In the Trenches: Israel and Gaza - fact and fiction

It's hard to believe, isn't it?

Israel is facing daily violence from Gaza and yet the way some governments and media outlets view it, you'd think it was nothing more than an avoidable neighborly conflict. You know, if only both sides would step back and take a breather, maybe we could sort this all out, is the manner in which the editorial writers at the Financial Times and such serial op-ed contributors as Robert Malley appear to see it.

And, actually, that's pretty benign compared to the recent handling of the issue by the UN Human Rights Council, where thirty of the forty-seven members ritualistically condemned Israel yet again, while blithely ignoring the relentless terror attacks from Gaza. Only Canada had the conviction and courage to stand up to this lynch mob, while the European Union nations sought refuge by abstaining. (The United States is not a member of the Council.) But how can one adopt such a morally bankrupt middle position between Hamas the arsonist and Israel the firefighter, between Hamas the terrorist entity and Israel the democratic nation?

One would think the story line ought to be pretty clear to all but the willfully blind and ideologically pigeonholed.

Fact: Israel withdrew from Gaza nearly 30 months ago. It was not an easy decision for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. He faced significant domestic opposition and skepticism from abroad. The Israeli army and police were deployed to remove Israeli settlers. The job got done and every last Israeli left Gaza.

Fact: This was the first time in history - yes, history - that Gazans were given a chance to rule themselves and control their destiny. Never before had anyone, least of all the Egyptians who ruled the area until 1967, extended self-determination to the local population.

Fact: It is in Israel's interest to see Gaza prosper and develop. After all, Gaza and Israel share a border. A failed state means not only misery for local residents, but also chronic instability and danger for neighboring Israel.

Fact: The residents of Gaza, given the chance to choose their own leaders, opted for Hamas. Whatever their reasons for doing so, this is whom they chose. They, and they alone, are responsible for their decisions and must be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

Fact: They knew in voting for Hamas that this would result in international isolation. The Quartet's three conditions for engaging Hamas weren't hidden; to the contrary, they were familiar to one and all.

Fact: Hamas never made a secret of its ideology. It was spelled out in black and white in its 1988 Charter. It seeks the creation of an Islamic, Shari'a-based state. It aims for Israel's destruction. It detests Jews and other infidels, seeing no place for them in the Middle East. And to this day, Hamas spokesmen, often in blood-curdling language, haven't been shy in making clear that their views haven't changed. Regrettably, some have chosen to believe that Hamas doesn't really mean what it says. In doing so, they refuse to face reality. Or they assert that Hamas will inevitably moderate its views, driven by the needs of governance. Of course, nothing of the kind has happened in the past 30 months. After all, Hamas would not be Hamas if it changed its stripes.

Fact: Hamas has no interest in construction in Gaza. Its focus, rather, is destruction in Israel. Why, for example, are there still "refugee camps" in Gaza, which Hamas has no interest in dismantling? Because the goal is not improvement in the lives of local residents, but rather exploitation of these camps - and their inhabitants - in the battle against Israel. Moreover, to further illustrate the attitude of Hamas toward Gaza's residents, think back to the June 2006 bloody coup against Fatah leaders and supporters and recall the images of Hamas's political opponents being thrown from rooftops to their deaths. Since taking power, Hamas has waged an aggressive Islamist crusade against more secular Palestinians, not to mention Gaza's tiny Christian population.

Fact: There is no "cycle of violence" between Israel and Gaza. Rather, there is violence from Gaza directed at Israel and there are Israel's efforts to counter the violence. To repeat, Israel left Gaza. It has no territorial ambitions whatsoever in Gaza. Its only goal is a peaceful neighbor. But, alas, its neighbor is anything but. Literally thousands of rockets and mortar attacks have been launched from Gaza against Israel. If those volleys ended tomorrow, so would Israel's response.

Fact: Israel is doing what any other nation would do - seeking to protect its citizens from harm. Imagine if there were daily attacks on Buffalo or San Diego, Detroit or El Paso, from Canada or Mexico, would the US be expected to sit back and absorb them? Not for a single day. Why should Israel be expected to behave any differently? Where would self-imposed restraint leave Israel? Well, in a way we have the answer, since Israel has shown remarkable forbearance until now and gotten nothing in return except more attacks.

Fact: Hamas is modeling itself on Hizbullah in Lebanon. In Hizbullah's case, the weaponry and support have come from Iran and Syria. The terror group has built a state within a state in Lebanon. It triggered one war with Israel that was fought to a standstill. Another war could yet be in the offing. Meanwhile, Hizbullah continues to rearm. The only difference is that Hamas is the state. The weapons are flowing in across the Egyptian rather than Syrian border, but the long arms of Iran and Syria are guiding Hamas.

Fact: Hamas seeks to create civilian casualties, both in Gaza and Israel. By deliberately fighting from population centers, it seeks to draw Israeli retaliation and then showcase to the world the damage done by Israeli "aggressors." Israel, by contrast, tries to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza, as Hamas well knows, but cannot always do so, given the cynical and callous nature of the enemy.

Fact: Some in the international community condemn Israel for collective measures against Gaza's population, but have no policy alternative for addressing the daily barrage of attacks against Israel. In other words, Israel is being asked to ensure humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, such as electricity, while Gaza-based terrorists take daily aim at the power plant in Ashkelon, which is the source of their power supply!

I don’t pretend to know what Israel should do on the ground. There's no easy or risk-free option.

A full-scale ground operation into Gaza would mean costly hand-to-hand fighting and reoccupation of the strip. Pinpoint operations by air and land are having some impact on the leadership, but failing to stop the attacks. Pleas to Egypt, which is no less affected by developments in Gaza, to step into the breach and help contain the violence are unevenly dealt with. Suggestions for an international force are met with doubt that any nation would commit its troops to the Gaza cauldron. Hopes that Gaza's residents would see the folly of their ways and back more moderate forces are belied by recent polls showing Hamas gaining strength at the expense of Fatah. And proposals for a hudna, or temporary truce, miss the point that any halt in the fighting is only likely to result in the rapid arming of Hamas and the fortification of its command-and-control, bunker and tunnel systems. Additionally, it runs the risk of seriously undermining Israel's negotiating partner, President Abbas, by legitimizing, or at least perpetuating, Hamas governance in Gaza.

No, there's no ready-made script for dealing with this challenge, no over-the-counter remedy.

But at the very least, diplomats, editorial writers, and opinion molders - at least those who aren't hostage to a reflexive anti-Israel stance - should have the ability to sort out fact from fiction, the fireman from the arsonist, and the democrat from the despot.

Is that too much to ask?