Gaza: The New Guernica

GAZA: Today's Guernica
Propaganda vs. reality about Israel and civilian casualties

On Tuesday 6 January 2009, more than 40 people died when Israeli shelling hit the UN-affiliated al-Fakhora School, in the Jabalyia refugee camp in Gaza while it was packed with terrified families who had fled the fighting. Many children lay among the dead and wounded.
"Most of those killed were in the school playground and in the street, and the dead and injured lay in pools of blood. Pictures on Palestinian TV showed walls heavily marked by shrapnel and bloodstains, and shoes and shredded clothes scattered on the ground. Windows were blown out"
(Chris McGreal and Hazem Balousha, "Gaza's day of carnage--40 dead as Israelis bomb two UN schools", GUARDIAN, 7 January 2009).
The scenes of the school reminded people all over the world of another atrocity from a different time: the attack on the Basque town of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. The horror of civilians trapped and blown apart in their houses because of a conqueror's taste for vivid theatrics with real human bodies was famously immortalized by Picasso.
Gaza may be the Guernica of today.
To put things in perspective, the death toll from the school bombing is more than twice the Israeli civilian death toll from all the thousands of Qassam rockets fired from Gaza against southern Israel from 2001 until the present day (16) . The Qassams are wildly inaccurate and usually land ineptly in the desert. Yet the goal of protecting its people from the "deadly Qassams" , says Israel, makes the war against Gaza a necessity. So far (1/8/09) that war has killed over 750 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.
(on qassams cf. B'TSELEM: ISRAELI INFORMATION CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: "Statistics: Israeli Civilians killed by Palestinians" ; "Qassam rocket fire into Israel".www.btselem.org. cf. Nir Hasson, in HA'ARETZ, 6/28/04: "This is the first time a Qassam has led directly to an Israeli fatality". 13 civilians reported between June 2004 and the end of 2007; and three more in the recent fighting, according to news reports.)
A Norwegian doctor working at Gaza's al-Shifa hospital told the BBC that the "overwelming majority of the casualties he had treated were civilians. 'Among the hundreds we have seen so far, we have seen two fighters" He also noted that "people are dying because of lack of supplies".
("Casualties rise in Gaza Offensive" BBC 1/5/09)
The lack of supplies is due to the Israeli blockade, which has been going on for 18 months and has reduced Gaza to a condition of complete misery. The majority of Gazans are children under 14.
During its entire GAZA campaign which began on 27 December, the Israeli military has claimed that it has taken every effort to spare the lives of innocent civilians. Hamas, they claim, is cynically using civilians as human shields in order to manipulate international public opinion.
"The Israeli military said its soldiers had come under mortar fire from Hamas militants inside the school. However, (the UN's) Christopher Guiness said the agency was '99.9% certain' that there were no militants or militant activity in the school compound and called for an independent investigation of the incident."
(BBC 1/7/09)
Will Israel allow an independent investigation? Not likely. Israel has been keeping the international press out of Gaza and for four days even denied entry to the Red Cross. The European Union's proposal to send international observers was also refused by Israel. Could it be that Israel has something to hide?
Amnesty International, in a press release issued 1/8/09, suggested that both sides might be using "human shields" after a fashion: Israel commandeering civilian houses and firing from them and Hamas firing from near civilian areas and running away. However, it noted that Palestinian gunmen have sometimes left civilian areas when local residents objected, though some have refused.
( cf. Amnesty International, "Gaza Civilians endangered by military tactics on both sides", 1/8/09).
It is hard to imagine the IDF politely leaving a commandeered house at the owner's request. And the inconsistent conduct of the Palestinian fighters suggests the lack of a uniform "shielding" policy directed from above. Again, the IDF's conduct, taking over civilian houses, is far less ambiguous than that reported of the other side: given the population density in Gaza, it would be difficult for the Palestinian defenders to avoid fighting near civilian areas, whatever their intentions.
At any rate, there is scant reason to think that "human shielding" goes very far to explain the civilian carnage in Gaza. It is all too convenient for Israel, but it invites scepticism.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE STORY ABOUT "HUMAN SHIELDS" is that it has been used before and shown to be a phoney alibi.
During the July-August 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel repeatedly attributed civilian casualties to Hezbollah's hiding behind the civilian population.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, however, did an investigation which invalidated the Israeli claims.
(cf Human Rights Watch, WHY THEY DIED: CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN LEBANON DURING THE 2006 WAR, 5 Sept. 2007)
Their key findings?
"Israel's indiscriminate airstrkes, not Hezbollah's shielding as claimed by Israeli officials, caused most of the approximately 900 civilian deaths" during the war. Human Rights Watch found "no evidence of widespread Hezbollah shielding".
With few exceptions, HRW found that "Hezbollah stored its rockets in bunkers or in facilities in uninhabited fields and valleys; ordered its fighers and civilian officials away from populated civilian areas, and fired its rockets from pre-prepared positions outside villages. IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF AIRSTRIKES RESULTING IN CIVILIAN DEATHS investigated by HRW, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A HEZBOLLAH MILITARY PRESENCE THAT WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED THE ATTACK."
Moreover, the civilian casualties were not the result of mistakes by the Israeli military. They were deliberate.
"The Israel Defence Force's repeated failure to distinguish between civilians and combatants cannot be explained as mere mismanagement of the war or a collection of mistakes." They must have known that they were hitting civilians, the report concludes.
"HRW found that a simple movement of vehicles or persons-such as attempts to buy bread or moving about in private homes-could be enough to cause a deadly Israeli airstrike that would kill civilians. Israeli warplanes also targeted moving vehicles that turned out to be carrying only civilians trying to flee the conflict. In most such cases documented in the report, there is no evidence of a Hezbollah military presence that would have justified the attack..."
The Israeli air force bombed neighborhoods in the southern suburbs of Beirut merely because they were believed to be pro-Hezbollah, not because there was specific Hezbollah military activity going on there. Hezbollah is also a Lebanese political party which provides social services in these neighborhoods. These were bombed as well.
IN LEBANON IN 2006, Israel worked with a very expansive definition of a "military target". Anything connected with Hezbollah, military or not. In fact, many targets had no connection to Hezbollah at all, according to US military experts.
"Thousands of Israeli bombs have fallen on Lebanese homes, roads, bridges, ports, broadcasting towers and even a lighthouse...Analysts say Israel's targeting of civilian and government infrastructure overshadows its strikes on the offices and rocket launchers of Hezbollah guerrillas...'This is a classic strategic bombing campaign', said Stephen Biddle, a former head of military studies at the US army War College, now at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'What Israel is trying to do is to pressure others into solving their problem for them, hence the targeting of civilian infrastructure...Israeli cabinet ministers have said that the bombing aims to punish Lebanon and make the government understand (that)the entire country will suffer if Hezbollah, which operates freely in the south, isn't reined in.'' James Dobbins, head of military analysis at the Rand Corporation, said "The military rationale (of Israel's operations) seems rather thin, since many of the targets have no conceivable relationship to Hezbollah."
(Jim Krene, "Military Analysts Question Israeli Bombing", ASSOCIATED PRESS, 7/20/06)
The evidence is overwelming that Israel deliberately targets civilians in order to terrorize them or their government into doing its bidding.
Indiscriminate revenge attacks as collective punishment have been Israel's guiding policy for half a century. The classic statement of the doctrine was given by former Defence Minister Moshe Dayan, in connection with the "infiltration" war of the 1950's:
"If we try to search for that (particular) Arab (who planted mines), it has no value. But if we harass the nearby village...then the population comes out against the (infiltrators)...The method of collective punishment has proven effective...There are no other effective methods".
(Dayan quoted in Benny Morris, ISRAEL"S BORDER WARS, Oxford University Press, 1993 p. 177).
Collective punishment is a violation of international law. (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 33).
The IDF made a point of attacking completely innocent villages:
"The chosen target or targets would not necessarily be connected to the latest, climactic outrage. This enabled the IDF to attain surprise: it could hit villages with no reason to suspect that they had been targeted. Surprise usually meant greater effectiveness."
(Ibid. p. 184)
Is this not the logic of a terrorist state?
Israel's target is not just "terrorists", but entire populations. In Gaza it has used a blockade which brought widespread childhood malnutrition, a water crisis, a food crisis, a fuel crisis and a medical crisis. Today it has launched a full scale military attack for the same purpose. Israel's aim is to keep torturing the people of Gaza until they make Hamas go away.

Israel's ' WAR ON TERROR'
Israel's 'war on terror' was waged for years by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. But Sharon himself had a colorful record. In the 1950's he was the valiant commander of Unit 101.
"They witnessed him (Sharon) laughing as a junior officer tormented an old Arab and then shot him at close range; they noted his composure as he planned operations designed to kill as many civilians as possible...He (Sharon) censured a junior officer in the paratroopers, David Ben Uziel, for failure to kill two elderly Arabs he encountered during a raid".
