And Now, for Part 2 of our interview with David Lizzo. In this piece, Dave discusses living here, the Flotilla, and Gaza.
Read More......
Showing posts with label Gaza. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gaza. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, November 9, 2009
Gaza and Goldstone: The Debate
For those of you following Goldstone report, a UN backed report on the recent Gaza war which accuses Israel of war crimes, Justice Goldstone recently debated his findings at Brandies University.
This marks the first time that he debated his findings with an Israeli political figure, former Israeli ambassador Dore Gold. The two men agreed that the UN is biased against Israel but disagreed on a great many other points.
The debate is one that needs to be had openly and honestly as most people probably haven't read the report but have read of it.
To view the video, please click here.
Read More......
This marks the first time that he debated his findings with an Israeli political figure, former Israeli ambassador Dore Gold. The two men agreed that the UN is biased against Israel but disagreed on a great many other points.
The debate is one that needs to be had openly and honestly as most people probably haven't read the report but have read of it.
To view the video, please click here.
Read More......
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Warrior Jews, not Worrier Jews
The strong Sabra vs. weak Ghetto Jew model has been expounded on ad nauseum, most recently with Michael Oren's conclusion that American's look for solutions, Israelis look to how to better manage conflicts. The latest round of Israel bashing was fueled by the conflict in Gaza, and the fallout is still smoldering.
My question is more about how this supposed growing tension between being ideologically committed to both Israel and liberal ideology, which places immense value on the individual human life, will play out.
To a large extent, it is fraudulent idea that the two must be diametrically opposed. Further, those that would have us think that champions of human rights cannot support Israel is a point of propaganda perpetuated by those opposed to Israel.
If this standard was to be held across the board, neither could these human rights activists support the Palestinian Authority, and certainly not Hamas.
Still, there are large number of Jews who cannot justify what they see as Israeli massacres and aggression. To those Jews, I would advise you to hear stories, from the soldiers' own mouths, about their experiences in Gaza.
Check out http://www.soldiersspeakout.com/
Read More......
My question is more about how this supposed growing tension between being ideologically committed to both Israel and liberal ideology, which places immense value on the individual human life, will play out.
To a large extent, it is fraudulent idea that the two must be diametrically opposed. Further, those that would have us think that champions of human rights cannot support Israel is a point of propaganda perpetuated by those opposed to Israel.
If this standard was to be held across the board, neither could these human rights activists support the Palestinian Authority, and certainly not Hamas.
Still, there are large number of Jews who cannot justify what they see as Israeli massacres and aggression. To those Jews, I would advise you to hear stories, from the soldiers' own mouths, about their experiences in Gaza.
Check out http://www.soldiersspeakout.com/
Read More......
Monday, March 30, 2009
Living Jews: Interview with Michael Oren
Michael Oren is the foremost historian, author, and scholar on the Middle East, and is currently a visiting professor at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. He is also giving a free talk at Washington University this Thursday, April 2nd, at 7:30 PM at 560 Trinity.
The St. Lou Jew had the opportunity to interview Michael Oren, along with the St. Louis Jewish Light, and Wash U's Student Life. Read on for the interview.
Was the Gaza opp a success?
Generally, the only thing keeping Fatah alive is the IDF. This is why abbas doesn’t call for the withdrawal of troops.
It was important for the IDF to deal Hamas a decisive blow. Give Gazans an option to live like they have under Hamas, or like in the West Bank
Yes, the IDF dealt a decisive blow, Hamas fighters went underground and did not fight..a paper tiger. Israel shored up deterrent powerand eliminated hamas deterrence power.
To have gone into Gaza city and uprooted Hamas would have required the IDF to kill several thousand Gazan civilians. The leadership of Hamas was hiding under Shifa hospital and had the whole hospital wired to blow.
If Israel had successfully uprooted Hamas, who would Israel have given Gaza to?
As of the day of [the day of the interview] I decided to change the topic. I was going to give historical survey of Israel trying to reconcile being Jewish and Demographic, but will now going cover the 7 existential threats to Israel. No other country faces truly existential threats."
What do you hope students will get from your talk?
"I hope that students will appreciate this opinion not just by people who have studied this, but as someone who has lived this as well."
How would Freeman's appointment to the National Intelligence post have effected US policy and Middle East outcomes?
"I believe that certain forces in the middle east won’t react to American policy. I think it has its own dynamics, and agency, not just based on American Foreign policy, so I think that there is a limit to what extent Freeman would have been able to to twist the intelligence to meet his agenda.
I don’t think that Obama reaching out is ultimately going to change Iran’s behavior. I think it is important to reach out after 8 years of Bush, but I think it is more important that Americans be reminded of what Syria and Iran really are. This is not the first administration to reach out to Damascus
I think the most important thing people can do in terms of getting involved in the middle east is educating themselves. Many people with partial educations sometimes go and do things that are very dramatic. Be involved, read the newspapers every day, go there, get those experiences."
We recently had a chance to hear Saree Makdisi, who spoke about a one-state solution. Is this a legitimate solution, or is it an underhanded attempt to destroy Israel?
"Yes and Yes – they are not mutually exclusive. It has always been a possibility. It was one in 1948. The Palestinians could stop demanding a separate state and could demand equal rights in Israel, and you would already have parity between Jewish and non Jewish Israelis and then the Jewish state would cease to exist. The question is not so much the motivations, but whether it is practical, whether it could actually happen and the answer is ‘no’. Many Jewish Israelis wouldn’t be interested in living in a state like that. And if the state gravitates towards and Arab political culture as opposed to a Western political culture, many Israelis would not want to live there. So it is certainly a prescription for the end of the state of Israel as a Jewsih state and even for the presence of Jewish people in the area. But you have to look at other places in the area in which there is a single state solution in place, like Lebanon, like Iraq. None of these single-states solutions are really working. They have always been a formula for protracted, untractable civil strife. And so its not as if tomorrow, if there was a single state solution, everyone would be living peacefully with each other, instead it sets the state for another round of very bloody civil strife. Where states have succeeded in living more or less peacefully with one another have been situations of partitions, in which they are simply separated from one another, like in the Gulf Region. But I don’t think that is in the immediate future either, so it becomes an issue of interim solutions, so the question is, how do we better manage this conflict, and you do that by building up the Palestinian economy and institutions and uprooting illegal settlements and creating the greatest distance possible. This clears ground for a two-state solution."
The US media is often criticized as being anti-Israel…
"I don’t think that the US media is particularly anti-Israel. The European media is far far worse. If there is an unfairness towards Israel, it is in the gross disproportionality that Israel merits in the Western Media. For example, the New York Times just had a front page story about two Israeli Sargeants who claimed that they witnessed war crimes in Gaza, but you read the story and it turns out that they didn’t witness them; they just heard rumors about them. The US media is fair, while the European media is not fair."
