On Uri Avnery's arguments

international | history and heritage | opinion/analysis Friday January 02, 2009 18:53 by George

Analysis of the points made by Knesset member Uri Avnery

I am glad to see some hard analysis finally coming into this debate. Uri Avnery brings up some very valid points.

However, I think that we are missing the essence of the issue. This war did not start last week, or in 2000, or even with the start of the First Intifada in 1987. This war started on the night of the 14-15 May 1948, when the British Mandate of Palestine ended and the forces of the Arab League invaded Israel from North, South, East and West. By determined resistance the Israelis managed to defend their geographically vulnerable nation from far superior forces. By 1973 Israel had asserted its conventional military superiority over all of its opponents. Nevertheless, neither side has been strong enough to gain total victory, and thus the war continues.

A cease-fire is just that; a cessation of fire. It is temporary in nature, and is generally agreed to between combatants who are looking for a respite to re-organize and prepare their forces for the next campaign. It is quite obvious that the status quo is unsatisfactory to both sides. Therefore, there should be no surprise that hostilities have resumed, as the war did not end. Seeing that the cease-fire was temporary and that the resumption of warfare was therefore inevitable, it is quite obvious that the Israelis would continue to besiege Gaza, so as to interdict Hamas' resupply lines and to prevent them from strengthening their forces and expanding their stockpiles of armaments, which would soon be used against the Israeli forces. Quite obviously the siege is an act of war. 'Acts of war' generally happen in a war.

Seeing as there has been no end to the war, the cease-fire would end as soon as one side or the other decided to violate it and renew hostilities on their terms. Ultimately, in war it is the force that maintains the intiative that will gain military victory, and Israel lost in Lebanon in 2006 because Hezbollah openend hostilities on their terms and managed to prevent the Israelis from regaining it, an impressive military feat for such a group. Israel is clearly determined not to make that mistake again. They are seizing the intiative by opening this campaign, leaving Hamas on the defensive by striking first. This does not alter the fact that they did not start any new war. Also, the timing of the Israeli's offensive does not change this fact. It was simply very well chosen from a military and political point of view.

As to playing off the Palestinian factions, that is a simple strategem which the Israelis are using to weaken their enemies. Just because Israel may have manipulated Hamas in the past does not change the fact that they are a mortal enemy. Hamas are obviously unacceptable to Israel, as Hamas charter declares that 'There is no solution to the Palestine issue but through Jihad'. The fact that Hamas won an open democratic election simply implies that the majority of Palestinians have endorsed their policies. This of course may not tell the full story, as it can not denied that Hamas have done great work in terms of building infrastructure etc which will naturally account for considerable support. But the Israeli government when fighting Hamas can not afford to differentiate in terms of their support base. Israel and Hamas are implaceable foes, and the Palestinian people have effectively endorsed Hamas views. The fact that Hamas was democratically elected does not change the fact that they are a threat to Israel. It simply implicates the Palestinian people as enemies of Israel as well.

As I explained previously, no assymetrical military force can continue to campaign against a conventional force without the support of the civilian population. The fact that Hamas has been able to remain in the field against Israel is simply a confirmation of the fact that the population of Gaza are supporting their campaign. The only way for Israel to defeat Hamas' insurgency is to deny them the support of the civilian populace, without which they could not continue to fight. Terrorizing the Palestinian people to the point where they realize that supporting Hamas is a losing proposition will obviously be an aspect of their campaign to defeat their foes. However, so far it appears that the majority of the casualties have not been innocent civilians, which would go to prove that this is not an aimless dumping of hig-explosive on Gaza, but an offensive targeted against Hamas positions.

It is no doubt likely that many people will be influenced by the reality of war on their televisions. War is brutal, and certainly not for the faint-hearted. However, sometimes it is a necessity, and the reality of it does not change the facts nor the strategic situation under which the war is waged.

Avnery's final point is certainly food for thought, and a legitimate threat. However, the fact that a rising democracy in Iraq is firmly pro-Western will act as a counterbalance to any such regional anti-Israeli trend. Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that the status quo in Palestine is unacceptable to both sides, and that until one side or the other wins a total victory or becomes exhausted (both of which are unlikely in the foreseeable future) the war will continue to be fought.