Gaza Update: Hamas Vows to Hit Back

On the political battlefront, there were a couple of notable press conferences on Tuesday. Proving that Twitter has arrived, the Israeli Consulate in New York took its case into cyber-space with a question-and-answer session. Standard diplomatic lines --- "We'd rather negotiate than fight" --- but one key theme is Israel's bolstering of the "acceptable" Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas.

Hamas' conference, while an old-fashioned presentation to TV cameras, was more significant, however. A masked spokesman set out a resolute line of threatened retaliation:

We tell the leaders of the enemy - if you continue with your assault, we will hit with our rockets further than the cities we have hit so far.

Far more important than the number of rockets and how far they are flung is the political message:

If you think that Hamas and al-Qassam will be crushed, we will rise up from the rubble.

Gaza Update: US Says, "Go, Israel, Go" (A Bit Longer)

Just watched CNN's live coverage of the press briefing --- which is not yet posted on the Web --- by White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe from the Bush complex in Crawford, Texas.

The key phrase, repeated by Johndroe in his statement and in responses to questions, is that the US supports a "sustainable and durable cease-fire". Johndroe's further explanation? "We don't just want a cease-fire for the sake of a cease-fire." Until Israel and the US get assurances from Hamas that there will be no rocket attacks, "We are not going to have a cease-fire that's worth the paper it's written on."



In other words, the US is not only accepting but endorsing continued Israeli military action. This is in sharp contrast to calls from the UN Secretary-General, the European Union, and even some British officials for an "immediate cease-fire".

There is a recent and important parallel here. Johndroe's wording is almost exactly that used by the Bush Administration during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in summer 2006. As most in the international community called for an unconditional end of hostilities, Washington and London continued to accept Israeli operations under the guise that they wanted a "meaningful cease-fire".

The key reason for the eventually cease-fire was Hezbollah's resistance and the difficulties faced by Israeli ground forces rather than any action by the US or Britain. My money is on a similar outcome --- with Hamas' resistance being more significant politically rather than militarily --- this time.

Gaza Update (6 p.m. Israel; 11 a.m. Eastern US): Aid Ship Rammed by Israeli Patrol Boat

Later update: US Says "Go, Israel, Go" (A Bit Longer)

From CNN:

An Israeli patrol boat struck a boat carrying medical volunteers and supplies to Gaza early Tuesday as it attempted to intercept the vessel in the Mediterranean Sea.

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: Editorial Wisdom of the Day

Bret Stephens, cheerleading for the Israeli war in The Wall Street Journal:

The fox cannot beat the hedgehog. But the bigger hedgehog can -- and in this case must -- defeat the smaller one.