You said that you were going to speak about Israel's dilemma as a Jewish and Democratic state, how are these issues going to manifest themselves.
"I think that we are on a major collision course with Iran, which will bring to the fore the fault lines in Israeli society between Israeli Jews and more Islamist-minded Israeli Arabs. I think there will have to be a line drawn, if Israel is to survive in the Jewish state. The question is really where the line will be drawn.
The Labor party wants to compensate Palestinians for any land taken in the West Bank, with land in the Negev, while Lieberman wants to compensate them with land in the Galilee, which is densely populated by Israeli Arabs. Lieberman sees this as a two-birds, one-stone situation in that it transfers Israeli Arabs to PA (Palestinian Authority) control. On the face of it, this appears cruel undemocratic, because the Israeli Arabs wouldn't have a choice, and most would rather live under Israel than PA, even though they don't like Israel.
Labor and Kadima are also discussing dividing up Jerusalem, but no one has asked the several hundred-thousand Palestinian Arabs who live there. Most of them would rather live under israel, even though they don't like Israel, rather than the PA as well."
Are you more or less optimistic about chances for peace than you were a year ago?
"I'm more optimistic, but not about chances for peace. Americans like to think about solutions and peace. I think in terms of survival, national strength, cohesion, deterrence... all those things are more important to me. Let me unpack that, peace is not going to happen, in the entire Middle East, because there are virtually no solutions to any Middle Eastern problems, only better managing of the conflict. Security is going to be a very elusive quality for a long time to come. But I'm very optimistic that Israel has improved its deterrence power vastly as a result of the Gaza operation, the economy is doing very well, tourism is off the charts, you can't get a hotel room, Israeli society is very robust and strong, vollunteerism is high, we had over 100% response to the reserve call up during the Gaza operation. All of the indicators show that Israel is in a vastly better position geo-strategically and economically than it has been at anytime in the last 61 years. That's reason for optimism! Israel hasn't been at peace for any second during those 61 years, so if you leave the peace out of it, we're doing very well and I'm very optimistic for the future."
Read More......
The St. Lou Jew had the opportunity to interview Michael Oren, along with the St. Louis Jewish Light, and Wash U's Student Life. Read on for the interview.
Was the Gaza opp a success?
Generally, the only thing keeping Fatah alive is the IDF. This is why abbas doesn’t call for the withdrawal of troops.
It was important for the IDF to deal Hamas a decisive blow. Give Gazans an option to live like they have under Hamas, or like in the West Bank
Yes, the IDF dealt a decisive blow, Hamas fighters went underground and did not fight..a paper tiger. Israel shored up deterrent powerand eliminated hamas deterrence power.
To have gone into Gaza city and uprooted Hamas would have required the IDF to kill several thousand Gazan civilians. The leadership of Hamas was hiding under Shifa hospital and had the whole hospital wired to blow.
If Israel had successfully uprooted Hamas, who would Israel have given Gaza to?
As of the day of [the day of the interview] I decided to change the topic. I was going to give historical survey of Israel trying to reconcile being Jewish and Demographic, but will now going cover the 7 existential threats to Israel. No other country faces truly existential threats."
What do you hope students will get from your talk?
"I hope that students will appreciate this opinion not just by people who have studied this, but as someone who has lived this as well."
How would Freeman's appointment to the National Intelligence post have effected US policy and Middle East outcomes?
"I believe that certain forces in the middle east won’t react to American policy. I think it has its own dynamics, and agency, not just based on American Foreign policy, so I think that there is a limit to what extent Freeman would have been able to to twist the intelligence to meet his agenda.
I don’t think that Obama reaching out is ultimately going to change Iran’s behavior. I think it is important to reach out after 8 years of Bush, but I think it is more important that Americans be reminded of what Syria and Iran really are. This is not the first administration to reach out to Damascus
I think the most important thing people can do in terms of getting involved in the middle east is educating themselves. Many people with partial educations sometimes go and do things that are very dramatic. Be involved, read the newspapers every day, go there, get those experiences."
We recently had a chance to hear Saree Makdisi, who spoke about a one-state solution. Is this a legitimate solution, or is it an underhanded attempt to destroy Israel?
"Yes and Yes – they are not mutually exclusive. It has always been a possibility. It was one in 1948. The Palestinians could stop demanding a separate state and could demand equal rights in Israel, and you would already have parity between Jewish and non Jewish Israelis and then the Jewish state would cease to exist. The question is not so much the motivations, but whether it is practical, whether it could actually happen and the answer is ‘no’. Many Jewish Israelis wouldn’t be interested in living in a state like that. And if the state gravitates towards and Arab political culture as opposed to a Western political culture, many Israelis would not want to live there. So it is certainly a prescription for the end of the state of Israel as a Jewsih state and even for the presence of Jewish people in the area. But you have to look at other places in the area in which there is a single state solution in place, like Lebanon, like Iraq. None of these single-states solutions are really working. They have always been a formula for protracted, untractable civil strife. And so its not as if tomorrow, if there was a single state solution, everyone would be living peacefully with each other, instead it sets the state for another round of very bloody civil strife. Where states have succeeded in living more or less peacefully with one another have been situations of partitions, in which they are simply separated from one another, like in the Gulf Region. But I don’t think that is in the immediate future either, so it becomes an issue of interim solutions, so the question is, how do we better manage this conflict, and you do that by building up the Palestinian economy and institutions and uprooting illegal settlements and creating the greatest distance possible. This clears ground for a two-state solution."
The US media is often criticized as being anti-Israel…
"I don’t think that the US media is particularly anti-Israel. The European media is far far worse. If there is an unfairness towards Israel, it is in the gross disproportionality that Israel merits in the Western Media. For example, the New York Times just had a front page story about two Israeli Sargeants who claimed that they witnessed war crimes in Gaza, but you read the story and it turns out that they didn’t witness them; they just heard rumors about them. The US media is fair, while the European media is not fair."
You said that you were going to speak about Israel's dilemma as a Jewish and Democratic state, how are these issues going to manifest themselves.
"I think that we are on a major collision course with Iran, which will bring to the fore the fault lines in Israeli society between Israeli Jews and more Islamist-minded Israeli Arabs. I think there will have to be a line drawn, if Israel is to survive in the Jewish state. The question is really where the line will be drawn.
The Labor party wants to compensate Palestinians for any land taken in the West Bank, with land in the Negev, while Lieberman wants to compensate them with land in the Galilee, which is densely populated by Israeli Arabs. Lieberman sees this as a two-birds, one-stone situation in that it transfers Israeli Arabs to PA (Palestinian Authority) control. On the face of it, this appears cruel undemocratic, because the Israeli Arabs wouldn't have a choice, and most would rather live under Israel than PA, even though they don't like Israel.
Labor and Kadima are also discussing dividing up Jerusalem, but no one has asked the several hundred-thousand Palestinian Arabs who live there. Most of them would rather live under israel, even though they don't like Israel, rather than the PA as well."
Are you more or less optimistic about chances for peace than you were a year ago?
"I'm more optimistic, but not about chances for peace. Americans like to think about solutions and peace. I think in terms of survival, national strength, cohesion, deterrence... all those things are more important to me. Let me unpack that, peace is not going to happen, in the entire Middle East, because there are virtually no solutions to any Middle Eastern problems, only better managing of the conflict. Security is going to be a very elusive quality for a long time to come. But I'm very optimistic that Israel has improved its deterrence power vastly as a result of the Gaza operation, the economy is doing very well, tourism is off the charts, you can't get a hotel room, Israeli society is very robust and strong, vollunteerism is high, we had over 100% response to the reserve call up during the Gaza operation. All of the indicators show that Israel is in a vastly better position geo-strategically and economically than it has been at anytime in the last 61 years. That's reason for optimism! Israel hasn't been at peace for any second during those 61 years, so if you leave the peace out of it, we're doing very well and I'm very optimistic for the future."
Read More......
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Hasbara, Diverse, and interesting voices on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Twitter has done it again. Not only did I meet @Susanisk at the Cheshire Lodge a few nights ago, I just found a fascinating site that provides "Human Rights Activists, Moderate Muslims and Expert Investigative Reporters" to provide insight on events around the world.
The Hudson has a wealth of interesting stories, backed by experienced and respected reporters such as Khaled Abu Toameh, and Israeli-Arab who has been reporting from Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank for 30 years.
Toameh's most recent article deals with the radicalization of the Pro-Palestinian movement on campuses across the US. Toameh finds that students are often far more radical and anti-free speech than the very Palestinians they purport to support.
He paints a bleak picture:
Toameh's full piece can be found here
Another piece deals with the influence that local translators and cameramen play in Gaza and the West Bank. The article's main idea is that, since most of the visiting journalists don't speak Arabic, they have to rely on local 'fixers' for interviews, and that the 'fixers' have a very easy time of influencing what gets heard and what doesn't.
That whole article can be found here
I support the work this organization is doing and think believe that the lenses are always exposed as lenses.
Read More......
The Hudson has a wealth of interesting stories, backed by experienced and respected reporters such as Khaled Abu Toameh, and Israeli-Arab who has been reporting from Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank for 30 years.
Toameh's most recent article deals with the radicalization of the Pro-Palestinian movement on campuses across the US. Toameh finds that students are often far more radical and anti-free speech than the very Palestinians they purport to support.
He paints a bleak picture:
I was also told that top Fatah operative Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life terms in prison for masterminding terror attacks against Israeli civilians, was thrown behind bars simply because he was trying to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
What struck me more than anything else was the fact that many of the people I met on the campuses supported Hamas and believed that it had the right to “resist the occupation” even if that meant blowing up children and women on a bus in downtown Jerusalem.
Toameh's full piece can be found here
Another piece deals with the influence that local translators and cameramen play in Gaza and the West Bank. The article's main idea is that, since most of the visiting journalists don't speak Arabic, they have to rely on local 'fixers' for interviews, and that the 'fixers' have a very easy time of influencing what gets heard and what doesn't.
That whole article can be found here
I support the work this organization is doing and think believe that the lenses are always exposed as lenses.
Read More......
Friday, February 6, 2009
How I Survived Gaza
Just in time for Shabbat comes an article written by an American who made Aliyah a few years back and served in Gaza. His account is interesting and insightful. It can be found here.
Read More......
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Donniel Hartman's take on Israel and Gaza
From the Hartman Global Beit Midrash which I attended this past weekend in DC comes this incredibly interesting take on the morality of war vs morality in war in regards to the Israel/Gaza situation. Read it here.
Read More......
Monday, January 5, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
The War For Hearts And Minds
In the midst of Operation Cast Lead, Israel's aerial bombardment of Hamas targets in Gaza, I wanted to examine how the fighting is playing out on the internet. With Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Digg, and other site playing an increasingly important role in the PR war, who is creating these messages, and how are they being shaped
When Israel created an IDF (Israel Defense Forces) YouTube Channel to showcase its efforts to specifically target Hamas forces and infrastructure, it signaled an important shift in the thinking of the government towards the public relations war for sympathy and legitimacy.
Some of the videos were taken down by YouTube, purportedly because of pressure from those who oppose the content, but have been put up. As explained by the IDF Spokesperson's Unit:
Twitter also been...well, all atwitter about Israel and Gaza, with Israeli Consulates joining the fray to answer questions and provide information/propaganda.
On Facebook, people are sharing images and videos which range from images of Palestinian civilian casualties, to videos showing Hamas fighters loading rockets onto trucks, then being targeted Israel missile strikes, to Hamas gunmen grabbing children as human shields.
Digg.com, which provides a way to promote stories around the web, takes the front to the next level, in that people who support or oppose a particular view point can blow a story up or bury it depending on if it falls in line with their agenda.
While the internet provides unprecedented access to information, it also bring the question of veracity of information back to the forefront. Even as we see in rapid increase in the number of primary sources, who can quickly Tweet the latest events, uploading pictures, videos, and GPS coordinates, so do we see an increase in the use of this information to deceive, and mislead.
My advice is to consume as much information from a diverse pool of sources as possible. A spokesperson for the IDF has a certain agenda when they present information. While this agenda doesn't mean that the information is necessarily false, it may be an incomplete truth. The same can be said for a Palestinian news network or non-profit.
As the new Roman Calendar year approaches, we at the St. Lou Jew hope that the New Year brings level-heads to the table, a cessation of violence, and a renewed effort towards dialogue and negotiation.
Read More......
When Israel created an IDF (Israel Defense Forces) YouTube Channel to showcase its efforts to specifically target Hamas forces and infrastructure, it signaled an important shift in the thinking of the government towards the public relations war for sympathy and legitimacy.
Some of the videos were taken down by YouTube, purportedly because of pressure from those who oppose the content, but have been put up. As explained by the IDF Spokesperson's Unit:
We were saddened on Dec. 30, 2008 when YouTube took down some of our exclusive footage showing the IDF's operational success in operation Cast Lead against Hamas extremists in the Gaza Strip. Fortunately, due to blogger and viewer support, YouTube has returned the footage they removed.
Newest update: Instead of removing the footage youtube has restricted viewing ability. We are in the process of opening up a blog so that you will be able to view the videos without problem there.
Twitter also been...well, all atwitter about Israel and Gaza, with Israeli Consulates joining the fray to answer questions and provide information/propaganda.
