Occidental Israeli Rotating Header Image

Gaza

Disengage

‍‍כו סיון תשסט - Jun 18th, 2009
by LB.
4 comments

In 2005, an event widely known as “The Disengagement” transpired. The follies of this operation are well known, and have been discussed in depth elsewhere.

The Hebrew word for the plan is התנתקות – separation, disconnection. Yet, in spite of two protracted military operations, and thousands of still homeless Israelis that were the result of this horrendous error, Israel is still very much connected to that tiny piece of land. There was no “disengagement,” only withdrawal of residents and permanent military facilities.

The world over has accused Israel of collective punishing Gazans by blockading the territory and closing the crossings. In essence, a siege. If only that were true – that would actually mean Israel had disengaged, and Gaza would deal with with the world through its Egyptian border. Instead, the world is calling for Israel to remain engaged with Gaza.  As analyst Guy Bechor wrote four years ago:

this disengagement is for the sa[k]e of engagement: “crossings” will be opened between Israel and Gaza that will give passage for workers into Israel, the electricity and water companies have already announced that they will continue to provide Gaza and northern Samaria with services as usual even after disengagement.

There is no disengagement, but rather intensive engagement, and not on Israel’s terms. In the same piece from August 2005, Bechor hits the nail on the head: “they control the territory and also continue to milk Israel. In contrast, in its folly, Israel will both lose its settlements in Gaza and also continue to provide for the Palestinians there.”

Israel must decide. This messy, ill-defined situation is only playing into the hands of her enemies. The first option is to return to Gaza, which is not likely to happen anytime soon, nor am I convinced that it is a wise policy decision. The second is to disconnect completely. By truly disengaging Israel will finally shed all responsibility for the “humanitarian crisis” that has been at Gaza’s doorstep for years. No more gas, food, medicine, water, electricity, or money – remove all pretense and “let them fend for themselves or with their great Arab sister Egypt.”

Status Quo

‍‍יז סיון תשסט - Jun 8th, 2009
by LB.
2 comments

In today’s world standing still is not considered good. Movement and change (and don’t forget hope) are demanded of leaders. Nevertheless, barring any earth shattering event, maintaining the status quo in Israel is the most desirable option currently available.

There are a number of alternatives, the most widely repeated of which is the “two state solution.” This “solution,”   supporters of which claim it bring peace to the region, advocates for a Jewish state roughly within the 1949 armistice borders, and an Arab state in the rest of the land between the river and the sea. Setting aside the issue of the right to sovereignty over the land, very little in their actions says the Arabs even want a state of their own.

Israel has a lot of experience with withdrawing from land over the past couple of decades. Egypt, arguably the most successful example, is lead by a president who refuses to visit Israel, is in constant violation of the treaty between the two states, and is in an arms race – but against whom? Yet, one could argue the Camp David treaty from 1978 was successful, and largely beneficial to Israel. After all, Israel has not fought a war against Egypt in three and a half decades. Further, Egypt was already an established state in 1978, and Israel’s relationship with the P.A. is very different.

The “two state solution” assumes a peace treaty between Israel and what would be Palestine. Such an agreement, of course, would need to be respected. However, the short history of the P.A. is a lesson in how to boost one’s international reputation while violating obligatory agreements. There is no need to elaborate Arafat’s murderous riots (aka “The Second Intifada“) after Ehud Barak’s refusal to actively eliminate Israel. Yet war in the guise of “the peace process” did not begin in 2000. As far back as 1996, a time period many Israelis would characterize as euphoric, the very guns supplied to the P.A. by Israel were used to murder Israelis.

There is no reason to think times have changed. After winning 4-5 years of difficult fighting, terrorist attacks against Israel have become less frequent. This is not for lack of trying. Hamas’s electoral victory in 2006, as wonderful as democracy may be, shows that a deal is as far as it has ever been. In other words, not only is such an agreement unlikely to garner the requisite popular support, it would have a very short life, after which Israel would be left with an enemy/terrorist state in its midst, of its own creation no less.

