As Ezra points out, the idea that Israel's assault on Hamas in Gaza seems counterproductive is becoming more widespread. But the American political establishment is still missing that point. Today, the House will pass a resolution in support of Israel's right to self-defense. No one will disputes that, I hope. But wouldn't it be better for a strong ally to point out that the Israel's policy making -- the way it has chosen to defend itself -- leaves something to be desired? Here's some of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement:
Today, we reaffirm that Israel, like any nation, has a right to self-defense when under attack. The rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza, which were increasing in frequency and range, constituted an unacceptable security threat to which Israel had a responsibility to respond.
All of us regret the loss of life, injury, and destruction of property of innocent civilians that has occurred on both sides of the conflict. When I spoke with Prime Minister Olmert last week, I made clear our concerns about the loss of life among civilians. We must do all we can to relieve the pain of the innocents and to bring about a real peace that will avoid further loss of life on both sides.
If we are to achieve a real peace, we must begin with a ceasefire to the current conflict, which is why this resolution calls for the Bush Administration to work toward that end. But a ceasefire must do more than just end the current fighting – it must address some of the root causes of the conflict so we may attain a peace that is, in the words of this resolution, ‘durable and sustainable.'
Security for Israel and an improvement in the lives of the people of Gaza cannot be achieved as long as Hamas uses that impoverished land as a launching pad for attacks against Israelis.
The goal of any ceasefire must be more than a return to the status quo; it must be a positive and measurable step toward a final, just resolution of the differences between Palestinians and Israelis. Our goal must be to achieve an agreement between Palestinians and Israelis that results in a secure Israel living side-by-side with a viable and independent Palestinian state—and with both finding peace and prosperity.
This resolution is, of course, a meaningless gesture with more of an eye towards domestic politics than foreign. But an unqualified support for an operation that raises doubts among friends of Israel both within that country and outside will be noticed around the world, and is poor, poor excuse for public diplomacy. The resolution calls for both the outgoing and incoming administrations to work towards a ceasefire, and makes a number of demands on various actors to change their policies, but asks Israel -- which has the greatest capacity of any player in the conflict and currently holds the initiative -- to do nothing differently. One way to fail at mediation is to make clear that you don't expect one party in a conflict to change their behavior at all.
-- Tim Fernholz