On Facebook, people are sharing images and videos which range from images of Palestinian civilian casualties, to videos showing Hamas fighters loading rockets onto trucks, then being targeted Israel missile strikes, to Hamas gunmen grabbing children as human shields.
Digg.com, which provides a way to promote stories around the web, takes the front to the next level, in that people who support or oppose a particular view point can blow a story up or bury it depending on if it falls in line with their agenda.
While the internet provides unprecedented access to information, it also bring the question of veracity of information back to the forefront. Even as we see in rapid increase in the number of primary sources, who can quickly Tweet the latest events, uploading pictures, videos, and GPS coordinates, so do we see an increase in the use of this information to deceive, and mislead.
My advice is to consume as much information from a diverse pool of sources as possible. A spokesperson for the IDF has a certain agenda when they present information. While this agenda doesn't mean that the information is necessarily false, it may be an incomplete truth. The same can be said for a Palestinian news network or non-profit.
As the new Roman Calendar year approaches, we at the St. Lou Jew hope that the New Year brings level-heads to the table, a cessation of violence, and a renewed effort towards dialogue and negotiation.
Read More......
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Israel's Disproportionate Response
After a long weekend of missiles, bombs, and rocket, moral equivalizing, standard rhetoric, and civilian casualties, nothing has fundamentally changed in the Israel-Palestinian conflict
A lot of the charges leveled against Israel are about the disproportionate military response. But no one has really tested that claim. From an Times Online article:
The article goes further into the issues of targeting militants versus targeting civilians, and moral superiority:
Maybe a really big fence would work?
Read More......
A lot of the charges leveled against Israel are about the disproportionate military response. But no one has really tested that claim. From an Times Online article:
Let's have a pointless discussion about Gaza and begin it by talking about whether Israel's bombing is “disproportionate”.
To illustrate the meaninglessness of such a debate let us attempt to agree what “proportionate” would look like.
Would it be best if Israel were to manufacture a thousand or so wildly inaccurate missiles and then fire them off in the general direction of Gaza City? There is a chance, though, that since Gaza is more densely packed than Israel, casualties might be much the same as they are now, so although the ordnance would be proportionate, the deaths would not. Of course, if one of Gaza's rockets did manage to hit an Israeli nursery school at the wrong time (or the right time, depending upon how you look at it), then the proportionality issue would be solved in one explosion. Would you be happy then?
The article goes further into the issues of targeting militants versus targeting civilians, and moral superiority:
This is not about outrage. We could then, perhaps, from the other side, attempt to suggest Israel's moral superiority on the basis that, unlike the careless firers of Qassam rockets, any civilian casualties caused by Israel's bombs were the unintended victims of its actions, however many of them there are. Israel takes care with its targeting, they don't. But the eight students killed by a bus stop in Gaza are just as dead, their families just as bereft, and their feelings towards the originators of the bombs just as compounded of hate and regret.
So this is not about moral superiority. Perhaps we could now try to have a discussion with a point. Will the Israeli action advance or hinder any movement towards a long-term solution in the area, or have we all given up on that (in which case expressions of anything very much seem not just irrelevant, but irritating)? Will it, in the long term, relieve Israeli citizens from the threat of arbitrary extinction? I'm pretty sure it will help in the short term. I cannot easily see what it accomplishes in the longer run.
Maybe a really big fence would work?
Read More......
Monday, December 29, 2008
More Updates On The Escalation In Southern Israel and Gaza
This conflict is growing more personal as I have friends in Kiryat Gat and Ashdod, both of which where recently hit by rocket attacks.
At the risk of being biased, or using biased sources, here is Hamas' logic in its own words.
NPR had someone on today with an interesting take, "how do you minimize civilian casualties when you are bombing one of the most densely populated parts of the planet?" Read More......
At the risk of being biased, or using biased sources, here is Hamas' logic in its own words.
NPR had someone on today with an interesting take, "how do you minimize civilian casualties when you are bombing one of the most densely populated parts of the planet?" Read More......
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Analysis: Cast Lead
“Cast Lead” was the code name given to the Israeli air strike on Gaza that started on Saturday, December 27th. Major media outlets report death tolls of at least 250, the vast majority of which were Hamas security forces. So far it appears that 15 civilians were killed. The wounded could be upwards of 700. There were well over 100 targets that been identified months earlier that included all of the main Hamas military headquarters, security and police stations, training camps, and weapons facilities.
According to Yaakov Katz, writing in the Jerusalem Post:
“The decision to launch such a blow against Hamas on Saturday was made during last Wednesday's security cabinet meeting. A secret meeting was held again on Friday between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, where the timing was finalized.
After several of the decisions from Wednesday's cabinet meeting were leaked to the press, Barak decided on a strategy of deception - to deceive Hamas into believing that Israel was not planning to strike back.
Barak took two actions to achieve this - the decision to open the Gaza crossings on Friday (which was announced on Thursday) and leaking to the press that there would be another cabinet meeting on Sunday to decide whether to attack. This created the perception that Israel was holding off on an operation when in reality it was fueling and arming its aircraft.”
As I write this (now Sunday evening in Israel), the IAF is continuing to attack targets in Gaza, including the Al Aqsa television station used by Hamas and a mosque identified as a base used for terrorist activities. As Y? pointed out, we were all expecting this, but we did not know when or exactly in what form it would come.
I want to address this operation from a few different angles. First, let us talk about the operation’s goals. This is the first of several attacks in what is likely to be a sustained operation lasting several weeks. While the targets will be military, Israel understands that only an overwhelming ground operation lasting many months, maybe even a year or two, would lead to a military defeat of Hamas. Therefore, its main goals is likely to be to break Hamas’s will and continue the fighting so that it can eliminate enough of Hamas to establish a more comprehensive ceasefire that would apply to both Hamas’s overt and covert activities and truly provide peace for its citizens in the south. Some are suggesting that the goal is to overthrow Hamas and give control of Gaza to the PA. This is questionable. The PA is weak, and it is only able to maintain control of the West Bank because it is receiving support from America and Israel. Taking on Gaza would stretch the PA very thin, too thin, and would require significant US and Israel support. This poses a significant problem, however. Neither the US nor Israel can be seen helping in Gaza – the residents would reject it. What is good for Israel is not good for the Palestinians goes the logic in Gaza. If the PA were to retake Gaza, the required support from Israel and the US would have to be entirely silent for the Palestinians to accept PA rule.
Second, let us talk about timing. It should not come as a surprise that Israel launched the attack prior to President-elect Obama’s inauguration. Assuredly Mr. Obama would not have allowed for an operation of this scale to go forward. It must be made clear that for this kind of operation American approval was required. The US and Israeli governments would never state this publically, but it’s tantamount to Israel being considered a nuclear power: Israel would never confirm nor deny its capability, but that Israel does have the ability is one of the worst-kept secrets in foreign policy. Over the last two or so weeks, rocket fire on Southern Israel increased dramatically as the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel broke down. These rockets make life miserable for the population within their reach. Under this condition there has been significant pressure on the Israeli government to retaliate. On Saturday morning, one of these rockets killed an Israeli.
For more information on the rocket fire, visit:
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/945489.html
http://zionism-israel.com/vic/Sderot_Qassam_Statistics_Feb_2008.htm
Third, let us look at the target. A few months ago many foreign policy experts were suggesting that Israel may target Iran before Mr. Obama took office. However, as time has moved forward the likelihood of such an operation became significantly less as America continued to lose influence in world politics, sped exponentially by the economic crisis. Given the current political climate in the US and abroad, even the most pro-Israel American President that the world has seen, President Bush, would not have green-lighted an attack on Iran. This decision stems from Iran’s second-strike capabilities, America’s inability, being tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, to stand militarily by Israel’s side, and the popularity of the soft diplomacy track. While the increased rocket barrage on southern Israel did escalate dramatically over the past two weeks from Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, it was the reality of America’s limited ability to support Israel that has stovepiped Israel into focusing on Gaza. However, Iran is a target by extension of this operation. More on that below.
Specifically, the direct target was the Hamas security apparatus. The term “security” is used very misleadingly in Islamic circles, just as terms like “freedom” are used very misleadingly in African circles. Terms like “police” and “security forces” used by Hamas, Hizbullah, et al., are tantamount to American terms like “Army” and “Department of Defense.” Make no mistake: these were Hamas groups that were also used for offensive operations against Israel by their participation in activities like clearing and protecting areas for rocket launchers and performing and providing surveillance intelligence on Israel border security (information such as movement timetables, etc) to Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants. Israel is also targeting businesses that that are sources for Hamas income. By targeting this group and its infrastructure, Israel has severely damaged Hamas’s ability to provide synthetically legitimized support to clandestine forces in the short term.
This last point is very important. Israel has a small window within which it can perform these operations. Not only is it hamstrung by the January 20 date, but it is also limited by the atmosphere in Israel. A slightly better kept secret than Israeli nuclear capabilities is that during each ceasefire Hamas receives large amounts of war supplies from its supporters, uses the downtime to dig tunnels under the border, conducts intelligence operations, plants operatives in Israel, and performs other actions along these lines. While this is known, it is not well understood internationally. Hamas benefits from cease fires not only because it re-stocks but also because it beefs up its war fighting ability during these periods. Israelis understand this very well, so when Hamas declared it would not renew the six month Egyptian-brokered cease fire, the Israeli government knew it must act quickly so as to prevent a Hamas offensive coming out of the cease fire.
Forth, let us address where this operation leads. Israeli leaders are promising more military action without giving a timetable on when it may occur; it will occur in the next couple of weeks unless President Bush expressly instructs a cessation to Israeli operations. The big question now is whether or not to launch a ground operation. The second Lebanon War started out with an operation similarly massive to Cast Lead where 90 targets were struck by the Israeli Air Force (IAF) based on the notion that the IAF alone could stop Hizbullah. When this proved inaccurate Israel was forced to go into Lebanon on the ground, ending less than successfully. The concern now is the same: can the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) succeed on the ground in Gaza? At the moment, Ehud Barak is not talking about a ground invasion. However, continued air strikes will most likely not be the only actions taken.
However the operation continues, expect attacks to pause intermittently so that Israel can feed the Strip with humanitarian aide supplies, as it is currently doing (ten trucks are being chaperoned into the territory as I write this while plans for thirty more on Sunday are being drawn up in coordination with humanitarian groups). This helps address international protests and also shows that Israel is not fighting the Palestinian people, a message delivered on Arab television on Prime Minister Olmert on Friday, the day before the operation. While Hamas security operations are down, expect Israel to target Hamas and Islamic Jihad clandestine operations, points of entry used by war suppliers, tunnels, and weapons stockpiles; essentially the Hamas jugular.
Also expect Israel to use its elite forces to target Hamas leadership whenever possible. In 2004 Israel killed three senior Hamas leaders in the span of a few months: Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, and Ismail Abu Shanab. With these loses Hamas was spun into disarray. After Yassin’s death Hamas never found a religious leader to take his place. His death made Hamas more vulnerable to the argument that Hamas was a group of Islamic terrorists without a clear Islamic mandate. The death of Rantisi and Shanab created what could be called a locality crisis. Hamas was forced into naming their replacements in private so that Israel could not learn of their identities. The new face of the group became Khaled Meshal who, because he was based in Syria, created the liability of increasing disintegration between internal and external Hamas leadership. Haaretz is reporting that three senior Hamas officials (the commander of the Hamas police, the commander of the defense and security directorate, and the Gaza central district governor) were killed in the operation on Saturday. This is significant. While the most senior of Hamas leaders are in hiding outside of Gaza, these are three of the heavyweights who resided in Gaza. Look for Israel to create a leadership vacuum in Gaza by targeting as many leaders as possible, from the senior team on down to middle management, so that Hamas is forced into a significantly weaker bargaining position.
Looking more long term, it is worth noting that Israel is planning its first ever country-wide security exercise in July of 2009 that will include full participation of its citizens. Such an exercise shows that Israel understands well the kinds of attacks it could face in the coming years and sends a message to then-President Obama that Israel needs a demonstrable display of American support. The exercise shows faith in Israel’s ability to defend itself; were the exercise to go anything less than stellar, it would signal weakness to its enemies and put doubt in the minds of Israelis. Israel would only go forward with the exercise it if felt confident in its ability to ace the test. It also demonstrates that Israel continues to be willing to launch significant operations against its enemies by signaling that is interested in assuring its citizens that they will be safe when they do. This exercise tells Israel’s enemies that it will not heed their ultimatums.
Fifth, what messages does this operation send? Considering the results it sends the message that Israel’s intelligence agencies are doing well enough to have correctly scouted so many targets, an important victory for the intelligence community and Kadima leadership in the aftermath of the grave intelligence failures of the second Lebanon War in 2006. As a side note, so long as the operation continues to be successful it may benefit Olmert and Barak who could build a case for postponing the election.
It sends a mixed message to the President-elect Obama administration that while Israel does take American direction and interests strongly into consideration, it is fearful that Mr. Obama’s support will be limited and is thus willing to act unilaterally. Depending on how Israel continues the operation, it would not come as a surprise if other Arab countries or terrorists groups attacked Israel or stepped up support of Hamas, Hizbullah, and the usual crowd. This could test the incoming administration’s commitment to the Jewish state by putting the US in a position where it must publically issue policy positions. One of Mr. Obama’s greatest challenges in the Presidential campaign was to convince people that he is a pro-Israel pragmatist, a challenge that, while he did make significant headway, he did not complete. This will put his commitment to Israel to a clearer test.
To the Arab world it sends a message that Israel does not intend to scale down its military operation while it pursues the diplomatic route – that it will not have its hands tied behind its back while it negotiates. The real test for Israel in sending this message is how it ends the operation and the steps it takes afterwards. Israel must continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza, especially if it succeeds in significantly deconstructing Hamas. In so doing Israel would need to bolster Mahmoud Abbas and the PA in the West Bank so as to show its intent on supporting a moderate Palestinian government that it will work with in the future.
The most serious message of all may be directed at Iran. One could read daily in the Post and Haaretz and YNet about the power struggle between Hamas and Fatah (loosely the PA). However, there is very little coverage of the internal power struggle between the Gaza-based Hamas leadership (internal) and the Hamas leadership based abroad (external). The key to understanding this is that when the external leadership gains leverage, so too do external actors like Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, and when this happens, Hamas gets nudged towards even harder-line policies. However, when the external Hamas leadership gains leverage it provides Israel with a stronger argument when it presents its case to the international community – the more international Hamas appears the more Israel can push for international actions against it. It should be made clear that these external actors (Syria, Lebanon, Hizbollah, etc) are directly under the influence of Iran. With the incoming presidency of Barak Obama Israel may well have to step up these sorts of international efforts. The message to Iran that Israel is delivering with the operation is that it is ready to take Iran on from multiple fronts – militarily and diplomatically.
To the world the message may be a surprising one – that Israel is so keen on peace that it is willing to launch this kind of operation. So long as the West Bank and Gaza are controlled by different parties there will not be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. If Israel strikes a deal with the PA, Hamas will reject it outright. The Arab world would debate the legitimacy of the deal, and Hamas would do its best to undermine it just as they did the Oslo process. It would likely launch attacks from the West Bank on Israel to weaken the PA. However, this scenario is improbable. What the pro-negotiation side has not realized is that is that Fatah is highly unlikely to accept any comprehensive agreement with Israel as long as Hamas remains in control of Gaza. An agreement with only one of the two Palestinian factions would lead to two different international policies towards the Palestinian people, a reality the PA could not accept because it would undermine the essential Palestinian narrative of a unified people striving for independence as well as the PA’s own goal of representing the Palestinian people. As long the West Bank is controlled by the PA and Gaza by Hamas, Israel will have peace with neither. Significantly weakening Hamas now puts the territories one step closer to political unification and Israel one step closer to quiet.
Sixth, I want to turn our attention to how this plays out in the Arab community. Hamas officials have admitted that they were surprised by the operation. They believed that Israeli threats were rhetoric in the context of the upcoming election in Israel, and are blaming the Arab and Islamic world over their failure to exert pressure on Israel to stop the operation.
Hamas is accusing the Palestinian Authority and Egypt of colluding with Israel in this operation. A Hamas official told the Jerusalem Post that the reason security bases had not been evacuated prior to the operation was because Egypt had promised Hamas that Israel was not going to launch any attacks in the coming days. “We believe the Egyptians deliberately deceived us because they had given Israel a green light to attack,” he said. Mussa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official based in Damascus, claimed that Arab parties had pushed Israel to attack: “We are astonished by reports according to which some parties have been urging Israel to wipe out Hamas.”
Another Hamas official told the Post that Abbas and his aides were telling Israel to take down the Hamas government so that the PA could return to Gaza. For its part, PA officials said on Saturday that they were ready to assume control of Gaza if Israel succeeded in overthrowing Hamas. One official said that its men in Gaza have been told to be prepared for the possibility of returning to power. However, the PA has flatly denied the Hamas accusations that it had urged Israel to attack Hamas. As stated above, it is improbable that the PA is strong enough in its current state to govern Gaza.
It is unlikely both that Israel sought Arab support or received Arab support prior to the operation. In seeking Arab support prior to the operation Israel would have been taking a huge risk in being exposed and in giving away potential targets. In giving support any Arab country would be taking the huge risk in being exposed as having supported Israel.
This acknowledged we have not seen a united Arab front against this operation. Quietly, no doubt, people within the Arab world are hoping that Israel will succeed in reducing Hamas’s influence. Egypt, Israel’s closest thing to a neighborhood friend, sees itself as a leader of the Arab world. There are few Sunni Arab issues that it does not involved itself in and seeks to show it holds more sway than its Sunni rival, Saudi Arabia – this is the primary reason you see them mediating the Hamas and PA negotiations. America expects Egypt to take an active role in issues that impact Middle East security as well, evidenced by the two plus billion dollars in foreign aid it receives annually from us. So far, though, Egypt has failed, and therefore stands something to gain in Hamas being routed by Israel. For years Egypt has allowed smuggling to occur along its shared border with Gaza that has permitted Hamas to survive despite strict international sanctions. Egypt holds the power over enforcing these sanctions and in essence can influence when Hamas and Israel go to war. If Egypt really does support the Israeli mission it will clamp down on the security of its border with Gaza.
I have thrown a fair amount of information at you at this point. Let me conclude by saying that we are witnessing a systematic attack on Hamas that Israel will not stop until Israel believes it can draw out concessions needed to provide safety for itself. This is the essential goal, the success of which will be used to judge the operation. All other goals, while important, will be icing and cherries should they succeed. Israel is looking to create a prolonged period of quiet that can be used to plan its next diplomatic and, perhaps, its next military, move.
Read More......
According to Yaakov Katz, writing in the Jerusalem Post:
“The decision to launch such a blow against Hamas on Saturday was made during last Wednesday's security cabinet meeting. A secret meeting was held again on Friday between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, where the timing was finalized.
After several of the decisions from Wednesday's cabinet meeting were leaked to the press, Barak decided on a strategy of deception - to deceive Hamas into believing that Israel was not planning to strike back.
Barak took two actions to achieve this - the decision to open the Gaza crossings on Friday (which was announced on Thursday) and leaking to the press that there would be another cabinet meeting on Sunday to decide whether to attack. This created the perception that Israel was holding off on an operation when in reality it was fueling and arming its aircraft.”
As I write this (now Sunday evening in Israel), the IAF is continuing to attack targets in Gaza, including the Al Aqsa television station used by Hamas and a mosque identified as a base used for terrorist activities. As Y? pointed out, we were all expecting this, but we did not know when or exactly in what form it would come.
