Qana: An Anlysis

Mainstream media coverage of the latest Mideast conflict has been lax. There is a notable absence of objective analyses, context and commentary. Rather, media outlets have embraced sensationalism and deliberately inflamed the situation by instigating people's intolerance. The objective of this post is to restore the complexity of the conflict and motivate my central thesis- the Israeli Defense Force is acting ethically.

Qana: a Hizbullah Aberation
Several days ago, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) engaged Hizbullah targets in the Southern Lebanese city of Qana. In excess of 60 people were killed, more than half of them children. The UN deplored the act as "deliberate and ruthless" and the UNSC prepared a document criticising Israel for "disproportionate" use of force. In the midst of the tragedy, few news agencies bothered to objectively report the facts. However, News Radio (Australia- 1278 AM) broadcast a compelling BBC interview. The foreign British correspondent, based out of Southern Lebanon, extended an ostensibly objective analysis into the incident. Despite attempts by the programme's host to bait the journalist into editorialising, he calmly maintained his neutral stance and asserted the facts. So what are the facts?

Prior to the IAF's attack on Qana, the IDF employed its airforce to cover the city in leaflets imploring civilians to evacuate. The tactic, which has been employed aggressively throughout the campaign, cited that Hizbullah terrorists had seized the town as a platform from which to launch rocket attacks against Israel. The civilians were in effect held as human collateral aimed to dissuade Israeli airstrikes. Aerial surveillance footage captured a particularly despicable instance of inhumanity when Hizbullah terrorists, dressed as plain-clothed civilians, fired a rocket from the balcony of a private residence. Naturally, when the 24 hour deadline concluded, the IAF struck Qana.

According to the IDF's preliminary investigation and eyewitness testimony, Hizbullah terrorists effectively enforced a siege over the town. Gunmen prevented locals from leaving and the terrorist group tactically decentralised itself. When Israel struck its objectives, the civilian density localised proximal to the targets were maimed and killed. And Hizbullah had further subverted international opinion.

Critcism
Israeli advocates, myself among them, appreciate that Israel errs. However, we maintain that any criticism of Israel should be proportionate and balanced. This precludes agitation fueled by intolerance. The UN charge of "deliberate targeting of civilians" is an absolute fallacy and an indictment of the organisation's central tenent of neutrality. The IDF's manifesto of mitigating civilian casualties supersedes ALL of its military objectives. For example, the IDF blatantly eliminates the element of surprise by declaring its targets in advance. Moreover, the IDF employs ground troops and actively engages in guerrilla warfare against terrorists in dense urban environments. Does an errant Israeli rocket ever kill civilians? Yes. Are civilians sometimes caught in the crossfire? Yes. But it's a huge stretch to suggest that Israel intentionally targets civilians. Legitimate criticism might involve questioning the wisdom of using the airforce to engage hostiles in an urban setting, while recognising that terrorists cannot be allowed to operate out of civilian areas with impunity. In any case, the conflict is complex and has depth. Linear analyses, slander and emotive jargon based on anti-Israel sentiment doesn't constitute valid condemnation.

Photographed near my university. This is an example of myopic, unjustified and intolerant criticism.

A Brief History Lesson

In a previous post a reader requested that I explain the circumstances and origins of the Palestinian national movement. I have decided that the most effective response is a simple citation of the facts. Accordingly, I will abstain from any editorialising.
In the second part of his question, Samuel asked me whether one can be neutral in one's sympathies on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The answer is a resounding no. The case for Israel is far more compelling than the case for Palestine.

In the year 1947, the United Nations General Assembly accepted a resolution that divided British Mandate Palestine into two distinct territories. The orange portions (as indicated below) were appropriated to form a Jewish state and the yellow portions were designated to form the basis of a Palestinian state.

Neighbouring Arab regimes instantly rejected the resolution. That was where the consensus ended. Syria, which had administered the land during the Malmuk period, demanded the right to annex it. As did Jordan, which had occupied the West Bank (hence the West Bank of Jordan) since the Ottoman Empire's conquests. Gaza belonged to Egypt. However, the UN resolution called for the creation of a new and independent Arab state alongside Israel; a policy the Arab governments were averse to.

Nevertheless, Israel proclaimed independence on May 15 1948. Several weeks later, the newly born state was invaded along three fronts by the armies of Jordan, Syria and Egypt. Israel's military success and the subsequent Armistice Agreements ensured that the two-State solution was never fully implemented. Adding further detriment, the Arab nations effectively sealed their borders to the displaced and relegated them to refugee camps. Border skirmishes ensued as the refugee population demanded integration. The notorious Black September Massacre (Sept. 16 1970), sanctioned after Palestinian Fedayeen attempted to seize the Jordanian Kingdom, resulted in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians along the Jordanian border. Naturally, Israel integrated very few displaced Arabs.

