Quadsville

Some time ago on my Professor’s House website,  I covered Gaza based on my experiences near the Gaza border (www.professorshouse.net/middleeast/gaza1.htm and

www.professorshouse.net/middleeast/gaza2.htm), but with Israel’s invasion of Gaza continuing, I want to revisit this complex situation.

Israel’s stated is to convince Hamas to stop launching rockets at Israelis.  What can one say about the history behind this? 

For our purposes now, we have to start by taking a look at Hamas.  Its goal is clear—wipe Israel off the map and create an Islamic state governed by Hamas’ version of sharia (Islamic law) as a step towards recreating the Islamic caliphate that once ruled the Middle East.  Their methods are also obvious—use all available forms of terrorism.

Hamas was created in 1988 in part due to growing Palestinian frustration with Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, in part due to rejection of the secular PLO as an option for dealing with Israel, in part inspired by the Islamic state of Iran, and in part a creation due to a long history of Palestinian/Arab world unwillingness to accept the existence of Israel.  Here, it is important to note that it was NOT created just to get Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza.

One can trace its origins to the same sources of ideology that led to Al Qaeda.  It also had roots in Egypt’s rule over Gaza from 1948-1967.  Egypt elected not to build infrastructure and create jobs.  Instead, Gamal Nasser, dictator of Egypt, sent military agents to Gaza for the purpose of training terrorists to attack across Israel’s border with the eventual goal of eliminating Israel.  Nasser preyed on the widespread Arab sentiment that Israel had no right to exist.  Hamas definitely came out of that heritage.

Hamas came to power via an ill-advised election held by the Palestinian Authority after Israel had withdrawn from Gaza in the hopes that peace with the Palestinians could result.  The PA didn’t want to hold the election and Israel wasn’t enthusiastic either.  But, the Bush administration in its goal to spread democracy insisted on the elections.  Hamas came to power legitimately and then carried out a coup to take over power completely.  It has been using that power to create an infrastructure of terrorism, not jobs and a civil society—just like Nasser did.

What are Israel’s options in dealing with such an organization?  Since the border was quite porous, Hamas sponsored a wave of suicide bombers.  So, Israel sealed the border.  No doubt, this has produced severe hardships for the Palestinians residing in Gaza.  But, what was the alternative?  If Israel opened up the border, could anyone guarantee that Hamas would not send another wave of suicide bombers?  We have been to the border and have heard many Israeli stories of how Hamas has tried to send terrorists through the border by one means or another.

Hamas has been sending in large numbers of rockets.  Indeed, my wife Suzanne and I have been in the region when they were doing this.  And, they have built tunnels into Egypt to smuggle in more sophisticated rockets.  They haven’t used the tunnels to bring in food and medical supplies.  As an aside here, Gaza would have few food problems if its residents had not thoroughly destroyed the Israeli settlements that had developed extensive agricultural resources in Gaza.

Israel’s critics of course now argue that Israel has “over-reacted” and is using “disproportionate force”.  Well, what else could Israel have done to stop the rocket barrage and the smuggling involving bringing in more weapons?  Should Israel have launched hundreds of unguided rockets into Gaza just as Hamas has been doing?  These same critics also claim that though Israel withdrew from Gaza proper it still controlled the borders and thus engaged in collective punishment.  Once again, what would happen if Israel opened up the borders?

These critics also believe that Israel should reach a political settlement with the Palestinians.  Fine, but how is that possible with Hamas?  Hamas could agree to a quasi-truce, but no more and be true to its principles and methods.  Even a truce would be of no great benefit since Hamas would simply continue to smuggle in more weapons and choose a propitious time to launch more rockets.  Even during the so-called truce they had self imposed for awhile, rockets continued to fly over the border.

Well, then, how about having international monitors in Gaza?  The results would be the same as with the monitors supposedly keeping Hezbollah in line.  Hezbollah has merely greatly expanded its weaponry thanks to assistance from Iran.

Israel’s options appear to be quite limited.  Reoccupation of Gaza would only gain great headaches.  Uprooting Hamas looks unlikely since they are a grass roots movement.  So, Israel has settled for a limited objective.  One suspects that Hamas has been preparing for an invasion for sometime and is likely to be defiant.  Can Israel inflict enough damage to Hamas to stop the rockets without causing large numbers of civilian casualties?  Hamas has set itself up to be interwoven with the civilian population.  They use civilians as shields knowing this will gain PR points with the world media.  Already there are growing pressures on Israel to agree to a cease fire. 

It is interesting to note that Israel has been sending in food, medicine and other necessities to Gaza.  Israel also drops leaflets to residents near places it is targeting urging them to stay away.  Hamas did no such thing when it was launching its rockets (indeed, it appears that Hamas is hiding the supplies sent in so that the humanitarian crisis continues for the world’s media to see).  Will Israel’s humanitarian gestures do it any good with the “Arab street” and non-Hamas Palestinian leaders?  Most likely not—remember there is still a widespread Arab distaste for Israel’s existence.

So, the key probably is how long will the U.S. allow Israel to achieve its objective?  The Bush administration has already seemed to be willing to let Israel have the time it needs.  What will Obama do, if this is still going on as of January 20?

Art Pitz

The Professor’s House

http://www.professorshouse.net/

“Know the History—Understand the Choices”

How Rep. Sen. Dirksen Paved the Way for Obama

With all of the news about Governor Rod Blagoyevich’s alleged corruption, it is tempting to state that the political system in Illinois seems corrupt beyond repair.  After all, 5 of the last 8 governors have faced criminal charges.

It helps, though, to remind ourselves that Illinois has also had exemplary politicians.  And, we need not go all the way back to Abraham Lincoln to find them.  My thoughts have turned to one that both my wife Suzanne and I remember well from our younger days.  He was someone known for being above corruption as well as for one making a positive difference in this world.

I’m recalling Everett McKinley Dirksen (1896-1969).  He had a long and productive political career within the Republican Party beginning on Pekin’s city council before serving as a Congressman from 1933 to 1947 and finally as a U.S. Senator from 1950 to his death from cancer in 1969.  Suzanne and I knew of him during his years in the Senate and admired him for his stance in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s.

His gravelly voice and tousled hair set him apart as an American original.  He and Congressman Charley Halleck and later Gerry Ford teamed together to represent the Republican Party to the public during the troubled 60’s.  And, they did well at it though Suzanne and I disagreed with their strong support for the Vietnam War at the time.

It is nice to know that there were (and are) politicians who do things simply because they are the right thing to do.  And, Senator Dirksen did that with his support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Open Housing Act of 1968.  As he put it:

"Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied."

Much has been said, and rightly so, about the roles that Dr. Martin L. King Jr. and President LBJ played in enacting Civil Rights legislation.  But, Dirksen’s advocacy was perhaps just as important.  Why?  As Minority Leader, he could bring on Cloture and shut down filibusters in the Senate.  Had he not been willing to do so, it is hard to imagine that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have passed.

And, without such legislation, it is difficult to see how otherwise the path would have been laid for the eventual election of Barack Obama.  So, while we could and arguably should deplore the antics of our current Governor, let’s remember that we have had fine public servants.

Art Pitz

The Professor’s House

www.professorshouse.net

“Know the History—Understand the Choices”