Palestine

We are in the middle of another Palestinian/Arab attack on Israel. There has been a quietly accepted level of civilian death and violence on both sides since 1948 that has coalesced into larger conflicts in 1948, 1956, 1973, 1982, and 1987. Yesterday, Netanyahu declared war, a word avoided with great care since 1973.

The pattern of the violence since that time has been Arab provocation and instigation, followed by a measured Israeli response bounded by international outcry and the Geneva laws. The current violence, however, is much more intense. From 2000-2010, 741 Israeli civilians were killed, 74 per year. So far more there are about 3000 civilian casualties in a single day, with between 2000 and 5000 rockets launched from the Gaza Strip or by Palestinian fighters in Israel. 

Whatever Israel does, her response will occur in a milieu defined by Western meddling and International law. 

Modern Western interference in the Middle East began with the Versailles Treaty. Despite both overt and suggestive promises of a pan-Arab state, the Arab tribal world was cut into British and French colonies by the Sykes-Picot line, creating Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine. The Hashemites ended up kings of Jordan, and the House of Saud ended up in control of the Arabian peninsula.

Illegal Jewish immigration into Palestine, unwanted by both Brtain and Arabs, began in the eastern turmoil that followed WW1. Following WW2 and the Holocaust, the Western Allies sought a safe place for Jews, and settled on Palestine, without consultation with the Arab population. 

 Jewish immigration was suddenly legal and intensely resented by the Arabs, who less than 30 years earlier had been pinky-promised a pan-Arab state. Violence ensued, leading the British to divide the land between the two parties and then leave. The Palestinian Arabs, along with the new nations of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, attacked the Jews. And the Jews won, the territory they secured at the cease-fire of 1949 becoming the borders of israel, expanded following three failed Arab attacks on Israel.

The Palestinian Arabs remain dispersed, with many in camps in Jordan. Here they are hated and despised by the Israelis but also, privately, by the Arab nations. The West makes noises about a 'Palestinian homeland' or an 'independent Palestinian State', but to Palestinian Arabs that place already exists and is inhabited by interlopers supported by the West. Their anger, once expressed through the Arab nations, now is channeled through Hamas, itself the successor to various other groups.. Each of these groups has been absolutely explicit that their aim is to destroy Israel and return Palestinian land to Arabs.

The current problem is thus largely of the West's making. International law, another Western concept, is a further difficulty.

The Geneva Conventions are an effort to govern the treatment of the helpless in war. The four of them address sick and wounded soldiers in the field, those sick and wounded at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians. Other elements prohibit chemical and biological weapons. International Law is also expressed in the creation of the UN and its International Crminal Court. 

Civilians and civilian targets cannot be attacked unless enemy combatants are using the locations for military purposes. Even then, any attack on such facilities must be limited to the least force necessary. Any attack must be proportional, meaning a military target may not be attacked if the expected civilian harm is excessive in relation to the military advantage.

The Conventions arose out of the terrible violence in WW2, perpetrated by both sides. Civilian infrastructure was laid waste in Europe and Japan. London suffered 40,000 civilian deaths, 100,000 Japanese civilians died in the firebombings of Tokyo, and 50,000 Germans in Dresden. The horrified world wanted to outlaw such behavior. As Justice Jackson said at Nuremberg, the complainant at the bar was Civilization herself.

All these legal elements have had bearing on the Middle East. Irregular warfare, however, complicated the application of Geneva rules. The combatants are non-uniformed and often do not represent a nation or army. They commonly melt into the civilian background, using civilian buildings for muster and launching attacks. International law has been variably interpreted and applied. For example, UN 242 is an international recognition of Israel's right to exist. At the same time, however,  Israel is condemend when responding to terrorist attacks.

Hamas' attacks are all war crimes, as they deliberately and indiscriminately target civilians and civilian infrastructure. The UN, however, has done nothing more than designate them a terrorist group. Efforts to charge them with war crimes have failed. Here is one typical take on Palestinian war crimes vs Israeli crimes. The UN Security Council failed to condemn the Hamas attacks, but since 2015 the UN has condemned Israel 140 times, and asked for a referral to the International Criminal Court for her treatment of Palestinians. In that time there has not been one resolution comdeming Hamas; indeed, they have been voted down.

Just as the West manipulated the Middle East politically, it has unevenly and grossly unfairly applied its own legal standards. Israel is left in the position of having to tolerate terrorist attacks while being condemned every time they retaliate. In essence, Hamas is like a child playing tag, shouting 'nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah, you can't catch me' to its much more powerful opponent.

That changed yesterday. This is, by far, the largest Palestinian assault on Israeli civilian infrastructure. There have been 28,000 Israeli civilian casualties (not including wars) since 1948, an average of 373 yearly. But now there are 3,000 in one day, from attacks that had no military value, no military target. The casualties, so far, are the equivalent of the entire population of Albany being killed or wounded by a terrorist attack. No matter what one may think of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, they have never been the aggressor, and there is no excuse, practical, moral, or legal, for this or any other attack.

I cannot see any reason that Israel should not strike back, and very hard. This attack has dramatically transcended the character and scope of prior attacks. There can never be a repeat of an act this bad, this large. Netanyahu has declared war, rightly so, deliberately choosing the word after 50 years of galling assaults. This will not be a brief, targeted operation. Israel will clear Gaza, one way or the other.

In my image of retribution, Israel makes Gaza like Carthage after the Third Punic War, the city destroyed, the population killed or enslaved, the ground sown with salt. It would be, in my opinion, entirely just if Israel physically destroyed all infrastructure, cut off all power and fuel, and left the population to leave or starve. 

Today's world, however, is not Rome, and such an action would call down powerful international legal condemnation. More likely there will be a cutoff of power (already done), a closing of the port, and a ground invasion to root out and kill all terrorists, detstroy all weapons, and close all tunnels. If their actions in the West Bank are a predictor, they will destroy any home producing, hiding, or supporting a terrorist, destroy all governmental buildings, close the border, and destroy every building within 1000 meters or so of it. I expect there will be a renewal of the military occupation, but much more intense. Anyone in the desolated border area will be killed on sight. In addition, West Bank Palestinians are likely to be confined to their own settlements, not allowed to enter Israel, and/or expelled all together.

This will get the predictable bluster from the UN, and this time neither Israel nor the US should pay any attention. Hamas went far too far. It is a terrible blot on the UN that it would not condemn the aattacks, and such cowardice and immoral reactions invalidate any condemnation it issues toward Israel, indeed invalidates the UN's moral standing to enforce international law. Whatever Israel does, I hope it remembers the motto of B'Nai Brith- Never Again, and does what is necessary without any regard to international legal strictures.

The West made this mess with its treaties, faux-moralizing, and differentially applied laws of war. Now the West must stand aside and let Israel defend itself in the face of such an outrageous attack. Once again, the complainant at the bar is Civilization, and in her name it is necesary to ignore arbitary law and mete out real justice.

Ted