According to Israeli officials, the stated purpose is to make sure that Hamas can no longer fire rockets into the southern areas of Israel from the Gaza Strip. Yet, during the six month cease fire that expired just before the beginning of operations, Hamas did not fire a single rocket in violation of the ceasefire, though a handful of rockets were fired by smaller, shall we say fringe, militant groups. This is a matter of fact, and is readily admitted by Israeli officials.
So, disregarding the question of who initially broke the ceasefire, because of the rampant violations thereof, not the least of which being the Israeli embargo, we have to wonder why Israeli officials chose to attack the Gaza Strip in the way that they have done so far. Of course, electoral politics gives us a quick answer. The government of Israel has enjoyed carte blanche from the Bush Administration in everything they do, upto and including expanding settlements in the West Bank and continuing to build the separation wall, both of which are violations of international law. But the reins of the executive branch are about to turned over to a new leader, whose support for Israel has yet to be meaningfully tested. In combination with this factor, Israel itself will soon hold elections for Prime Minister. With the campaign in Gaza enjoying tremendous support amongst the general Israeli population, the various personalities in the running are trying to out-do each other to support the operation. In addition, the 20% Israeli Arab minority has been completely disenfranchised as their parties will not be able to participate in the coming election.
Yet, this still does not fully explain the rationale behind this operation. If one keeps asking questions, the answers keep leading to darker and darker answers. For instance, the Israeli military has been using some fairly advanced ammunition in the current operation, and the question must be raised whether the Israeli military, and more broadly the Israeli government, is using this as an opportunity to test the finest weapons that the world has to offer in battlefield conditions. For instance, the use of white phosphorus in artillery shells, although illegal to use against civilian targets is not necessarily against international law if used to create a passive smoke screen. But, it is definitely illegal if it is used against the headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza, which supplies essential foodstuffs to half of the enclave's population. A more insidious weapon is what is known as Dense Inert Metal Explosives, also referred to as DIME. This type of explosive, with a small blast radius, allows for specific targetting of hostile forces. However, it has also been found to be extremely carcinogenic. The apparent signs of a DIME-inflected injury, internal burns without shrapnel and entry wounds without exit wounds, have been appearing in civilian casualties.
Looking deeper into the situation, I have been left wondering if the Israeli operation is intent on forced displacement of the entire population of the Gaza Strip. Israeli forces have been dropping leaflets and warning civilians that they are going to be in the path of military operations. But, with the territory entirely surrounded and controlled by the Israeli government and for all intents and purposes cut off from the rest of the world, where are the refugees supposed to go? As is usually the case with military operations, civilian bystandards are often left with more questions than answers, and given the opacity of Israeli policy and motives behind the ongoing operation in the Gaza Strip, the rest of the world is left to wonder about true intentions.
The real question that should be asked in capitals around the world, the United Nations, and the Hague is whether or not to begin investigating whether the Israeli government is committing war crimes.
1 comment:
I am starting to agree with you more on the issue of Israeli military response to terrorism. Putting aside the wisdom of a military response in light of the comments from David Milliband yesterday, I am beginning to question the very notion that these kinds of actions are an effort to end terrorism. My changing opinion comes from the Israeli response to their attack on UN buildings yesterday, saying they were targeted because militants were firing rockets from near the buildings. This was the same justification given for hitting civilian targets in the Lebanon war last summer and until now, I found it easy to believe that it was a simple response to immoral terrorists. But Israel knows where the UN facilities are and in a situation like this where fighting is going on in a heavily populated area and there is a valid military target near a neutral building, I would imagine one would want to employ more precise military force than air strikes and artillery so as to reduce the chances for loss of innocent life.
Post a Comment