Gaza strategy and/or humanitarian problem
Blessed are the confused and curious
This is a follow up to Blessed are the confused and curious of June 4.
How are we to understand what is happening in Gaza?
Which psalm addresses it?
There is no king that can be saved by a mighty army; *
a strong man is not delivered by his great strength.
The horse is a vain hope for deliverance; *
for all its strength it cannot save.
Behold, the eye of the Lord is upon those who fear him, *
on those who wait upon his love,
To pluck their lives from death, *
and to feed them in time of famine.
Psalm 33: 16-19 Exultate, justi
OR
He has always been mindful of his covenant, *
the promise he made for a thousand generations:
The covenant he made with Abraham, *
the oath that he swore to Isaac,
Which he established as a statute for Jacob, *
an everlasting covenant for Israel,
Saying, “To you will I give the land of Canaan *
to be your allotted inheritance.”
Psalm 105:8-11 Confitemini Domino
Is today’s nation of Israel in need of repentance or faithful persistence? Or maybe two things are true at once. Is it possible that both are called for?
Moral and strategic suicide or the concrete necessity of persistence?
The New York Times is on something of a crusade. Reporters are trying to convince us that the new Israeli-American humanitarian effort is a failure. Today’s push is “Parents in Gaza Are Running Out of Ways to Feed Their Children.” It is a distressing, heart wrenching story. We should make note that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation says it has provided 9 million meals over the last seven days and intends to multiply that as new centers are opened. There’s also an assumption that the new humanitarian effort is creating a panic within Hamas.
Yesterday, in The Weekly Dish, Andrew Sullivan wrote “The Infanticide That Won't End.” He makes the case that “Israel is committing moral and strategic suicide by ramping up the war in Gaza again.” He writes of the suffering of children because of a lack of food. He goes on to suggest that Israel should leave Gaza because Hamas will no longer be a real threat. “…then what actual threat from a ragtag group of “untrained, inexperienced, radicalized” teenagers can justify the continuing mass civilian carnage? .... No, it is not genocide, and it is ugly and hideously insensitive to call it that; but it is a military campaign inflicting civilian casualties far beyond the exigencies of Israeli security. … There is something manic and desperate about the IDF’s actions in Gaza right now. They know they’ve lost their way but have no idea how to extricate themselves. And the thing about knowing you have killed so many children is that it will require you to suppress a sense of their humanity in order to maintain sanity and carry on. The cost of that moral coarsening — the acclimation to infanticide as routine and unremarkable — is huge. And the day after, if there ever is one? That essential question remains unanswered. The Netanyahu government doesn’t want an Arab/European military or administrative presence to stabilize the place, which is the only viable way forward. So a permanent Israeli police and military force on every block? Or settlements in a wasteland inhabited by people who now hate Israel with ever deeper passion? Seriously?”
Sullivan dismisses Hamas based on assessments of its current military capacity. From the Israeli perspective, they believe that if Hamas retains political and military control of Gaza, it will reconstituted itself once again into a force able to launch rockets and make attacks on Israel..
While we don’t hear much about Israel’s strategy in the generally liberal American media, a search will produce a good bit of information. For example:
“Three Strategic Paths to Achieve the Objectives of the War—One Is Preferable” looks at three options: Occupying the Gaza Strip, imposing a siege, or establishing an alternative civil administration while Hamas remains underground.
“Inside Israel’s Three-Phase Plan To End the Gaza War” Phase One, degrade Hamas’s leadership and infrastructure. Phase Two began last week, and is intended to last about two months, continuing the assault on Hamas’s capacity, gain control over 75% of Gaza, and move civilians into the other 25%, while working with a US group to provide humanitarian relief. Phase Three, is fighting in the 75% area and completely destroying Hamas.
The Times of Israel offers a rather clear, pragmatic analysis, “For now, victory is still within reach: 10 truths about the Gaza war, 20 months in.” That includes, Israel’s war against Hezbollah has been a success…whereas the Gaza campaign has been a halting muddle...Israel needs a ‘day after’ vision (“Without that vision, it’s hard for even Israel’s closest friends to understand why they should support more death and hunger”) ....Hamas is playing to survive, it is convinced that domestic or international pressure will force Israel to end the war, which would mean victory for Hamas...Israelis must ask clearly: How much to give up for 20 hostages?
The point about the need for a day-after-vision has been part of the conversation Sister Michelle and I have been having. There's a need for an alternative structure for Gaza’s governance. It's been a problem since the beginning of the war because Israel is a parliamentary system, and therefore operates with coalition governments made up of several parties. That coalition, along with just about everyone in Israel, was fully supportive of the war itself while being unclear about what happens after the war.
I've listened to, The Emerging Day After in Gaza, Joseph Braude is interviewed by Dan Senor. They lay out what the possible strategy is underlying Israel’s efforts. “The people who dominate the aid dominate the politics of the strip.” They make the case that the current Israeli-American humanitarian effort is what will open the pathway for an effective administration of Gaza. The discussion includes a fascinating breakdown on public opinion among Palestinians in Gaza. There is also an assessment of the public mood in Israel since October 7 and its impact on day-after proposals.
Dead children eats at the gut. National defense strategies necessitate perspective and long-term thinking about consequences. The first presses for compassion. It makes people angry, and others defensive. We want to blame. We want to stop the immediate pain. The second requires patience and calmness. The first thinks of the Red Cross and church members volunteering to alleviate suffering brought about by war, hurricanes and earthquakes. And also, protesters pressing their “right answer”, in the case of Gaza, some wanting a ceasefire and others, the success of what they see as a liberation struggle. The second requires a General Eisenhower to plan the invasion of Europe, knowing that thousands will die and victory was not assured. And a long-term occupation of Germany with a process of democratization and reeducation.
I’ll end with what I know we are all called to whichever side or approach we identify with.
In all times of adversity, when we are most anxious, there is always the same response to be made
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control … “An inquiring and discerning heart, the courage to will and to persevere, a spirit to know and to love you, and the gift of joy and wonder in all your works.” … humility, gentleness, patience, forbearance born of love, eagerness to maintain unity in the bond of peace, truthfulness mediated in love, mutual kindness, tenderheartedness and forgiveness … · Prudence (good sense and practical judgment grounded in reality and directed toward what is good), Justice (rooted in the assumption that we live with one another), Fortitude (removing barriers to justice, perseverance) and Temperance (Self-awareness and self-control).
This abides,
Brother Robert, OA
The Feast of The Pioneers of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil, 1890