Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter by Andaiye et al (SN 14.1.09) captioned ‘Israeli action in Gaza is a war crime,’ and would point out that it is hopelessly inadequate as to its treatment of the opposing view. Guyanese are being asked, again wrongly, to pander to a careless, unprofessional and lazy point of view. The letter is easily rebutted on several distinct grounds.
Firstly, Israel’s action in Gaza is not a “war crime,” merely the expected and woeful result of war − any war. Melanie Phillips makes the point (War Is Terrible, but the Alternative in Gaza was Worse − http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=636 ) that, for persons like Andaiye and the other signatories, the main complaint is that Israel’s response is “disproportionate,” since some 900 Palestinians have been killed compared with ‘only’ 13 Israelis since the war started 20 days ago. This would be absurd. In World War II, 20 times more civilians were killed in Germany than in Britain. Did that make the war against the Nazis ‘disproportionate’? Of course not!
Secondly, Andaiye et al miss the point that wars do not start by themselves. To infer that the current catastrophe was somehow initiated by Israel is patently ridiculous. Melanie Phillips makes the undisputed point that “…this is a war that Israel spent more than seven years trying to avoid, while no fewer than 6,000 rockets and other missiles rained down from Gaza upon its southern towns. No other country in the world would have sat on its hands while its traumatised children were raised in bomb shelters…” Destroying Hamas’s capacity became necessary!
Thirdly, to argue that Israel is investing in the “heavy and merciless blowing up of children, women and men” challenges logic. If a modern army of Israel’s strength took 20 days to kill 900 people, this would be considered as incompetence. The reality is more believable. Melanie points out the following: “Contrary to Arab propaganda, the Israelis are taking enormous pains to avoid civilian casualties in their attempt to curb these rocket attacks. The UN has confirmed that the vast majority (75 per cent) of the dead in Gaza have been Hamas terrorists. Given the huge number of bombing sorties that have been conducted, this proves that the Israelis are specifically targeting the Hamas infrastructure. Alas, the civilian death toll will unavoidably mount, which is deeply regrettable. But what must be understood is that Hamas have deliberately situated their weapons under apartment blocks, in mosques and in hospitals…”
Fourthly, therefore, some cruel facts: the Israelis build bomb shelters for their civilians; Hamas stores bombs underneath their civilians in order to create as many civilian casualties as possible to manipulate world opinion. What people find so hard to grasp, says Melanie, is that Hamas actually wants to maximise the number of Palestinians who are killed because, as they boast: “We desire death as you desire life.”
Fifthly, if the general Palestinian population (who foolishly elected Hamas to power on a promise of continued aggression against Israel) shares this outlook, it is indeed strange that Andaiye and her colleagues would defend the lives of those sworn to kill themselves, but then this is the nature of the abiding paradox that drives the letter − and Hamas’s social policy. It is easy to infer that it was this self-induced suicidal idiocy of Hamas, masquerading as a plausible national defence strategy, that fuelled James Petras’s compelling (but yet to be verified) poetic account of disaster. In the meantime, Israel’s practical and effective offensive counter-insurgency policy simply became: seek out and kill the terrorist wherever he fires from.
Sixthly, Andaiye et al make the connection with “…the massive support tentacles of AIPAC.” We are at a loss to understand where this is leading to, because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his oil-rich country Iran is the foremost public bankroller for Hamas. Ahmadinejad has publicly promised to “blow Israel off the face of the map.” Now Israel is a UN-created state, and enjoys legitimacy with that organization, but no one has labelled that threat as a “war crime.” If this is lost on Andaiye and colleagues, then we are in the realm of delusion. Phillips therefore concludes: “Most important of all, this war is not actually about Israel and the Palestinians. Hamas is controlled by Iran. Unless Hamas is stopped, Iran’s growing influence in the region will be entrenched and put Britain and the West in even greater danger from Islamist aggression and blackmail.”
Seventhly, Andaiye et al display a remarkable degree of error in referring to “…the defeat of the Israeli military at the hands of Hezbollah in their last incursion into Lebanon…” This would be laughable were it not a serious treatment with the signatures of eminent persons like Rupert Roopnaraine and Eusi Kwayana. The Israeli version makes for easier digestion. An enormous amount of Lebanese infrastructure was damaged in that campaign before Israel withdrew, and Hezbollah’s promise of future incessant rocket-fire was comprehensively stopped by an adamant Lebanese government. Hezbollah sustained heavy losses of personnel and munitions in that campaign, and the net result was a face-saving mantra that “to survive an attack by Israel was victory.” What utter rubbish!
One of the contributors to SN’s webpage comments had already raised the ludicrous spectacle of a defeated Hamas leader throwing a rock over the border after Israel has withdrawn and shouting “victory.”
Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
