Groundhog day in Gaza
Aussie Dave describes Israeli operations in Gaza. "The terrorists are operating within civilian areas, many times with the actual assistance of these civilians, and more often than not with their tacit approval. Brace yourselves for the palestinian propaganda offensive."
Someone I know in Israel thinks that Hamas has learned a great deal from Hezbollah's tactic of mixing in with the civilians during the Lebanon war in 2006, but that while Israel had to avoid cracking up Lebanon there was less reason to be careful Gaza. Therefore militarily Hamas cannot hide behind its human shields. However another person I talked to in Jerusalem is bracing for the next wave of outrage against Israel and suggests that "lawfare" thrives just as well in Israel as it does in the US.
The EU president has already "condemned Israel's attacks on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as disproportionate and violating international law." UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned Israel in the same words. International politics has condemned both the Israelis and the Palestinians to a kind of endless war which in which an both sides are obliged to accept casualties at an EU and UN-set rate. Neither side can find a way out the conflict through victory. Not the Palestinians, who have the will but lack the strength; nor the Israelis who have the strength but lack the will.
Almost unnoticed in the course of this absurd tragedy is the assertion that third parties, like the UN and the EU, have some acquired the right to determine what is proportionate force between belligerents. In the past belligerents were free to determine what, within accepted usages, constituted a casus belli. And they approached the problem with the knowledge that if they went to war rashly or foolishly, they would pay the price of defeat and possible loss of territory. But today the right to determine when and where to fight back against aggression has been usurped by a bunch of bureaucrats in the UN and in Brussels. Aggressors all over the world are no longer so reluctant to cause trouble, secure in the knowledge that the UN will always be there to save them from a knockout count with their sacred bell.
Today nations neither suffer the consequences of aggression nor the benefits of righteous self defense. In its place the 'International Community' has create a perpetual limbo in which a continuous trickle of misery is considered an acceptable price to pay so that the authority of the 'International Community' can be upheld and its vanity embellished. Not actual peace but the protection of this perverse 'International' system has become the actual goal of diplomacy. In order to pay for it, Palestinians will be left abandoned to their oppressors, for employment as human shields while Israelis will be admonished to die without whimpering. Not in order to achieve a solution, but simply to turn the page of the calendar. Even the 20th century holds few examples of such political immorality and futility.
War is sometimes the price nations have to pay to win peace. But only the United Nations, and the sadly the European Union too, can create a system where war is endured only to guarantee more war -- and the prerogatives of the International System. All in the name of Peace, too.
At the end of the Second World War reporters flocked to the Nuremberg trials to get a glimpse of evil. What would men who had condemned millions to a horrible death look like? And to their horror the reporters found there was nothing special to see. The men in the dock might have been bus conductors, postal clerks or mediocre academics. The Nazis were nothing but cheap bureaucrats in the service of a monstrous Moloch god. The really terrible thing about evil is the depressing ordinariness of its minions.
If historians in the future wonder how war in the Middle East could go on for so long they might conclude that no one really cared about a solution. The continuing carnival of aid missions, international diplomacy, consulting careers and arms sales became and in itself. Men died, not for freedom or peace, but to protect pensions and expense accounts and clothing allowances in bureaucracies that could see no further than that.
The Belmont Club is supported largely by donations from its readers.
posted by wretchardthecat at 3/02/2008 03:45:00 PM
31 Comments:
Men died, not for freedom or peace, but to protect pensions and expense accounts and clothing allowances in bureaucracies that could see no further than that.
----
I find it ironic that poor Egyptians see those in the Gaza 'war zone' as 'wealthy'.
Arthur,
Gaza is a welfare state supported by donors from all over the world. If it wasn;t financially rewarding for the Gazans to be there, they would have left long ago.
Certain entities find it worthwhile to spend money to keep the Palestinians where they are, and it's not just because nobody else wants them living anywhere near them
"..perverse 'International' system.."
We really need to move away from oil, if we hope to stop its deadly and disfiguring trance on our psyche.
