Lessons From Gaza

By Charles Pinwill


The Israeli-Hamas conflict in Gaza recently has ignited a storm of indignation, especially at civilian casualties. Sixty-six percent of Americans are reported as favouring a ceasefire, and large protests demanding  the same in London, France, the Philippines, Indonesia, and myriad other places are occurring. These protests arise from ignorance at the real situation.

Americans or others asking for American influence to be exerted in favour of a ceasefire simply do not understand Zionist influence in America. Yes, if the American Government withdrew its supply of arms to Israel and insisted upon a ceasefire, it would be had in 24 hours. But this is impossible.

An ocean of just righteous indignation can mean no more than so much irrelevant impotence. It completely fails to comprehend the dominion of the Zionist lobby in the American Media, Finance and Government Policy. The power realities are that American policy towards Israel is the preserve of Israel itself, and is so dictated, and with no tolerance of variation.

No American Government could survive even minor denial of Israeli wishes. The world has no experience in dictating policy through the mass media. The Zionist lobby has many decades of its effective use and dictates. It comes in myriad levels. Information disadvantageous to personal careers is only a beginning. Disinformation about political groups with variant views is easily contrived, and without control of the media, it cannot be successfully contradicted.

Mortgages can be called in, advertising withdrawn, law suites initiated, sponsorships and donations withheld, one’s enemies can be given full voice, personal indiscretions put abroad, animosities can be incited and fanned, temptations placed before one’s weaker allies and no initiative against a Government or its members need be considered as off limits. American policy towards Israel is, to repeat myself, the preserve of Israel. In this respect, and because of the power of the Zionist lobby, America plays the part of the minion here.

A certain amount of talk to the contrary is countenanced. It serves as a smoke screen to the uninformed, but in truth its dictates are absolute.

This is better understood at a higher level amongst Israeli’s enemies. There is much talk about Iran or Lebanon or other Islamic States entering the conflict. Pure nonsense. If any attempted to alleviate the plight of Gaza they are quite conscious that they would be bombed into oblivion by the United States if Israel’s ability to do so was wanting.

Moral pleas for justice serve well enough to convince the populace that your heart is in the right place, and that you are trying. In real politics they have little currency. If American policy is to be persuaded, the methods which work must be employed. Money, such as large oil money must buy large wedges of American media, and progressively discover how intelligent and effective manipulation works. It must win a large place in finance, and invest in understanding the means of influencing (perhaps we may read here subverting and prostituting) politicians.

The sad lesson from Gaza is that moral argument can be no more than a distraction from understanding the suzerainty borne of finance.

Fighting in urban areas has always been fraught with particular difficulty. Israel can and has employed artillery and other means of demolishing the buildings of Gaza. When a possibly hostile presence is detected in a structure, it can be demolished. But this just leaves the really difficult task. To clear the enemy men must then proceed through the streets and building rubble on foot and face any residual enemy one on one, and now pretty much on equal terms, with only handheld weapons. If Hamas soldiers have the bottle for it, they can take positions in the rubble, and wait patiently knowing that the Israelis must eventually expose themselves by moving singly through the area. We are hearing nothing of the casualties on both sides from this stage of the conflict. The defenders always have an advantage here as there is no need to expose themselves except in the act of firing upon the exposed enemy.

The preparedness to take combatant casualties in this part of the struggle is altogether different to the earlier mass demolition of buildings. The almost complete silence on casualties can only tell us there is something here which is not to be shared. Israeli soldiers’ reticence to take these higher casualties, wholly understandable, would seem to be part of what has caused the pause in the assault. Proceeding against entrenched snipers in all the debris without armour, as it cannot negotiate the broken buildings, is an horrendous prospect. Israeli discouragement is to be anticipated.