(Uzi Benziman, SHARON: AN ISRAELI CAESAR, Adama Press, 1985 pp. 53, 56, 73. Benziman is an editor of Israel's well-regarded HA'ARETZ newspaper).
Sharon led a raid in October 1953 which massacred 69 innocent civilians in Qibya, a village in Jordan, under the orders of "maximal killing". US President George W. Bush shunned Yasser Arafat as a terrorist, but acclaimed Sharon as a "man of peace".
During the last eight years of conflict, both sides have attacked the innocent, not just one side. Both sides have used terrorism, not just one side. But Israel is able to conceal its actions under the guise of normal military operations, with "collateral damage".
For many years now, Israeli military and police forces have used deadly force in circumstances in which it is not necessary to protect themselves or the general public. They regularly shoot to death stone-throwing Palestinian children instead of using protective shields; sometimes they have deliberately provoked them with obscene insults so that they present themselves and can be mowed down.
In years as a war correspondent, says Chris Hedges who observed such an incident, "I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice and murder them for sport."
(GAZA DIARY: SCENES FROM THE PALESTINIAN UPRISING, In HARPERS, Oct. 2001.)
The killing of civilians has sometimes been defended for its "deterrent value".
(Reuven Pedatzur, "The Wrong Way to Fight Terrorism", HA'ARETZ, 12/11/02).
Teenage boys have been deliberately killed because they are said to be 'of military age'.
"(Age) twelve and up you're allowed to shoot. That's what they tell us"
( Interview with IDF soldier, in Amira Hass, REPORTING FROM RAMALLAH, Semiotext, 2002 p. 92; and Pedatzur, above.)
Troops will spray an entire apartment building with gunfire in order to terrorize its inhabitants.
("punitive firing", cf "No Exit", in HARPERS, Apr. 2002)
"In every city and refugee camp they have entered, IDF soldiers have repeated the same pattern: indiscriminate firing and the killing of innocent civilians, intentional harm to water, electricity and telephone infrastructure, taking over civilian houses, extensive damage to civilian property, shooting at ambulances and the prevention of medical care to the injured".
(B'Tselem Report, "The IDF has lost any moral compass", 12 Mar. 2002)
In 2004, B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights monitor, found evidence of "zones of destruction" in Gaza where troops are to fire on anyone, even if they pose no threat. An IDF commander was recorded as saying, "anything that's mobile, anything that moves in that zone, even if it's a three year old, needs to be killed".
("Israeli rights group demands army chief of staff's resignation", AFP 11/26/04).
Though there have been a handful of token indictments, especially when incidents llke the above are publicized, human rights groups say a culture of impunity prevails.
(cf. Human Rights Watch, PROMOTING IMPUNITY: THE ISRAELI MILITARY'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE WRONGDOING, report 22 June 2005).
Grievous injuries, such as blinding, have also been routinely inflicted.
"From September 29 to October 25, 2000, Jerusalem's St. John Eye Hospital treated 50 people for eye injuries", an astonishing number and evidence of a deliberate policy.
(Tanya Reinhard, ISRAEL/PALESTINE: HOW TO END THE WAR OF 1948, New York: Seven Stories Press, 2005, pp. 114-5).
B'Tselem reports such things as, firing steel coated rubber bullets at close range, even at handcuffed prisoners; changing the "safety range" of artillery shells around civilian buildings in order to increase the likelihood of "collateral damage"; preventing ambulances from attending to the wounded, so that people succumb to their injuries; attacking medical personnel; use of flechette shells, which cause frightful injuries.
(B'Tselem: Press Release, 20 July 2008: "Prosecute soldier who fired 'rubber bullets' at a Palestinian detainee, " cf. Report Nov. 1998 "A Death Foretold: Firing of rubber bullets to disperse demonstrations in the Occupied Territories"; 8 Nov. 2005: "Shelling at Beit Hanun: Grave Suspicion of a War Crime; 14 Mar.2002 "Shooting at Ambulances and IDF Impediments to Medical Treatment". This is just a small sample. None of these cases can be called "isolated". )
In many cases of so-called "clashes", the only evidence of a "clash" or of weapons being fired at the IDF comes from the IDF itself. But it has often got caught with its hands in the cookie jar.
As long ago as 1980, the IDF chief of staff had claimed that the army had tried to prevent civilian casualties at a demonstration in Ramallah. But film footage turned up, showing soldiers on a rooftop, firing down into the unarmed crowd. This is one of many such embarrassing incidents.