Well if the Europeans are so eager to appease, how does one get the Euros to fear the Israelis more than they fear the oil sheikhs? The Israelis cannot win the tactical battle until they deal with the issue of their opponent's strategic depth.
I think that as much as European antisemitism may stimulate anti-Israel feeling, anti-colonialism provides the intellectual cover. I fear that we don't do enough to understand the philosophy of anti-colonialism either in the USA or the blogosphere. It may not be the philosophical center of gravity, but it is a weak construct, lends support to civilization's enemies, and may prove to be a very weak link.
Wretchard, Star Trek, the original series, had an episode, "A Taste of Armageddon" which reenacted the exact same senario that you have describe. The only difference was that in the Star Trek episode, it was an all powerful computer that ran things, rather than an army of bureaucrats, as is the case with the EU and UN.
Yes Wretchard, Lawfare exists in Israel. But the influence of Lawfare and the EU and UN and other internationalists is pretty weak compared to voters being sick and tired of being rocketed.
Olmert is weak, and would face a massive movement to get rid of him and many of his cohorts in the Government and elsewhere if he does not successfully resolve Gaza. Israelis by and large are fed up with being rocketed. Hamas has escalated to larger, more powerful rockets killing more Israelis in bigger, more important towns. Unless Olmert "fixes" Gaza he and all his cronies are out. He can't afford another Lebanon.
So I would expect that in response to Israeli voters, Olmert will simply level Gaza and drive most of the Gazans out to Egypt. Let it be their problem. Re-occupy a mostly empty Gaza and deport all that remained into Egypt or Lebanon.
Lawfare can only exist when there is no threat. If a rocket can reasonably land on your apartment or house, that's another story. Survival kicks in.
The EU and UN will go ballistic but so what? What can they DO about it? More speeches denouncing Israel. More boycotts? Yawn. They do that anyway already. Meanwhile Hamas believes Egypt may come to it's aid. It might. If Israel is to war with Egypt, better NOW with the elections in doubt, and being able to bid for Dem as well as Republican support. A President Obama would certainly back Egypt and do anything he could to insure Israel's defeat and destruction.
Would Dubya and Condi allow Israel to level Gaza, given that they've committed to a "two state solution"?
I agree that no one cares what either the UN or EU does or says, but surely if Bush nixes it, Olmert will listen.
BTW, the new UN dude dutifully and immediately piping up about Israel "atrocities" does not bode well for his future leadership potential.
Great site you have!
Would you like a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 60 of America's top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio...
http://netradionetwork.com
For my nickel's worth of opinion Israel should announce that they intend to "squeeze the toothpaste out of the tube." Starting at the Northwest corner every day they should advance 1/8th of a mile into Gaza. That is one Chicago city block. They should make it clear that they will completely level everything they encounter in each day's advance and that they will never withdraw from any territory they enter in this advance. Every day after they stop they should politely inquire as to whether the forces on the other side, whoever they are, are willing to make peace. Failing to get a comprehensive and satisfactory answer should mean another advance and so on. Since Gaza is 41 miles long, Israel can carry on this way for almost a year. Provision could be made to exempt the oppressed minority christian community from the devastation their neighbors have brought down.
That's too complex, an 1/8th of a mile a day, and leaves problems for the future. Carpet bomb the whole area.
Too many logistical issues moving 1/8 a mile every day. Better to move 1 mile at a time every week.
Nahncee -- What could Bush or Rice do wrt Olmert if he decided to level Gaza?
Withdraw support for Israel? Cut off aid? Give military aid and support to Gaza's Hamas? None of these are possible in an election year where both parties must bid for not just Jewish voters but those who support Israel (Evangelicals). Bush cannot afford to tell Olmert no. Not now. Neither can Obama.
But President Obama could and would. Very likely he would drop support for Israel and give military aid to the Palestinians and Hamas. Olmert must know this. The only way he can deal with his immediate problem -- getting tossed out of office by frustrated Israelis unhappy at being rocketed -- is to do something about Gaza. Like flattening it and driving the population out, reclaiming it as a permanent buffer zone.