I want to address this operation from a few different angles. First, let us talk about the operation’s goals. This is the first of several attacks in what is likely to be a sustained operation lasting several weeks. While the targets will be military, Israel understands that only an overwhelming ground operation lasting many months, maybe even a year or two, would lead to a military defeat of Hamas. Therefore, its main goals is likely to be to break Hamas’s will and continue the fighting so that it can eliminate enough of Hamas to establish a more comprehensive ceasefire that would apply to both Hamas’s overt and covert activities and truly provide peace for its citizens in the south. Some are suggesting that the goal is to overthrow Hamas and give control of Gaza to the PA. This is questionable. The PA is weak, and it is only able to maintain control of the West Bank because it is receiving support from America and Israel. Taking on Gaza would stretch the PA very thin, too thin, and would require significant US and Israel support. This poses a significant problem, however. Neither the US nor Israel can be seen helping in Gaza – the residents would reject it. What is good for Israel is not good for the Palestinians goes the logic in Gaza. If the PA were to retake Gaza, the required support from Israel and the US would have to be entirely silent for the Palestinians to accept PA rule.
Second, let us talk about timing. It should not come as a surprise that Israel launched the attack prior to President-elect Obama’s inauguration. Assuredly Mr. Obama would not have allowed for an operation of this scale to go forward. It must be made clear that for this kind of operation American approval was required. The US and Israeli governments would never state this publically, but it’s tantamount to Israel being considered a nuclear power: Israel would never confirm nor deny its capability, but that Israel does have the ability is one of the worst-kept secrets in foreign policy. Over the last two or so weeks, rocket fire on Southern Israel increased dramatically as the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel broke down. These rockets make life miserable for the population within their reach. Under this condition there has been significant pressure on the Israeli government to retaliate. On Saturday morning, one of these rockets killed an Israeli.
For more information on the rocket fire, visit:
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/945489.html
http://zionism-israel.com/vic/Sderot_Qassam_Statistics_Feb_2008.htm
Third, let us look at the target. A few months ago many foreign policy experts were suggesting that Israel may target Iran before Mr. Obama took office. However, as time has moved forward the likelihood of such an operation became significantly less as America continued to lose influence in world politics, sped exponentially by the economic crisis. Given the current political climate in the US and abroad, even the most pro-Israel American President that the world has seen, President Bush, would not have green-lighted an attack on Iran. This decision stems from Iran’s second-strike capabilities, America’s inability, being tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, to stand militarily by Israel’s side, and the popularity of the soft diplomacy track. While the increased rocket barrage on southern Israel did escalate dramatically over the past two weeks from Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, it was the reality of America’s limited ability to support Israel that has stovepiped Israel into focusing on Gaza. However, Iran is a target by extension of this operation. More on that below.
Specifically, the direct target was the Hamas security apparatus. The term “security” is used very misleadingly in Islamic circles, just as terms like “freedom” are used very misleadingly in African circles. Terms like “police” and “security forces” used by Hamas, Hizbullah, et al., are tantamount to American terms like “Army” and “Department of Defense.” Make no mistake: these were Hamas groups that were also used for offensive operations against Israel by their participation in activities like clearing and protecting areas for rocket launchers and performing and providing surveillance intelligence on Israel border security (information such as movement timetables, etc) to Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants. Israel is also targeting businesses that that are sources for Hamas income. By targeting this group and its infrastructure, Israel has severely damaged Hamas’s ability to provide synthetically legitimized support to clandestine forces in the short term.
This last point is very important. Israel has a small window within which it can perform these operations. Not only is it hamstrung by the January 20 date, but it is also limited by the atmosphere in Israel. A slightly better kept secret than Israeli nuclear capabilities is that during each ceasefire Hamas receives large amounts of war supplies from its supporters, uses the downtime to dig tunnels under the border, conducts intelligence operations, plants operatives in Israel, and performs other actions along these lines. While this is known, it is not well understood internationally. Hamas benefits from cease fires not only because it re-stocks but also because it beefs up its war fighting ability during these periods. Israelis understand this very well, so when Hamas declared it would not renew the six month Egyptian-brokered cease fire, the Israeli government knew it must act quickly so as to prevent a Hamas offensive coming out of the cease fire.
Forth, let us address where this operation leads. Israeli leaders are promising more military action without giving a timetable on when it may occur; it will occur in the next couple of weeks unless President Bush expressly instructs a cessation to Israeli operations. The big question now is whether or not to launch a ground operation. The second Lebanon War started out with an operation similarly massive to Cast Lead where 90 targets were struck by the Israeli Air Force (IAF) based on the notion that the IAF alone could stop Hizbullah. When this proved inaccurate Israel was forced to go into Lebanon on the ground, ending less than successfully. The concern now is the same: can the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) succeed on the ground in Gaza? At the moment, Ehud Barak is not talking about a ground invasion. However, continued air strikes will most likely not be the only actions taken.
However the operation continues, expect attacks to pause intermittently so that Israel can feed the Strip with humanitarian aide supplies, as it is currently doing (ten trucks are being chaperoned into the territory as I write this while plans for thirty more on Sunday are being drawn up in coordination with humanitarian groups). This helps address international protests and also shows that Israel is not fighting the Palestinian people, a message delivered on Arab television on Prime Minister Olmert on Friday, the day before the operation. While Hamas security operations are down, expect Israel to target Hamas and Islamic Jihad clandestine operations, points of entry used by war suppliers, tunnels, and weapons stockpiles; essentially the Hamas jugular.
Also expect Israel to use its elite forces to target Hamas leadership whenever possible. In 2004 Israel killed three senior Hamas leaders in the span of a few months: Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, and Ismail Abu Shanab. With these loses Hamas was spun into disarray. After Yassin’s death Hamas never found a religious leader to take his place. His death made Hamas more vulnerable to the argument that Hamas was a group of Islamic terrorists without a clear Islamic mandate. The death of Rantisi and Shanab created what could be called a locality crisis. Hamas was forced into naming their replacements in private so that Israel could not learn of their identities. The new face of the group became Khaled Meshal who, because he was based in Syria, created the liability of increasing disintegration between internal and external Hamas leadership. Haaretz is reporting that three senior Hamas officials (the commander of the Hamas police, the commander of the defense and security directorate, and the Gaza central district governor) were killed in the operation on Saturday. This is significant. While the most senior of Hamas leaders are in hiding outside of Gaza, these are three of the heavyweights who resided in Gaza. Look for Israel to create a leadership vacuum in Gaza by targeting as many leaders as possible, from the senior team on down to middle management, so that Hamas is forced into a significantly weaker bargaining position.
Looking more long term, it is worth noting that Israel is planning its first ever country-wide security exercise in July of 2009 that will include full participation of its citizens. Such an exercise shows that Israel understands well the kinds of attacks it could face in the coming years and sends a message to then-President Obama that Israel needs a demonstrable display of American support. The exercise shows faith in Israel’s ability to defend itself; were the exercise to go anything less than stellar, it would signal weakness to its enemies and put doubt in the minds of Israelis. Israel would only go forward with the exercise it if felt confident in its ability to ace the test. It also demonstrates that Israel continues to be willing to launch significant operations against its enemies by signaling that is interested in assuring its citizens that they will be safe when they do. This exercise tells Israel’s enemies that it will not heed their ultimatums.
