David Brooks articulates what seems to be the prevailing view among the pro-attack on Gaza side: that Hamas started this conflict because of its isolation in the Muslim world. To get there Brooks, like virtually all the attack-on-Gaza advocates I know, has to completely disregard the reasons that Hamas gave at the beginning of its rocket campaign: the crackdown against Hamas in the West Bank (which included the deaths of ten people--including two children--the beatings and arrests of hundreds, and the re-arrest of people who were previously released in the Shalit prisoner exchange deal). Maybe Hamas' reasons were just a pretense. But you need to at least argue it was a pretense if you think that was the case.
The nice thing about Brooks' narrative, is it makes the entire conflict entirely outside of Israel's control. It also perpetuates the conflict by disregarding all of the reasons that people on the other side sees as driving this conflict.
The nice thing about Brooks' narrative, is it makes the entire conflict entirely outside of Israel's control. It also perpetuates the conflict by disregarding all of the reasons that people on the other side sees as driving this conflict.