Doing this also helps Israel's long-term strategic environment because it would either destroy Barack Hussein Obama politically (if he backed Hamas over Israel it would cement him as "closet Muslim") or "lock him in" to support for Israel. Certainly John McCain would love to run as the only supporter for Israel. While the votes of Jews in America is relatively small, that of Evangelicals are not. They support Israel strongly and certainly back McCain over Obama in reaction to Israel leveling Hamasistan.
McCain would also love to have that debate. While Dems would say "We are all Hamas now!" and alienate most of Middle America. Again for Olmert understanding that Barack Hussein Obama's close association and alliance with Louis Farrakhan is no accident but an organic representation of what the Democratic Party largely has become, must also think strategically.
What has Olmert's "restraint" got him? It has got him a problem that has become WORSE in both Gaza and Lebanon. It has cost him even the pretense of Democratic support in the US. It has made him most importantly hated as weak and stupid in Israel. He can still survive if he gets a victory over Hamas. If not he and his government are gone. The status quo does not favor in either short term or long term, Olmert. Therefore I expect him to change it.
W,
This idea of proportionality has a very specific meaning in international humanitarian law and is very often misused in the press. This article from today has a good description of the concept of proportionality. It's hard to tell from his quotes whether Ban means it in the legal sense or not. He seems to simply be saying that too many civilians died in Gaza so it must be disproportionate, which is simply wrong. Of course the press has focused on the civilian deaths in a sensationalistic manner.
In fact this operation seems to be almost over. One day of hard pounding and Hamas is asking for a cease-fire. They figure they made their point by escalating their rocket fire after the killing of their men last Wednesday so they have no more reason to fight at this time. Israel probably sees things differently. At least that's what it seems from the various statements by the Israeli leadership. This article has more explanation. It's very reminiscent of the start of the war in Lebanon where HB called for a cease-fire early and later Nasrallah said he was surprised by the forceful response of the Israelis to his act of war.
Although this operation is winding down it is probably only the first fight in a campaign that will last months.
Doug, Westhawk's analysis is both wrong and already out of date. Israel's threat to Gaza is, well, a threat to Gaza. It is Hamas that is in Israel's gunsights, not Egypt, and given the actions of this past weekend the idea that Israel is merely threatening a ground invasion is out of date. This weekend wasn't the threatened ground invasion, of course, but the threat is now much more concrete.
Regarding flattening Gaza and carpet bombing: Israel won't carpet bomb anything. First, it has no bombers! It only has fighter/bombers. Yes it can bomb things but it mostly uses precision bombs and missiles. This is specifically to avoid war crimes since it picks its targets and it hits them. It could of course use artillery in Gaza if it wanted to to give the same effect but it won't. It's too moral, it's too sensitive to world opinion, the idea of perpetrating a genocide, a holocaust on someone else is too abhorrent to Jews. That's not to say they won't fight to win but they won't be throwing anyone into the sea. That's the Arab's schtick.
Regarding what Condi and GWB have to say: This is a problem. Condi is in Israel on Tuesday. Probably the fighting will be toned down some for that visit. Abbas the quisling has already cancelled the peace talks because of the fighting in Gaza. He didn't seem to mind talking when it was the Israelis being bombed in Sderot. I think the Israelis will be very polite in public to Condi and GWB but won't back down on their right to do whatever it takes to stop the rocket fire from Gaza, even including a large scale ground op in a few weeks (when the clouds clear or whatever it is that is holding it up goes away).
Palestinian rocket launchers located in civilian zones.
Speaking at Sunday morning's government session, Ramon said:
"Why don't we shoot at the sources of the fire?
According to international law, we are allowed to do it.
The issue was legally examined during the Second Lebanon War and the conclusion was that if they fire from a village, we are allowed to fire back even if this is a populated area."
Doug,
This article, predictably at Haaretz, is one of the reasons that Israel isn't shooting at the source of the fire.
Also, they can all remember the outcry after the Quana bombing during the Leb war.
In my opinion they will get around to firing missiles or dropping bombs on houses from which the fire emanates. I doubt they will ever get to artillery barrages on populated areas, even if the rockets come from there. However, if a Grad or Qassam lands on a kindergarten and kills 100 Israeli kids all bets are off.