Fifth, what messages does this operation send? Considering the results it sends the message that Israel’s intelligence agencies are doing well enough to have correctly scouted so many targets, an important victory for the intelligence community and Kadima leadership in the aftermath of the grave intelligence failures of the second Lebanon War in 2006. As a side note, so long as the operation continues to be successful it may benefit Olmert and Barak who could build a case for postponing the election.
It sends a mixed message to the President-elect Obama administration that while Israel does take American direction and interests strongly into consideration, it is fearful that Mr. Obama’s support will be limited and is thus willing to act unilaterally. Depending on how Israel continues the operation, it would not come as a surprise if other Arab countries or terrorists groups attacked Israel or stepped up support of Hamas, Hizbullah, and the usual crowd. This could test the incoming administration’s commitment to the Jewish state by putting the US in a position where it must publically issue policy positions. One of Mr. Obama’s greatest challenges in the Presidential campaign was to convince people that he is a pro-Israel pragmatist, a challenge that, while he did make significant headway, he did not complete. This will put his commitment to Israel to a clearer test.
To the Arab world it sends a message that Israel does not intend to scale down its military operation while it pursues the diplomatic route – that it will not have its hands tied behind its back while it negotiates. The real test for Israel in sending this message is how it ends the operation and the steps it takes afterwards. Israel must continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza, especially if it succeeds in significantly deconstructing Hamas. In so doing Israel would need to bolster Mahmoud Abbas and the PA in the West Bank so as to show its intent on supporting a moderate Palestinian government that it will work with in the future.
The most serious message of all may be directed at Iran. One could read daily in the Post and Haaretz and YNet about the power struggle between Hamas and Fatah (loosely the PA). However, there is very little coverage of the internal power struggle between the Gaza-based Hamas leadership (internal) and the Hamas leadership based abroad (external). The key to understanding this is that when the external leadership gains leverage, so too do external actors like Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, and when this happens, Hamas gets nudged towards even harder-line policies. However, when the external Hamas leadership gains leverage it provides Israel with a stronger argument when it presents its case to the international community – the more international Hamas appears the more Israel can push for international actions against it. It should be made clear that these external actors (Syria, Lebanon, Hizbollah, etc) are directly under the influence of Iran. With the incoming presidency of Barak Obama Israel may well have to step up these sorts of international efforts. The message to Iran that Israel is delivering with the operation is that it is ready to take Iran on from multiple fronts – militarily and diplomatically.
To the world the message may be a surprising one – that Israel is so keen on peace that it is willing to launch this kind of operation. So long as the West Bank and Gaza are controlled by different parties there will not be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. If Israel strikes a deal with the PA, Hamas will reject it outright. The Arab world would debate the legitimacy of the deal, and Hamas would do its best to undermine it just as they did the Oslo process. It would likely launch attacks from the West Bank on Israel to weaken the PA. However, this scenario is improbable. What the pro-negotiation side has not realized is that is that Fatah is highly unlikely to accept any comprehensive agreement with Israel as long as Hamas remains in control of Gaza. An agreement with only one of the two Palestinian factions would lead to two different international policies towards the Palestinian people, a reality the PA could not accept because it would undermine the essential Palestinian narrative of a unified people striving for independence as well as the PA’s own goal of representing the Palestinian people. As long the West Bank is controlled by the PA and Gaza by Hamas, Israel will have peace with neither. Significantly weakening Hamas now puts the territories one step closer to political unification and Israel one step closer to quiet.
Sixth, I want to turn our attention to how this plays out in the Arab community. Hamas officials have admitted that they were surprised by the operation. They believed that Israeli threats were rhetoric in the context of the upcoming election in Israel, and are blaming the Arab and Islamic world over their failure to exert pressure on Israel to stop the operation.
Hamas is accusing the Palestinian Authority and Egypt of colluding with Israel in this operation. A Hamas official told the Jerusalem Post that the reason security bases had not been evacuated prior to the operation was because Egypt had promised Hamas that Israel was not going to launch any attacks in the coming days. “We believe the Egyptians deliberately deceived us because they had given Israel a green light to attack,” he said. Mussa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official based in Damascus, claimed that Arab parties had pushed Israel to attack: “We are astonished by reports according to which some parties have been urging Israel to wipe out Hamas.”
Another Hamas official told the Post that Abbas and his aides were telling Israel to take down the Hamas government so that the PA could return to Gaza. For its part, PA officials said on Saturday that they were ready to assume control of Gaza if Israel succeeded in overthrowing Hamas. One official said that its men in Gaza have been told to be prepared for the possibility of returning to power. However, the PA has flatly denied the Hamas accusations that it had urged Israel to attack Hamas. As stated above, it is improbable that the PA is strong enough in its current state to govern Gaza.
It is unlikely both that Israel sought Arab support or received Arab support prior to the operation. In seeking Arab support prior to the operation Israel would have been taking a huge risk in being exposed and in giving away potential targets. In giving support any Arab country would be taking the huge risk in being exposed as having supported Israel.
This acknowledged we have not seen a united Arab front against this operation. Quietly, no doubt, people within the Arab world are hoping that Israel will succeed in reducing Hamas’s influence. Egypt, Israel’s closest thing to a neighborhood friend, sees itself as a leader of the Arab world. There are few Sunni Arab issues that it does not involved itself in and seeks to show it holds more sway than its Sunni rival, Saudi Arabia – this is the primary reason you see them mediating the Hamas and PA negotiations. America expects Egypt to take an active role in issues that impact Middle East security as well, evidenced by the two plus billion dollars in foreign aid it receives annually from us. So far, though, Egypt has failed, and therefore stands something to gain in Hamas being routed by Israel. For years Egypt has allowed smuggling to occur along its shared border with Gaza that has permitted Hamas to survive despite strict international sanctions. Egypt holds the power over enforcing these sanctions and in essence can influence when Hamas and Israel go to war. If Egypt really does support the Israeli mission it will clamp down on the security of its border with Gaza.
I have thrown a fair amount of information at you at this point. Let me conclude by saying that we are witnessing a systematic attack on Hamas that Israel will not stop until Israel believes it can draw out concessions needed to provide safety for itself. This is the essential goal, the success of which will be used to judge the operation. All other goals, while important, will be icing and cherries should they succeed. Israel is looking to create a prolonged period of quiet that can be used to plan its next diplomatic and, perhaps, its next military, move.
Read More......
Anti-Israel Leftists' and Pro-war Rightists' Myths
In the wake of the most recent escalation between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, I wanted to pass along this really interesting compilation of the myths used by both sides to foment the conflict, from Haaretz, Israel's New York Times.
That article can be found here Read More......
That article can be found here Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
