War is an interesting, ever-evolving beast. Let's not kid ourselves - fighting is the oldest profession; taking what you want by force proceeds anything done as a transaction.
Our ancient ancestors would have fought for themselves, or huddled around Alphas who were expected to do the fighting for them. Over time, many models of military might have formed - feudalism, where lords were expected to fight and provide men for their regent; paid armies, mercenary armies, conscripts, volunteers, etc.
Where and how wars have fought changes, too - no longer do we see ranks of colour-coordinated men marching forward to the beat of drums, with standards catching the breeze. War zones are rarely fields between urban settings, perhaps because we've become more urban as a species. These days, war tends to be house-to-house, in the space where people live.
This means that cities and resources are no longer the spoils of war to be gained and abused, intact, when the fighting is done; it means the well-being of infrastructure and people is not caught in the middle of battle.
Increasingly sophisticated weapons have heightened this reality - a lobbed missile can take out an enemy base and the entire neighbourhood around it, leaving nothing but blood and rubble. Perhaps this is why groups like Hamas have opted to keep war in urban spaces, assuming civilian populations provide a relative shield against attack from superior weapons.
But that's not proven to be the case, is it? A besieged people can surrender or fight back; when they feel they have more to lost than to gain by capitulation, and when they have the resources, fighting proves the best option. It's a them or us equation, with them unfortunately including everyone that surrounds the foe.
Hamas, no doubt, wants some collateral damage on their side to stir up their foes (or mutual opponents of Israel) and score sympathy points on the International stage. Political legitimacy is at least as much a part of their goal as is anything else; in fact, it probably wouldn't serve their interests for a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians - who, then, would they pick fights with to define themselves politically?
Which comes back to the quotes I selected above. Israel is a State, recognized internationally. Hamas is not. Depending on who you talk to Hamas is a political party or a terrorist organization. They are foes of Fatah, with whom blood has been shed. Even the Palestinian Legislative Council doesn't have agency to wage war against Israel, as Hamas has done.
Does Hamas properly represent the people it claims to defend, who's lives it places on the line? No. But the organizers in Hamas don't care; if they can define themselves as the only ones who can protect Palestinians/move their agenda forward, they probably see that as a win.
Why not? That's how most bare-knuckle political operatives think. Which is why political shenanigans are invariably the precursors for war.
Fighting is the oldest profession. It used to be done by Big Men; now it's done by Big Weapons. The ego, aggression and rhetoric remain the same; only the package, reach and consequences to the rest of changes.
The War on Terror was laughable, because there was no defined enemy. The advantage to this narrative domestically was that it's a sustainable narrative, so long as you can keep the facts down and the level of fear high.
This was itself was a symptom of the changing nature of our global environment - the Nation State no longer rules supreme, nor does the idea of my country right or wrong. In the global village, a new form of feudalism is emerging, as is empire-building ideology. A grand irony, this, as free market forces were supposed to take us away from war.
The wins of old no longer exist, yet civilian casualties mount as old-school fighters seek them anyway.
Such men would rather reduce the world to ash if they could rule the charred corpse of society.
Which, of course, is why civilization has tried so hard to evolve us away from fighters as rulers towards democracy, where the people have a say.
.
A new 72-hour ceasefire has held into Monday morning in the Gaza Strip, raising hopes for a fresh respite in a bloody conflict between Israel and Hamas that has devastated the Palestinian enclave.
As of Sunday afternoon, the death toll in Gaza had reached 1,939. According to the UN, about 73 percent of the people killed were civilians.
A total of 64 Israeli soldiers were also killed as well as three civilians on the Israeli side.
No comments:
Post a Comment