Perhaps they will make a strong effort to drop leaflets and tell the population to move out so they can then freely fire on the rocket launching sites.
This curious story has been quoted in several reports: Yuval Diskin, head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), illustrated at the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday the Palestinian use of the civilian population by telling the story of an elderly man from Jabalya who was filmed driving a wagon that carried a Grad missile. When the wagon went past a grove of trees, two men came out, took the missile out of the wagon and set it up to fire. That incident was captured on film.
If they would have shot the elderly man he would have been called a civilian victim. I haven't seen the film anywhere yet.
Haaretz neglects to inform us of the presence or absence of outgoing fire from the neighborhood.
---
The more things change...
Considering that Chambers' communist days predated the formation of Israel, his asides on that issue truly show how much things have remained the same.
He writes "Arab outrages were occurring in Palestine; the Communist International chose that moment to call for the formation of a "Soviet Arabism" to attack the Zionists."
Utopia -- Hamas is hitting towns within 11 miles of Tel Aviv. The Israeli leadership will first and foremost be responsive to the Israeli electorate which can remove and punish them.
The mood in Israel seems to be one of survival. I fully expect to see Gaza turned into a security buffer with no people in it. Nothing else will work, and Olmert has no other choices. What, blow some stuff up in Gaza and pull back? The rockets will merely rain down again, likely on Tel Aviv as they get better and better.
Time is NOT on Israel's side. So it has to solve the problem of Gaza while it has freedom of action. I doubt anyone in Israel would care anymore if Israel's forces killed all of Gazans. Caring is a luxury of rich and powerful people without real threats.
This whole thing is on a loop that has been playing the same scenarios for 40 years. Palestinians kill Israeli civilians with relative impunity for several months. Israel mounts an 1/8 mile offensive for a few days and whacks a few Palestinians. Every newspaper and TV station in the world runs specials on the suffering of the Palestinians. Israelis withdraw. US President and SecState make noise about a solution. Loop starts again.
Islam has forced Jew hatred into the DNA of Arab culture. It's not going away tomorrow or the day after or any other day. The only real long term solution is to replace the Arabs in Gaza with some civilized group of human beings. Offer unlimited money and support to the best organized African clan with any historical claim at all to the turf. Establish an enclave in Gaza, keep expanding it and play the same game as the Arabs.
In fact, 25 generations out the world looks a lot better if Black Africa made a Great Move North and ArabWorld, in toto, were pushed into the Arabian peninsula.
In its place the 'International Community' has create a perpetual limbo in which a continuous trickle of misery is considered an acceptable price to pay so that the authority of the 'International Community' can be upheld and its vanity embellished. Not actual peace but the protection of this perverse 'International' system has become the actual goal of diplomacy.
Be sure of one thing. The first nuclear terrorist attack will erase all memory of this 'International Community' nonsense and its miserable trickle of endlessly protracted low-level war. High political office once stood as a route towards implementing change, be it of whatever flavor. With the advent of our modern Traitor or Vulture Elite, political office has now become an end in and of itelf. No agenda, no vision, just the wealth and perks of position without any obligation to actually incur progress of any sort.
Few things better embody this than the current "closed shop" sort of Guild Mentality that prevails among leaders within the 'International Community'. Maintenance of this Political Guild's perquisites has become such a priority that none of its members dare to rock the boat by doing something so rash as, maybe, throwing an abject scumbag like Robert Mugabe under the wheels for the sake of appearances.
Witness the African National Congress' refusal to censure Mugabe. Witness the reluctance of Western powers to begin the preemptory removal of such blantantly hostile and corrupt members as Kim Jong-Il, Assad or Ahmadinejad.
Utopia Parkway: One day of hard pounding and Hamas is asking for a cease-fire.
NITPICK: Please do not use the term "cease-cire" in connection with Muslims. There is only hudna, never any actual truce or cease-fire. "Trucefire" is an acceptable alternative.
In reality, there is so much Palestinian citizen participation involved with Hamas' continuing rocket attacks that Israel is no longer obliged to quite as fastidious about their targeting.
