Occidental Israeli Rotating Header Image

Gaza

Operation Cast Lead – Arab World II

‍‍ח טבת תשסט - Jan 4th, 2009
by LB.
1 comment

Posts dealing with the military and political aspects here, international opinion here,  etymology and first part of the Arab World opinion.

Hezballah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s statements over the past week have been rather telling of where Hezballah, and Iran’s, true interests lie. The threats leveled at Israel by Iran and its satellite organization, day in and day out, no real action their part is expected anytime soon.

While Iran is not part of the Arab world, it is an increasingly powerful regional player. A newspaper has been shut down in Iran for “publishing an article the authorities said was sympathetic to Israel,” Ahmadinajad has made his required condemnation of Israel, calling the operation a “holocaust,” and Nasrallah is not stopping his speeches anytime soon, portraying Israeli actions as criminal ad nauseam. There are a number of reasons they will probably not attack anytime soon (and a few they still might), in addition to the danger of starting another war, including drawing unwanted international attention (Iran), and domestic politics (Hezballah). The point is, that despite all of the words proffered by Ahmedinjad and Nasrallah, their true colors are now showing – the “Palestinian cause” is only an excuse for policies undertaken for reasons unrelated to Hamas, Fatah, et al.

Another non-Arab, Muslim, state is Turkey. Anti-Israel demonstrations have been taking place in the capital, Ankara, however, on the issue of Israel, the government of Turkey typically takes a different approach from the largely conservative, religious, populace. In fact, the Turkey-Israel relationship is typically a strong one, and seen as an important one to Israel, as a window into the Muslim world. PM Erdogan, however, has been pretty silent, and has been participating in talks with the Saudis, and other Arab states, in an attempt to forge another “ceasefire.”

Back to Israel’s neighbors, Syria has been getting closer to Iran over the past few years, which is not seen in a very positive light by the other regional heavyweights – Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Syrian officials have been discussing the Gazan situation with Iran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and to some extent, Jordan, are seen as pro-Western not because of any moral reasons, but because of the financial benefits reaped by the Arab states. Syria, on the other hand, has cast its lot with the openly anti-West. Islamic Jihad is all but officially based in Syria, and senior Hamas leader Khaled Mash’al has been operating openly in Syria for some time now. Representatives of all three, plus Iran, met recently in Syria to discuss and coordinate the events in Gaza. Furthermore, Syria is sticking to the ‘massacre’ accusation: “Syria described the offensive as a “massacre” and allowed protests in front of the Egyptian embassy in Damascus.”

Israel’s other neighbor, Jordan, arguably more pro-Western than any other Muslim state, has taken a relatively Western-like position, making no real constructive statements, just condemning violence in general, and saying the “world’s ‘silence’ on the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is unacceptable, the palace said.”

NEXT: Even more on the Arab World, the Jewish World, and yes, the Israeli public, too.

Operation Cast Lead – Arab World I

‍‍ח טבת תשסט - Jan 3rd, 2009
by LB.
3 comments

Posts dealing with the military and political aspects here, international opinion here, as well as etymology.

As in the early stages of the war in 2006, the variety of reactions from the region are somewhat unexpected. the major actors in the region are a far cry from the usual accusations against Israeli military actions. Egypt, for one, is seen as complicit in the Israeli campaign. Hundreds of protesters in Washington, DC gathered, predictably, in front of the Israeli embassy. However, they marched from there to protest in front of the Egyptian embassy, as they did in London, as well. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit blamed the UN Security Council for not doing anything to stop the Israeli operation, however he used fairly non-inflammatory in urging Israel  “to abstain from launching ground operations.” Furthermore, the Egyptian administration has not exactly become more popular by its refusal to open the border and allow Gazans into Sinai.

Yet, Gheit’s most “incendiary” comments were probably those in which he said that “Hamas must stop firing rockets into Israel before any truce deal can be reached,” thus drawing the ire of Hezballah chief Hassan Nasrallah, saying Egypt was blaming the victim and that if they will not open the crossing between Sinai and Gaza “it would be considered a partner in the killing of Palestinians by the Israeli military.” This only served to prolong the yelling match between Egypt and Hezballah…

Another major player on the scene is Saudi Arabia, whose interests never quite seem to mesh with the rest of the region’s. The Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, has “blamed Palestinian divisions for Israel’s onslaught on Gaza.” Implicitly placing the blame on Hamas, al-Faisal said that “This terrible massacre would not have happened if the Palestinian people were united behind one leadership.” Nevertheless, despite the obvious dislike of Hamas (probably due to their close ties with Iran), Saudi Arabia continues, at the same time, with a typical anti-Israel line, calling Israeli actions an “onslaught” and a “massacre.”

