Is the current Israeli incursion into Gaza evidence of conviction or a creeping, desensitized chauvinism?
The Jewish people were the victims of an atrocity in Europe in WWII. They were not the victims of an atrocity in the Middle East, but the remedy for that European atrocity was found in the Middle East in the form of a Jewish nation, Israel. A nation, unilaterally declared and imposed in a region that did not welcome the formation of that nation in its midst. A region that was, in fact, hostile to its formation. The historical claims and attachment of the Jewish people to that land (to which there are rival claims and attachments), notwithstanding, it remains – as we witness, yet again, in the current confrontation in Gaza - unclear to me just how tenable the idea of Israel ultimately is.
The very fact of Israel’s existence for 66 years might be construed by some as de facto evidence of tenability – it’s not a bad argument – but the nature of that existence raises questions about the price that has been paid by both Israelis and the many millions of its Muslim neighbors during those 66 years.
There was, undoubtedly, among Israel’s founders and early settlers a strong conviction about the righteousness of their statehood goals in the area known as Palestine along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Collectively, they had been terribly wronged and harmed, and this gave them cause. But has that conviction, which sprang and was hardened by monumental levels of fear, anger, and maybe even shame over the holocaustal events in Europe, evolved over time into something unwelcome and suspect – an unshakable determination to prevail at almost any price?
When does “determination” become hubris? What observed reality would incline a respected Israeli author to declare “There is a danger of society taking on a bestial nature…The danger is not just from the missiles, but also from our society becoming morally corrupt.” Is the current Israeli incursion into Gaza evidence of conviction or a creeping, desensitized chauvinism?
One month ago three Israeli teenagers were abducted and murdered by Hamas (as alleged by the Israeli government). As I write this, Israeli tanks roll through the streets of Gaza while artillery and naval ships launch shells into the area. The death toll on the Palestinian side exceeds 800 (most of them civilians, many of them children and women), and on the Israeli side 36 (three civilians and 32 soldiers), a ratio of almost 25 to one. Hamas, the specific target of these hostilities, is accused of causing this “collateral damage” by hiding among the civilian population, but that has always been the argument of the powerful against the weak – “come out and fight.” The most successful guerrilla strategist of all time, Mao Tse-tung, understood this discrepancy of tactical power, and guided his fighters to “move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.” It worked.
Yes, relatively unsophisticated rockets have rained down on Israel from Gaza, most of them intercepted or, thankfully, falling without causing significant harm. But I’m wondering if the Israeli response to the original, triggering event has been measured and appropriate or is it an example of “
mowing the grass” - a concept/policy emanating from the Israeli side, which references the periodic military assaults launched by Israel to tame and subdue its Muslim neighbors? I’m wondering about the type of society and leadership that countenances such a concept/policy in the same way that I wondered about the type of society and leadership that found humor in Senator John McCain’s “bomb, bomb, bomb…bomb, bomb Iran” musicality – both rife with callousness and an implied indifference to the humanity of their potential targets.
There is nothing particularly new – other than the facts of the current crisis – in what I’ve written here. But that may be precisely the point. A decision was made in 1948 to found the nation of Israel on a piece of disputed land that was surrounded by millions of potentially aggrieved Muslim Arabs who over time might find many reasons to object to the presence of a Jewish nation on their borders. There was great risk, maybe even recklessness in that decision. Unrelenting hostility, militarization, dislocation, enmity, occupation, submission, and humiliation over seven decades are evidence of that. So too is $234 billion in sustaining American aid to Israel, not to mention direct military and intelligence support.
I listened once to a Jewish settler on the West-Bank justify his presence on the land. He cited the word of God. I wondered who could not stand almost anywhere in the world and make a similar claim? And I wondered in the 21st century how such a claim could have standing or be taken seriously, not by random individuals, but by an entire state apparatus? There is a problem when religion is the basis or an overriding basis for claims of legitimacy and statehood. It creates absolutes and positions from which retreat or even accommodation are not possible. Blend that with secular conviction morphed into hubris, and you wind up with grass being dutifully mowed in Palestine for 66 years and counting.