Israel and Gaza: Another War Possible?

After twenty rockets and mortar shells were fired at Israel from Gaza in the past week, three Palestinian militants were killed in an Israel Air Force strike in Gaza. "The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] will not allow any attempts to attack Israel and will continue to forcefully foil any such attacks," a military spokesman said following the strike.

The IDF operation came hours after an Israeli cabinet meeting and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's declaration, "I view this very seriously. The government's policy is clear, any shooting at our territory will receive an immediate and powerful response." Former Israeli commander Major-General Yom Tov Samia went farther, asserting another war against Hamas is needed and on the way:

Israel: Netanyahu’s Post-Cabinet Declarations on Gaza, Settlements, Egypt Fence
Israel: The Reaction to A “More Committed” Washington

We are before another round in Gaza. I am very skeptical about the possibility that Hamas will suddenly surrender or change its ways without being hit much more seriously than it was during Cast Lead.

We must create a situation in which Hamas runs out of oxygen...[including] a more focused strike with long-lasting results...taking control of certain areas in Gaza.

Samia's words followed those of the current head of Israel's Southern Command, Major-General Yoav Galant. Galant said, "It's true that we are after the first rains and the sun is shining --- but one can see dark clouds in the distance."

Comments

[Richard Millett]

There will always be the likelihood of war while Hamas is around. It is not just war with Israel but war with its own people. See B'Tselem for the fact that 600 Palestinians have been killed by their own people in the last 8 years or so. Their are no negotiations to be had with Hamas on their own admission. And why do you refer to them as "militants"? It seems that "terrorists" attack America while "militants" attack Israel.

[Scott Lucas]

Richard,

Cannot speak for Ali but I will rarely use word "terrorist" when referring to political violence, whatever the source (State or non-state group) of that violence. That is because the judgement of who qualifies as a terrorist is so contested that discussion often gets diverted from political/economic/military issues.

Thanks for your recent message re Leeds United --- it's always good to transcend political disagreements with unity on the important things in life.

S.

[Catherine]

From everything I've seen and heard, *both* Hamas and the Israelis have committed their share of terrorist acts.

RE Hamas being at war with its own people, here's a chilling AJE report I saw early last year (and never forgot) on how Hamas is accused of killing Fatah opponents.

"The war on Gaza may have been launched by Israel and brought death on a huge scale but it has also turned Palestinians against Palestinians. Al Jazeera has been told that Hamas security staff and supporters have singled out many people they deem to be collaborators with rival Fatah during the 22 days of war.
From inside Gaza, Mike Kirsch filed this report."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJCGqQrxCaA

[Ali Yenidunya]

Richard,

I agree with Prof. Lucas. It is always one's "terrorist" while the other's "freedom fighter" since there is no political consensus on a single legal definition of "terrorism." Therefore, I do not want to enter into a discussion on this subject.

As a citizen of Turkey, I know that PKK has always been on the centre of this discussion. So, though I personally think that Hamas, PKK and al-Qaeda share the common ground - killing civilians - which should make them put into the category of "terrorists;" for the time being, this kind of usage will not only politicize the academic identity & literature, but it will also impede any will/struggle on the legal ground (if there is) to form a consensus on a terminology by being a part of (unintentionally) this political contention.

[ChrisE]

Ali,

Your analysis is, as ever, a total victory for common sense.

Chris

[Ali Yenidunya]

Chris,

Thank you very much.

[Dave]

Quoting -- "Cannot speak for Ali but I will rarely use word “terrorist” when referring to political violence, whatever the source (State or non-state group) of that violence. That is because the judgement of who qualifies as a terrorist is so contested that discussion often gets diverted from political/economic/military issues."

********

Is this due to our failure to expand our understanding and enquiry of said groups/individuals beyond the realm of the political (political grievances)? We need to face facts -- Hamas and Al-Qaeda are entirely different animals from the IRA and the FARC. To really understand these "militants"/"terrorists" in that part of the world, and even Iran's own overtures/rapprochment and other dealings with the West, we have to understand Islamic history, theology and doctrine.

If we are to really understand a people and what makes them tick, we have to understand their theology. "Providence" and "destiny" have always had their place in grand US presidential speeches - and had been for Puritan-era sermons. Parts of these speeches often sound like they were written by John Cotton himself.

How can we get inside the Iranian mind on the nuke negotiations in the face of Western threats? Why not start with the Taqiyya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya ?

[Dave]

For Hamas and its negotiations with Israel -- Hudna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna