This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/25/guardian-view-causes-fighting-gaza

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on the causes of the fighting in Gaza The Guardian view on the causes of the fighting in Gaza
(25 days later)
Both Israel and Hamas will very soon claim victory in Gaza. In both cases the claim will be empty, the victory hollow. Israel will say it has demolished so many tunnels and rocket sites, destroyed such and such an amount of munitions, and killed so many militants. The assertion will be that the physical infrastructure of what the Israelis call terrorism and Hamas calls resistance has been so wasted that a resumption of attacks on Israel will not be possible for a considerable time to come, perhaps for ever.Both Israel and Hamas will very soon claim victory in Gaza. In both cases the claim will be empty, the victory hollow. Israel will say it has demolished so many tunnels and rocket sites, destroyed such and such an amount of munitions, and killed so many militants. The assertion will be that the physical infrastructure of what the Israelis call terrorism and Hamas calls resistance has been so wasted that a resumption of attacks on Israel will not be possible for a considerable time to come, perhaps for ever.
Hamas will say it has wrested from the Israelis concessions on trade and freedom of movement, that it has broken the siege of Gaza and that Israel’s technical military superiority has been negated by the bravery of the Hamas fighters. Both will be right, and both will be wrong, because neither achievement, if such a word can be used, can even begin to be worth the lives lost over the last eight days in the schools, hospitals and homes of ruined Gaza. Hamas will say it has wrested from the Israelis concessions on trade and freedom of movement, that it has broken the siege of Gaza and that Israel’s technical military superiority has been negated by the bravery of the Hamas fighters. Both will be right, and both will be wrong, because neither achievement, if such a word can be used, can even begin to be worth the lives lost over the last eight days in the schools, hospitals and homes of ruined Gaza.
As civilian casualties mount, including some now in clashes between Israelis and West Bank protesters, it seems more and more obscene that the fighting has not yet been stopped. But it’s a story we’ve heard before: the Israelis want to finish the job of smashing up the tunnels, and Hamas won’t give up until it has secured concessions that will free Gaza from the restrictions imposed by Israel (and Egypt) that are strangling its economy. The US secretary of state, John Kerry, is working hard to get a ceasefire. But unless the deeper causes of the problem which is Gaza are addressed by Israel, the US and the international community, a ceasefire will mean very little.As civilian casualties mount, including some now in clashes between Israelis and West Bank protesters, it seems more and more obscene that the fighting has not yet been stopped. But it’s a story we’ve heard before: the Israelis want to finish the job of smashing up the tunnels, and Hamas won’t give up until it has secured concessions that will free Gaza from the restrictions imposed by Israel (and Egypt) that are strangling its economy. The US secretary of state, John Kerry, is working hard to get a ceasefire. But unless the deeper causes of the problem which is Gaza are addressed by Israel, the US and the international community, a ceasefire will mean very little.
The chain of causation, as with so much else in Israel, leads back to Ariel Sharon. He conceived of withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 as above all a tactic which would allow him to postpone wider negotiations on the future of the West Bank and weaken the Palestine Liberation Organisation. He would garner some peace laurels while inducing the Americans to give commitments on what Israel could keep when and if West Bank negotiations began again. It was a skilful and even a brave piece of political manoeuvring both domestically and internationally; but it was also a cynical and ultimately a counter-productive one.The chain of causation, as with so much else in Israel, leads back to Ariel Sharon. He conceived of withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 as above all a tactic which would allow him to postpone wider negotiations on the future of the West Bank and weaken the Palestine Liberation Organisation. He would garner some peace laurels while inducing the Americans to give commitments on what Israel could keep when and if West Bank negotiations began again. It was a skilful and even a brave piece of political manoeuvring both domestically and internationally; but it was also a cynical and ultimately a counter-productive one.
This was particularly the case because Mr Sharon never intended Gaza to be in any real sense free: Israel retained control of its air space, coastal waters, trade, the movement of its people and its land border with Israel. In most respects Gaza, in other words, remained an occupied territory. Israeli divide and rule policies had already had the effect of strengthening the PLO’s more militant rivals. Before disengagement, Israeli security forces attempted to decapitate the extremist leadership. Hamas might even so have opted for co-existence, but it did not. It went on to win the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, and then the Hamas coup of 2007 set the stage for the periodic confrontations of which this month’s fighting is the latest, but not necessarily the last. This was particularly the case because Mr Sharon never intended Gaza to be in any real sense free: Israel retained control of its air space, coastal waters, trade, the movement of its people and its land border with Israel. In most respects Gaza, in other words, remained an occupied territory. Israeli divide and rule policies had already had the effect of strengthening the PLO’s more militant rivals. Before disengagement, Israeli security forces attempted to decapitate the extremist leadership. Hamas might even so have opted for co-existence, but it did not. It went on to win the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, and then the Hamas coup of 2007 set the stage for the periodic confrontations of which this month’s fighting is the latest, but not necessarily the last.
It will only be the last if it is grasped that the way Israel left Gaza institutionalised violent conflict rather than made it less likely. Those Israelis who portray the disengagement as an act of generosity for which they have received no credit misunderstand what happened. Unilateral disengagement in Gaza weakened Palestinian moderates, enabled successive Israeli governments to drag their feet in peace negotiations and is even now being used by prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who opposed it at the time, to lay down Israeli security requirements for any future disengagement from the West Bank which would make a peace settlement almost impossible to achieve. So occupation, including by remote control as practised in Gaza, will continue. But that occupation, as one Israeli historian recently concluded, has “hardened those under its power”. That is why Gaza is such an intractable problem.It will only be the last if it is grasped that the way Israel left Gaza institutionalised violent conflict rather than made it less likely. Those Israelis who portray the disengagement as an act of generosity for which they have received no credit misunderstand what happened. Unilateral disengagement in Gaza weakened Palestinian moderates, enabled successive Israeli governments to drag their feet in peace negotiations and is even now being used by prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who opposed it at the time, to lay down Israeli security requirements for any future disengagement from the West Bank which would make a peace settlement almost impossible to achieve. So occupation, including by remote control as practised in Gaza, will continue. But that occupation, as one Israeli historian recently concluded, has “hardened those under its power”. That is why Gaza is such an intractable problem.
• Comments on this article will remain off overnight and will be switched on in the morning UK time• Comments on this article will remain off overnight and will be switched on in the morning UK time