Aint Nick’s boomerang

Nicholas Kristof – I’ll call him “Ain’t Nick” – on the NYT, The Gaza Boomerang:

When Hamas was founded in 1987, Israel was mostly concerned with Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement and figured that a religious Palestinian organization would help undermine Fatah. Israel calculated that all those Muslim fundamentalists would spend their time praying in the mosques, so it cracked down on Fatah and allowed Hamas to rise as a counterforce.

It’s a common talking point among Israel’s critics, that Israel had a hand in creating Hamas. But no one really has given a definitive account of how that happened. In the early 80’s Israel tried to create “village leagues,” residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza who would represent the Palestinians instead of the PLO, which was gaining popularity at the time. And even if Israel did have a hand in creating Hamas, it was strictly as a religious organization. If it metastasized into a terrorist organization over time, it hardly means that Israel was responsible for it becoming one. In 1987, the PLO was a terrorist organization whose founding principle was the destruction of Israel, even if it had apologists at the time who claimed that it sought peace. And I’d add that even 15 years after the Oslo accords, there’s no indication that Fatah has moderated its founding principle.

And the point that Kristof misses is that in 1993, Israel attempted to make peace with a known terrorist. Arafat used the last eleven years of his misbegotten life to organize terror against Israel while enriching himself and his cronies. And since he was Israel’s “peace partner” it protected him from any serious consequences. Also if Arafat had fulfilled his obligations he would have destroyed Hamas instead of fostering its growth. Yet Kristof doesn’t note that by making peace with a terrorist Israel’s peaceniks strengthened terror.

At least to whatever degree Israel encouraged Hamas at the beginning, it was not a terrorist organization.

What we’re seeing in the Middle East is the Boomerang Syndrome. Arab terrorism built support for right-wing Israeli politicians, who took harsh actions against Palestinians, who responded with more terrorism, and so on. Extremists on each side sustain the other, and the excessive Israeli ground assault in Gaza is likely to create more terrorists in the long run.

I love this meme. After Israel destroyed much of the terrorist infrastructure during Operating Defensive Shield terror from Judea and Samaria decreased. And after Israel killed Yassin and Rantisi, Hamas was weakened. A terrorist organization needs leaders who can recruit, train and arm its terrorists. Take away its most effective leaders and reduce its materiel and you have degraded its ability to commit terror. But Kristof’s ignorant belief is that if you fight against terrorists, you cause more resentment, which, in turn breeds more terrorists. Kind of like throwing water on gremlins. But terrorists don’t magically appear out of nowhere, they need to be recruited and trained. Kristof needs to inhale some reality.

In a recent article Khaled Abu Toameh described how the leadership of Hamas is currently in disarray. (via memeorandum) In addition, there’s anecdotal evidence that the residents of Gaza are blaming Hamas more than Israel for their plight. What strengthened Hamas was the ceasefire. Now Hamas is being weakened.

So what should Israel have done according to Kristof?

Granted, Israel was profoundly provoked in this case. Israel sought an extension of its cease-fire with Hamas, and Egypt offered to mediate one — but Hamas refused. When it is shelled by its neighbor, Israel has to do something.

But Israel’s right to do something doesn’t mean it has the right to do anything. Since the shelling from Gaza started in 2001, 20 Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets or mortars, according to a tabulation by Israeli human rights groups. That doesn’t justify an all-out ground invasion that has killed more than 660 people (it’s difficult to know how many are militants and how many are civilians).

So what could Israel have reasonably done? Bombing the tunnels through which Gazans smuggle weapons would have been a proportionate response, if Israel had stopped there, and the same is true of airstrikes on certain Hamas targets. An even better approach would have been to ease the siege in Gaza, perhaps creating an environment in which Hamas would have extended the cease-fire. It was certainly worth trying — and almost anything would be better than lashing out in a way that would create more boomerangs.

First of all it’s not just difficult to know how many of those killed are civilians, it’s difficult to know how many people have been killed.

I don’t see that Israel did anything different from what Kristof would have had them do. He writes “certain Hamas targets.” But what does he know? There’s every indication that Israel knew what targets they had to hit. And many are in residential areas. But how can he know from Manhattan which “certain targets” house weaponry and other elements of the terror infrastructure. He can’t, but Israel’s military knows. Kristof effectively uses the word “certain” to say that he knows better which targets were legitimate.

Further, for all his complaints, Kristof doesn’t make a case that Israel could have done things differently. Nor does he acknowledge Hamas’s culpability for civilian damage. For Kristof it’s blame Israel first and only.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.