Gaza: Lessons We Should Have Learned

The horrors that are unfolding in Gaza are but a tragic replay of past confrontations: the same bluster and threats, the same miscalculations by all sides, the same massive and overwhelming use of Israeli force designed to "stop once and for all...," and same absence of any constructive U.S. role - with no one learning lessons from the past.

This is tragedy in the classic sense: two pathologies playing out with predictable consequences, and with neither party appearing able or willing to restrain itself or recognize the futility of its actions. What's so desperately needed, and yet missing, is what I've termed "adult supervision;" i.e., external restraint that can hold back or limit the damage these pathetic players continue to inflict upon themselves. That is a role that the U.S. could have played over the years, but has not. Not only the Bush Administration, but previous administrations as well, have failed to provide effective leadership - too often reducing themselves to coat-holders and, more often than not, justifying repeated Israeli onslaughts.

Because we've seen all this play out before, we can easily predict the outcome. There will be many Palestinians who die, leaving grieving and angry families behind. There will be widespread destruction of property and damage to infrastructure, and many more who will be burdened with the scars of war. There will be increased Palestinian and Arab anger spreading throughout the region, reinforcing extremist trends, threatening not only Israel and the United States, but the U.S.' Arab allies as well.

And because this drama has played out before, there are lessons that ought to have been learned from the past - but, sadly, have not.

Let me share two instructive stories from an earlier instance of Israel's "decisive use of force" - this one from 1996. In that year, Shimon Peres, who had become Prime Minister following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, was facing a stiff electoral challenge from Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu. Peres was considered generally supportive of establishing peace with the Palestinians; while Netanyahu, on the other hand, ran on a platform that specifically called for ending the peace process.

In the midst of the election, both Hamas and Hizbullah inserted themselves into the process, engaging in lethal provocations. Netanyahu accused Peres of being weak, and Peres - in an effort to demonstrate that he was not - launched a massive bombing campaign (40,000 bombs in all) against Lebanon, designed (as he claimed) to "send a message." Despite 400,000 refugees, 10,000 homes destroyed and scores of lives lost, for days the Clinton Administration said nothing other than to affirm "Israel's right to defend itself." This continued until the now-infamous Qana massacre, in which 106 Lebanese civilians were killed and another 116 wounded when the UN compound in which they had sought refuge was shelled by Israeli artillery.

It was in the midst of this horror that I debated an Israeli Minister on CNN's Crossfire. Because he had been a forceful champion for peace, at one point in the exchange I said that I was finding it difficult to debate him, watching him defend what I believed he knew was an immoral war. He said nothing on air, but afterwards noted that it was hard. Given the provocation, he said, and the tightness of the election, they [the Labor government in Israel] felt they had no choice but to act. They had hoped, however, that the U.S. would step in early to provide them with a cover for restraint. They could not have confronted their own right wing, he said, unless the U.S. had provided justification for doing so!

In the end, Peres lost the election because tens of thousands of Israeli Arab voters, so angered by the actions of his government, refused to cast their ballots for him. Israel stood embarrassed in the eyes of the world. Anger against Israel in Lebanon further intensified. And with Netanyahu as Prime Minister, Israel began to take a series of steps that inevitably led - as he had intended all along - to dealing fatal blows to the peace process.

Months later, at a meeting of Arab American leaders at the White House, I challenged President Clinton to explain his silence in the face of the Israeli air war on Lebanon. He went to great lengths to explain his position, concluding that he had merely been trying to help Peres win the election and thereby save the peace process. He had thought the best way to do that was to provide Peres with public support. He acknowledged that it had not worked, and said he would not make the same mistake again (although he did much the same in 2000-2001 when Ehud Barak was facing Ariel Sharon).

One could shudder at the tragic irony of these foolish miscalculations if it were not for the fact that the same lethal drama is playing out yet again, with the same justifications being offered and - one fears, with the same consequences.

At this point, given what has been a pathetic performance, the Bush Administration cannot make a difference. And, in any case, real damage is being done. The Palestinian dead will not come back, their families will not stop mourning, nor will their anger easily subside. Hamas will emerge stronger, building off the anger and the loss of hope in peace.

On January 20th, Barack Obama will inherit all this - with a choice to make. He can either repeat the failed patterns of the past, or learn its lessons and provide the needed leadership that can pull Israelis and Palestinians back from the precipice, and provide them a way forward.

Comments

[disintaGreatNation]

It is an American tradition for the President to lash out at the UN to show his unwavering support of Israel. As regards Qana, the UN prepared an investigative report that exposed inconsistencies in Israel's justification for having shelled the U.N. compound at Qana. UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali refused President Clinton's demand to delay publication of that report. As a result, Clinton went on the offensive: the State Department denounced the report, and -- in a break with tradition -- Boutros-Ghali was denied a second term in office.

[carlogen46]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665/

but this is just one of the sources. Does that satisfy you or do you want more? What is important is to realize that during the 10 or 20 years of peace that a truce would create, the conditions for a long lasting peace coule be established.

