Five comments on the situation

2009 January 13
by Alex

1. A reader asks: “Does the current offensive weaken Hamas beyond the short-term goal of reducing what rudimentary [a bit of an understatement this - Hamas have used every opportunity to smuggle in ore effective weapons; without being challenged it was only a matter of time before they got some of the really deadly stuff, presumably via Iran.] abilities they have? Does it make it any less popular? Does it promote any chance of peaceful coexistence? Does it help Israel’s image in the world? Will it stop the Qassams?” My answer is no, no, no, no, and a little bit. In the sense that Hamas will be more popular as a result of the attacks, and that the cause of peaceful coexistence will receive another blow, the only hope is that Hamas – like Hizbollah – will think twice before launching unprovoked attacks on the State of Israel. As Tzipi Livni said, “This is not a conflict that will end with an agreement. We embarked on the campaign with the intent of achieving military goals and in order to clarify that we will not put up with the situation any longer. We set out to change the equation.” This is the most we can hope for. Those who would have Israel unilaterally open the crossings should be asked why Israel should hand Hamas a major political victory, at the expense of our Fatah allies, and without receiving any guarantee of recognition. If Hamas want Rafah opened, they can accept the November 2005 agreement on the subject. If they prefer the path of martyrdom, we should be willing to offer it to them. Either way, there seem to be no good options on the table.

2. On Z-Word, Ben Cohen discusses the Anthony Cordesman piece I referred to the other day, taking the author to task for his assertion that Operation Cast Lead seems to have no clear objective: “In essence, its aim is to humble Hamas psychologically and weaken it structurally: to decisively show the Islamists that they miscalculated horribly when they surmised that Israel would not substantially retaliate to intensified rocket attacks; to prevent them from rearming; and to achieve greater security in the south of the country.” While this seems to reflect Tzipi Livni’s position, quoted above, the government’s wavering on sending in the reserves shows that there is no consensus in the upper echelons of the Israeli government. The Olmert-Barak-Livni troika have aligned themselves in various positions during the conflict, with electoral considerations seemingly driving their calculations (at least in the case of the two of the three who are no longer lame). As ever, we seem not to know when to stop.  It remains to be seen whether we are  following the sage advice of General Staal - never reveal your intentions to the enemy. In the meantime, these limbo-like days seem heavy with incompetence and indecision, reminiscent of the Second Lebanon War.

3. Amidst the predictable hasbara frenzy, I’m surprised that few people have picked up on this blog, Aid2Gaza. Apparently run by the Israeli government, it aims to document as much as possible – positive and negative – about the flow of humanitarian aid into the strip during the crisis. You can watch live video feeds from Kerem Shalom, find out what’s happening with the electricity, and get the point of view of the international aid organisations. What’s good is that the blog seems open to criticism. In any case, it should be the first destination for those who insist on the existence of a brutal and unyielding siege. I hope it stays open when the guns fall silent.

4. What about Gilad Shalit? On Friday night I watched a powerful interview with his mother. She feels that this is the last opportunity to work for a positive outcome. I fear that the opposite may be true. How is Israel able to guarantee he will not be harmed? With all our rhetoric about bringing down the Hamas, what interest do they have in keeping him alive? Or will there be an Entebbe-style raid? Have we  decided to give up on ever getting him back?

5. The Israeli ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza is absurd. But so is the idea that this somehow benefits Israel. At the moment, the only reporting is being done by members of the Arab press, who hardly have an interest in providing a fair and balanced picture. As much as it’s easier to fight a war without a bunch of journos running around, it doesn’t reflect well on the country. Let them in.

15 Comments leave one →
2009 January 13
Nick permalink

“If they prefer the path of martyrdom, we should be willing to offer it to them.”

What are you actually saying, Alex? That strengthening fundamentalism is a desirable objective? I know your next sentence qualifies this, but you seem have succumbed to a kind of weary fatalism about it all. The options may be bad, but there are bad and worse. Interesting reading, though.

2009 January 13

I’m saying if Hamas merely wants to fight, we hsould fight back. As for the weary fatalism, I plead guilty. What can I say?

2009 January 13

Regarding the journalists, if you recall, in 2006 you had journalists running around reporting on Israel’s every move – definitely harming the IDF’s efforts. If you let journalists into Gaza, apart from being extra careful with them there, they will not be under Israeli jurisdiction, making it hard to enforce rules that are there for clear reasons – what is your suggestion? Nothing Israel ever does reflects well on it – especially ANY military operation – this has always been the case, and shows no signs of changing, so, seriously, why should that be a consideration?

2009 January 13

Alex, while Hamas may think twice before launching rockets at Israel (a big maybe about it), I predict that as a result of the current campaign, Israel will think twice before launching a similar attack. Why? Mostly, we can learn from the Second Lebanon Fiasco, which created a fragile detente on both sides. Israel will not attack Lebanon with the same ease and abandon, while Hizballa will be cautious to attack Israel, mainly due to internal political considerations. Mutual detentes are all wonderful – something good has to come out even out of such terrible tragedies as this operation.
The question is whether the price paid is worth it. For me the answer is emphatically, unequivocally “NO”. The price in human life notwithstanding, few people supporting this current op. realize the absolutely horrific price paid by Israel’s humanity itself. Ever since the establishment of the State, there was always a price of humanity paid for the short periods of calm brought by the next war, the next op. The cup overflows now. Israel may be able to buy a few years of calm, but it will pay with disintegration of the society itself. Hate to be the prophet of doom and gloom, but…

2009 January 13

Alex, let me tell you a secret: sometimes in life it is worth avoiding fights, even if the other side wants it. Next time you face a pugnacious drunkard in a pub, remember this.

2009 January 13

Peter – I tend not to get into fights myself. But I am off the pub now, so watch this space…

2009 January 14

God, what a terrible price we’ll all have to pay for the current insanity in Gaza. From Diplomats: Gaza op causing long-term harm to Israel’s image:
A few days ago, I met a European ambassador stationed in Israel. The man, a great friend of Israel, launched an emotional monologue and spoke from the bottom of his heart.
“Make no mistake,” he said. “I understand why you embarked on the operation in Gaza, and many of my colleagues also understand and even support it, but a few days ago you started to cross red lines.”
The straw that broke the camel’s back for that ambassador was the Red Cross report from Gaza that small children had been found wounded, near the corpses of their mothers, under the ruins of their homes, and other reports of civilians on the verge of dying in places ambulances could not reach because of the fighting.
[...]
“The international organizations in Gaza are talking about 200 dead children,” he said. “I don’t know how to explain these things to myself, never mind to my government,” added the ambassador. “Your action is brutal and you don’t realize how much damage this is causing you in the world. This is not only short term. It’s damage for years. Is this the Israel you want to be?”

Anybody who splits hair how this operation could be justified in one way or another is either a madmen or a blind man.

2009 January 14

Peter D wrote:

“The cup overflows now. Israel may be able to buy a few years of calm, but it will pay with disintegration of the society itself. Hate to be the prophet of doom and gloom, but…”

Couldn’t agree more…

2009 January 14

And it looks like detente with Hizballah isn’t working that well either, is it… God, all this blood spilt for nothing!

2009 January 14
SDRay permalink

“the only hope is that Hamas – like Hizbollah – will think twice before launching unprovoked attacks on the State of Israel.”

“Unprovoked”?

41 years of occupation
Years of crippling blockade
Settlements
Wall

and on and on…as long as you find these things so easy to forget how can there be any chance of mutual understanding and peace?

2009 January 15

SDRay – that’s a grand simplification of what I’m saying. The point is we left Gaza in 2005, not in the best circumstances, but it was the first time the Palestinians had actually succeeded in liberating some territory. They had a chance to do something with it, a chance they have refused to take. Even Hamas figures have – at times – acknowledged this.

2009 January 15

Alex:

Assume for a moment that after the Gaza withdrawal the Gazans had started ‘building something’ (the Statelet of Gaza?), do you really and honestly believe Olmert (post Sharon) would have started taking steps to reverse the occupation of the West Bank and create the conditions in which a Palestinian state on sufficient and contiguous territory could be founded?

This you see, this is what I no longer believe.

For what’s in it for Israel? Loss of territory, a hugely complicated and massively controversial evacuation of 275,000 + Jewish settlers and the need to resettle them in Israel proper (which by many accounts they didn’t do very well with the Gaza settlers) for sure. We’ve already come close to conditions for an Israeli Civil War over the issue. Possibly other ‘concessions’ over East J’sem and Golan? Real or perceived security concerns about the new Palestinian state’s intentions vis-à-vis Israel proper (so often reiterated ad nauseam even by the moderates/Zionist left)?

No, then in my opinion the dynamic and power differential favours the status quo with further creeping colonisation of the WB.

Only pressure or force on Israel will change the dynamic. T’was never any different…

2009 January 15

SDRay – one more thing. Many keep mentioning a “crippling blockade” (your words) or a “siege,” etc. The fact is that enormous amounts of medical supplies, food, and fuel are brought into Gaza every day (normally – not during the current operation). The fact is, also, the in direct opposition to the agreement in 2005 – Israel has no oversight whatsoever over the people who enter or exit Gaza by way of Rafah (the Egyptian border).

2009 January 16

I know that there have been ongoing negotiations between the Olmert government and the PA, and that the gaps between them aren’t as big (particularly on the issue of territory) than people have suggested.

2009 March 3
Alexwebmaster permalink

Hello webmaster
I would like to share with you a link to your site
write me here preonrelt@mail.ru

Leave A Comment

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS