Gaza and Domestic Politics: A Reader Comments

A reader from Turkey has offered these shrewd observations. I don't think Israeli domestic politics is the primary motive for the operation --- remember, it was planned back in June --- but it is a supporting reason that may have accelerated the Israeli attack.


Would you agree with me that I think the basic stimulus behind the ongoing Israeli operations in Gaza is beyond the worries growing out of the terrorist attacks of Hamas and the weariness of these rockets into the Israeli territory? It is basically an internal problem. As Netanyahu, Livni and Barak are going to run for the elections in February, each of them are trying to show more decisiveness in responding attacks. And each move is pulling others to come into a harder-line position which brings the Israeli politics into a vicious circle.



Secondly, this has been a an important test for the Obama administration. His pro-Israeli discourses (which have been one of the most pro-Israeli discourses since George W. Bush) were tested and Obama has not stated any seriously negative comment for the operation in Gaza. Moreover, this operation probably made some neocons really happy cause they are going to leave a bomb in the Middle East in Democrats' hands.

The ongoing economic crisis and the Middle Eastern issue are going to put pressure on the Obama administration and the more pressure Obama feels on his shoulders, the more public support Republicans get with the "necessities" of the "significance of the war on terrorism" and "the importance of Israel" as a strategic ally for the US. As a result, the Obama administration will be bound to draw its line closer to conservative perceptions.

Gaza Update (2 p.m. Israel, 7 a.m. Eastern US): The Israeli War Continues, Fuel and Food Crisis in Gaza

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5osk2toY1E[/youtube]

Later Update: Gaza Black Comedy Moments

Israel has rejected a French proposal for a truce to allow aid into Gaza. Using the same line put forward by the US Government on Tuesday, Israeli spokesman Mark Regev insisted on "a real and sustainable solution", one that would "not [be] a Band-Aid that will just kick the can down the road".

Regev's statement, however, hides division in the Israeli Cabinet, which discussed the French proposal for four hours. According to The Daily Telegraph, Minister of Defense Ehud Barak supported the two-day truce but was overruled by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Lvini.



There is no fuel and electricity in Gaza, as Israeli airstrikes on Wednesday again hit the offices of Gazan Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and the Interior Ministry. The Israelis also reinforced their economic stranglehold by bombing the "lifeline" for Gaza, the tunnels connecting it to Egypt.

The European Union again called for "an unconditional halt to rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel and an end to Israeli military action". Gulf Arab leaders agreed on a demand for a cease-fire but unsurprisingly, given Saudi Arabia's backing of the Palestinian Authority against Hamas, were divided over support for the Government in Gaza.

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.

Gaza: OK, So What's the Endgame?

As the death toll climbs above 300 and Israel threatens the next step of a ground invasion of Gaza, Juan Cole puts the point concisely:

What I can't understand is the end game here. The Israelis have pledged to continue their siege of the civilians of Gaza, and have threatened to resume assassinating Hamas political leaders, along with the bombardment....Do the Israelis expect the population at some point to turn against Hamas, blaming it for the blockade and the bombardment? But by destroying what was left of the Gaza middle class, surely they a throwing people into the arms of Hamas.

Rhetorically, the Israeli Government is pressing ahead, with Defense Minister Ehud Barak telling the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, "This is an all-out war against Hamas and its branches." This has been backed up by a Cabinet call-up of 7000 reservists, a step which should be approved by the Knesset on Monday.

Airstrikes continue, with the Hamas Interior Ministry amongst the latest targets. But as it becomes clear that, for all the destruction, the political situation in Gaza has not changed --- Hamas is still in control --- Israel faces its next decision. How many of the troops and infantry now massing on the border are sent across?

Ethan Bronner inadvertently captures the difficulty in a rather confused piece in The New York Times. He parrots the official but rather misleading line of "Israeli military commanders" that "they did not intend to reoccupy the coastal strip of 1.5 million Palestinians or to overthrow the Hamas government there". The aim is “to stop the firing against our civilians in the south and shape a different and new security situation there.”

Yet Bronner opens his piece with the assertion that the broader Israel objective is "to expunge the ghost of its flawed 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and re-establish Israeli deterrence".

A moment's reflection would highlight the contradiction, and thus the problem, for Israel. The 2006 war was not one of "deterrence". It was an attempt to shatter Hezbollah as an effective political and military force.

That attempt failed because, after Israel had inflicted all its military might in Lebanon, Hezbollah still remained, killing Israeli forces and avoiding its final destruction. More importantly, the organisation was politically stronger, a boost which means that today it is a key player in the future of the country.

So, to return to Juan Cole, who also notes the 2006 precedent of Israel bolstering, rather than breaking, its enemies:

By refusing to negotiate with Hamas, Israel and the United States leave only a military option on the table. The military option isn't going to resolve the problem by itself.

Meanwhile, the ripples of Gaza spread across the Middle East. The inaction of Arab Governments is prompting large demonstrations by their populations, criticising not only Israel and the United States but their own political leaders.

Gaza Update: More than 220 Dead

Latest Update: Pressing the Bombardment

And so the tragedy unfolds.

The death toll from today's Israeli attacks on Gaza is now more than 200 with at least 700 injured. The Israeli Government has made clear that the assault will continue. (Significantly, the statements have come from Defense Minister Ehud Barak --- ""The operation will go on and be intensified as long as necessary" --- and spokesmen for the Israeli Defence Forces. Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was less than enthusiastic about an assault, has joined in, "Israel is now seeking to wipe out the terrorism which is trying to undermine the whole area.")


The political leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, has made equally clear that Hamas will stand firm. A spokesman emphasized, "We will continue our struggle with absolute strength and steadfastness."

The State Department, predictably, has lined up behind Tel Aviv, blaming the deaths on Hamas' irresponsibility. More intriguing is the quick condemnation of the attacks by Palestinian Authority and West Bank leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad, despite their rivalry with Hamas for political leadership throughout Palestine.

In short, the immediate effect of the Israeli operation is to suspend any other regional initiatives, such as negotiations with the Palestinian Authority to bolster the West Bank and "isolate" Gaza. Of course, Abbas and Fayyad could be playing the game of condemn the attacks in public and applaud them in private but, if that's the case, they will eventually pay the political reaper for selling out Palestinians to the Israeli offensive.

The suspension of political process is redoubled in cases such as a possible Israeli-Syrian rapprochement, given Damascus's support of Hamas. And don't expect the population of the Lebanon to be eagerly embracing a Western narrative of "freedom" that includes these developments.