Is Gaza More Than Gaza?
The Middle East is a symbolic place. One thing means another thing, and nothing is quite as it seems. The recent fighting in Gaza can be explained on its face, but it too could be symbolic of a much wider struggle.
Why did Israel decide to respond, as she did, at this particular time? Let’s look for the simple answer first. Since Hamas took over the Gaza strip in mid-June, over 800 rockets and over 900 mortar bombs have been fired at Israeli towns like Sderot. A number of injuries have occurred, but these rockets were a bit primitive in design, had a limited range of 3 to 10 kilometers, and have been referred to as “homemade.”
However, in the last several days, some 15 heavy rockets known as Katyushas were fired from Gaza against Israel’s southern port city of Ashkelon. This rocket, which was used by Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon War, has a range of 22 kilometers, and would expose 250,000 Israeli civilians to the threat of attack from Hamas.
We could argue back and forth as to what kind of provocation is enough to force a country like Israel to act in self defense. But there is no question that Hamas’ decision to escalate the situation by upgrading its weaponry to Katyushas instead of Qassams, and by targeting Ashkelon instead of Sderot, was done intentionally, and with the specific intent of broadening the conflict. There is also no question that Hamas knew, in advance, that there would be civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict.
And so the question arises: Why would Hamas want to escalate the conflict and what does this say about Gaza’s role in the wider conflict between the West and the Muslim world? To a certain extent, the struggle in Gaza is indicative of much broader trends. Hamas has concluded, rightly or wrongly, that a persistent and ever increasing attack on Israel is in their best interest. How else can we explain these attacks in the wake of the Israeli pullout from Gaza? Hamas would like to derail the peace process any way it can, even at the expense of its own citizenry? Why?
There are strong voices, in parts of the Arab world, which cry out that the struggle against Israel, and the parallel struggle against the West, are the only ways for Islam to resurrect itself, and to assume once again the power and prestige it once enjoyed. And Gaza is becoming a symbol of that struggle.
It does not take a brain surgeon to fathom the causes of resentment in parts of the Arab world:
• It is the resentment that comes from a loss of power and prestige.
• It is the resentment that comes from extreme poverty with little hope for a better day.
• It is the resentment that comes from being unable to compete, in a world that seems to be passing you by.
• It is the resentment that comes from political and religious oppression, and an inability to speak out.
• It is the resentment that comes from the perceived hypocrisy of free societies supporting repressive regimes.
• It is the resentment that comes from having the “infidel” occupy your lands.
• It is the resentment that comes from having an unwelcome quest in your midst.
• It is the resentment that comes from seeing your cultural identity disintegrate before your eyes.
• It is the resentment that comes from searching for the soul of Islam, and not knowing which path to follow.
• It is the resentment that comes from shouting out your deeply held beliefs, to a world that is not inclined to hear.
• It is the resentment that comes from loving God, and not knowing if He really cares.
And Gaza is becoming the embodiment of Arab resistance, and of the collective decision to lash out in response. The problem is that in the long run, the policies pursued by Hamas, and by other extremists, will not work for them, or for their people. Israel is strong and will use her strength to defend her people. And so too will the West at large, as it defends itself against violent Jihad. Violence will not bring justice, but will only perpetuate itself, at the expense of the people on the street.
If Hamas seeks justice, which remains an open question, then it will declare a truce, and find a way to partner with Israel to create a state, and to create good paying jobs, for the sake of the people. If Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel as its ultimate purpose, then Israel will have no choice but to meet the challenge with even more destruction. No civilized society would do any less for its citizenry.
If Hamas chooses to cultivate its pursuit of death, then it will be up to the people to tell them, “No.” And as Gaza goes, so too will go a good measure of the Middle East. And in the final analysis, it will be up to the good and simple man on the street to once again utter the word, “No.” But it remains for Israel, and for the West, to make the case as to why he should take the risk.
Join the Conversation
I love the great length you went to to prove that Arabs don’t have opinions based on rational reasons. I think just about every cliche ever mentioned about the Middle East made it into this post… beautiful.
Mr Dahan,
I disagree strongly with your commenter yaman. I thought you provided very coherent and rational reasons for “Arab” opinions. Perhaps yaman should provide HIS list if yours is so inadeaquate. Imho, while people refuse to accept that ‘the other’ has a right to exist there is no likelihood of a peaceful future. Why do those who want to excude fail to understand that? If your analysis of Gaza & Hamas’s aim to derail the peace process is accurate – upping the anti with longer range missiles, thus knowingly sacrificying its own children in order to derail the peace process, their bluff should be called. Is it time to offer Hamas a place at the peace talks with NO conditions. If they are ready for peace they cannot refuse. If their aim is peace talks derailment, that too will be very clear.
Yaman, I realize that we’re getting into some touchy stuff here, but I consider it an honor to discuss them with you.