Another popular plan is unilateral withdrawal, the policy that was pursued by Ariel Sharon in his “disengagement plan,” followed by Ehud Olmert’s “realignment,” the latter of which abandoned due to Olmert’s limited political capital after the war in Lebanon. In recent years Israel has ceded land under fire (in contrast to Sinai) in a number of instances, and has paid dearly for it each time. The experiences in Lebanon and Gaza, not to mention the various pockets of “Area A” have shown anyone with eyes in his head that when Israel cedes territory, whether unilaterally or as a result of an agreement, it shall be repaid with fire.

If neither unilateral nor bilateral withdrawals are feasible – what is?

If Arabs left the area between the river and sea clearly the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” would be a non-issue. The question is, can this be accomplished? I would like to reiterate that I am not examining what is right or wrong from a moral standpoint. I am looking at the strategic aspects of these plans alone.

Mass expulsion of Arabs, and the Rehavam Ze’evi plan are two such approaches, yet both are unfeasible. There is a difference between the two. The former is self-explanatory. Ze’evi’s, on the other hand, advocated “making the lives of Palestinians so miserable they would relocate, by use of military force during wartime, or through an agreement with Arab nations.” Even if we set aside the issue of American aid and the strings attached to it, Israel, like nearly every other country on the globe, is not completely independent. Both of these tactics will undoubtedly bring about international opprobrium, and possibly sanctions, maybe even regional war. These are not risks to be taken lightly, and will likely stem any initiative drawn up along these lines, not to mention that no foreseeable Israeli government would dream of adopting such a policy.

Ze’evi has also suggested paying Arabs to emigrate. While this will not carry with it quite the same level of international criticism of mass deportations (which would be, in effect, population exchanges), this plan is unlikely to get off the ground, as well. Even though the price of oil is not as stable as OPEC would like it to be, money would probably start flowing out of Saudi and  Iranian coffers in order to maintain the “refugee problem,” thereby keeping the focus off of their own corrupt regimes. Many want to leave anyway, but regional pressure, and the offsetting monetary offers would render Israeli financial incentives moot.

Furthermore, international pressure would be intense. The world has been wed to the “two state solution” for a long time, and any action that would undermine this vision would not be taken kindly. The UN, for example, would be extremely unhappy. The UN has a vested interest in maintaining the conflict, since ending it would mean the dismantling of an entire UN agency.

Even before 2005, Jordan expressed opposition to a unilateral Israeli withdrawal. Considering Jordan’s inherent instability, this is understandable. The last thing the Hashemites want is a coup d’état on their hands. One creative idea, that has recently been reintroduced by Benny Morris, is a regional federation. Such an arrangement is not clearly defined, and the variations are nearly endless. The most significant impediment to such an arrangement, however, is Arab opposition. While King Abdullah might be in favor of an agreement that could lay to rest its fears of an uprising, the success of a federation is heavily reliant on popular support. Since terrorist activity is still very much alive, and has a considerable amount of popular support, it is hard to believe that the Arab residents of the region – on either side of the river – would acquiesce to such a deal. This settlement (or category of settlements, as seen in the JCPA paper) would mean that Jews and Arabs would be living in closer proximity than the framework of any the other “solutions” suggest. The societies would be much more intertwined, which is currently not something either side wants. Without widespread popular support this plan is dead on the table.

There are moral issues to be considered, as well. Although I do not delve into these here, I would like to point out that I do not see how outright mass deportations, or actively making people’s miserable are defensible from a moral standpoint. This is especially true considering the probable inefficacy of such actions, as outlined above.

New plans are constantly being floated, and someone more creative than I might come up with a way to bring peace and quiet to the region. For the time being, however, the The Middle East is nowhere near peace. The way US foreign policy is being handled these days, primarily with regards to the de facto acceptance of a nuclear-capable Iran,the possibility of a major regional war is growing by the day. Major wars mean widespread population shifts. Until a significant shift occurs in Middle Eastern attitude no “solution” is possible, two-state or otherwise. Taking action that has only proven to add instability, cause strife, and cost lives is a bad idea. For now, staying the course is the best course of action.

Michael Oren – Thoughts

‍‍כט ניסן תשסט - Apr 22nd, 2009
by LB.
2 comments

Michael Oren is one of my favorite writers. A great historian, he manages to compile long and complicated histories in a fairly simple, and easily digestible way. Despite it having sat on my shelf for a number of years, I finally read “Six Days of War,” fairly recently. It is a history textbook, inundated with dates and figures, yet at the same time, it is a true page turner.

In addition to his writing, Oren is a charismatic speaker, as well. I recently heard him speak about the strategic threats that Israel faces today. The first of these threats, of course, is Iran. One argument that is raised against an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is that states are rational actors, and Iran would not benefit, to say the least, from sending nuclear missiles at another nuclear state.

As Oren illustrated, the issue is deeper than that. Were Iran to nuclearize, it would be able to put the region under nuclear alert, at whim. This sort of toying with Israel would have far reaching repercussions. Apart from destroying the tourist industry, the results of the IDF being on constant high alert would cost the state enormous amounts of money, all the while affecting a near total cessation of market activity, leading to an even greater economic disaster. This, of course, in addition to the arms race that would be launched among Israel’s neighbors, most of whom are not particularly friendly to the Jewish state (This was outlined in article for The New Republic, which Oren co-wrote with Yossi Klein Halevi).

Still on the subject of military threats, Oren addressed the issue of missiles. As mentioned, Israel’s north has been hit hard by missiles, most recently during the summer of 2006, and Hamas can now reach major Israel cities, shooting from Gaza. One of the strongest strategic arguments against Israeli withdrawals, one that was made in 2005, is that territory ceded will serve as a base for missiles that will be launched at Israeli residential areas.

Oren, a proponent of unilateral withdrawals, said that Israel has systems to thwart such attacks, and upon deployment of these systems in the near future, Hamas’s use of short range missiles will be neutralized. He mentioned two systems that will work in tandem to combat the missile threat. First, the Iron Dome, set to be operational by 2010, detects an incoming missile and launches an anti-missile missile to intercept it. The second, based on the M61 Vulcan, destroys incoming projectiles by shooting a high number of rounds per second, eliminating them in mid-air. However, even if these systems are effective, it seems the government has acted in typical Israeli fashion, and woken up very late.

With regards to prospects for peace, Oren briefly promoted the idea of developing Palestinian industry and education, and bolstering their moderate leadership. Again, I am confounded. No, he did not mention Mahmoud Abbas or Fatah as these moderates, but this statement nonetheless confounds me. But to which moderates is he referring? Assuming there are moderate figures somewhere in the Palestinian leadership, what good is it to help them if they have no public support? Did the numerous gestures towards Abbas serve as a moderating influence on Palestinian society? As Robert Kaplan asks, do they even want to be in a position in which statehood would be a real possibility?

Demographics are becoming more important every day. Jews represent only slightly over 75% of Israeli citizens. Most of the remaining quarter, do not recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state, and Israel needs an overwhelming majority of Jews in order to maintain its status as the Jewish state. Nevertheless, Oren thinks that the shrinking birthrate of Arab-Israelis, alleviates cause for serious concern regarding Israeli citizens.

When looking at the entire populace between the river and the sea, Israel is approaching the day in which Jews will no longer be a majority. In order to address this problem and ensure a positive demographic balance within the area under Israeli control, Oren foresees a necessity for further Israel unilateral withdrawals from territory beyond the Green Line.

This does not add up. As he said, Israel deployed 55,000 security personnel in order to carry out the withdrawal from Gaza – the largest Israeli military operation since the Yom Kippur War. Within the framework of almost any future withdrawal plan, 80-100,000 Jews will need to leave their homes. Their homes, which are located in the heart of the Jewish ancestral homeland. As Oren himself acknowledged, in light of the difficulties encountered in Gaza, which will be compounded in any future similar action, any Israeli government is extremely unlikely to succeed in carrying out such a plan. Any unilateral withdrawal plan will probably be based on the route of the Security Fence, so unless Oren supports leaving large numbers of Israeli citizens in enemy territory, I am not sure what he is advocating.

All in all, though, Oren’s talk set a very optimistic tone. However, the limited question and answer period did not flesh out the logical gaps in the his illustration of Israel’s situation today. One issue he discussed which did inspire some confidence is water – largely due to the construction of a major desalination plant, Israel might finally be digging its way out of what is still a very dry hole.

UN-Consistency

‍‍כז ניסן תשסט - Apr 20th, 2009
by LB.
3 comments

Israel has been criticized endlessly, both internally and externally, for countless alleged crimes. A popular accusation is of collective punishment. I do not wish to examine the facts of the matter here, but to raise a general question about the legality of such acts, particularly as seen by the United Nations.

Only a few short months ago, a UN representative characterized Israel’s policy with regards to the Gaza crossings as a “crime against humanity”, by “allowing only barely enough food and fuel to enter to stave off mass famine and disease.” Again, setting aside the issue of whether or not this is indeed what Israel has been doing, the greater question here is of whether or not such actions, in theory, are permissible.

There is no simple answer. Such a question necessarily leads to the examination of additional issues. To what extent is your populace a higher priority than the enemy? What is the goal of such acts? Is it an attainable goal? However, such questions have all been hashed and rehashed countless times (Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars is a good place to start).

A recent oped in the New York Times shed some light on this issue. Wayne Long, who served as the UN’s chief security officer in Somalia for an entire decade, wrote about the recent wave of piracy. A few of the examples from his experience dealing with kidnappers in Somalia, however, are extremely eye-opening. Using a fairly straightforward strategy, “United Nations assistance was withheld… until those hostages were released. In every case there was a release, and in no case were hostages harmed or ransom paid.” The problem with this is that it is precisely the same approach for which Israel is being blamed.

Long tells of a 1995 incident, in which an aid worker was taken hostage. In response, the UN humanitarian agencies operating in the area simply shut off the water supply for the capital, Mogadishu. Doing so directed the local population’s rage at the kidnappers, who took four days to release the hostage.

The piece continues with a few more similar stories, but the message is clear. The UN uses collective punishment in order to achieve their goals. They refuse to capitulate to terrorists. This was official UN policy, as undertaken in Somalia.

I’ll reiterate that I am deliberately ignoring the question of what Israel has actually been doing, or what it has done in the past. That is a separate issue altogether. Nevertheless, why does the UN decry Israel’s implemention of a policy that the UN has used in the past, and in the same breath, call it a crime? Why does it demand that Gazan terrorists not be treated the same way as Somalians?

Is a Boycott Just? Who Cares – Does it Work?

‍‍כב אדר תשסט - Mar 17th, 2009
by LB.
No comments yet

To Boycott or Not to Boycott, That Is the Question No it’s not. Stanley Fish, law professor, and NY Times blogger, appears reasonable in debating whether or not an academic boycott of Israel is a good idea. However reasonable, though, he does not come to a concrete conclusion about such a boycott until the very end where he briefly mentions that “those actions, [the boycott of South Africa].. were and are antithetical to the academic enterprise, which while it may provide the tools (of argument, fact and historical research) that enable good and righteous deeds, should never presume to perform them.”

What he does is attempt to rebut arguments of opponents of the boycott. One such argument is that such a narrow focus on Israel is dishonest and hypocritical. The claim presents the question: Where are the calls for boycott of, and divestment from Sudan and China, not to mention Saudi Arabia and Iran? Picking Israel is dangerously close to antisemitism (if not more dangerous).

