This 80 year old writer has more than 50 years in journalism to his credit. Originally from Bombay (now Mumbai), where his writings have been published in almost all the important English and vernacular languages,, he has been living in Connecticut, USA for the past 25 years. His writings have been published in USA also, in various publications. He has studied the Israeli-Palestinian issue in great detail and has written extensively on the subject. He was co-producer of a weekly TV show EARTH MATTERS and is presently sponsoring another weekly TV show THE STRUGGLE. He is chairman of The Danbury Committee for World Peace and of Justice for Palestinians Committee and a member of the Danbury Alliance, an advocacy group for the rights of immigrants and just and humane treatment of undocumented immigrants. He continues to be a peace and justice activist and can be contacted at gaabba2000@yahoo.com

Israel was not under attack at the time. The question of defense therefore does not arise.

Israel, with callous disregard for the lives of its own citizens and territory, chose to spurn all overtures by Hamas for a truce. Israel instead chose death and destruction over calm and peace.

The motivation for invading Gaza was not to stop the barrage of rockets being fired by Hamas. Israeli leaders had their own personal agendas for the invasion.

Israel is holding 1,500,000 Gazans hostage to achieve its unending and ever changing demands.

Deterrence? It was like shooting fish in a barrel

There is no denying that the government of Israel was duty bound to do whatever it takes to defend its territory and protect its citizens from the incessant and relentless bombardment of rockets shot by Hamas from Gaza. Thousands of them had been fired. They had been raining on Israel day in and day out, without let, for years, and, Hamas had ignored warning after warning issued by the Israeli government to stop it. An all out attack on Gaza was apparently the only solution. What else could Israel do?

The answer, of course, is quite simple. There is lots that Israel could have done other than invading Gaza, laying waste the land, killing hundreds and injuring thousands -- lots that would have more effectively and surely protected Israeli territory and its citizens.

To begin with it must be understood that Israel was not under attack at the time and therefore the question of defense does not arise.

Further, going to war -- and Israel did go to war against the Gazans -- is justified only as a last resort. When there is no other option available that will achieve the desired result as effectively. And, when there is a reasonable expectation that an invasion will achieve the aimed for goal.

As for the last requisite, it should have been clear to the Israelis from past experience that the invasion would not prevent Hamas from launching rockets. Israel had tried everything to force Hamas to its knees. The harder Israel hit Hamas, the more resistant and stronger it became. No amount of punishment would make Hamas give up its resistance. On that score alone, a full scale invasion should have been ruled out.

More important, an invasion of Gaza was not the only means available to Israel to defend its territory and protect its population, which, Israel claims, was the sole reason for the invasion. In fact, there was no need for the invasion at all for putting at end to the barrage of Hamas rockets.

There was, at the time, a truce between Israel and Hamas. This provided for the suspension by Hamas of firing rockets into Israel during the truce in return for Israel easing the crippling siege and blockade imposed by it against Gaza.

The truce had been going well. From the beginning of 2008 till June19 Hamas fired 2660 projectiles into Israel. From June 19, when the truce started, till November 4, only 65 rockets had been fired. Israel itself admitted that during the truce period there was a significant reduction of shells being lobbed into Israel.

Though a few rogue elements in Gaza did fire the 65 rockets into Israel, Hamas honored the truce and enforced it on its cadres (even Israel's intelligence agencies acknowledged this had been implemented with surprising effectiveness).

As against this, Israel not only reneged on its commitment and failed to ease the strangling siege it had put on Gaza for months, but it deliberately broke the truce. On November 4, 2008 IDF went into Gaza and killed 6 Palestinians and injured 6 more, on the pretext of destroying a "ticking" tunnel. Then, one day later, it killed one more Palestinian (the truce was due to expire on December 19).

In spite of this provocative violation of the truce by Israel, Hamas tried its best to make Israel agree to continue the truce, offering to extend it to up to ten years. For several days before the expiry of the truce, Hamas sought, through the good offices of Egypt and others, to extend the truce.

As late as December 14, in a meeting with Jimmy Carter in Damascus, Khaled Mishal, Hamas political leader, offered to resume and extend the by-then-tattered six-month truce in return for Israel's lifting the siege of Gaza. Robert Pastor, who accompanied Carter, promptly conveyed that offer to the Israeli military.