NEXT: More on the Arab World, Jewish World, and the ever-changing Israeli public.

UPDATE: Galei Tzahal reports that Egypt has renewed its ties with Hamas leader Khaled Mash’al, in a supposed attempt to achieve a cease-fire.

Fox News Places Gaza Campaign in South Asia

‍‍ז טבת תשסט - Jan 3rd, 2009
by LB.
1 comment

The IDF has recently begun a ground incursion into Gaza, with both infantry and armored forces. Apart from the MSM, there are plenty of other people liveblogging the campaign, as well as roundups of blog posts on the situation, and so I will not be posting such updates.

I was, however, just watching Fox News with its “Breaking News” updates on the situation and as they went to commercials, they put up an image with some sort of title about Israel in Gaza, and in the background – an Israeli flag alongside a Pakistani flag. This is not about media bias, but the incompetence of those in charge with reporting the news is just mindboggling.

In any case, may this campaign be over swiftly and victoriously, and please keep the soldiers in your prayers.

Operation Cast Lead – Etymology

‍‍ז טבת תשסט - Jan 3rd, 2009
by LB.
1 comment

I’ve dealt with the military and political aspects here and international opinion here.

The name chosen for the operation is a pretty clever one, and while it just sounds like another rather meaningless name, it is somewhat of inside joke to Israelis. As the operation began on Hannukah, Cast Lead is a reference to a Hannukah song, Lichvod HaHannukah לכבוד החנוכה – in honor of Hannukah.

This is the relevant verse:

מורי נתן סביבון לי
סביבון מעופרת יצוקה.
יודעים אתם לכבוד מה?
לכבוד החנוכה!

Translation:

My teacher gave a dreidel to me
A dreidel [made] of cast lead.
Do you know in honor of what?
In honor of Hannukah!

NEXT: Arab and Jewish Worlds’ opinions, and Israeli public opinion.

Operation Cast Lead – International Opinion

‍‍ז טבת תשסט - Jan 3rd, 2009
by LB.
5 comments

Military and Political aspects here.

World reactions have been very mixed, and need to be looked at separately, depending on where they originate – the Western and Arab worlds. This post deals primarily with reactions from the West.

With regards to the Western World, Dover Tzahal seems to think Israel is faring much better in the media war than in the past. Overall, it appears the media is being less ridiculous than usual. With regards to Europe and the US, America has been fairly quiet, with an unpopular lame duck President and a President-elect whose foreign policy views are not his forte.

Europe, on the other hand, has been equivocal, as usual. Sarkozy used standard language, calling “on both sides to show restraint.” Gordon Brown called it a “spiral of violence,” and mischaracterized the situation in Gaza as a “humanitarian crisis.” Germany’s Angela Merkel’s spokesperson, on the other hand, said the chancellor believes the “clear, sole responsibility for the situation lies with Hamas.” And Ban Ki-Moon responded in typical, wrongheaded, UN fashion. Other European reactions can be found here.

The massive worldwide protests are relatively meaningless. The hypocrisy of these demonstrations need not be overstated, and in general, such demonstrations are basically just massive gatherings of people who do not matter.

NEXT: Etymology of “Cast Lead”, and Arab and Jewish Worlds’ opinions.

Operation Cast Lead – Military and Political Perspectives

‍‍ז טבת תשסט - Jan 2nd, 2009
by LB.
No comments yet

I’ve already commented briefly on Operation Cast Lead. Looking at the entire picture, though, there are four significant considerations. Here are the first two.

Military - The aerial campaign has been, thus far, a success, killing hundreds of Hamas members, including one very senior leader, and a relatively low number of civilian deaths. The big question now is what is the likelihood of a ground incursion, and how successful such an incursion will be – both in terms of Hamas’ condition post-incursion, and in terms of Israeli losses. Future success will be measured by the damage done to Hamas’ ability to continue to launch rockets at civilians. Such a victory is not yet imminent, and the campaign, whether aerial or on the ground, does seem to end anytime soon. Thorough military analysis of the operation is, unfortunately, beyond, my purview, and I am only able to analyze the operation in terms of reports of the degree to which Hamas has been harmed, and after the operation, reports on Hamas’ capabilities and the condition of the organization overall. Recent history has not inspired much confidence in me, as the last IDF operation that was even moderately successful in achieving its goals, was Defensive Shield in 2002.

