By Steve Kramer
ALFE MENASHE, Israel — A misleading article in the The New York Times on July 13 spurred me to report about Israel’s latest mini-war in Gaza. I’ve hesitated writing because Michal and I have fortunately been spared being under threat of a missile, or even hearing a siren from a nearby town, although we hear many planes, both IDF fighter jets and airliners which have been diverted from their usual flight paths to Ben Gurion Airport. (Just before sending this article we heard a distant siren.) But Ethan Bronner’s article, “A Damaging Distance For Israelis and Palestinians – Separation Is Dehumanizing,” prodded me to describe the situation here in Israel.
In his article, Bronner, the paper’s deputy national editor and former Jerusalem correspondent, totally misguides his readers in several instances. By far the worst is his statement that, “A result [of the separation between Israelis and Palestinians] has been a heightened dehumanization that has allowed the murder of four teenagers to escalate in just a few days into a series of devastating Israeli airstrikes that have killed scores and Palestinian rocket attacks that have displaced thousands.”
Bronner writes not a word about the direct cause of Israel’s action: thousands of missiles fired from Gaza since the misguided evacuation of Israelis in 2005. Granted, Israel has encouraged Hamas’ aggression by minimal responses to “regular” missile attacks; but scores of rockets daily could not be ignored, following the murder of the three young Israelis.
Wall to wall in the media, Israel is criticized for not having enough victims while the Palestinians seem to have so many. In reality, two things are in play here. One, considering the number of air sorties against Gaza, the number of casualties is unbelievably low. Two, as Prime Minister Netanyahu has pointed out, “We are using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles.” (Interview on Fox News, July 13)
Operation Protective Edge, which erupted on July 8, has gone badly for Hamas. It has failed to cause large numbers of Israeli casualties, which is its primary aim. It has failed to infiltrate Israeli communities and slaughter Jews. It has failed to regain the support of its former Arab allies, especially Syria and Egypt. It has failed to convince their former bankroller, Iran, to come to their aid. And it has not been able to give Gazans any tangible gains from the hostilities, only repeated attacks against their homes (in which Hamas stores weapons or has rocket launchers)
On July 14, the Egyptians offered to mediate a ceasefire to begin at 9:00 am on July 15. Western governments were pleased to imagine that the hostilities would soon end and that the parties would accept the same truce conditions as in 2012. Israel complied while Hamas rejected the offer out of hand.
The next day, July 15, Israel waited six hours after the deadline to respond to the continued rockets emanating from Gaza. Then it responded with force, as it has done each day of the operation. The burning question in Israel is, “When will the IDF begin its ground offensive in Gaza?” There are various opinions about whether “boots on the ground” will be productive or not.
On one hand, attacks by Israeli jets, drones, and artillery cannot eradicate the rockets, more than half of which (about 6,000) still remain in Hamas’ arsenal. On the other hand, there is no chance to stop the attacks permanently without a re-occupation of some length, with large numbers of casualties among our soldiers. Another consideration is that during the “fog of war” a mistake will result in the deaths of a large number of Palestinians, bringing a storm of international condemnation on Israel, with demands to stand down.
Of course, if Hamas gets “lucky,” landing a missile on an Israeli camp bus or community center, there will be no debate. Our troops will go into Gaza in force and all hell will break loose.
The media are full of prognosticators urging one tactic or another. One of the most interesting that I’ve read is an article in the Israeli financial paper Globes, by Dr. Norman A. Bailey, President of the Institute for Global Economic Growth. Bailey is an international economic consultant, a professor of economic statecraft, and a former US government official. He wrote: “Fatah, whatever Abu Mazen may say in public, would be delighted if Hamas were dealt a death blow, while the population of the Gaza Strip is turning against its Hamas masters, according to opinion surveys.
“In short, Hamas is the terrorist equivalent of the mortally wounded shark thrashing about. If this is the case, it would seem appropriate for Israel, while retaliating against rocket attacks, to also tighten the blockade and withhold supplies of food, fuel, water and electricity. [Without receiving payment (!), Israel has been supplying electricity to the Gaza Strip; other necessities are also permitted to enter Gaza from Israel.]
“The best of the possible outcomes of the current struggle would be for the people of Gaza to take matters into their own hands and overthrow the Hamas government, at which point supplies could be resumed in return for a moderate government, supported also by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf states.”
Drastic action is required by the Israeli government to stop Hamas’ aggression, which violates all rules of war and morality. This is not a “cycle of violence,” as it is often described. Arab terror and Israeli defensive actions are not equivalent. Israel has repeatedly said that a cessation of violence by our enemies will end Israeli actions. So far, the Palestinians have not heeded this call for peace, but have continued their struggle to defeat Israel rather than to build “Palestine.”
Please don’t be duped by media reports casting Israel as the aggressor against the “poor Palestinians.”
*Stephen Kramer is a freelance writer based in the town of Alfe Menashe in Samaria, Israel. His works may also be read on the website, www.encounteringisrael.com
General David Petraeus told the Armed Services Committee 3/17/’10:
‘The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [area of operational responsibility]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.”