The birth of the Palestinian movement is contentious and difficult to ascribe. I view the initial phase of transitory statehood as commencing in the years 1956-1958. These were the chaotic years of spontaneous resistance against Israel allegedly organised by non-governmental entities (in reality these groups were part of an Arab led proxy war, but that's rather incidental). Specifically, the Fatah Party was formed by Cairo student-activist, Yassir Arafat, and the organisation actively engaged Israeli troops. The Palestinian identity was cemented over the years 1964-1967 and is attributed to two main factors. The first was the sense of statelessness among the new generation of Arabs living in satellite camps. The second was the threefold expansion (to roughly 1/2 the size of Tasmania, or the size of New Jersey) of the Jewish state in the Six Day War. Demoralised by the abominable failure of the Arab war machine and the empty promises to "push the Jews into the sea", the Arab refugees shed their dependency of their brothers and sought to liberate Jerusalem with their own blood. Thus far they have successfully forced an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and remote Israeli settlement.

Israel has undertaken numerous initiatives to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians. To date, all have failed. The fundamental problems are the asymmetrical expectations between the two peoples, extensive corruption within the Palestinian leadership and the reluctance of the Palestinians to disavow violence and pursue legitimately diplomatic routes.

What does the future hold for the region? Assuming a continuation in terrorism (a rather shrewd assumption), Jews will certainly embrace emigration. In fact, I will be amazed if Israel sustains a Jewish Knesset and demographic majority over the next fifty years. I also suspect that certain radical Muslim elements are viewing the Israeli conflict as a successful experiment in warfare. Given comparable (but latent) demographics within certain Western countries and the tendency of the media to embrace self-hating pseudo-liberalism, I anticipate similar clashes globally. The Middle East conflict, though alluringly territorial, is clearly existential. Crap-I've editorialised.

Ayatollas with Bombs

In an alarming development, Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared on Iranian television that "At this historic moment, with the blessings of God Almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare here that the laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants Sunday." Assuming this statement and its timing to be accurate, Iran has essentially mastered the rudimentary research and development capability required to enrich uranium to the 3% required for nuclear fuel. This percentage refers to the concentration of the fissionable uranium isotope U-235 within the fuel. The secondary stage of weapon-grade development involves further enrichment of the uranium to 90%. This is a complex task that involves an experimental analysis of the fuel cycle and the construction of additional gas-centrifuges. Depending upon a variety of factors, including Iran's empirical results and its access to nuclear technologies, the nation could have access to the destructive technology within 6-48 months.

Why Iran?
It is a perverse misconception that the USA, Israel and its allies are averse to Iran possessing civilian nuclear power generators. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, Iran may pursue peaceful nuclear power subject to international approval and transparency. However, Iranian authorities have been anything but transparent. According to Mohamed Elbaradei, the chief of the IAEA, Iran lacks a legitimate reason for nuclear power, "There's a lot of concern why Iran is developing an enrichment program, why do they need nuclear energy? They have a lot of gas, they have a lot of oil? There's a lot of skepticism there." Moreover, Iran has failed to disclose the location of numerous clandestine nuclear facilities and the illegal supply trail of their technologies, "These equipments have been imported from outside of Iran. They were not domestically manufactured." On Iran's mandated co-operation with the IAEA, Elbaradei observed, "..We had a very difficult relationship with Iran, cooperation was no good, information was slow, in many cases contradictory, and I have reported all that and I said that you are not helping us to build confidence. Verification is after all to try to build confidence, and we need transparency." Yet, the strongest evidence to support Iran's illegitimate nuclear ambitions was the nation's rejection of the Russian Proposal to enrich uranium on Russian soil. The statement by the Iranian Foreign Ministry that "The Russian proposal is not on our agenda anymore," was intentionally vague. Nevertheless, there may be no mistake of Iran's intentions.

Options
The world faces two options. The first is to retain an open dialogue with Iran and seek a diplomatic solution. Proponents of this option suggest possible economic sanctions and political isolation should talks fail. A detraction of this policy is that it's slow. Libya defied UN economic and political sanctions for two decades before finally capitulating. A second drawback is that in the medium-term Iran wields leverage in the form of crude oil. The alternate policy, one to which I subscribe, is to insist on immediate Iranian compliance with its obligations under the NPT. Through transparent inspections, Iran should abate global fears about its nuclear ambitions. Should this fail, the UN must respond with tactical strikes against known and suspected nuclear sites.

Appeasement- but at what cost?
Should the West elect to appease Iran and provide it with ample time to develop its nuclear arsenal, the world will begin living on borrowed time. Iran may elect to attack Israel, a move that would instigate a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. Iran could extort its Muslim neighbours, threatening them with nuclear war. Iran could supply terrorists with nuclear weapons. The disastrous possibilities are limitless. Radical oppressive regimes and nuclear weapons don't mix.