Another military-legal consideration is the oft-used accusation that Israel is using “disproportional force.” This accusation is ridiculous. IAF has been targeting Hamas, not carpet-bombing Gaza, attacking the threat against Israel, making every effort to minimize civilian deaths. And the threat is precisely what needs to be measured when appraising the operation from a legal perspective. As Michael Walzer wrote in 2006, about the war at the time, “proportionality must be measured not only against what Hamas and Hezbollah have already done, but also against what they are (and what they say they are) trying to do.” In other words, Israel is right, insofar as it acts against the threat against it, not simply actions taken against it. As many others have pointed out already, a strict proportional response would be to “[launch] thousands of air strikes against targets in Gaza to match the thousands of Qassam rockets fired.” The problem is, that those who make this accusation do not have an issue with Israel’s proportionality – but with its success. For a more comprehensive analysis of the legality of Operation Cast Lead, read this from the JCPA.

Political - Israel has been blamed for planning such an attack for over 6 months, intending to attack at the slightest provocation when the “ceasefire” (tahadiyeh) would expire, and detractors are using this to portray Israel as anti-”ceasefire”, as an incredulous actor. I find this accusation unbelievable. Every prepared military in the world is prepared for military campaigns against its neighbors. To be unprepared would be wholly irresponsible.

Nevertheless, the question to be asked is why now? The campaign Israel is waging, while just, is confusing in its timing. Rocket attacks from Gaza are nothing new, and the Olmert administration has not done anything significant in the past, so why now? I take a view some would call cynical, and I believe the reason is that with elections in under two months, Barak and Kadima’s interests have merged. Up until recently, Likud was the clear front runner, and taking such a populist course of action would increase Kadima and Labor’s support.

This consideration is also important when examining the likelihood of the participation of  ground troops in Cast Lead. Such an operation would almost certainly cost the lives of Israeli soldiers, and would therefore present a political risk for the government. I am not suggesting the administration does not care about soldiers’ lives, only that the government’s moves over the past few years shows that their view is heavily clouded by political considerations.

NEXT: The Western, Arab and Jewish Worlds’ Opinions

UPDATE: Latest poll (Hebrew) shows Labor gains 5 seats since start of operation, Kadima hovers around the same figure, and Likud, surprisingly, gains two seats.

The Attacks in Gaza Will Not Make a Difference

‍‍ג טבת תשסט - Dec 30th, 2008
by LB.
2 comments

Yossi Klein-Halevi writes about Gaza:

Israel’s Options: There are three possible scenarios for how this operation will evolve. The first is that the government will opt for a limited attack whose goal isn’t the overthrow of the Hamas regime but merely the attainment of better terms in the next round of ceasefire–such as supervision over tunnels linking Gaza with Egypt and through which Hamas has smuggled in missiles. The argument for a limited operation is that Mahmud Abbas’s men aren’t ready to secure the Strip from Hamas–and even if they were, they would bear the mark of collaborators if they took control of Gaza courtesy of Israel.

The second scenario is the overthrow of Hamas and turning the Strip over to a foreign power–ideally Egypt, as the Palestinian Authority’s chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, has suggested. It’s doubtful, though, that Egypt will agree to relieve Israel of its Gaza burden. And NATO is on record as refusing to commit peacekeeping troops in the Palestinian territories.

The third option is to begin with the first option of a limited operation but, as fighting intensifies, find ourselves reluctantly implementing the second option of all-out war against Hamas. That may well be the least desirable option of all, leaving Israel vulnerable to events beyond its control. But given previous Israeli experience, that could be the most likely scenario.

The problem is that the way Israel is conducting itself right now is not a result of a well-defined strategy. This is because of the election season. The only way for Kadima to win is by regaining support by initiating a popular attack, such as this, and Labor also needs this so that they don’t die out entirely.

With regards to Halevi’s analysis of Israel’s options, I don’t think number one will happen, for different reasons entirely. Since the operation’s real impetus (at this time, that is – otherwise Olmert would have attacked months ago) is internal Israeli politics, the first option as a goal makes no sense - Israelis don’t really distinguish between Fatah and Hamas – both are seen as either equally tarnished or equally valid parties, there is very little in-between these daeys.

The second scenario will probably not happen either. NATO is on record basically denying any future committal of troops to the region, and so is Egypt (Begin’s attempt to hand Gaza to Egypt at Camp David failed). And Egypt wouldn’t do so today – nothing good will come of it to them. They would be forced to use force against the Palestinians, ruining Mubarak’s credibility both with his own people and across the Arab world. Either that, or they would lose credibility by allowing Israel to attack land under Egyptian rule.

