Gaza: retaliation in kind for the shoe-throwing incident?

(written in 12-30-08)

In Iraq, when the journalist threw his shoes at Bush (an act that left me feeling revolted by its grossness, after all, there are limits that cannot be overstepped when it comes to the manner in which a protest is made against politicians visiting a country), I could not help thinking that something very concrete and serious would likely happen as a consequence of such an affront. The days passed and I was surprised at the absence of any kind of reprisal on the part of the proud American nation, rightly offended by this humiliating symbolic gesture which, although specifically directed against its president, indirectly offended the self-respect of a powerful nation, not accustomed to be publicly scorned, as in the case of the shoe-throwing incident, followed by words considered to be especially offensive (“dog!”) in the Arab world.

At the end of his mandate, it would be politically very difficult for Bush to personally and officially impose a “chastisement” befitting this personal affront which, I repeat, was unwarranted. Then the Israeli attacks against Hamas occurred in Gaza, with hundreds of deaths. So I thought, perhaps with exaggerated mistrust, could the hand of Bush be involved here, giving support, or even encouraging the attack against buildings and anything else related to Hamas? Tenacious American investigative journalism will perhaps show us, a few months or even years from now, the existence of some kind of link, not only vaguely suspicious, between the “shoe-throwing incident” and the Israeli attacks in Gaza. Although the affront occurred in Iraq and not in the area that is currently under attack, there is evident identification (in the eyes of Bush) between the assailant journalist and the political tendencies of Hamas, a mortal enemy of the American government.

I hope (in all sincerity, although this may be hard to believe) that even the most “inquisitive” journalists are unable to find this kind of connection between one thing and another, which would only aggravate the far from satisfactory biography of an American politician who, deep down (very deep down), only desired the “best” for his country, although in not a very intelligent manner.

As I have already mentioned in previous articles, Bush is (or rather, was, given that he no longer has any kind of future) a politician who is the victim of his own weak judgment and character. A consequence of nepotism in the political arena. If he were not the son of an ex-president, he would not have risen as far as he did. If he blatantly lied prior to invading Iraq, he did it “in good faith”, as a “good courageous patriot” (justifying his actions in this way), with a view to reducing the alarming need for oil of his country. It seems funny that everyone is against nepotism, but not in the political field, which is exactly where it can be the most damaging, as decisions made by the “nepot” affect millions. Political parties anxiously seek surnames of substance, the sons of great politicians (giving little importance to their individual characteristics), as they know how much reverential awe for “blue blood” continues to be present in the “bones” of the electorate. And, in the case of Bush, the wish to demonstrate his worth to his father ended up aggravating his poor judgment, due to the military and economic might of his country. In summary, Bush occupied a position that far exceeded his natural potential. It is to be hoped that this serves as an attenuating circumstance in the judgment of History.

While on the subject of lack of judgment, I have always been intrigued (age makes me ever more mistrusting) regarding the immense stupidity (the term is crude but pertinent) of Hamas in continuing to fire its rockets against Israel. With almost no significant consequences. If I am not mistaken, there was only one Jewish fatality in recent attacks, prior to the aerial retaliation. An Egyptian authority was also surprised at this absurd strategy of firing rockets that almost always serve to cause alarm. Repeating an Egyptian proverb, he said that “if you can’t kill the dog, don’t keep pulling its tail”.

If there have not been any significant bellicose benefits for Hamas (i.e., the death of many Jews), such rockets have been of enormous benefit to the Israeli government, providing it with justification (real or apparent, or a mixture of both) for full-scale attacks against the Palestinians. To date, it is said that there are around three hundred dead and seven hundred wounded as a result of Israeli attacks involving the use of aircraft and helicopters armed with missiles. Repeating myself: for one Israeli death, three hundred Palestinian deaths, together with seven hundred wounded. Only an enormous lack of discernment could justify this strategy adopted by Hamas.

It should be remembered that, in a situation of armed conflict, discussions that are of real importance (for example, peace in Palestine, with the creation of a Palestinian State) remain at a standstill. And the longer such discussions remain at a standstill, the better it is for those “hard line” “falcon” Israeli politicians who favor the expansionism necessary for building a great Jewish nation. With Hamas rockets causing a nuisance (more to the ears than anything else), more enlightened Israeli politicians, the “doves”, lose support.

Returning to the subject of mistrust (great scientific discoveries arose from the “mistrust” of more speculative human spirits regarding what might “lie behind” observable phenomena), such a hypothesis may be absurd, but could it be that Mossad is subtly encouraging the foolish Hamas policy of insisting to launch rockets that cause little damage to the enemy but delay a peace agreement. If I were a member of the Israeli intelligence service, if I lived with deep-seated hatred of the Palestinians, and if I considered the good of my country above any kind of ethical consideration (something that I do not do, if only because one day the farce will be exposed), the idea could pass though my mind of subtly infiltrating a few Mossad agents into the Hamas organization, with a view to always keeping the wound of hatred open - expressed in the form of rockets. Such repressed hatred would facilitate the conviction of Hamas that a “virile” attitude would not be that of dialogue, “lowering one’s head” and “obeying the infidel dog”, but rather one of “chastising” or at least “disconcerting” the Israelis “who drove us from our land”.

I do not know how deep investigative journalism is able to dig in Israel. Perhaps any such investigation, or the disclosure of what has been found, is minimal, given that the country in question feels a constant sense of disquiet, surrounded as it is by hostile nations. Any revelation of recondite underhand policy, such as that mentioned above, would not only be headline material, but would also threaten the actual survival of a country that still runs a certain degree of risk (albeit remote) of “disappearing from the map”, if denied the external support that it has been receiving to date. It is different, for example, from the exposure of an ugly secret in the government of the USA. There, a president may even find himself obliged to renounce his post. However, his renouncement would not affect the existence of his country. In the case of Israel, a large scale political scandal would have immense consequences. Any journalist who exposes an underhand move, such as the aforementioned infiltration for dishonest purposes, would really be acting as a traitor to the young nation. In the event that Mossad subtly encouraged, in one way or another, the Palestinian rocket attacks, such underhand dealings may only be exposed to the light of day several decades from now. And by historians, not journalists.

Well, I will end here. It is my ardent wish and desire that my speculations have no basis. Perhaps I have been watching too many spy films. I hope that Bush has not even moved a finger in the sense of suggesting an Israeli attack as retaliation in kind for the shoe-throwing incident during which he demonstrated such unexpected agility. It may be that many comment jokingly on the incident, saying that both the aggressor and the victim likely trained hard together, practicing the throwing technique used and the rapid evasive response. I also hope that those launching rockets in Gaza are only “foolish” on their own account, without the influence of the astute Israeli intelligence service - a model of effectiveness, capable of thinking the unthinkable.

Anyway, I will be paying close attention to the media. I find it strange that, to date, no mention has been made in the media of the tenebrous hypothesis that I put forward, in my infinite incredulity.