There is no doubt that the Israeli war against Gaza has developed a logic of its own. It is as if what happened had to happen; as if there were an element of inevitability to it. As the death toll has risen, the Palestinians counted their victims. As of this writing I am finding out that the number of victims has by far outnumbered expectations especially since the ground war started. The latest figures are adults 230, children 46. The Israeli Army reported that by far the deadliest weapons dropped were 1,500 bombs. That is 4. 5 tonnes per kilometre.
In Washington, President Barack Obama was reported to have called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last Thursday, not to urge him to exercise restraint or act responsibly, but rather to condemn the rocket attacks on Israel. Obama also said that he was willing to negotiate a cease fire between Israel and Hamas. “The United States remains prepared to facilitate a cessation of hostilities, including a return to the 21st of November 2012 cease fire agreement,” he said.
There can be no doubt that the gross disparity between the parties has affected the outcome. One is a full-fledged military, armed to the teeth. The other is a quasi-militia with nowhere to go but move forward and engage the enemy in a most unequal battle — a battle which pits the 4th largest army in the world against a group of militants with more gusto than firepower.
In the July 11 issue of USA Today there appeared the inevitable heart-break story. “Virtually every child in the town is traumatised. How could they not be?”, said school principal Ette Zran in the border town of Siderot, about her Israeli students. Compare their state of discomfort to Palestinian children, many of whom have lost their lives, their neighbourhoods or have been permanently disfigured by Israeli bombs.
Military objectives
Consider, if you will, more dramatic differences: There is a huge gap between the respective sources of revenue; one is industrial and technologically-advanced, the other is agrarian, technologically-dependent. One is funded by US taxpayers; the other is living on donations from international organisations and charitable foundations. One is far from its military objectives, the other can pinpoint with uncannily accuracy its military targets. And yet the Israeli army duly defends itself by claiming the inevitability of collateral damage. i.e. civilian casualties One can rely on virtually unconditional diplomatic support, from its staunchest ally, (the US) while the other does not even get a hearing.
Both sides are claiming the right to defend themselves, but the test of self-defence places a heavy burden on the initiator of hostilities. They must prove that there was an obligation to defend themselves, and that that obligation left them no time for reflection, was overwhelming, leaving no time for decision-making. In the myriad large demonstrations that took place around the world, one in particular attracted my attention, because of the irony in it. In the demonstration that took place in Ankara, Turkey, a group of demonstrators went to the Israeli embassy and one of the demonstrators climbed a wall and hung a Palestinian flag on it. Upon hearing this , a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had this reaction : “This is a violation of international law” Hamas, now has to face two options: The first is to lay down its arms, give up and surrender. The second option is to continue resisting the oppression of the occupation, and the injustice of the siege.
Adel Safty is distinguished visiting professor and special adviser to the rector at the Siberian Academy of Public Administration, Russia. His book, Might Over Right, is endorsed by Noam Chomsky and published in England by Garnet, 2009.