Yet Fish says, “If you supported the boycott of South Africa and the disinvestment by universities from companies doing business in or with that country, you are obligated, by your own history, to support the boycott of Israeli academics.”

“Anti-boycotters” do not (nor should not) argue what Fish paraphrases. Such an argument is moot, if not harmful in the end, since South Africa was clearly apartheid.Israel, on the other hand, has, by and large, acted justly (if not a bit meekly).

Fish misses the point entirely. Whether or not the theoretical boycott of a criminal state may be an interesting philosophical question, but is irrelevant with regards to Israel. Fish’s starting point seems to be that Israel is wrong and has committed crimes – and that the problem at hand is how to address these crimes.

I should expect more from a law professor. I don’t, but I should. Over 2,000 words, and not one actually deals with the question of Israel’s culpability. Fish’s implies that whether or not Israeli academics are responsible, the Israeli government is wrong, and is criminal. Indeed, his starting point is that Israel’s actions today are as wrong as apartheid South Africa’s were.

Nowhere does he look at Israeli actions in Gaza this past December/January, actual attacks, what preceded them, Israeli aid to Gaza, whether there was a causus belli, Israel’s jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and examine them in light of relevant international law – the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, treaties to which Israel is a signatory. He just decides that 2009 Israel = 1948 South Africa. This is one academic that has definitely not performed “the tools of argument, fact and historical research.”

JCC Promoting Antisemitism

‍‍כ אדר תשסט - Mar 16th, 2009
by LB.
5 comments

Antisemitic plays in the guise of legitimate criticism of Israel are nothing new. In 2005, there was the British polemic about the “activist” Rachel Corrie. The most recent of these artistic expressions of racism, Seven Jewish Children, does not even make an honest attempt to mask its antisemitism.

Antisemitism will probably persist as long as the sun rises in the east, but what I learned from the NY Times today has truly managed to shock me. The JCC in Washington, DC is serving as a mouthpiece to this modern blood libel. This is not the first time the JCC has promoted “progressive causes,” and pretty crudely, too. This past September, Sandra Bernhard warned “Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers.”

This, however, is a new low. This is the JEWISH community center. On their blog, Theater J, run by the Washington DC JCC, Ari Roth, director of this trash, says “[t]he play is this year’s My Name is Rachel Corrie.” Of course it is. But is he really implying that is something positive?

He says the play is “problematic… [for] suggesting that there is a Jewish ownership—not merely an Israeli military’s responsibility—for the recent violence in Gaza.” I don’t even know where to start. Never mind that diaspora Jewish communities do not even come close to taking an active role in the welfare of the Jewish state, thinking that throwing money at “their brothers” is sufficient. Forget that those who Israel targeted were, and still are, trying to effect a genocide upon the Jews. But no, the play is only “controversial.”

Next time your local Jewish Community Center asks you for a donation – ask them if they, too, promote antisemitism.

Khaled Abu Toameh on “The Situation”

‍‍ח שבט תשסט - Feb 2nd, 2009
by LB.
1 comment

Michael Totten has long been required reading if one wants to keep up with international affairs, in my view. Recently he posted the transcript of a briefing with Khaled Abu Toameh. Of course, I don’t agree with Abu Toameh on everything, but his analysis is the best thing I’ve read in a while.

The West, either delusional, anti-Israel, or downright antisemitic, has long thought that a Palestinian state will solve everything. Abu Toameh, native of Tulkarem, seems to think that’s funny, and almost sounds like Nadia Matar:

Talking about a Palestinian state today is a joke. Where would that state be established? Israel controls nearly half of the West Bank. These PLO people can’t deliver. If Israel gives up the West Bank, you will have to go to Cairo or Amman to take a flight back to America because snipers will be sitting on the hilltops above Ben-Gurion airport.

Perception of power is important, very important, and I’ve harped on that topic enough times, but it really cannot be stressed strongly enough that leaving without the losing side surrendering, is the same as losing.

