In other circumstances it would beggar belief that
the kidnapping of a solitary soldier could result
in such massive destruction as has been witnessed
in both Gaza and the Lebanon. The disproportionality
of the response gives rise to imagery of Nazi retaliatory
action in Czechoslovakia. But where Israel is concerned,
as the state of the self-appointed chosen people,
its self-righteous desire to punish those who irk
it is now well established.
It
is not as if Israel has never engaged in the very
activity it now seeks to ruthlessly persecute others
for; civilian populations whose culpability amounts
to nothing apart from residing in countries where
those who kidnap Israeli military personnel also
live. Arik Diamant, a former Israeli soldier has
written in response to current Israeli aggression:
It's
the wee hours of the morning, still dark outside.
A guerrilla force comes out of nowhere to kidnap
a soldier … A smash in the face with the butt
of the gun and the soldier falls to the ground,
bleeding. The kidnappers pick him up, quickly tie
his hands and blindfold him, and disappear into
the night … An entire nation is up-in-arms,
writhing in pain and worry … Nobody knows how
the soldier is: Is he hurt? Do his captors give
him even a minimum of human decency, or are they
torturing him to death by trampling his honour?
The worst sort of suffering is not knowing. Will
he come home? And if so, when? And in what condition?
Can anyone remain apathetic in the light of such
drama? ... This description, you'll be surprised
to know, has nothing to do with the kidnapping of
Gilad Shalit. It is the story of an arrest I carried
out as an IDF soldier, in the Nablus casbah, about
10 years ago. The "soldier" was a 17-year-old
boy, and we kidnapped him because he knew "someone"
who had done" something.
Given
the crimes perpetrated against Palestinian non-combatants
Israel is hardly qualified to adopt the posture
of David smiting Goliath in a bid to redress some
horrible imbalance - the capture of the Israeli
soldier Gilad Shalit. Its bullying, menacing manner
has destabilised the Middle East for decades. Subsequent,
to the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, over the top
actions by Israel in response to the kidnapping
of two more of its soldiers has in the words of
the Irish Times 'brought the Middle East
to its most dangerous level of instability in recent
times.'
Hamas
prime minister Ismail Haniyeh called for a general
ceasefire: 'in order to extricate ourselves from
the current crisis, all sides must restore calm
and mutually end all military operations.' The response
of the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert was as
belligerent as it was terse: 'we're talking about
a war that will continue for a long time.'
Hamas
leader Khaled Mashaal has put forward a plausible
solution - swap the captured soldiers for Palestinian
political prisoners held in Israeli prisons. Again,
Israel has refused, Olmert fulminating that 'trading
prisoners with a terrorist, bloody organisation
such as Hamas is a major mistake.' Israel's inflexibility
is not born out of panoramic humanitarian concern
but is premised on its desire to establish its moral
authority in the region; that its actions alone
may be deemed legitimate. This completely sidelines
the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory
which in itself ensures that armed conflict will
remain a staple part of the region's violent politics.
Whether
Olmert likes it or not, Hamas is the democratically
elected government of Palestine. That it ever came
to be the governing party is inextricably linked
to Israeli policy. Its landslide victory was achieved
because it more than its rivals showed a willingness
to resist an oppressive government which continues
to flout UN resolutions in its violation of Palestinian
rights.
Olmert
has stated that his government has 'no particular
desire to topple the Hamas government as a policy.
We have a desire to stop the terrorists from inflicting
terror on the Israeli people.' Outside the coterie
of George 'Wouldn't he' Bush whose policy of almost
unconditional backing for Israel is a factor in
the interminable conflict, this position will find
few takers. Bush's defence of the terrorist attack
by Israeli forces on Beirut's civilian airport is
nothing short of outrageous.
The
Irish Times has argued that the combination
of Hamas and Hizbullah, is viewed by Israel as a
movement which represents 'the most malign and genocidal
forces in the Middle East: extremist, jihadist and
terrorist, opposing Israel's existence in principle,
rejecting a peace process and indelibly bound up
with Islamic extremism.' This is a classic case
of creating a context which jars awkwardly with
facts on the ground. Israel has used brutally aggressive
measures to ensure its hegemony within the Middle
East long before this definition of the problem
emerged.
Israel
seems to be masking the real reasons for its current
military aggression. It insists that it is merely
employing pressure for the purposes of compelling
the governments of the violated states to crack
down on those responsible for taking military action
against Israeli soldiers. However, Israel seems
to be deliberately calibrating its military actions
as part of a wider strategic plan, the objective
of which is to create the circumstances in which
Syria and ultimately Iran may be targeted. Some
Israeli generals and US neo conservatives are singing
from the same pious hymn sheet to the tune that
Syria and Iran are the devils. Framed in this context
the motives of President Bush seem geo-strategic
rather than that of coming to the defence of an
old friend under pressure.
Israel
seems determined to destroy the civilian infrastructure
of those neighbours not yet acquiescent in the current
world order which legitimises Israeli Middle East
regional hegemony within that order. It is indifferent
to the long-term suffering and misery of those civilians
displaced physically and psychologically by its
actions.
The
rights of Israeli civilians not to be killed are
the same as those civilians in Lebanon and Gaza.
Consequently, Irish foreign minister Dermot Ahern
has said that 'Israel has a legitimate right, and
a duty, to defend its citizens, but not at the expense
of the lives and the welfare of Palestinian and
Lebanese civilians.' The savage wiping out of entire
families is hardly commensurate with any measured
military response. If Israel thinks the sight of
funerals for such victims winding their way through
the occupied territories will somehow lessen the
urge to repay Israel in kind, the history of the
Middle East is replete with enough bloody examples
to make it clear that such thinking is grossly misplaced.
