And So It Goes (Repeat ad infinitum)

In the Middle East, a war is raging. It has all the features of many ideological wars in the Twentieth Century, though it's more overt than most.

One group is the democratically elected government of a small Mideastern nation continually battered by its implaceable enemies. These enemies believe that they were given the land by God, and that they must defend that land by force, driving the enemy away. That task is so sacred, so holy, that the deaths of noncombatant women and children are merely incidental to that holy purpose. They defend their depradations with scripture and political posturing, posing as the innocent victims of a bully who will not be satisfied until they are dead.

The other group is the democratically elected government of a small Mideastern nation continually battered by its implaceable enemies. These enemies believe that they were given the land by God, and that they must defend that land by force, driving the enemy away. That task is so sacred, so holy, that the deaths of noncombatant women and children are merely incidental to that holy purpose. They defend their depradations with scripture and political posturing, posing as the innocent victims of a bully who will not be satisfied until they are dead.

My sympathies are more with the Palestinian people in this, for a number of reasons:

A prominent Jewish friend and I once discussed the meaning of "an eye for an eye". She pointed out that prior to that writing, the penalty for loss of an eye might be the loss of a hand, a leg, one's farm. Israel clearly feels that one life for one life is somehow an unfair exchange. They've killed over five hundred people in response to the deaths of six.

But both sides bear some of the blame. Neither rushed to plead for renewal of the ceasefire that has held, shakily, for the past couple of years.

Both have such loose definitions of what a combatant is that Israel finds itself fully justified in targeting schools with kiloton bunker-buster bombs. And Hamas excuses its randomized rocket fire by pointing out that almost all Israeli citizens serve in the Israeli army, and are therfore legitimate targets for murder. Neither, in these assertions, is playing by the rules.

I believe there's a possibility of resolving the situation, but it won't be found while Israel continues to indiscriminately pound the $#17 out of civillians and their homes (or "continues to confine itself to legitimate targets," if you're with the PR arm of the IDF). It won't be found while Dick Cheney continues to claim moral responsibility for nothing at all. It won't be found while Hamas refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist, and it also won't be found while Israel refuses to recognize Hamas as the democratically-elected government of its tiny neighbour.

There is potential for change. Most Hamas leaders aren't actually hardline terrorist types. They're politicians and power brokers. Many, if not most, would be happy to seek a long-term or even perhaps a permanent cease-fire if they saw a way to benefit from it. Right now, the way to appeal to the voters is to oppose Israel.

And of course, appeal to the voters serves both sides right now. Israel is holding elections soon, and none of the candidates wishes to look "soft on terror."

At the moment, all I can say is that Israel is winning the war on the ground, for one definition of winning. However, it seems likely to lose the PR war, and support. Particularly once the horrid Bush administration gets flushed into history.