They think Israel ran away from Lebanon, that Hezbollah defeated them. They thought the Jews were scared and would not come into Gaza. They were really confident that Israel wouldn’t fight back. Really. They were.

Another common misconception is that economic improvement within Palestinian society will lead to peace. They will stop hating us, and the streets will suddenly be paved with gold. Well, no.

Max Boot: There does seem to be this sense that the West Bank has been doing better economically.
Khaled Abu Toameh: Yes.
Max Boot: Does that translate into better politics?
Khaled Abu Toameh: No.

Most of our neighbors do NOT like us. They will not start liking us anytime soon. They hate us and it has nothing to do with the fact that they are poor. Or that they are more religious or less religious. Or that they call themselves Hamas or Fatah.

I don’t think the majority would like to see aid from Norway, Switzerland, or Canada instead of from Iran and Hezbollah… You know what? Believe me, if you listen to Hamas and Fatah in Arabic there isn’t much of a difference, especially these days. Fatah fought alongside Hamas in Gaza. Today they said they lost 36 fighters and fired 900 rockets at Israel. Fatah.

The world loves to blame Israel. It’s not just our delusion. Sudan? Blame Israel. Gazans are hungry? Blame Israel.

Listen. The Egyptians are hypocrites. They are busy killing African refugees who are trying to get asylum in Israel. They opened fire on an African mother and son who were trying to run away from Sudan and were trying to seek refuge inside Israel. I haven’t heard that the Egyptians are destroying tunnels or anything. I haven’t heard it.

And finally, this is not the West. Stop trying to treat it like a Western issue with Western actors. It’s not going to end anytime soon.

General Tom McInerney, Fox News Military Analyst: Is there a solution to this problem?
Khaled Abu Toameh: You Americans are always asking us that. Why are Americans always asking me if there is a solution? A solution to what?
Michael J. Totten: The whole thing.
Khaled Abu Toameh: What is the whole thing?
Anthony Cordesman: Is there anything useful that could be done this year?
Khaled Abu Toameh: Listen. Look. We must stop dreaming about the New Middle East and coexistence and harmony and turning this area into Hong Kong and Singapore. If anyone thinks a Palestinian will wake up in the morning and sing the Israeli national anthem, that’s not going to happen. If anyone thinks an Israeli Jew will go back to doing his shopping in downtown Ramallah or to see his dentist in Bethlehem or eat fish in Gaza City, that’s not going to happen. There has been a total divorce between Jews and Palestinians. We don’t want to see each other.

It’s much longer, but it’s worth the time – go read.

Martin HaMesaper

‍‍ב שבט תשסט - Jan 27th, 2009
by LB.
No comments yet

Those of you who grew up in Israel, might remember a children’s TV show, Yosef HaMespaer, starring a bald, heavyset man who sat on lots of pillows, Alladin style, and told fairytales. I actually don’t remember much of the show itself, but reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview with Martin Indyk, I felt like I was reading a fairytale.

The show’s opening “credits”:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b15A2giUXpg]

Indyk outdid himself in this one. Even though not a single question was a tough one, he still managed to show that one’s tenure as an ambassador to the Middle East does not actually necessarily lead to any understanding of the region.

There is much more, here is just a taste. First, speaking about evacuating Jews who live on the other side of the fence:

I don’t believe that force would be necessary if the evacuation is presented to the Israeli public as part of a package that would include the following elements: financial compensation equal to that provided to the Gaza settlers; resettlement in the blocs that would be incorporated into Israel by agreement with the Palestinians; an end to the territorial claims of the Palestinians; security arrangements that ensure that all violence and terrorism against Israelis ceases; international guarantees of freedom of access for Israelis to Jewish holy places in Judea and Samaria; and peace with all the Arab states.

