Aggression, ceasefire by Israel in Gaza

Supporters of Israel in the US justify Israel's invasion of Gaza thus: if some Mexicans were lobbing homemade missiles into the US, what would the US do? Surely, the US would invade Mexico to put a stop to it.
Notice the choice of country: Mexico. The US's other neighbour, Canada, is never mentioned as a potential aggressor. One does not have to be too cynical to detect racism embedded even in this analogy. Canada is a lily-white country; therefore, the Canadians do not elicit America's ire.
On the other hand, many Americans consider the brown-skinned Mexicans the root of many of America's problems. Therefore, "missile coming from Mexico" has a negative connotation, and strengthens Israel's argument.
The few supporters of the Palestinians, on the other hand, are too weak to make the counter argument: if a foreign nation controlled the borders, the seas, skies, movement of people in and out, and restricted the entry and exit of essential goods to an American city like New York, in contravention of international law, as Israel does in Gaza, what would America do? Surely, America would bomb the hell out of such an international outlaw!
Columbia University professor Rashid Khalili published an op-ed piece in the New York Times on January 8 pointing out facts about Gaza. Most of the 1.5 million residents of Gaza are refugees driven from their homes by Israel in 1948.
Israel occupied Gaza in 1967. Although Israel withdrew Jewish settlers in 2005, it still controls access to Gaza, imports and exports, movement of people in and out, and the air space and seacoast, and Israeli forces enter Gaza at will. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel, the occupying power, is responsible for the welfare of the Gazans. Israel has never carried out that duty.
After Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council election, Israel blockaded the strip. The supply of fuel, electricity, imports, exports and the movement of people have been choked off, leading to life-threatening problems. For exercising their democratic rights, the Gazans are suffering collective punishment, a crime under international law.
Lifting of the Israeli blockade over Gaza was one of the key points of last June's ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel. This led to a reduction of missiles thrown at Israel from Gaza from hundreds in May and June to only 20 in the next four months. The ceasefire broke down when Israel launched major attacks in November, as a prelude to its all-out invasion in December.
According to Tom Friedman of the New York Times, Hamas had to be "educated" into understanding that throwing missiles at Israel was going to cost Palestinian civilian population dearly. That "education," war crimes according to international law, has resulted in the death of over 1000 Palestinian civilians, including over 300 children!
The timing of the Israeli invasion is significant. George W. Bush may have been the worst president in US history and Condoleeza Rice the worst secretary of state, but they have backed Israel to the hilt. Israel wanted to complete the destruction of Gaza before the next president and secretary of state take office. Israel shot an arrow across Obama's bow to warn him to get used to its unilateral ways.
What do the Arabs do? They rush to the UN for relief. Wait a minute! Didn't the UN General Assembly mandate the creation of Israel in 1947, without consulting the wishes of the Palestinians who constituted a 2 to 1 majority over the Jews at that time? If there is logic in the Arab rush to the UN, it escapes me.
To a neutral observer it would appear that the UN Security Council exists solely for the purpose of punishing the world's Muslims. What the Arabs do not seem to understand is that Jews and Christians of the West have always backed, and will always back, Israel against the Arabs.
Many Arab nations remained silent; some even blamed the victims for the Gaza massacre. After Israel had enough fun, it asked Egypt to arrange a ceasefire. These days Egypt is always asked to bail out Israel. The reason Egypt obliges is the subtle hint that $2.5 billion foreign aid that it receives from the US annually could be in jeopardy if it does not comply.
Israel concluded long ago that its safety lay not in the unjustifiable immorality of its creation, but in its brute military strength. That is why it insists that its military power has to exceed that of all the 22 Arab states combined. That is why Israel will not stand for a nuclear Iran capable of challenging its nuclear might.
Israel believes that if Shia Iran goes nuclear, Sunni Saudi Arabia and Egypt might make the case that they too needed to follow suit for Shia-Sunni balance of power in the region. This has to be stopped because the more Muslim nuclear powers there are the less secure Israel will be, according to Israeli calculations.
Several of the nations that did not sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 -- India, Pakistan and Israel, for example -- have gone on to become nuclear powers. The Shah of Iran, America's protégé, had to sign it; Iran now has to face the consequences. Originally, Egypt had not signed it either. Here is the beauty of dealing with a dictator -- the US persuaded Hosni Mubarak to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in the 1990s!
The Palestinians might as well agree to a ceasefire; they have no real friends!

Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed is a Rhodes Scholar and Daily Star columnist.