December 30, 2008--What Passes For Logic

When a situation appears to defy normal forms of logic, closer examination usually suggests that in fact it has it’s own inner logic.

Such is the situation, such continues to be the situation in Israel-Palestine where yet another war has broken out.

Ordinary logic suggests that both sides have nothing much to win but a great deal to lose—lives, infrastructure, world standing, economic benefit. Yet violence originating from both sides rages on.

This is the way most moderate observers who come at things from divergent perspectives, understand things. It makes no sense to them. But on the ground in Gaza and Israel things look quite different and make perfect sense.

Israel, still smarting from its defeat by Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, and defeat it surely was, has been looking for a way to reestablish its image as the preeminent military force in the region. Waiting for the right time to flex muscle, including, perhaps especially, during the current interregnum between American administrations—for fear that Obama will not so automatically as Bush unilaterally support whatever Israel opts to do—Israel chose “all out war” (in the words of Defense Minister Ehud Barak) against Hamas on the claim that Hamas radicals have increased their rocket attacks.

They assert that 10,048 rockets and mortar shells have landed in Israel from Gaza since 2001. Even if true, objective reports indicate that there has not been an appreciable increase in recent months. In fact, during the past half year Hamas has pretty much maintained a negotiated ceasefire, and no Israelis have been killed for quite some time.

So what’s the logic behind the current war against Hamas if not that Israel, in the midst of their own changes in political leadership, is looking for a pretext to throw its weight around?

And what about Hamas? They too have things to prove. In fact, as reported in the New York Times, that 10,048 number is as much a sign to them of their potency as it shames Israel. (Article linked below.)

Hamas has another war going—a second one against Fatah, which had ruled Gaza for decades until being tossed out of office by Hamas supporters in an election in December 2004, ironically an election passionately endorsed by the Bush administration which was eager to see various forms of democracy sprout up all over the Middle East. So much for democracy.

Rejected by Gazan voters, Fatah then retreated to the West Bank, where it set up its own version of a Palestinian government. A weak and accomodationist government in the eyes of the so-called Arab Street because of its principal political underwriters—Israel and the United States.

Thus, the logic behind Hamas breaking the six-month-old ceasefire with Israel was as much a political move directed toward the Arab and Palestinian masses, a move designed to show their pluck and militancy, as it was an attempt to defeat Israel on the battlefield. It was to show these constituencies that Fatah’s way, negotiation with Israel, was a sign of weakness and doomed to defeat; and that the Hamas’ way, armed aggression and terrorism against Israel, was the only course to victory.

I’m betting that they’re all wrong and that we are on the brink of chaos, which only a Barack Obama can solve--assuming he is more a Solomon than a Chicago pol.