I’m not sure where to begin. The evacuation from Gaza in 2005 had overwhelming public support, and it did not go over very smoothly. Does Indyk truly believe the next one will be easier? The notion that the Arabs will cease to make any demands on Israel defies history. There is simply nothing to support it. There is even less evidence that if Jews do not control the area, ” international guarantees of freedom of access for Israelis to Jewish holy places in Judea and Samaria,” will be worth more than the paper they would be written on.

However, the subject most near and dear to my heart, ” financial compensation equal to that provided to the Gaza settlers.” So Indyk thinks there it will be easy to evict people from their homes if most Israelis support the plan, and if evictess themselves will be kicked to the curb, only to be tossed half a bone about a year later?

When asked which conflict would prove to be more “durable,” the Sunni-Shi’a dispute or the Arab-Israeli conflict, Indyk’s response seemed to rewrite history. Maybe the intra-religious conflict will last longer than the inter-religious conflict, but the “Arab-Israeli conflict has actually progressed toward resolution.” At least not in the way he thinks it has. For most of the conflict’s duration, it indeed has progressed towards being resolved – because the Jews decided winning was a good thing. However, since Israel’s leaders have decided capitulating to your enemy is a good idea, we have had two terrorist organizations sprout up around us (Hezbollah and Hamas), and continue to weaken Israel, daily, with something called the “peace process,” otherwise known as – “How to get the US President a Nobel Peace Prize.”

If it weren’t so damaging, Indyk’s stupid, yes, stupid, analyses would make for some good entertainment.

Things Never Really Change

‍‍כד טבת תשסט - Jan 19th, 2009
by LB.
2 comments

The Realist summarizes Cast Lead, and I agree with much of what he said, including his conclusions about what needs to be done next. He says that the political situation needs to be stabilized before we know what will happen, of course – but unfortunately I do not see a real routing of Hamas happening in any case, for the following reasons:

  1. Netanyahu, who at this point is still poised to take over, come February, must be examined based on his actual experience. People do not change very much – and he already is a known quantity. Though he may be the lesser of many evils, he is a politician in the full, pejorative sense of the word, who is simply on the other side of the map from other like-minded elected officials. (The one exception is his economic worldview, based on his education, which he actually carried out fairly well while serving as minister). In any case, I don’t see him carrying such an operation out – I see him selling everything wholesale – the only mitigating factor now is Benny Begin, who actually is a true ideologue.
  2. Such an operation would probably take months – complete elimination of Hamas would require a very thorough examination of every house, street, school, alley in the entire Gaza Strip – Israel does not have the luxury of such an undertaking, largely due to world opinion the modern nature of real time media reports.
  3. Another consideration is the Israeli leadership’s tendency to conform to the popular theory that only the Left can wage war and only the Right can make peace, which Bibi certainly practiced when he was in office.

He also mentions the problem of smuggling, and that it ” is going to be incredibly difficult to stop entirely.” I think the idea of building a moat along the Philadelphi corridor is a good start.

In the end, however, The Realist is correct – “There is ultimately no alternative… In the end they have to be bombed into destruction.” I just don’t see it happening anytime soon.

“At the slightest sign of a return to the status quo ante bellum, this needs to happen.  Otherwise all of this was for nothing.” True. How sad.

What Now?

‍‍כג טבת תשסט - Jan 19th, 2009
by LB.
No comments yet

I’m still trying to figure out how enormous of a mistake was committed by entering into this “unilateral truce.” I’m afraid that in our neighborhood, where image sometimes matters more than the facts on the ground, the politicos may have undone any good the IDF worked so hard to achieve.

Apart from all of the lives lost and hurt on the Israeli side, there were many civilians killed. Yes, legally, those responsible for those deaths are Hamas, and no one else. Nevertheless, those death were justified in the name of removing the threat against Israel. What does it mean if we did not remove the threat? If the government did not even really try? Israel’s political system is beyond corrupt and self-serving. There is no accountability (and no, there really isn’t a word for accountability in Hebrew). More on that, though, in another post sometime soon.

In the meantime go check out a few blog carnivals / roundups:

← Earlier Posts