On Jan. 3, 2009, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) re-entered the Gaza Strip and have since moved deeper into the heavily populated areas of the city each day. For the past two weeks, the world has watched as the Israeli military offensive has poured into the Gaza Strip. Known as "Operation Cast Lead," the initiative has resulted in nearly 1,000 Palestinian deaths. The conflict has reached a historic moment where opportunities for a peaceful resolution are running out. Tragically, the lack of tangible objectives could doom the IDF to failure in their stated goals in Gaza and undermine the Israeli government's attempts to provide security for the Israeli people.
Whether you believe in a one-state solution of a united Israel and Palestine or a two-state solution consisting of an independent Israel and an independent Palestinian state, the status quo of ambiguous objectives cannot be sustained. While a continuing denial of what sort of end state the Israeli government is seeking may be politically practical, it will not lead to a lasting solution to the conflict; it may even undermine Israel's security, as was the case in the Second Lebanon War during the summer of 2006.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with acting to curb the rocket attacks that have plagued southern Israel. No nation should have to see its citizens live in constant fear of attack. It is of monumental importance, however, to recognize that the right to protect citizens does not translate into the right to act recklessly without consideration of what is truly best for both Israelis and Palestinians alike.
The responsibilities of nationhood and the right to self-defense come with a host of obligations from which Israel as a democratic state is not exempt. With regard to the war in Gaza, Israel has two responsibilities that must be fulfilled. The first obligation is to honor the basic human rights of the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza, and the second is to provide lasting security to the Israeli population. This delicate balance of rights and responsibilities is integral in creating a sustainable solution that supports the self-interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.
The notion that Israel has a responsibility to the Palestinians of Gaza is no doubt controversial to some. As in any war or military action, armies are bound by international law to prevent the harming or killing of innocent civilians. Despite the IDF's best efforts to minimize civilian casualties, the unintended consequences of war have resulted in high fatalities, whether in the all-out wars in 1982 and 2006 in Lebanon or in the targeted assassinations of Hamas' leadership during the Second Intifada.
Israel can no longer hide behind the excuse that Hamas and other terrorist organizations are intentionally placing civilians at risk by operating within the vicinity of population centers. In the Gaza Strip — one of the most densely populated pieces of land on Earth — every air strike is going to have unintended consequences and perhaps cause harm to innocent bystanders, no matter how precise the bomb or how justified the operations.
No one can deny that it is the duty of the Israeli government to provide the Israeli people with a secure peace and a resolution to a conflict that has threatened Israeli life and prosperity for the past 60 years. However, the current military action in Gaza does not contribute to a stable and long-term solution for either the Israelis or the Palestinian people. The pursuit of a military solution with ambiguous objectives merely contributes to the underlying resentment driving violent action on both sides.
Acting in self-defense is acceptable in justifying military action, but military action is ineffective and illegitimate if it does not fulfill its stated goals. These goals must be both tangible and feasible. The initial military incursion into Gaza was justified by the Israeli government as a definitive action to put an end to the Qassam rocket attacks that have damaged Israeli cities such as Sderot and Ashkelon. However, even a cursory examination of "Operation Cast Lead" makes it clear that rocket attacks cannot be stopped by any action undertaken by the IDF. Even a complete "re-occupation" of the Gaza Strip would not accomplish this because it essentially only takes one person with a metal tube, matches and a small piece of an open field to construct and launch a Qassam rocket.
Setting aside Hamas' democratic victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections, the unfortunate fact is that "Operation Cast Lead" will not succeed in eradicating the group from Gaza. Hamas as an organization is not geographically and politically limited to the Gaza Strip but is also firmly entrenched in the West Bank as well as in Damascus, where much of its political leadership currently resides. But even this is beside the point; even if Hamas' political infrastructure were dismantled in the Gaza Strip, its leadership assassinated and its military wing destroyed, the anger and frustration of the Palestinian people will inevitably be directed at Israel.
Palestinian resentment fuels and supports the formation of organizations such as Hamas that inhibit any lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There can be no doubt that "Operation Cast Lead" — and the nearly 1,000 Palestinian casualties that have accompanied it — will only fuel these corrosive tendencies. By neglecting the basic needs of the Palestinian people, the government of Israel is betraying its responsibility to provide security to its own citizens by ignoring the root cause of the conflict.
What, then, should Israel do? Any sustainable long-term resolution to the conflict will not be easy and will require a great deal of self-examination and an improvement of the lives of the Palestinian people. Since capturing the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967, Israel has acted with a very specific policy of intentional ambiguity. This strategy allows for maximum flexibility in responding to the conflict and fuels the ever-changing nature of Israel's highly factionalized domestic politics. But having unclear objectives is a clear obstacle to the peace process as they undercut negotiations, reduce Israel's credibility as a democratic nation and reinforce Palestinian misconceptions about Israel. Israel must instead replace its policy of ambiguity with a clear statement of its intentions regarding the Occupied Territories and the formation of a Palestinian state. Only tangible objectives that work toward a long-term solution can alleviate the worst fears of the Palestinian people and bring progress toward a sustainable peace agreement.
We begin with Israel not because the Palestinians are blameless but because Israel has a responsibility as a democratic nation to both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. This piece will be followed by a subsequent piece addressing the Palestinian failings in the ongoing conflict. We must challenge our preconceptions of this complex issue and engage it in a positive manner. The situation is grave and driven by entrenched preconceptions and an unwillingness to understand the nuances to this conflict. In no way are the conditions recommended above comprehensive, and the purpose to this piece is not to be polemical; rather, it seeks to inspire a campus-wide dialogue on the issue.
--
James Kennedy is a junior majoring in Middle Eastern studies. David Mou is a junior majoring in International Relations. They are co-leaders of the New Initiative for Middle East Peace here at Tufts. NIMEP will be meeting Wednesday, Jan. 24 at 9 p.m. in Eaton 202 to discuss the situation in Gaza, and all are encouraged to attend and voice their opinions.