Moreover, turning Gaza into a ghost town makes sense on a lot of different levels. Last but not least is how it would eliminate that absurd map showing Israel bisected by a West Bank - Gaza transit corridor. Of all the tom fool notions, that one had to take the cake.
Nothing could do more to help the 'Internationl Community' pretend that Abbas is the "good terrorist" than simply flushing Hamas out into the Sinai and barricading the border wall behind them. Then all the do-gooders could focus their usual limpwristed diplomatic efforts on the more tractable West Bank situation and keep deluding themselves that there will ever be peace between the Arabs and Israelis.
This post covers just about everything that is wrong with international diplomacy.
Additionally:
"Yes Wretchard, Lawfare exists in Israel. But the influence of Lawfare and the EU and UN and other internationalists is pretty weak compared to voters being sick and tired of being rocketed."
Lawfare by Israelis against Israelis is what happened recently in Lebanon. Triuumph of legal Defeatism - Jerusalem Post.
"...Mandelblit (Military Advocate General)and Mazuz (Attorney General) testified that legal advisers were present at all levels of command in all the relevant service arms and in the security cabinet. At each level the lawyers were asked to judge the legality of all the proposed targets and planned operations before they were carried out. And as the two explained, in their decisions, these lawyers were informed not by the goal of winning the war, but by their interpretation of international law.
From both men's perspectives, international law takes precedence over the national interests in wartime war. Mazuz argued, "Today international law controls our lives, no less … than domestic law. In all spheres - not just in the sphere of the laws of war… the sovereignty of states is diminishing and international law is becoming the tip of the pyramid of norms. It is becoming a substitute for the constitutions of states..."
It is important to understand that those Israelis in the civilian government and the defence forces who practice lawfare place international law over the welfare of the state and do so willingly.
Israel doesn't need to level Gaza. Israel needs to stop the handouts going to Gaza. Handouts from Israel, the US, the EU, and others. The rest will take care of itself.
"Proportionality" is somewhat overrated. While one wants to limit risks of escalation, OTOH too much proportionately only encourages the other side increase the frequency if not the intensity of their attacks because they think they can finesse the blowback.
The occasional "disproportionate" response is the only cure to this.
An example closer to home, sometimes with my son misbehaving serially, I have to go a little "disproportionate" with the discipline. Why? Sometimes he has to be reminded who's boss. The too predictable nature of completely measured proportionality leads him into thinking he can control the situation (and me) by stopping right at the limit of escalation, or trying to lawyer his way out of the situation. Sometimes you ave to be a bit unpredictable to break the impasse.
Apparently, its the same at the international level.
According to the evolutionary psychologists, hairtrigger senses of "honor" in systems w/o a strong rule for all, served a similar purpose -- people behaved about giving offense if they weren't sure at what point they might get a challenge to a duel, or an immediate attack.
For the record, I'm NOT in favor of that last :)
'Hamas using US weapons against IDF'
newsflash..
hamas celebrating historic victory over the IDF...
score:
Hamas Killed 100
IDF Killed 2
So what is a Loss?
lol
Be sure of one thing. The first nuclear terrorist attack will erase all memory of this 'International Community' nonsense and its miserable trickle of endlessly protracted low-level war.
I used to think that too, but I no longer do. The "International Community" will blather on. Moreover, George Soros will claim we are overreacting if we even lift a finger in response to a nuclear attack. No, although a nuclear attack on the United States would kill many people and hurt a lot of feelings, it would likely intensify the self-flagellation of the American Left and intensify their efforts to rid America of its will to fight.
I'm not so sure it's wise to rely on the rage of Americans, for the wiles of Soros seem to be able to sap the will of anything he touches. Ours is an uphill struggle.
Alexis said:
"... George Soros will claim we are overreacting if we even lift a finger in response to a nuclear attack. No, although a nuclear attack on the United States would kill many people and hurt a lot of feelings, it would likely intensify the self-flagellation of the American Left and intensify their efforts to rid America of its will to fight."
