Following the latest turn of events in Gaza it has become quite apparent there are some very real question that are simply not being asked. The reported events have glaring holes that so obviously tell another story, but the western world lives so far from harm it can sleep soundly in it’s sated state.
I have long questioned the events from this region, as have so many others, have marched in protest at events that seem unjustified or disproportionate. And become confident that while the individuals will protest and clammer, no matter how collected, we do not have the power to change or affect the outcome.
So the latest events in Gaza, the current Israeli offensive is allegedly aimed at removing tunnels used by the Izzeddin al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas. Which seems completely legitimate if you consider the border of Gaza to border Israeli land. However these tunnels are used to attack Israel, and so the opinion is that Israel has the right to defend itself and can legitimately destroy these tunnels. The shelling of Gaza that has accompanied the destruction of the tunnels has created massive public outcry at yet more disproportionate action.
The shelling is attributed to targeting missile launch sites and Hamas military targets. We all know Israel is one of the most advanced military states in the world and had a public policy of not targeting civilians. We have all seen US footage of pinpoint laser targeted strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan and more recently the ‘door knock’ (video below) tactics of similar strikes made by the IDF on Hamas targets buildings. But as the offensive has developed we have seen more and more shelling from tanks and artillery that appear less accurate and designed to create widespread destruction. Targets also appear less selective and have included UN refugee sites, that are clearly identified as such. Although there is immediate condemnation of such targeting, this is quickly lost in the noise of subsequent incidents and there appears little update or ongoing investigations.
So here’s the first question, what does Israel achieve with both types of ranged firing and missile strikes?
This prompts and immediate second question, the vast majority of victims are civilians, but these appear to be accepted collateral damage, although Israel has a policy of not targeting civilians (who does) but what is the policy on acceptable collateral damage?
The ‘door knock’ action is described as protecting or minimising the risk to civilians. The process involves telephone calls and SMS residents of a targeted building that a strike is imminent and to vacate the building. Within 15 minutes the ‘door knock’ missile strikes the building, a non-incendiary device that just rocks the building with minimal damage, it’s the last warning, within a few minutes the building is struck with the intended missile and reduces to rubble.
Video footage of the ‘door knock’ used by Israel in the current campaign.
Here’s the third question, what’s the point of this? You alert all inside a building that it is targeted, give a final warning before serious action. With enough time to pack and call a taxi, surely the only victim is the building? What does this achieve?
So I am doing a lot of questioning of Israel’s goals and tatics, so I guess I have to refer to their repeated statement on this campaign. It’s primary goal is to remove the tunnels used by Palestinian fighters to cross into Israeli controlled land. But a tunnel is a very rudimentary structure that can be dug with spoons if necessary, does demolishing them solve the problem, won’t they just get dug again?
This takes on to the wider issue, none of Israel’s actions seem to be aimed at solving anything, the outcome at every step is to hit back at Hamas. In fact if you consider the ‘door knock’ tactic it just creates suffering, which in turn creates resentment and generates more animosity.
In the latest statement from the Israeli government, we here the word ‘intolerable’ mentioned. If I have learnt anything from Politics, its about the words used and reading between them. Israel has warned Palestine it will make life intolerable for them if they attack Israel, but Israels actions lead to attacks, so Israel appears to want to make life intolerable for Palestine. While extreme groups in Palestine call for the end of Israel, it’s pretty clear there are the same feelings in Israel, not to end Palestine, but to make it intolerable, maybe in the hope it will go away.
This thinking reminds me of the words of Steve Hughes who described a war on terror as having a war on the consequence of the actions you’re involved in. This may seem a silly concept if you really want to win it, but by picking a war you cannot win, you perpetuate it, by perpetuating conflict you can keep on attacking those you oppose.
The sleepy father looks on disapprovingly as the young boy steps on ants.
