The true story behind this war is not the one Israel is telling
Source Dave Anderson
Date 09/01/04/18:11
Johann Hari: The true story behind this war is not the one Israel is telling

THE WORLD ISN'T just watching the Israeli government commit a crime in
Gaza; we are watching it self-harm. This morning, and tomorrow
morning, and every morning until this punishment beating ends, the
young people of the Gaza Strip are going to be more filled with hate,
and more determined to fight back, with stones or suicide vests or
rockets. Israeli leaders have convinced themselves that the harder you
beat the Palestinians, the softer they will become. But when this is
over, the rage against Israelis will have hardened, and the same old
compromises will still be waiting by the roadside of history, untended
and unmade.

To understand how frightening it is to be a Gazan this morning, you
need to have stood in that small slab of concrete by the Mediterranean
and smelled the claustrophobia. The Gaza Strip is smaller than the
Isle of Wight but it is crammed with 1.5 million people who can never
leave. They live out their lives on top of each other, jobless and
hungry, in vast, sagging tower blocks. From the top floor, you can
often see the borders of their world: the Mediterranean, and Israeli
barbed wire. When bombs begin to fall as they are doing now with
more deadly force than at any time since 1967 there is nowhere to

There will now be a war over the story of this war. The Israeli
government says, "We withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and in return we got
Hamas and Qassam rockets being rained on our cities. Sixteen civilians
have been murdered. How many more are we supposed to sacrifice?" It is
a plausible narrative, and there are shards of truth in it, but it is
also filled with holes. If we want to understand the reality and
really stop the rockets, we need to rewind a few years and view the
run-up to this war dispassionately.

The Israeli government did indeed withdraw from the Gaza Strip in 2005
in order to be able to intensify control of the West Bank. Ariel
Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, was unequivocal about this,
explaining: "The disengagement [from Gaza] is actually formaldehyde.
It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so that there
will not be a political process with the Palestinians... this whole
package that is called the Palestinian state has been removed from our
agenda indefinitely."

Ordinary Palestinians were horrified by this, and by the fetid
corruption of their own Fatah leaders, so they voted for Hamas. It
certainly wouldn't have been my choice an Islamist party is
antithetical to all my convictions - but we have to be honest. It was
a free and democratic election, and it was not a rejection of a
two-state solution. The most detailed polling of Palestinians, by the
University of Maryland, found that 72 per cent want a two-state
solution on the 1967 borders, while fewer than 20 per cent want to
reclaim the whole of historic Palestine. So, partly in response to
this pressure, Hamas offered Israel a long, long ceasefire and a de
facto acceptance of two states, if only Israel would return to its
legal borders.

Rather than seize this opportunity and test Hamas's sincerity, the
Israeli government reacted by punishing the entire civilian
population. It announced that it was blockading the Gaza Strip in
order to "pressure" its people to reverse the democratic process. The
Israelis surrounded the Strip and refused to let anyone or anything
out. They let in a small trickle of food, fuel and medicine but not
enough for survival. Weisglass quipped that the Gazans were being "put
on a diet". According to Oxfam, only 137 trucks of food were allowed
into Gaza last month to feed 1.5 million people. The United Nations
says poverty has reached an "unprecedented level." When I was last in
besieged Gaza, I saw hospitals turning away the sick because their
machinery and medicine was running out. I met hungry children
stumbling around the streets, scavenging for food.

It was in this context under a collective punishment designed to
topple a democracy that some forces within Gaza did something
immoral: they fired Qassam rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities.
These rockets have killed 16 Israeli citizens. This is abhorrent:
targeting civilians is always murder. But it is hypocritical for the
Israeli government to claim now to speak out for the safety of
civilians when it has been terrorising civilians as a matter of state

The American and European governments are responding with a
lop-sidedness that ignores these realities. They say that Israel
cannot be expected to negotiate while under rocket fire, but they
demand that the Palestinians do so under siege in Gaza and violent
military occupation in the West Bank.

Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last
week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable
compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli
press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service
Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is
interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms."
Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the
blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet
high with election fever and eager to appear tough rejected these

The core of the situation has been starkly laid out by Ephraim Halevy,
the former head of Mossad. He says that while Hamas militants like
much of the Israeli right-wing dream of driving their opponents
away, "they have recognised this ideological goal is not attainable
and will not be in the foreseeable future." Instead, "they are ready
and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the
temporary borders of 1967." They are aware that this means they "will
have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original
goals" and towards a long-term peace based on compromise.

The rejectionists on both sides from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to
Bibi Netanyahu of Israel would then be marginalised. It is the only
path that could yet end in peace but it is the Israeli government that
refuses to choose it. Halevy explains: "Israel, for reasons of its
own, did not want to turn the ceasefire into the start of a diplomatic
process with Hamas."

Why would Israel act this way? The Israeli government wants peace, but
only one imposed on its own terms, based on the acceptance of defeat
by the Palestinians. It means the Israelis can keep the slabs of the
West Bank on "their" side of the wall. It means they keep the largest
settlements and control the water supply. And it means a divided
Palestine, with responsibility for Gaza hived off to Egypt, and the
broken-up West Bank standing alone. Negotiations threaten this vision:
they would require Israel to give up more than it wants to. But an
imposed peace will be no peace at all: it will not stop the rockets or
the rage. For real safety, Israel will have to talk to the people it
is blockading and bombing today, and compromise with them.

The sound of Gaza burning should be drowned out by the words of the
Israeli writer Larry Derfner. He says: "Israel's war with Gaza has to
be the most one-sided on earth... If the point is to end it, or at
least begin to end it, the ball is not in Hamas's court it is in

[View the list]

InternetBoard v1.0
Copyright (c) 1998, Joongpil Cho