The Political Ends of the War in Gaza

News releases are detailing why, from a US perspective, the war in Gaza may have been sanctioned. Not surprisingly, politics - or more specifically, a US opposition to Hamas - may be to blame.

With news articles last week detailing a summer incident in which Israel proposed an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, but was denied approval by the United States, it is safe to say that we all are well aware that Israel does not act militarily unless it gets the OK from its big brother. Well this then begs the question; why has the United States allowed Israel to invade Gaza (and to wage such a brutal campaign)? Today it appears we may have an answer. In a recent article by Adam Entous of reuters.com, it seems that the US may have supported this war in order to disturb the political dress in Palestine. Since Hamas took power via democratic processes in 2006, the US has been at odds with the anti-Israel, and perhaps more importantly, Iranian-supported faction. What's more, Hamas was able to capture the votes of Palestinians largely on grounds that they were best able to protect the public from Israeli aggression. Apparently the logic would then follow, from and outside (or US) perspective, that if Hamas were proven unable to protect Palestine from Israeli aggression, the public would no longer have any reason to support Hamas in coming elections. As reported by Entous:

“The United States hopes to use post-war reconstruction of the Gaza Strip to help the Western-backed Palestinian Authority reassert its presence and influence in Hamas's stronghold. (…) The aim would be to ensure that credit for reconstruction accrues to President Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority, and not to the Iranian-backed Islamists who won a 2006 Palestinian election and seized control of Gaza 18 months later.”

Though Entous’ article does not explicitly discuss the war from the US perspective, it is titled “US sees Gaza rebuilding as opportunity for Abbas.” Citing a “pissed off” European diplomat, Entous quickly points out that even if Abbas were to reclaim power, Hamas would likely seize power quickly, as the Palestinian Authority has nearly no ground forces. "Let's be realistic," the senior EU diplomat said. "If the Palestinian Authority is to be in charge, it has to be on the ground, have institutions. At the moment there is none of that." As a person struggling to understand the reasoning behind Israel’s crusade in Gaza – as well as a person who knows full-well that Israel does not act without US approval – Entous’ article finally proposes a plausible motive. And as a person who often cites Robert S. McNamara quotations, an insight to why such a brutal campaign has been sanctioned by the US: “In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil.” Of course, with these early questions hypothetically answered, there are now countless follow-up questions; near or at the top of the list, at what point has Israel proven Hamas unable to defend Palestine? Another good question, at what point does the drastic amount of civilian casualties force western intervention? Also, and perhaps most importantly, will this campaign in fact convince Palestinians that Hamas is not the best authority to protect their lands, or instead drive increased support and hostility? In any case, callous as it is, it appears we may now know why, from a US perspective, the war in Gaza was sanctioned. Thanks for reading. GRMM