The Gaza Situation

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, January 16, 2009

The media presentation of the current strife in the Gaza strip is largely one sided. Certainly, one expects Fox News to reinforce the U.S. government’s line regarding its unconditional support of Israel. I wasn’t surprised to see newsroom staff and show anchors playing down casualties on the Palestinian side and playing up the few casualties on Israel’s. However, network news coverage offered little criticism of Israel’s aggression and other media were largely in line with this bias.

Missing from the coverage during the last few weeks is a mention of the Israeli blockade which has plagued the residents of Gaza for two years. Israel’s blockade of Gaza has denied access to necessary food and supplies, imprisoning and nearly crippling the territory.

Hamas’ rockets launched into Israel are acts of terrorism and represent a small threat to Israeli citizens. However, Hamas was not alone in breaking the fragile six-month truce that Egypt had helped to negotiate between the two parties. Israel fueled hostilities with the destruction of a tunnel near the Gaza wall. Hamas could hardly be expected to see the region strangled and cut off without retaliating. There is more to both sides of the situation than the oversimplification offered by my fellow columnist and the mass media.

On the Palestinian side, one must consider the plight of the Gaza residents caught between Hamas and the occupying Israel. Three years ago, Israel formally withdrew from the territory but has maintained sovereign control over it. Its long blockade of Gaza has violated its obligation as occupying force by denying humanitarian aid to enter and breaking negotiated promises that allow for adequate aid.

On the Israeli side, there is more at issue than mere self-defense. The mention of Israel’s biblical claim to the land is irrelevant in the context of the current timeframe, but it remains part of the debate when it comes to commentary within certain factions in the United States. More important to Israel’s perspective is the political dynamic that exists within. Prime Minister Tsipi Livni, who is criticized by Benjamin Netanyahu (her rival in the upcoming election) for being soft on the Palestinians, must demonstrate her strength with decisive and unrelenting military aggression. Also, with Barack Obama’s impending inauguration, there is a sense that the new U.S. administration is an unknown quantity and Israel must strike while the iron is hot and the climate of support is at its peak. It seems to have more to do with political timing than the timing of rocket launches from Gaza.

The fact is that while Obama has been silent when it comes to response to the current aggression, it is debatable that his approach to the Israel/Palestinian struggle will differ much from his predecessor. His one-president-at-a-time defense has drawn criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. I predict that pressure will be high from within the administration to maintain the current level of support for Israel despite the legitimacy of its agenda.

In March of 2008, I wrote in this column of the dysfunctional and perilous relationship between Israel and the United States. As tensions rise in the Middle East, the U.S. remains beholden to Israel as an ally among increasingly hostile Arab nations in the region. The irony of the situation is that the alliance has become a source of the hostility. The government of Egypt, which has taken a role of mediator in the Gaza situation, is under pressure from within as the popularity of Hamas has risen along with the disdain for Israel’s actions. Other Arab governments are feeling the heat, and the pressure to condemn those actions is mounting.

Of no small consequence is the powerful pro-Israel lobby within the United States. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has considerable influence in U.S. policy in the Middle East. Decisions in the region ranging from the sale of arms to Arab nations to declarations of war have been weighed and tested by AIPAC and often only proceed with concession to the lobbying group. This deference to the pro-Israel lobby has been evidenced through several presidential administrations regardless of which political party was in control.

I would hope that as Obama huddles with his foreign policy team, that he sees beyond the surface and simplification of the issue. I would hope that he would resist the urge to placate an ally at great sacrifice, or defer to a powerful lobby against national interest. More importantly, I would hope that he would eschew the hurry-up offense that was the signature of the Bush administration.

Perhaps an end to unconditional support of Israeli aggression is near. I would hope so.