Insofar as my knowledge of geography is concerned, I do know the difference between Gaza and the West Bank. What I was saying is that Israel is keeping the world public opinion and our (European) politicians busy looking at Hamas, its militancy, Irael response, and all this flimflam, while pursuing, relentlessly and, as much as possible, without making waves, its strategic goal which is to conclude the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank. A recent article by Ben Morris put it very clearly. Ben Gurion should have cleansed Palestine of Palestinians when he could, in 1948.

Israeli governments of all hues have tried to complete this job. A land without people (Arabs of course are not people, they are untermensch) for a people without land.

[savconsulting]

How come the Palestine defenders either don't mention that Israel never initiates terror. iT always retaliates to defend its people and borders. How many of you Arab defenders blithely mention that it was provoked by Arab bombs or missles because of their sad plight created by the Israelis. Israel reacted disproportionally. thats just B.S. If anybody is bent on destroying you and rains down 3000 rockets and missles during the last year how should you defend yourself? get on you knees and use rocks or bow and arrows OR wipe those murderous suckers out. The people voted Hamas in and they got what they bargained for. To die by the sword.

[LaMees]

Are you serious? Get thee to a library and research the formation of the state of Israel. I recommend you start with the Balfour declaration and go from there. Please review Israel's current history, in particular the reasons behind the intifada's. I pray that people like you open your bigoted eyes and see that nothing happens in a vacuum. While blame can be placed on both sides, it is Israel that seeks to kick Palestinians out of their homes and their land, land that they have held for thousands of years. If I may make a viewing suggestion, please find the documentary People And The Land, it is concise and brings to the fore the plight facing these people. While I'm not a supporter of Hamas, you must understand that they did not break the ceasefire, Israel did, with their bombing of the tunnels to Egypt. Secondly, the people of Gaza have not seen any improvement in their condition since agreeing to this ceasefire. They are living in the largest jail in the world, under conditions that the UN and human rights groups label as inhumane at best. Finally , those 3,000 HOME MADE rockets you speak of have been since 2001. While not minimizing the value of any life, all are precious, the cost of life to to Palestinians has been100 to 1. Is this fair, is this equitable, is this humane? Peace!

[mergina]

Yes, and have you noticed this is a REPLAY that occurs EVERYTIME a new president is about to take office? It's as if Israel is staging it for the $$$BILLIONS$$$ IN AID they get from us to exist.

[goldcoastsailor]

Lesson one: cut off funding all funding to Israel.

[messy]

Lesson two, start it up again.

[SonnyBono]

The only lesson that has been learned is that when Israeli political parties are gearing up for an election and the right to continue handling the spoils system - it must be time to kill a few Arabs. Nothing like unleashing your air force and army on a densely populated area where you control all the entrance and exit so you can claim that all or most of the dead are all "terrorists" - especially since the opponents have a glorified police force and smuggled rockets.

Besides Bush becomes the leading Israeli cheerleader - in his mind, there are only two kinds of Arabs - those with oil and those without or as W likes to call them "terrorists". And you never can tell what President elect Obama will say about the Israeli air force using US supplied cluster bombs on civilian targets.

[Cheesemelt]

The U.S. has tried over and over to resolve this conflict, but you put far too much faith in its ability to do so.

This is a war with roots so deep and so gnarled that reason, peace and reconciliation will not be seen in our lifetime.

Asking the irrational to be rational is itself irrational. That we have had small moments of relative peace and calm only bespeaks the exhaustion felt by all sides of this conflict.

Since what the Palestinians want -- in the voice of Hamas -- is the destruction of Israel, expecting a peaceful accord is folly.

War has been called the failure of diplomacy, but in this case, where any diplomacy has been purely political theater, war is, unfortunately, the only "rational" answer.

It's unfortunate that in this day and age that wars exist anywhere,but the reality is that war in being waged all over the globe over all manner of issues, and the U.S, is powerless to stop it.

Throwing money (or its equivalent) has been the USA's diplomatic modus operandi, but all that would do here is ratchet up the carnage. There is nothing reasonable that would truly satisfy Hamas, so why pretend there is?

[Karl Jonas]

this is an excellent analysis and you pose the essential question: what would satisfy hamas?

[jmundstuk]

Hamas wants the state of Israel destroyed. More broadly, they are ranged with Iran, Hezbollah, and other Islamist forces against the more secular, Western-oriented forces of Egypt and Jordan, and the conservatives of Saudi Arabia. Provoking Israel into violence is one of their tactics.

[carlogen46]

one would like to use Mr. Brzesinski's words to Scarborough, how superficial is your knowledge of the issues. Hamas has repeatedly offered Israel a very long truce. In twenty years of peace, Hamas representatives have said, the anger that now justifies attacking Israel will have waned, and a long lasting peace attained.

Israel has refused even to take this offer seriously. Why?

Not because Israel cannot trust Hamas not to build up its military capacity. Not in twenty, nor in thirty years will Hamas be able to achieve a level of military might similar to that which Israel has achieved thanks to the USA.

The reason is that Hamas provides a useful smokescreen, it hides what Israel is actually doing in the West Bank, stealing even more of the meager 22% of Palestine it has not stolen yet, killing (suspected) militants, erecting barriers that prevent development and growth, and encourage Palestinians to leave, In short ethnically cleansing Palestinians out of the land they have lived on for centuries.

The only question is, until when will Americans be fooled into supporting Israel blindly, whatever it does?

[Cheesemelt]

'Hamas has repeatedly offered Israel a very long truce."

Please provide any serious citations to support this statement.

I'll wait...and wait.

Hamas *has* said they would support a truce -- note not a peace treaty -- with Israel. A distinction with a very dramatic difference.

But their actions speak far louder than their words, and their actions, in building up their military capabilities in lieu of building Palestinian infrastructure, or providing adequate food and medicine for their people reminds the world that they are not honest brokers. Indeed they are radical Islamists whose agenda is the destruction of Israel. Just as al Qaeda seeks to destroy the USA, the Hamas regime seeks the end of Israel.

"Not in twenty, nor in thirty years will Hamas be able to achieve a level of military might similar to that which Israel has achieved thanks to the USA."

Non sequitur.

You speak of the "West Bank" but this issue is over Gaza. Perhaps you need to spend some time studying basic geography before posting your next screed?

[maddogbitesback]

A good start would be too stop throwing money at Israel. Then it could stop sending weaponry. It was US weaponry that was airlifted to Israel to defeat the Egyptians. It is US mega bombs, Apaches, F16s and rockets that defend this religious lunacy called Israel. Israel has no intention of removing one settler from the West Bank and it only tolerates Gaza bcause if it did what it wanted to do to Gaza then the world would respond.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

"Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land."

http://www.rys2sense.com/hub/get/vid/id/3.htm

About the UTTER LACK OF CONTEXT in US media depictions of the conflict.

[Pema]

It been genocide on the Palestian people since 1948. I have yet to see a President of this country stand up to the Israelis. I frankly dont get it. This country only stands up for the oppressed when it is our poltical interests. We let China commit henoius acts against the Tibetan people and their relgious leaders, lamas nuns tortured and beaten, and we let Israel commit genocide on the Palestian people. There arent enough tears for the level of inhumanity this country displays. Some days I am ashamed to be an American. The last few days, I once again am ashamed of the lack of decency by the administration.
Israel is truely the case of the abused turning into the abuser.

[Karl Jonas]

how easily you toss around the term "genocide" which refers to the extermination of a national, racial, or cultural group. the palestinians have not been exterminated. they've suffered grave casualties - yes, but genocide - no.

nor are the palestinians innocent in all this. president bill clinton stood up to israel at the end of his term. he told ehud barak that israel had to give up 96% of the west bank, removing the settlements there and give the palestinians land in exchange for the settlements around jerusalem, and give up their claim to all of jerusalem as well.

he told yasser arafat that the palestinians had to give up the right of return, agree to the land swap, and that the surface of the temple mount would be in palestine but the wailing wall would be in israel.

the israelis said yes. arafat and the palestinians said no. there would have been peace by now.

[carlogen46]

this again is a myth. Listen to Brzesinski, who cannot be accused of partiality towards the Palestinians. At Camp David, it was never a question of an offer that cannot be refused. Barak did not make that offer. In fact, if you listen to those who were there -- and have written a book about it -- it was an offer that Arafat could not accept.

Point is that the American media has been buying the Israeli view on the conflict with Palestinians hook, line and sinker. The suspicion that this is due to the prominent role of Jews in the media has been expressed, but must be rejected. It is rather the role of Christian fundamentalism. But it is high time Americans wake up.

[riff4u]

Arafat could not accept an Israeli created Palestine that was an unworkable piece of land that looked like a piece of swiss cheese full of Israeli settlements and outposts. The only real solution is a ONE STATE solution where people have equal rights and can live and work where they please. A secular state of Jews, Arabs, and various minorities. Get rid of apartheid and get real. No other solution will ever work. Many Israeli and Palestinians are thinking out this option.

[SEQUOIABISON]

If you listen to Bill Clinton he would have us believe that the Palestinians turned down a good deal, but it was not real independence for the Palestinians, they would still be at the mercy of Israeli incursions, I believe Clinton made it sound like the Israelis were offering a deal no sensible person would turn down, because he knew his wife would shortly be running for the senate in NY, and everyone knows you cannot get elected in NY unless you are a big supporter of whatever Israel does even if it is immoral and unjust.

[Huffyfan]

karl
because the Palestinians were offered Abu diss to turn it to AL Quds (jerusalem) and east jerusalem was forgotten , they were offered Crumbs and humiliation , that s why the Palestinians were not intersted . they wanted Justice and fairness . and unfortunately there is no true UN .