Clearly, strengthening and extending the truce was the way to go. That would have stopped the rockets from falling into Israel. Even Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad, who served as Ariel Sharon's national security advisor, wrote recently in Yediot Ahronoth that the government could have stopped the rocket attacks long ago by lifting the siege on Gaza.

Had Israel really been concerned about peace, about stopping rockets being rained on Israel from Gaza , about freeing its citizens from living in fear of unannounced death and destruction from Qassam rockets, it would have accepted the offer made by Hamas and extended the truce.

But Israel, with callous disregard for Gaza and its inhabitants, and, more significantly, for the lives of its own citizens and territory, chose to spurn and ignore all overtures by Hamas to resume and even extend the truce. Israel chose instead death and destruction over calm and peace. It decided to invade Gaza - once again.

Brigadier General (Res) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF's Gaza Division, in an interview on an Israeli Army Radio program, as quoted by Bradley Burston in Ha'aretz on December 22, accused Israel's government of having made a 'central error' during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing "to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . ." He went on to say, "We could have eased the siege over Gaza Strip in such a way that the Palestinians, Hamas, would have understood that holding fire served their interests. But when you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues," General Zakai said, "it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire. You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they're in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing."

And yet, Hamas was willing and offered to continue and extend the truce. It is Israel that did not want it.

The conclusion is inescapable that halting the rain of rockets on Israel was not the driving force behind Israel's devastating invasion of Gaza. What then? Prime Minister Olmert was eager to divert attention from the ongoing probes against him and was also concerned about his "legacy". He had been badly stung by his misadventure in Lebanon and the humiliating defeat Israel had suffered there. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni of the centrist Kadima party, who was at the time contesting the elections and was hoping to become the next Prime Minister, wanted to show that though a woman she was as tough, if not tougher than her other two rivals, Ehud Barak and Benajamin Yetanhau. Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Labor, who was also contesting the elections, wanted to show that despite the perception (actually a misperception!) that he almost gave everything to the Palestinians at Clinton-sponsored negotiations at Camp David , he was as tough on the Palestinians as any of his rivals. He decided to project his army credentials. Netanyahu of Likud, a known rightist had to maintain and enhance his reputation of being completely anti-Palestinians. And all of them felt the need to re-establish the credibility of Israel's "deterrence" which had suffered so after the Lebanon debacle.

Above all, the invasion was to 'sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people' as former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon remarked about the goal of the occupation.

Apart from destroying Gaza and ruining the lives of thousands of Gazans -- and boosting the chances of some of the politicians standing for election in Israel -- the invasion was a total failure. Hamas, as usual, has emerged stronger than ever. The rockets fell even in the midst of the carnage. The only thing that got seared into the minds of the Gazans was the cruelty of Israel . And, as for re-establishing the credibility of Israel's "deterrence", it failed to impress. For that it would have had to take on someone its own size. Killing the corralled Gazans, after starving them for weeks, and invading Gaza with guided missiles, bombs, and artillery fire, using drones, F-16s, Apache helicopters, and ships -- it was like shooting fish in a barrel. All that the invasion did was to establish Israel as a bully on a rampage.

It bears repeating: Israel could have done a lot to defend its territory and protect its citizens without launching a devastating attack on Gaza . It still can, if that is what it wants and not the destruction of Palestinian lands and the overthrow of Hamas.

Unfortunately it still finds ways to avoid a truce. It wanted Hamas to agree to stop firing rockets into Israel . Hamas has agreed. It wanted international help in stopping arms smuggling into Gaza . It has received assurances about that. It has now added one more demand: it will not agree to a truce in Gaza unless Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who was captured by Palestinians in 2006 and is held by Palestinian militants, is freed. Israel would, as part of the deal, release some Palestinian prisoners held by it.

Prisoner exchange is a separate matter and could be a separate deal but Israel has tagged this additional demand as a condition to be met by Hamas for a truce to be agreed on by Israel . And for international reconstruction efforts to rebuild Gaza to start. In effect, Israel is holding 1,500,000 Gazans hostage to achieve its unending and ever changing demands.

In the face of all this, to claim that "Israel wants peace but the Palestinians want terror" and to dramatically wail "What could we do" is, to say the least, the height of hypocrisy.

Gulamhusein A. Abba (gaabba2000@yahoo.com) Danbury , Connecticut , USA

Comments: