that flew on the heels of Israel's withdrawal. Hamas was consequently empowered and eventually took over the Strip, creating the Hobbesian conditions that Israel faces today.

Olmert began his term with a boom - a war in Lebanon in 2006 - and is now leaving with a bang - the 2008 war in Gaza. Today, however, Olmert is more experienced, more sombre, less cocky. He now plays the role of the responsible adult.

Nevertheless, this latest round of fighting provides Israel with an opportunity to end its painful chronicle of indecision on Gaza and to embark on a lucid and realisable policy.

Can Israel co-exist with a Hamas-dominated Gaza? What are the alternatives (the re-introduction of Egyptian forces, for example) to a renewed Israeli occupation of the area? To what degree will the international community accept a zero-tolerance approach to rocket attacks against Israel, and, more crucially, will the incoming US administration of Barack Obama publicly endorse that stance?

These and other questions might be answered in the coming days if Israel, withstanding the media backlash, dares to ask them.

Michael B.Oren is a professor at the school of foreign service at Georgetown University. He is author of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present.

The New Republic



# reads: 345

Original piece is http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24853482-7583,00.html


Print
Printable version

Google

Articles RSS Feed


News

Tell us what you think


This morning Ben Knight from the ABC did his job and reported. The report avoids (not completely) emotive words and describes the devastation wrought by Israel upon the Hamas institutions. Well worth listening to.

Posted by Ralph on 2008-12-30 20:31:15 GMT


Of course, this all makes sense when one considers that after Hamas is crushed, the PA will fill the vacuum in Gaza. That explains why Egypt has blocked Hamas escaping across the border. After all, in the West Bank, the Palestinians are enjoying an economic boom, relative to that of Gaza. Ignore the low-key monologues from the usual PA line-up, as it is just for local consumption. Yes, Israeli troops will go into Gaza to pave the way for the PA to take over. And why not? Did anyone really think that Egypt and Jordan wants Iran"s proxy living as their neighbour. However, what was interesting, this time around, was Egypt"s criticism of Hamas. In effect, Egypt was supporting Israel together with the Saudia Arabia. Syria has also been rather quiet so I can conclude that Israel and Syria now have an understanding about the Golan. I think that 2009 will be a good year for Israel.

Posted by MikeS-Melbourne on 2008-12-30 11:37:53 GMT


Asking the question when will the media be held to account, is like asking a Collingwood supporter to barrack for Carlton in a Grand final. For the media to be held to account, means many of their own must hold them to account. Not likely. How is it that the media has neglected to look into the behaviour of Hamas and Co for committing war crimes. Is there not such a thing as rule of distinction. Is it not a crime to walk into a public place with a bomb attached to yourself or a device with the INTENT of killing as many public citizens as possible? Is it not a crime to habour those who support terrorism with finance and planning? Is it not a crime to refuse the Red Cross access to Gilad Shalit? These questions are but a few the media should be asking. But don"t hold your breath waiting. World leaders and the media as regards Israel are mostly a disgrace to their professions. Thankfully there are some such as Michael Oren, who try to give some balance to the usual garbage we are faced with.

Posted by Philip Hammond on 2008-12-30 11:22:37 GMT


The problem, which the media will have to wrestle with one day, is that they are complicit in committing war crimes by passing on Hamas propaganda, without any attempt to verify their wild claims. This is payback time, so just wear the backlash!

Posted by Mike on 2008-12-30 10:24:59 GMT


Israel has been left no alternative other than to retaliate against the constant barrage of missiles fired from Gaza by Hamas. How could we expect Hamas to keep a ceasefire - how can the Israelis put up with shelling day after day on innocent people? Would Australians accept the situation if Indonesia fired rockets into Northern Territory and would we like to be branded "rogue" facist Zionists if we retaliated? Dialogue with Hamas cannot occur when a palestinian father prefers to arm a child with a Kalishnikov instead of a book or a mother"s pride in her child only occurs when he becomes a suicide bomber. Hatred of infidels is preached from the womb to the grave and it is necessary to take heed that the current conflict is not about Gaza but global islamisation. Dialogue can only occur when arab petro dollars are redirected into education, justice and welare as well as a willingness to accept that Israel exists because of a UN sanction and a continuous presence in the Middle East for 3700 years. Let"s forget the bleating about "poverty" "oppression""land locked Gaza" and biased media language that constantly deceives and distorts the situation. Hamas is a terrorist organisation - brutal and dysfunctional. Why else would Arab Israelis prefer to live in Israel than return to Gaza? Reference to Hamas in recent reports has elevated their presence almost to political legitimacy! Michael B Oren"s article provides an alternate and accurate perspective not found in the pro Palestinian "Al Age".

Posted by Carol - Ballarat on 2008-12-30 09:50:40 GMT


As usual the media is trying to influence world opinion. The Pallywood operation is going great guns in Gaza. Photos, obviously fake are already circulating to pull at heart strings and the claims of a disproportionate response are made in the media. If there is any disproportionality, it is the 7000 attacks from Gaza in the last 8 years against the few hundred from Israel in the last 3 days. If anyone is intested in the facts, I have a lot of communiques directly from the Israeli Foreign Office and will be happy to share them if you contact me at stu_hash@hotmail.com The international media are gearing up for their agenda which is not based on fact

Posted by Haifadiarist on 2008-12-30 07:34:15 GMT


Very unfortunately this article tells the truth as it is. The only decent coverage i saw was in the China Post, a Taiwanese newspaper with an English language edition. this was fair and balanced. Perhaps we should send copies to the Western press as an examle to tyem. Of course Taiwan is Buddhist, perhaps that is the reason. Both Christianity and Islam are steeped in antisemitism. The Taiwanese see it as it is without bias.I found the treatment in our press as disgustingly innacurate and one sided..

Posted by Peter on 2008-12-30 02:19:02 GMT