You talk about “cliches” and there is some truth to what you say. But the reason a cliche becomes a cliche is because there is a kernel of truth to it that resonates with a great many people. I am not saying that each of these cliches are true for each and every Arab. I am saying that there is enough truth in them, for enough people, to make them relevant.
You talk about “rational reasons.” There is nothing irrational about a resentment borne of poverty. Poverty afflicts some two thirds of the world population and approximately one billion people are starving to death. Poverty is something that would make any sane person resentful, and I would applaud any rational effort that is devised to address this scourge on humanity.
What is irrational is the desire to destroy another country, and its citizenry. The reason that this is irrational is because that country, if it is able to do so, will do everything in its power to survive, and the resulting destruction will be working against the interests of all parties to the conflict.
I am not saying that the Arab world is not justified in some of its resentments. I am saying that we all address the injustice by bringing to the fore solutions which will bring justice, instead of solutions which simply perpetuate violence and hopelessness.
And I can assure you, that if such rational solutions are brought to the table, then Israel will be the first to give everyone a place at the table, and will be more than open to any solution that makes sense. In addition, I believe that Israel is in the best posiiton to give rational solutions the best chance of succeeding. Therefore, as ironic as it may seem, the destruction of Israel will not only not bring juctice, but will, in fact, deprive Palestinians of the best chance of moving forward in their legitimate quest for justice, and a better life.
In 1947 one of the United Nations first imperatives was to create a politically stable environment in “Palestine.” By giving half to the Jews and Half to the Palestinians and Arabs, it was thought that everyone would have a constructive starting point.
In my opinion, the Palestinian and Arab leadership was confident they could kill all the Jews and have all the land for themselves. They declined and declared war when the Jews accepted.
Everyone else has given up the war, however the Palestinians are still attempting the unproductive and suicidal annihilation of the Jews (Israel).
The Palestinians are now used by the world’s power brokers as a tool for diplomatic antagonism. The press must stop giving legitimacy to the insanity and start educating the Palestinian youth that partnering-with and not fighting Israel will be the salvation of the Palestinian people.
Nissim,
I will admit that Hamas is acting in ways that are damaging, and I desperatley wish some thoughtful intellegent people (in/with power) would instead fight for the Palestinian people.
However why is there no mention of the fact that the Deputy Defence Minister of Israel is able to use the term ‘Holocaust’ without consequence or questioning? What is their reason for the escalation in the conflict? And please defense is far from the only factor.
Tamara, to the best of my knowledge, the use of the word “Holocaust” to describe the situation in Gaza was a mistake of translation.
The Deputy Defense Minister of Israel said, “The more the Qassam rocket fire intensifies and increases its range, the Palestinians are bringing upon themselves a bigger disaster because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.”
The word “shoah” means “disaster” in Hebrew, but Reuters mistranslated it as “Holocaust,” which is “Ha Shoah” in Hebrew. It is like confusing a “white house” with “The White House.”
I don’t think that Israel has any intention of perpetrating a “Holocaust” in Gaza. On the contrary, she usually goes out of her way to minimize civilian casualties. For example, in Janin several years ago, some 50 people were killed. However, some 35 Israeli soldiers were killed as well, because Israel decided to conduct house to house searches for terrorists, instead of using an aerial assault, which would have caused more civilian casualties.
As to your larger point, you question whether Israel’s motive in all of this is self defense. Maybe I am naive Tamara, but I would say that Israel’s motive is almost entirely self defense. I know it may not seem that way, because to most people Israel seems so strong that it doesn’t have to worry about self defense. But in reality, Israel’s greatest weapon is the weapon of deterence. If her enemies know that she is strong, and is willing to use that strength, or so the thinking goes, then they are less likely to attack, which will minimize the loss of life on both sides.
The trouble is, as you can well imagine, that there are those out there who are not deterred, and who see the loss of civilian life on both sides as an advantage. Hamas is in that category. They would kill innocent Israelis as a way of causing Israel to overreact and to bring world condemnation upon herself. They also welcome the death of their own citizens as a way of perpetuating the “death cult mentality,” by encouraging the local population to buy into the whole notion of martyrdom. “Don’t worry about death, it’s nothing serious, heaven is awaiting you with open arms.”
I am not saying that there haven’t been injustices in the past. But sooner or later, extremists on both sides of the conflict will have to ask themselves; Are we going to choose to dwell in the injustices of the past, or choose instead to bring justice to the future? The extremists, for their own purposes, will probably choose to continue stoking the fires of anger and resentment. The only hope is for the people to decide to say “No,” and to take back their lives, and to take control of their future.
It’s a bit of a stretch, because up to now the extremists have had their way with the people. The median age in Gaza is 16, believe it or not. How much influence can moderates have on these angry youths, who have been inculcated with hate since infancy? But if common sense is given half a chance, and if it is backed up with some serious investment dollars, then maybe, in the end, the voice of reason will hold sway.