Gaza: Israel's Attacks 24 Hours Later

Late Night Update: Pressing the Bombardment

A five-step guide to understanding the events of the last 24 hours and what is likely to happen in the next few days:

1. THE ISRAELI OBJECTIVE: BREAK THE HAMAS SECURITY SERVICES, PUNISH THE POPULATION

The rocket and mortar firings into southern Israel were not the cause of the Israeli action. They were the pretext.



This is not to assert the "innocence" of Hamas and any other Palestinian groups sending those rockets. This is not to ignore that more than 60 rockets were launched on Wednesday. It is not to deny that missiles cause damage --- physical, psychological, and economic.

However, Daniel Levy asserts that from 19 June until yesterday, there was not one Israeli fatality from a Hamas attack, and life was improving in border cities like Sderot. (I would be interested to know of any evidence countering this claim.)

The Israeli military operation, therefore, was not a defensive response to an imminent Hamas threat. It was not directed against those sending the rockets into southern Israel. Instead, it was designed to take out as many Hamas security personnel as possible: 32 police stations were attacked yesterday, and 2/3 of the casualties were Palestinian policemen.

That choice of targets, in turn, points to an Israeli decision to hit built-up areas, places where civilians would also be killed and wounded. Police stations are usually located in the centre of towns and communities, not in isolated "military" areas. The New York Times records the outcome:

The center of Gaza City was a scene of chaotic horror, with rubble everywhere, sirens wailing, and women shrieking as dozens of mutilated bodies were laid out on the pavement and in the lobby of Shifa Hospital so that family members could identify them.

Or, in the words of Sami Abdel-Shafi in The Independent:

Mobile phones did not work, because of electricity outages and the flood of attempted calls. I flipped the electricity generator on so that we could watch the news. We wanted to understand what was going on in our own neighbourhood. However, this was impossible. Israeli surveillance drones flew overhead, scrambling the reception. All I could do was step outside, where I found crowds of frantic people, lines of rising smoke and the smell of charred buildings and bodies that lay around targeted sites nearby. Somebody said the bombs had been launched in parallel raids over the entire Gaza Strip. What was the target here? Perhaps a police station about 200 metres away. Other bombs annihilated blocks less than a kilometre away, where one of the main police training centres stood. When the strikes began, a graduation ceremony for more than 100 recruits in a civil law enforcement programme was under way. These were the young men trained to organise traffic, instil civil safety and maintain law and order. Many of them were killed, it is said, in addition to the Gaza Strip's police chief.

The attacks are continuing today, with the headquarters of Al-Aqsa Broadcasting and a mosque hit and a police station and a factory reportedly targeted. They are likely to continue throughout the week unless Hamas is unexpectedly broken or asks for a renewed cease-fire.

The lingering issue is whether Israel ups its assault --- and thus the political ante --- by sending in ground forces.

2. THE US POSITION: GO, ISRAEL, GO

The BBC World Service politely called it a "green light" for the Israeli operation. More bluntly, the Bush Administration is trying in its last days to provide political cover for the Israeli attempt to break Hamas.

The State Department's press briefing could not have been more blatantly. When Gordon Johndroe said, "These people are nothing but thugs,” he wasn't talking about the military personnel killing hundreds on the ground below. Instead, it was evident --- and thus acceptable --- that “Israel is going to defend its people against terrorists like Hamas”.

The American position is a logical extension of its ongoing effort, since Hamas changed the political equation by winning elections in Gaza, to isolate the organisation and encourage either a takeover by the Palestinian Administration or another form of "regime change". The paradox, of course, is that this Israeli operation makes this far less likely because....

3. HAMAS APPEARS TO BE SECURE

Amidst the death and destruction in Gaza, the political beneficiary is the Hamas leadership. That's not to say that the de facto Prime Minister, Ismail Haniya, is welcoming the pain being inflicted on the population, but --- if he avoids assassination by Israeli missile --- he can make statements about the resolve of his Government and assert that Hamas is still in control. (I would think it's a possibility that Haniya and his advisors, deciding not to renew the truce with Israel, calculated that this would be the Israeli response and that it would have the effect of rallying Gazans behind their leadership.)

Indeed, the longer that Hamas can hold out amidst the bombardment, it's not a question of whether they are overthrown but whether they have "won" by not being toppled.

4. THE ARAB RESPONSE: WHAT ARAB RESPONSE?

This one's easy to set out: at the Governmental level, the Arab world are bystanders right now.

The Arab League has postponed its "emergency session" from Sunday to Wednesday on the grounds that Arab ministers are occupied in regular meetings. That's an excuse that even my nine-year-old daughter could shred in a heartbeat.

None of those in power from Cairo to Riyadh to Amman wants to see Israel succeed but none of them want to tilt fully behind a Hamas leadership which is in rivalry with the Palestinian authority. So do nothing and let the Israelis make difficulties for themselves.

5. SIDE EFFECTS: THE US, EUROPE, AND THE UNITED NATIONS

For those looking at the world beyond Gaza, the European Union issued one of the most telling statements yesterday. It unequivocally condemned attacks from all sides and called for an immediate cessation.

Of course, that call will have little effect upon Israel or rocketeers in Gaza. However, given the US role in supporting the Israeli assault, this is a clear signal that the Europeans no longer want to be pulled along in a de facto "Western" acceptance of conflict.

A symbolic smackdown to a Bush Administration that faced down "Europe" to get its ill-fated war in Iraq in 2003 or a longer-term sign of a diverging European foreign policy from that of Washington? That may depend on what responding signals President Obama offers in the early days of his Administration.

Meanwhile, keep your eyes on the United Nations Security Council, which followed its emergency meeting early this morning with its own call for a cessation to hostilities. Since Israel is unlikely to heed that demand, the issue will be whether a cease-fire resolution will be put before the Security Council, putting "Europe" (will it continue to stand apart from the US?), Britain (dare it not break from Washington?), and the US (does it cast its veto and effectively endorse more attacks?) to the test.

From the Iraq Archives: When is Permanent not Permanent? (21 June 2008)

In a week when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates predicted that "several tens of thousands of American troops" will be staying in Iraq beyond 2011 and when The New York Times finally noticed the "disquieting talk in Washington", here is a Watching America blog from June that was already foreseeing American withdrawal as a necessary but partial fiction:

WHEN IS PERMANENT NOT PERMANENT? THE US BASES IN IRAQ

Last Friday morning the BBC's flagship radio programme, Today, turned its eagle-eyed attention to a proposed agreement between the US and Iraqi Governments. This which would provide a mandate for the continued presence of the American military, replacing the current UN-sanctioned mandate which expires at the end of 2008.


What ensued was a propaganda piece which not verged on falsehood but sprinted over the line. Correspondent Jim Muir, evaluating the situation from deep inside the Green Zone, assured listeners that the "Status of Forces" agreement was essential to prevent Iraq from falling into disorder. A platform was then offered to retired General Jack Keane, the man "behind the surge strategy in Iraq", to lay down the law, so to speak.

Any Iraqi opposition, Keane assured, was due to the "hubris" of the apparent Iraqi success in establishing control of areas such as Basra and Sadr City. Iraqi security forces still were in need of American support. (Thus, as the expertise of Jon Stewart's The Daily Show has long noted, the perfect argument: If there is instability in Iraq, we need to put in more American forces; if there is some sign of stability, we need to keep those forces there.)

Having put America's supposed ally in its place, Keane could then add that there was no provision in the agreement --- none whatsoever --- for the US to carry out aerial operations without the authorisation of the Iraqi Government. No provision, none whatsoever, for the exemption of American military forces from Iraqi law.

The only problem is that Keane was blatantly lying. And the BBC, had it had the integrity that it claimed in its report, could easily have called up the evidence to show he was lying.

They could have done so because, the day before their report, Patrick Cockburn of the Independent had spectacularly exposed the provisions of the agreement. The US Government is seeking an indefinite right to use more than 50 bases throughout Iraq. And (take note, General Keane) "American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government".

(Cockburn had a bit more the following day. Far from this being a free-and-fair negotiation, the US Government was threatening a "freeze" on $50 billion of Iraqi assets in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The funds are linked to $20 billion in outstanding court judgements in the US against the Iraqi Government. Currently the US Government has kept them "immune" from seizure, but they are threatening to revoke this immunity if there is a hitch in the negotations over the Status of Forces Agreement.)

All credit to Cockburn for pulling this together, but this is far from a new story. The negotiation has been going on for months and, as was discussed during the most recent Petraeus-Crocker show before the US Congress, the Bush Administration is avoiding any reference to the agreement as a "treaty" to avoid putting it up for Congressional approval.

The story has taken on new impetus, however, not just because of the 31 July deadline set for its completion but because of the growing opposition --- private and public --- in Iraq. Unnoticed by most media outlets in the US and Britain, thousands of Iraqis have been taking to the street in demonstrations. Leading clerics in Iraq, including Ayatollah Sistani and Grand Ayatollah Mudaressi, have not only objected but warned of "a popular uprising". The issue may lay behind a serious split in the Iraqi Government, with former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari being expelled from current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party.

And, in the latest development, the Status of Forces Agreement now appears to be playing into the hands of Iran. Only last month, the US Government spin was that Iraqi officials were travelling to Tehran to chastise the Iranians for providing weapons to insurgents. Well, Prime Minister al-Maliki was in Iran last week and --- guess what? --- Iranian duplicity wasn't the Number One item on his agenda.

Instead, al-Maliki is all but pleading with the Iranians to lift their opposition to the agreement, assuring Tehran that “we will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and its neighbors”. Significantly, according to reports of the talks, the Iraqi delegation was discussing with Iranian counterparts increased cooperation on issues such as border control and intelligence.

The SOFA episode is the ultimate demonstration, as the Bush Administration approaches its end, of the "hubris" not of Iraqi but American over-confidence. To the end, the US is trying to play a military hand in the belief that the presence of its equipment and troops assures power (not to the Iraqis, I hasten to add, but to Washington). The game, however, is now more political than military. As Iraqi support --- on the street, amongst the clerics, and within political factions --- erodes for the purported US "cooperation", American force is now a bystander. A far-from-powerless bystander, to be sure, but still a bystander as the "new Iraq" emerges in a complex local and regional environment that can no longer be organised by agreements despatched from Washington.