(Geoffrey Aronson, ISRAEL, PALESTINIANS AND THE INTIFADA: CREATING FACTS ON THE WEST BANK, Kegan Paul, 1990 p. 223)
AS FOR HUMAN SHIELDS, ISRAEL KNOWS ALL ABOUT THEM.
The IDF has often captured Palestinian civilians and forced them to open suspicious packages or knock on the doors of "wanted suspects", despite court rulings which supposedly banned the practice. An eleven year old girl was forced to act as a 'human shield' during the IDF attack on Nablus, February 2007
("Palestinian girl used by Israel as a 'human shield', REUTERS, 3/9/07; Jonathan Lis and Baruch Kra, "Officers defend 'human shield' practice", HA'ARETZ, 17 August 2002)
Given what is known about Israel's human rights record, it is simply foolish to suppose that they are not doing deliberate harm to civilians and non-combatants when the press is not looking. But in Gaza, the press has largely been kept out.
IN GAZA TODAY.
We have very limited information about what is going on. We are supposed to trust that Israel is reporting the facts accurately.
Still, human rights organizations saw troubling signs early on. For one thing, just as in Lebanon, there is the expansive concept of what constitutes a "military target".
Since Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006, it has provided the government in Gaza. As a result, any government building or institution can be called "Hamas linked" and bombed from the air or attacked on the ground, whether or not it is engaged in hostilities.. As we saw above, this is the same approach as was used before in Lebanon.
On 27 December Israeli warplanes bombed a police training school in Gaza during graduation ceremonies, killing 42 as they stood in formation. Every territory has to have police. Police, according to international law, are presumed to be civilian targets unless directly participating in hostilities.
On 27 December, 8 students were killed while waiting for a bus near their school. The only conceivable target was the Gaza governorate building nearby, which is engaged in civil activities. Israel has also bombed the women's quarters of the Islamic university, a mosque with worshippers at prayer, the al-Quds broadcast station and the facilities of the Ministry of Labor, Construction and Housing; all without evidence that they were anything but civilian targets.
Public statements by Israeli officials suggest that the real aim is collective punishment.
"There are many aspects to Hamas and we are trying to hit the whole spectrum, because everything is connected and everything supports terrorism against Israel...Anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target."
(cf B'Tselem, "Concern over Israel targeting civilian objects in the Gaza Strip", Press Release, 31 Dec. 2008; Human RIghts Watch, "Israel/Hamas: Civilians must not be targets. Disregard for Civilians underlies current escalation", Press Release, 30 Dec. 2008)
At this stage in the campaign, it is appropriate to wonder whether there are any unambiguous "Hamas military targets" left, since the group never had much of an organized military force to begin with. Gaza is one of the most densely populated territories in the world and there are few if any open areas. Deliberately "hiding behind human shields" hardly comes into question in such circumstances. Civilians are bound to suffer when Israel attacks, say, an apartment building that once held a Hamas politician. That politician might well have fled, but many more cannot flee. For the mass civilian population, there is no place to hide. Israel can always claim that it was "returining fire" or that its enemy was hiding behind civilians. But no one can check out these stories and Israel's word cannot be trusted.
THE 'SELF-DEFENCE' EXCUSE
Israel claims that its attack on Gaza is needed to protect its civilians. Even if they are rarely hurt by Qassams, etc., they are traumatized and have to flee to bomb shelters frequently. Hamas has used the ceasefire to acquire rockets with even greater range and so now even more people are vulnerable. Israel tried peaceful means. But Hamas ended the ceasefire on 19 December and started firing off rockets again. This is the result.
As usual with Israeli propaganda, most everything stated above is true. It just happens to be a very partial summation of the relevant facts.
Ever since the January 2006 election, Israel has been trying to overthrow the Hamas government. It has tried diplomatic and political isolation. It has tried economic blockade. It has tried war.
When a government faces a persistent, multi-pronged attempt to liquidate it, is its normal reaction to disarm and disband itself? Or does it act in its own defence?
The idea that the Qassams are not a reaction to intense Israeli military and economic pressure aimed at forcing political change; the idea that they represent Hamas's attempt to "drive Israel into the sea", is simply ridiculous. Hamas may not accept Zionism or Israel's so-called "right to exist". It does not accept that the Palestinian people, whose dispossession was necessary to create Israel, were dispossessed as a matter of "right". But it does not have the power to "destroy" Israel by force in a million years.
