Challenges in Gaza: A Historical Perspective
Recently, Israel announced the initiation of Operation Gideon in Gaza. It raises a significant question: why has Israel faced challenges in conquering such a relatively small area, especially considering that Gaza is just 140 square miles? To put that in perspective, Germany during World War II was 140,000 square miles, and the Allies managed to take control in just eight months. Yet here we are, 19 months into the conflict, and Gaza remains unconquered. It doesn’t have the sophisticated military assets like tanks or submarines that Germany did.
So, what’s the reason behind this prolonged struggle?
The answer seems fairly straightforward. The Allies in WWII were notoriously relentless. This doesn’t quite align with Israel’s approach.
That’s precisely where the issue lies. In his seminal work, Carl von Clausewitz famously argued that one of the gravest errors in war is to show any mercy. He highlighted that to achieve victory, it is essential to not only defeat the enemy’s forces but also to conquer their territory and break their will to fight. Gaza’s situation reflects ongoing instability. The population there remains far from subdued. Rocket fire continues, and hostages are still held. For over a century, conflict has persisted between Palestinian Arabs and Jews on this land. What, then, is the solution? A ceasefire may offer temporary relief, but true resolution often stems from a demonstration of overwhelming force leading to unconditional surrender.
Take Ulysses S. Grant, for example, who insisted on unconditional surrender during the Civil War, bringing a reluctant Simon Bolivar Buckner to acquiesce under duress. In a similar context, Japan, facing devastating losses during WWII, ultimately surrendered after the destruction wrought by atomic bombs and relentless conventional warfare.
Moreover, consider how the situation plays out in Gaza today. Israeli generals can hardly traverse the streets safely, as Hamas terrorists pose a significant threat, not to mention the volatile reactions from the local population.
This leaves Israel with little choice. It must, in many respects, adopt the same fierce strategies employed by the Allies in World War II. Yes, that could mean targeting civilian support structures, which is a divisive ethical dilemma. Many might argue that targeting civilians is fundamentally wrong, but history suggests otherwise. A large portion of Americans supported the bombing of Japanese cities post-Pearl Harbor, driven by a desire to end the war swiftly.
Interestingly, it has become increasingly apparent among moral philosophers that the binary distinction between “guilty soldiers” and “innocent civilians” isn’t so clear-cut. Often, soldiers are just young individuals caught in circumstance, while civilians frequently contribute tangibly to their nation’s war efforts.
In essence, military success often hinges on civilian support. In regions like Gaza, this support can be obscured, hidden among the population. Yet, despite difficulties, it remains important to consider the wider implications of population attitudes. While many civilians in conflicts may not bear arms, they often play organizational roles that support military operations.
If victory is the goal for Israel, it may be necessary to decisively alter the Gaza population’s resolve. Yes, such measures could appear harsh, but it might be even harsher to engage in a conflict with a “gentler” approach. Historical figures like Napoleon underscored the necessity for energy and severity in warfare to bring about a swift end to conflict, ultimately sparing greater suffering in the long run.
There is a shared desire for peace in the Middle East. Curiously, some argue that relentless warfare might be the ticket to achieving it. After the total destruction of Germany and Japan in WWII, both nations emerged as allies within a relatively short span of time. So, while many question whether Israelis and Palestinian Arabs can coexist peacefully, the genuine resolution can only emerge once the latter understands their defeat.
