Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
GAZA IS NOT ABOUT GLOBAL TERROR.
Given the complexity of the situation, I'm reluctant to get too deep into the weeds on the December War (because the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah was the "July War," right?) but I do have to question Israel's aims in escalating the conflict. First, here's a comment by Israel's President, Shimon Peres:
Speaking to reporters along side IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, Peres said that the goal of the current operation was not just to stop the continuing rocket fire from Gaza, but to put a halt to terror worldwide."Terror is a worldwide problem, and it is ours as well," Peres said.
A brief reality check: This operation will do nothing to stop terrorism worldwide, and in fact it will likely exacerbate the problems of terrorism around the world in the near- and long-term, as once again terrorist groups have a bloody shirt to wave and a grievance to claim, while their operational capabilities will not be affected. HAMAS is a pernicious actor and should recognize Israel and make other concessions towards the peace process, but it doesn't appear that they will, or that this conflict will lead them towards doing so. In the best case scenario, the specific capabilities of HAMAS will be retarded in the Gaza strip area, although for all of the bombing it seems that HAMAS is still quite capable of launching Qassam rockets at Israel.
The Israeli cabinet has decided that the goals of Operation Cast Lead (at least a less euphemistic name than "Enduring Freedom") are "creating a different long-term security situation in the south, while bolstering Israel's deterrence." That whole news analysis, entitled "Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation in Gaza," is worth a read, and also raises the question of why certain foreign policy thinkers always do their best to give enemies, whether HAMAS in Gaza or Al Qaeda in Iraq, exactly what they want. But look again at the goals of that statement. Bolstering deterrence, sure, but I don't think anyone in Palestine (or any of Israel's neighbors) didn't believe Israel would be willing to use overwhelming force in defense of their country. Meanwhile, how is this conflict creating a different long-term security situation? HAMAS may now be more popular among the Palestinian people than before, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has only worsened. It seems that it will be nigh on impossible to eliminate the threat of Qassam rockets without some kind of massive occupation of Gaza, which doesn't seem to be in Israel's best interests, either.
The news analysis concludes:
As for the Palestinians, they plan to declare victory regardless of what happens. If the IDF withdraws rapidly, without a ground operation and without having seriously reduced the rocket fire, Hamas will boast that it survived and Israel blinked first.
It seems unwise to become involved in a conflict where, no matter the outcome, the perception is that the other side has won. Perhaps the conflict will carve out space for Arab moderates to separate themselves from HAMAS, but given Mark Lynch's analysis of Arab media thus far, that's not the first reaction. But the real question now is how this ends, and the most depressing thing to realize is that no one has any idea about how that will happen. Both sides are searching for a third party to moderate, and neither the U.S., Europe, or the Arab league has jumped up to fill the role.
Dear internet: Before you critcize my naivete concerning Israel's security posture, point me towards an explanation of how this conflict is in Israel's interest, or more important from my parochial point of view, how the Bush administration's response to the conflict is in the United States' best interest. Also, I don't really have any interest in who's fault what is, because that line of discussion doesn't lead towards any kind of resolution.
-- Tim Fernholz
COMMENTS (8)
"Both sides are searching for a third party to moderate, and neither the U.S., Europe, or the Arab league has jumped up to fill the role."
The third party should really be Turkey. Nobody else has credibility with both sides. And they were making some progress hosting talks between Syria and Israel. The current situation has scuttled those talks, but that's not Turkey's fault.
Posted by: fostert | December 30, 2008 4:41 PM
I am also confused as to what Israel's goals are and how this helps their interests. I'm tempted to take the cynical view that this is at root a domestic political move by Olmert's Kadima party. It seems obvious that this military action helps Kadima in the upcoming elections as his party's biggest competitors are running to his right, i.e. Netanyahu's Likud party. Could their thought process have been: The easy justification is security against terrorists, then add that none of our legit political opponents will disagree, Arab countries will complain but they will quietly be pleased to see Hamas struggle, Bush has wanted Hamas to go down since they won the elections he advocated, and finally a more conspiratorial take which is the end justifies the means. Meaning, the more moderate Kadima party is the only party willing to pursue peace and/or capable of achieving it (meaning they'll advocate a 2 state solution) and the only way Kadima can win in the face of Israeli citizens move rightward due to the rocket attacks is for Kadima to prove they're as equally willing to go to war as the Likud party.
Disclaimer: I'm a "dumb college kid" so if my comments annoy or offend you, you can dismiss me as such.
Posted by: Herbert | December 30, 2008 8:28 PM
I'm pretty sure that the idea is to have current-generation "atrocities" - everybody gets to define their own - completely drown-out past-generations atrocities. Then, in 30 years, Israel will suddenly start handling the area with kid-gloves. (By then the internal pressure to engage primarily via humanitarian aid should be strong enough then.)
The current gen will die off, a Marshal Plan scale psychotherapy effort will convince their children everything's OK, and we can *all* start with a clean slate.
The problem with you liberals is that you only think short term.
Posted by: V.O.R. | December 31, 2008 12:10 AM
this blog is true in an ahistoric universe. Israel withdrew from Gaza in September, 2005. Since then, thousands of rockets have been launched by Hamas at civilians targets in Israel. Hamas is a terrorist organization sponsored by Iran and Syria. If it's not global in nature, at the very least its geogpolitical status is certainly regional. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Regardless of their ability to achieve that goal, its ideology is nothing short of hate against Israel, Jews, and a democratic country. As for those of you lunatics wondering what Israel intends to acheive, how about this little thing called protecting its citizens? Besides Hamas violating every known human right--launching rockets from civilian populations, let alone targeting them--Israel has the basic right, in accordance with the U.N charter, of self-defense. When rockets come raining down in your neck of the woods from "militants" operating from a neighboring state, let's see how you feel and what you might demand of your government. Israel's only fault is that its attempts are about 3 years overdue.
Posted by: Mir | December 31, 2008 1:33 PM
I knew *someone* would come out with the Hamas==evil, Israel==good argument. Just what we were missing!
Posted by: North | December 31, 2008 3:24 PM
The pain inflicted now is not enough. There always is an option to adopt RAF policy in WWII after London blitz: demolish every standing structure in the strip. What proportion of housing left intact in Germany in spring 1945? Less than 10%, I suppose. (In Dresden less.) At least, rubble does not make trouble.
Posted by: Sergey | December 31, 2008 3:30 PM
"its ideology is nothing short of hate against Israel, Jews, and a democratic country."
I'm sure there is no hatred of Palestinians or Arabs by Israeli Jews- it's just so one-sided. That little election that usually hallmarks a "democracy" in which Hamas won by a landslide in votes- it's just communism unless we actually like the people elected...right?
At the end of this debacle, Hamas will have declared victory by surviving, still have rockets and even more martyrs to launch against Israel and nothing will have changed- not one iota. Forty years of doing the same stupid shit and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
Posted by: Wilson | January 2, 2009 3:57 PM
I am also confused as to what Israel's goals are and how this helps their interests
Posted by: bizimle | January 4, 2009 4:55 PM