I disagree. I think if an American city got nuked, John Q. Sixpack would go bizzerk. People like George Soros would have to go into hiding or else get hung from a lamp post (the radical left would disappear or be eliminated). The US political system would be required to make an immediate vigorous response against the enemy (Wretchard's Third Conjecture) or else face a military take over. Our world and all of our basic assumptions would change forever (probably for the worse).
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 03/03/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Newscaper: too much proportionately only encourages the other side increase the frequency if not the intensity of their attacks because they think they can finesse the blowback.
This is a picture perfect synopsis of how the Palestinians, specifically, and the Muslim world in general continue to play Israel and the West like a finely tuned violin.
We need to introduce massively disproportionate retaliation as a tool for instilling panic levels of uncertainty amongst Muslim populations so that they no longer have the least confidence in Islam being the "strong horse".
Despite my continuing opposition to first-use, it is this strategy that lends an increasing amount of validity to simply vaporizing Mecca and being done with it. As one observer noted, Muslims will begin to feel awfully silly about bowing five times a day to a plain of fused glass.
Eggplant: I disagree. I think if an American city got nuked, John Q. Sixpack would go bizzerk. People like George Soros would have to go into hiding or else get hung from a lamp post (the radical left would disappear or be eliminated). The US political system would be required to make an immediate vigorous response against the enemy (Wretchard's Third Conjecture) or else face a military take over. Our world and all of our basic assumptions would change forever (probably for the worse).
While a tad optimistic, I agree with the general tenor of this. It might first require a few demonstrations of abject vacillation by a sitting democratic president or some such nonsense before the military finally stepped in but if such intervention actually did happen, that would pretty much represent the starter's pistol in terms of a potential American civil war.
Being America's most trusted institution, any military takeover would set about polarizing the American public's position on national security and survival. While it does indeed sound like a turn "for the worse" from our current position of comfort, in the aftermath of a terrorist nuclear attack it might be the best possible thing for this country.
The correct and effective response to such a terrorist nuclear attack would involve total war against Muslim majority nations and only a strongly united America could muster the political will to see it through.
One thing is certain and that is how liberals who continued to oppose retaliation after a terrorist nuclear attack instantly would find themselves cast as political pariahs. I believe that there remains sufficient residual memory of the lessons from World War II whereby a majority of the American people would unblinkingly comprehend the need for immediate and devastating retaliation to such a monumental atrocity.
Should America's leadership or military fail our nation at that critical juncture, there would be little hope for our country's continued survival.
I can only hope that should Obama or Hillary attain the Oval Office that there is a group of high-ranking generals who will take one of them for an off-the-record stroll in the Rose Garden to painstakingly spell out how—if they refuse to retaliate against a terrorist nuclear atrocity—their continued presidency will have all the half-life of an unlocked Corvette in deepest Harlem.
AFP reported today that Israeli intelligence thinks Hamas is using Grad rockets now.
I wonder if the Hamas crowd will follow the same rocket acquisition path as the Hezzies ? I mean from Grads to something bigger ? Then the Israelis have Iranian clients with big rockets on two sides of them.
Rockets from the same people who claim to be building nukes and who threaten the Israelis with destruction daily. How on Earth can anybody think Israel can sit still for this ?
Davod the mistake of assuming the situation remains static is ... assuming the situation remains static.
While Lawfare adherents in Israel might still want to restrain the Israeli military, political reality for Olmert and his allies is that unless Gaza is "solved" and the rockets cease.
You assume that Lawfare once established cannot be simply thrown aside for political survival. People seeing their houses potentially in rubble and their families dead will have greater influence.
Caroline Glick has her scathing review of the Israeli attack this past weekend. She believes that the withdrawal of the troops today was in deference to the US govt.
There were a number of aggressive remarks by Olmert and Barak along the lines of this is only the beginning, we'll be back if we have to, we won't stop fighting terrorists etc. At any rate the rockets didn't stop. One can only wonder what Olmert and Barak have in mind.
The longer they wait before solving this thing their way the more pressure there will be to negotiate with Hamas, which will be bad for Israel in so many ways.
Post a Comment
<< Home