In early 2007, Fatah and Hamas agreed on the formula of a unity government, whereby they would uphold all previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. The list includes the 1993 Declaration of Principles, in which Arafat officially recognized Israel's "right to exist in peace and security".
Israel and the Bush Administration refused to give the unity government a chance. Instead, they armed Fatah to try to overthrow the Hamas government by a coup d'etat in Gaza in June 2007. But Hamas turned the tables, defeated the attempt, and took over the whole Strip. The rest is history.
(cf. David Rose, "The Gaza Bombshell", VANITY FAIR, April 2008).
Israel slapped a punishing blockade on the Gaza Strip which has ruined the economy and caused catastrophic shortages of food, water, fuel and medicine.
What are the actual conditions in Gaza?
The economy barely functions and faces a crucial currency shortfall, according to the World Bank. According to the World Food Programme, there is a "severe food crisis" in Gaza. 70% of Gazans live on less than $1.20 a day, which means they must choose daily between food, shelter and medical expenses. Over 80% are wholly or partly dependent on humanitarian aid, according to CARE International. According to UNICEF, more than 50% of children under 5 suffer from anemia. In three survey districts, over 10% of children had identifiable growth stunting, nearly 4% were at risk of death. Between October 2007 and July 2008, at least 51 people, including 11 children, died after permits to leave the country to get essential medical care not available in Gaza were denied or delayed by the Israeli authorities. Due to power shortages caused by Israel's blockade, a quarter of the population gets only 4-6 hours of water every 4 or 5 days. In the Occupied Territories as a whole, water consumption is only one tenth of the World Health Organization's minimum. Gaza is short of essential medicines. In October of this year, of 415 vital medicines, 45 were completely lacking in Gaza. Blackouts are common. Hospitals can barely keep up with demand.
All this was true BEFORE Israel's attack. What must it be like now? How can the hospitals possibly treat the hundreds of innocent civilians who have been wounded?
(cf. World Bank, Press Release, 8 Dec. 2008; WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME, NEWS IN BRIEF, GAZA UPDATE, 24 Jan. 2008; CARE, "Middle East Quartet is Failing, warn aid agencies", 24 Sept. 2008; UNICEF Humanitarian Action Updates, Occupied Palestinian Territories, July, Oct. Dec. 2008)
The truth is that Israel has never stopped trying to overthrow the Hamas government. The latter proposed a ceasefire in December 2007, but Israel rejected this offer and went on a similar rampage, cutting off essential supplies and making bloody raids and attacks which killed hundreds. In March 2008, B'Tselem noted that, contrary to the claims of the IDF chief of staff, "at least half" of the Palestinians killed in the recent fighting had been non-combatants.
(B'Tselem Press Release, "Contrary to Israel's Chief of Staff, at least half of those killed in Gaza did not take part in the Fighting", 3/3/08)
Finally, in June 2008, the two sides finally agreed to a truce of six months. It was not perfect. There were sporadic violations on both sides. Yet even the Israeli government had to agree that life was returning to normal in Sderot and other southern towns.
(Government of Israel Press Release, "Summary: One Month of Calm", 27 July 2008. From a high of 373 Qassams in April, there were just 5 in July; all by factions opposed to the government).
But despite the reduction in tension, Israel never really eased the siege. People in Gaza noticed no real change in their living conditions.
("Ceasefire plus blockade: Though the ceasefire is more or less holding, Gaza is still under siege", ECONOMIST 8/28/08; UNICEF HUMANITARIAN ACTION UPDATE, oPT, 23 Oct. 2008: "Despite the truce declared with Israel in June 2008, Gaza remains under virtual siege"; ": Mary Robinson, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and former President of Ireland after touring Gaza said it was "almost unbelievable' that the world did not care about a "shocking violation of so many human rights". The truce, she said, had had little effect on people's lives and 'just brought a bitter taste in the mouth'. "Gaza residents 'terribly trapped' ", BBC, 11/4/08).
Given the ambiguous nature of the ceasefire, which applied only to Gaza and not to the West Bank; given the continuation of the siege aimed at toppling the Hamas government; given the conspicuous lack of progress in the official "peace process" between Israel and Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas: given all this, it is anything but surprising that Hamas used the truce to import more and better weapons. People under so much pressure do tend to burnish their capacity for self-defence.
Only a fundamental failure of logic, empathy and imagination causes American pundits and politicians to ascribe the instinct and imperative of self-defence only to the Israeli side.
The truce, though imperfect, was holding. All year, and even more so after the June truce, there was a thin window of opportunity for real negotiations for the so-called "two state solution" which Bush, Olmert and Abbas had agreed upon at the summit in Annapolis, Md in November 2007. They had pledged to create the outline of a final settlement and an independent Palestinian state by the end of the Bush Presidency in January 2009. But nothing happened. On the contrary, settlements kept expanding. According to the Israeli monitoring group, Peace Now, settlement activity actually doubled in 2008.
(Rory McCarthy, "Israel to build in East Jerusalem", GUARDIAN, 5 Dec. 2007; Aviva Landau, "Olmert approves homes for West Bank settlement"; REUTERS, 9 March 2008; "Israel to build 100 settler homes", BBC 18 Apr. 2008; Allyn Fisher-Ilan, "Israel mulls new settler enclave in West Bank", REUTERS, 11 Aug. 2008; "doubling" of settlement activity, DEUTSCHE PRESSE AGENTUR, German Press Agency, 26 Aug. 2008)
The settlement project, and the extreme steps Israel takes for its "security", strangle Palestinian society and, over time, are bringing about its decomposition. Anyone who is interested in a real, as opposed to a rhetorical, "existential threat", should look here.
Israel, it should be noted, is always very energetic about punishing and extirpating what it regards as "extremism". But what about rewarding "moderation"? It has hailed Mahmud Abbas as a genuine negotiating partner, but it has given him exactly nothing. When he was chained to Hamas because of the 2006 election results, the whole Palestinian Authority had to be boycotted, in Israel's view. But when, after June 2007, he had broken with Hamas and was able to negotiate without this albatross around his neck, Israel treated him little differently. It held meetings with him, but they never came to anything.
Under these circumstances, reasonable Palestinians might well conclude that Israel is simply determined to destroy their society whatever they do. How, exactly, would any one of us argue for "moderation" and accommodation with Israel if we were a Palestinian today? What evidence can we produce that the official "peace process" will ever lead anywhere?
A fragile truce was made on 19 June 2008. On 4 November, Israel shattered the truce by a dramatic move. It made a massive raid in Gaza against what it said was a tunnel being built for the abduction of an Israeli soldier. A number of Palestinian fighters were killed. Hamas retaliated with rocket fire against southern Israel.
The incident was certainly enigmatic:
"Israel said Tuesday's raid was not a violation of the ceasefire, but rather a legitimate step to remove an immediate threat."
("Rockets fired after Gaza clashes", BBC 5 Nov. 2008).
The official tale is hard to credit. Corporal Gilad Shalit was captured by the Palestinians in June 2006 because the Israeli army did not know about the tunnel. If they know where a tunnel is, it should be easy to devise effective countermeasures short of ending a ceasefire.
Harvard University Middle East scholar Sara Roy sees the incident as a deliberate attempt by Israel to kill the ceasefire:
"(The) Israeli attack inside the strip (was) no doubt designed finally to undermine the truce between Hamas and Israel established last June. Although both sides had violated the agreement before, this incursion was on a different scale. Hamas responded by firing rockets into Israel and the violence has not abated since then".
(Sara Roy, "If Gaza falls...", LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS, 1 Jan 2009)
In short, Israel's conduct can be considered "defensive" only if we see the persistent attempt to overthrow the elected Palestinian government by a combination of siege, internal subversion and economic warfare is "defensive", even when the latter, despite all the usual fevered rhetoric, has absolutely no power to bring about the "destruction" of Israel. Israel had a chance for accomodation with the Palestinians through the unity government proposed in early 2007. It rejected this for no good and sufficient reason. Nearly everything that taken place since, including today's ugly war, proceeds from that fateful decision, by the self-righteous and violent doctrinaires in Washington and Tel Aviv.
At bottom, Israel is out to show that no one can push it around. No one can make it compromise. Any deal it makes must be unilateral, dictated by itself rather than bargained by two equal partners. And no one dare even think of questioning its legitimacy, despite the immense suffering this peculiar experiment in archaizing revaunchism has wrought. All such people have to be shunned by decent society, as far as Israel and its admirers are concerned.
But meanwhile, the people whose existence Israel treats as criminal, as carrying in itself the inescapable taint of a genocidal intent...what are they but ordinary peasants, merchants and laborers, hounded from place to place by a merciless conquerer at once incurably arrogant and paranoid; generation upon generation living on crusts of bread, shivering in the dark?