Gaza: This is an (Israeli) War of Choice

Unlike the confused and improvised Israeli response as the war against Hizbullah in Lebanon unfolded in 2006, Operation Cast Lead appears to have been carefully prepared over a long period.

-----

A depressing morning of news from Israel and Gaza, with the death toll approaching 400, no end in sight to the bombardment, and a possible Israeli invasion on the ground.



And a depressing morning for so-called analysis. The evasions of moral responsibility by those sanctioning the launching of rockets into Israel and those ordering the bombing of built-up areas in Gaza are matched by columnists like David Aaronovitch ("Let's have a pointless discussion about Gaza and begin it by talking about whether Israel's bombing is 'disproportionate'") and Mary Dejevsky ("The Palestinians of Gaza have worn their victimhood as a badge of honour.")

So as others, such as Benny Morris in The New York Times, rationalise this conflict as a defensive outburst, "Israel’s sense of the walls closing in on it has this past week led to [a] violent reaction," let's be clear:

This is a war of Tel Aviv's choosing.

Picking up on reports in the Israeli press, Ian Black in The Guardian summarises:

[There were] six months of intelligence-gathering to pinpoint Hamas targets including bases, weapon silos, training camps and the homes of senior officials. The cabinet spent five hours discussing the plan in detail on December 19 and left the timing up to Ehud Olmert, the caretaker prime minister, and his defence minister Ehud Barak. Preparations involved disinformation and deception which kept Israel's media in the dark. According to Ha'aretz, that also lulled Hamas into a sense of false security and allowed the initial aerial onslaught to achieve tactical surprise - and kill many of the 290 victims counted so far.

Friday's decision to allow food, fuel and humanitarian supplies into besieged Gaza - ostensibly a gesture in the face of international pressure to relieve the ongoing blockade - was part of this. So was Thursday's visit to Cairo by Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, to brief Egyptian officials.

As soon as June's truce was agreed, the Israeli Government was not only anticipating its breakdown but laying out its course of action. And that course of action, authorised before a single Israeli died from a rocket or mortar attack, was to strike Hamas (and, incidentally, the Palestinian population) and strike it hard.

I leave it to others to explain why there is no need for moral calculation when considering this chain of events and planning. But, to modify Robert Fisk's comment, "How easy it is to snap off the history of the Palestinians", it seems just as essential (you can supply the reason) to snap off the history of the last six months to make this a simple narrative of rocket-and-reply.

The (Continuing) War on Terror: Let's Kill All the Crazies

Later today, Enduring America's inaugural podcast will be on the following topic:

The Washington Post proposes, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, "a crackdown on terrorists".

But how shall we crack down on terrorists? Certainly not by treating them as rational and thus understanding how they could justify these killings --- for David Aaronovitch, "There isn't anything - whatever the explanatists say - we can concede to the zealots of Faridkot that will persuade such people, once radicalised, not to try to kill us. " Certainly not through any process of international law, enforcement, or co-operation, as Robert Kagan argues --- apparently oblivious of the consequences, including the possible reinforcement of "terror", of US bombing and targeted assassination amongst local populations --- we should be "establishing the principle that Pakistan and other states that harbor terrorists should not take their sovereignty for granted".

By treating the terrorists solely as men and women "brainwashed by an ideology of hatred", we can adopt violent measure in response, set aside any notion of law, morality, and ethics, and conduct a war without end. Indeed, we can honour ourselves for doing so. As William Kristol advocates, we can "be vociferously praising--everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror", be this through waterboarding, surveillance, rendition, and even assassination --- "but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points".*

President Bush, in his apology which wasn't really an apology this week, said, "I wish the intelligence had been different" on Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. If the intelligence had been different - in other words, if it could have magically produced those WMDs --- then there would have been a rational basis for an invasion to overthrow the evil and irrationality of Saddam Hussein.

Maybe five years from now, an Aaronovitch or Kagan or Kristol --- after there is more violence, more terrorism, more conflict --- will admit some recognition that your enemy is rational and that he/she sees a cause for their violence. Maybe they will recognise that dealing with the cause, while it may or may not deter a particular individual from his/her path, will in long run drain the swamp that supports the mosquitoes.

Then again, probably not.

*Not-so-tangential note: Like Kagan, Kristol has a warning for those who aren't patriotic enough to deal with the crazies in their midst:

"In a nation like Pakistan, the government will have to be persuaded to deal with those in their midst who are complicit. This can happen if those nations’ citizens decide they don’t want their own country to be dishonored by allegiances with terror groups. Otherwise, other nations may have to act."