Print
Email
Discuss this article ( Comments)
Is the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip really about protecting its citizens from rocket attacks instigated by Hamas and other militant groups, or is it about something else altogether?
Having relatively recently visited both Gaza and Sderot, two things became clear to me. Firstly, that the inhabitants of Sderot genuinely live in fear for their lives from the Qassam rocket attacks - of which there have been an estimated 3000 since 2005.
Teachers and children alike were traumatised by the unpredictability and regularity of the attacks. They are forced to live in very real and very understandable fear that their school or their home could be hit at any time.
Secondly, on an UNWRA escorted tour of Gaza I was able to see for myself the appalling living conditions of those trapped in the refugee camps there. Israel may have withdrawn its settler population but it still maintained its military stranglehold including its coastline and airspace.
With few options for employment and the resultant deterioration in the humanitarian situation for Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants, it is no wonder the people of Gaza that I met were experiencing feelings of desperation, helplessness and isolation.
Certainly, Israel has the right to protect its people but I have to ask; if Israel was so concerned about the rocket attacks on Sderot and Aschelon why have successive Israeli governments done so little to protect its citizens? Time and time again I was told how the residents of these places felt let down by a government which had failed to provide them with sufficient early warning systems and shelter from the rockets.
So whilst the Israeli government claims that the aim of the invasion of Gaza is to put an end to the rocket attacks and protect its citizens; what does it say to the question: why now and only now? And what does it say to the charge that it is precisely because of its actions towards Gaza that its citizens are forced to suffer from these rocket attacks in the first place?
I do not believe this is about halting rocket attacks from Gaza. I believe it is about Iran. Clearly Israel needs to demonstrate to Iran that it means business - and what better way to do that than by eradicating the leadership and infrastructure of Iran-backed Hamas? After the setback to the reputation of the Israeli Defence Force in the last war in Lebanon, Israel had to show that it still retained an army with the capability and perhaps more importantly the willpower to strike its enemies.
Then there is the timing. This is not a sudden operation. Israel has been threatening a Gaza attack for months, perhaps even before the Annapolis summit. It can be no coincidence that Israel has elections on Feb 10.
No Israeli politician will want to demonstrate anything other than vigour towards Hamas, particularly the ruling Kadima Party in its weakened state. To do otherwise would be political suicide.
Meanwhile, there is a political vacuum in Washington as the outgoing Bush administration continues its blind support for Israel, whilst the incoming president-elect Obama has, at best, sent mixed messages on the Israel/Palestine question.
It is of course America which has decided that only a Palestinian government formed by Fatah can deliver on a two-state solution. That is why the Americans have been actively helping Fatah, and where Israel's support for president Mahmoud Abbas comes from.
Except that, after year-long negotiations, the Fatah ‘moderates' have made little progress. At the same time it must be remembered that Hamas came to power after winning the 2006 Parliamentary elections and that they represent a large constituency in both Gaza and the West Bank.
Any future peace agreement will need the buy-in of Hamas and any attempt to wipe out them out is counterproductive and unrealistic. Instead it will pave the way for greater extremism, in turn giving the Islamist movement across the globe greater justification for the use of violent resistance.
It is America that provides Israel with its moral cover and critically its financial and military support. It is America, and only America, that can put pressure on Israel to cease its fire as an impotent world watches on breathlessly.
Meanwhile the UN shows its irrelevance and Europe's calls for an immediate ceasefire are regrettably ignored by Israel, once again showing itself to be without teeth.
This man-made humanitarian crisis should be high on the list of president Obama's priorities when he enters the Oval Office later this month. How he responds will be of paramount important to the political situation in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.
What is certain is that if the situation is not to worsen and drag in Iran and the Arab world, then Obama needs to deal with it - and fast.
