Israel's act of war is inexcusable

The brutal reaction to Corporal Shalit's kidnap has implications far beyond the Middle East

By Will Hutton

07/02/06 "The Observer" -- -- In a conflict as long-standing and bloody as the one in the Middle East, both sides know the rules and the impact of their actions on their enemies. The Palestinian factions, including Hamas militants, which captured Corporal Shalit last Sunday, will have known that Israel would respond fiercely, but also how the reaction would undermine Palestine's emerging common front. And Israel, in turn, knew precisely the impact of its incredibly disproportionate response, both on its enemies and on the political balance within its own society.
Which is why, whatever the outcome, last week was so depressing. The calculations have been made by those opposed to any long-term deal. Israel's destruction of Gaza and illegal political detention of members of the Palestinian government and parliament were to teach Hamas a lesson. But it was not the lesson Hamas needs right now as it gropes its way towards political reality and acceptance of Israel's right to exist. Israel is now less safe than it was. It has betrayed its own deep hunger for a settlement and peace.

Israel has frequently resorted to the doctrine of disproportionate response: not an eye for an eye, but 10 or 20 Palestinian deaths for every Israeli loss. Twelve years ago, Yitzhak Rabin sealed off the West Bank to allow Israeli special operation units to rescue kidnapped Corporal Waxman. That operation ended in his death, but even by those standards, what happened last week was extraordinary.

Gaza, unlike the 1994 West Bank, is supposed to be a semi-autonomous sovereign territory. By bombing its main power station, Israel has deprived most of Gaza of electricity, including water-pumping stations. Sealing off access to water and food can only inflict acute discomfort on the people there; already, frailer Palestinians are dying.

Even more extraordinary were the overnight raids that led to the detention and arrest of eight cabinet members of a sovereign government, including its finance minister, 30 members of parliament and up to another 30 officials. Israel threatens to put some or all on trial for terrorism.

In any other context, this would be a declaration of war.

It is breathtaking, but this is the Middle East. The Hamas government has not yet renounced its commitment to the elimination of Israel or to the use of terrorism. Missiles from Gaza are regularly fired at Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has committed to withdraw Israel from parts of the West Bank, regarded by the Israeli right and Zionist fundamentalists as the ultimate sell-out (even if Israel simultaneously confiscates compensating land). Olmert needed to show that he was no pushover.

But disproportionality on such a scale is self-defeating. It casts Israel as the rogue state and Palestinians as victims. These are not the actions of a government that wants to be a 'partner for peace'.

Worse, it suggests that Israel will find it impossible to accommodate a just settlement.

Every parent, manager and successful politician knows the importance of achieving ends by consent and that entails respect. Subjugation, repression and humiliation do not work as strategies. Yet Israel, overwhelmingly the more powerful player, is governed by an attitude that would not survive days in a family, factory or political party.

Worse, it trashes encouraging developments. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas challenged Hamas to recognise that the only way out of the conflict was a two-state solution, in effect, recognising Israel and its gains in the 1967 war, or he would call a national referendum. Hamas backed down, knowing he would win, and reached a national unity pact with Mr Abbas's Fatah. The basis for resuming negotiations was being put in place.

The dark interpretation of Israel's reaction in Gaza is that it does not want a politically viable negotiating partner in Palestine. It suits Israel to characterise Hamas as terrorist fundamentalists who are beyond the pale. Thus it can proceed with its unilaterally imposed settlement, wall and land grab, in turn fanning the flames of Palestinian extremism.

We all have a stake in breaking this vicious circle. The best response to the rise of Islamic terrorism would be a just settlement in the Middle East. Israel's actions are linked by a bloody thread to the next terrorist attack on us, now more likely. Britain, with the EU and US, was right to insist that the incoming Hamas government had to recognise Israel and to back that demand with sanctions.

Now that Hamas signals changes, we must be no less uncompromising about condemning Israeli action. The mealy-mouthed reaction of the G8 that we have 'particular concerns' is pathetic. What happened last week was an international disgrace. We need to say so. We hold Hamas to account for its words and actions. The same applies to Israel.

Click on "comments" below to read or post comments - Click Here For Comment Policy

|