The third scenario described is unlikely because Israel doesn’t fight wars that are unlimited in time and scope – eventually some UNSC resolution will be formulated or the US will push Israel to stop or something else along those lines.

There is, however, a fourth scenario, not one that stems out of real strategic thinking – but one that will simply, well, just happen. Israel will fight for a week or two - and will do a great deal of damage to Hamas, crippling it for a long period of time (similar to Defensive Shield). However, sometime during the fighing someone will eventually make a mistake, hitting a residential building or a schoolyard, killing a bunch of kids, making the world hate Israel even more, forcing Israel to end the fighting earlier than it wanted to.

There are talks now of delaying a ground war – probably stems from Olmert’s fear of a Lebanon 2006 repeat. If he does that, I think he squanders most, if not all, of the political capital he has just gained – because the rocket attacks will return in full force.

In other words, history repeating itself… stupid politicians at the helm, with no real thinking.

Kidnappings and Israeli Policy

‍‍יז כסלו תשסט - Dec 14th, 2008
by LB.
1 comment

The Likud’s newest star, Moshe Ya’alon, has recently made headlines for acknowledging the truth in Tzipi Livni statement regarding Gilad Schalit. Livni, largely criticized for remarking that Schalit’s release is not a certainty, received some unexpected support from the former Chief of Staff, who said, “The expression, ‘at any price’ is not appropriate.”

As much as I disagree with Livni on countless other issues, here she is right. This is not to say that the motto of “leave no man [or woman] behind” should be abandoned. Israel must do everything in its power to secure the release of its prisoners. That being said, Israel’s policy of negotiation with enemies, leading to the release of terrorists, is  foolhardy at best. As Ya’alon said, “We have brought ourselves to a point where it’s worthwhile [for the enemy] to kidnap soldiers.” Such a situation is untenable.

What should be done? First, a firm policy of not negotiating with terrorists should be adopted. If Israel refuses to negotiate, then it will not be worthwhile for Hamas, et al, to put so much time and effort into kidnapping just one person. Granted, public opinion is not in favor of such a policy, but that is precisely why such a strategy is so important. The very reason kidnapping Israelis is such a lucrative venture is the strong public pressure that ensues to liberate the kidnapped by giving in to the terrorists’ demands. This only serves to embolden them further, to attempt additional kidnappings.

Nevertheless, Israel cannot leave its soldiers behind. While all IDF soldiers do, in effect, sign away their lives upon conscription, I am in no way advocating a cavalier approach to dealing with their lives. As risky as such undertakings are, Israel must make use of its military force in order to free Gilad Schalit, and any other Israeli soldier kidnapped by its enemies. Military rescue operations are necessary in order to liberate Israeli prisoners. Yes, sometimes such operations do not achieve the intended result (see: Nachshon Waxman). However, we cannot afford the alternative – a policy that does nothing to solve the real problem. A real solution is needed, not a case-by-case approach, merely treating a symptom, allowing the disease to spread.

I am aware that none of Gilad Schalit’s loved ones would like to see Israel boycotting neogotiations for his release. I have no answer for them, for theirs is truly an emotional appeal, and I do not portend to understand (nor want to) how they feel. However, if Israel wants these kidnappings (and the endless kidnapping attempts) to end, a quick 180 is needed, and fast.

Oy Gevalt, It’s Israel’s Fault

‍‍כו חשון תשסט - Nov 24th, 2008
by LB.
1 comment

Condoleezza Rice has apparently understood what has been clear well before her latest whirlwind tour of the Middle East. Namely, that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal by the end of the year is not possible.

However, Rice does not focus on the real issues preventing peace. She has found yet another way to blame Israel, saying “it is really largely because of the political situation in Israel.”

Rice cannot possibly believe that a conflict that has lasted for decades could be solved within a few short months if the upcoming Israeli elections were not an issue. Maybe what she really means is that Israeli democracy is the real obstacle?

Faith? Determination? No. Only Foolish Weakness.

‍‍כא חשון תשסט - Nov 19th, 2008
by LB.
1 comment

It is not true that Israel does not make enough of an effort when it comes to promoting its international image (aka “Hasbara“). In fact, it almost seems as if Israel is making an effort to tarnish its image. This is not solely with respect to the way the West sees us, it also important when it comes to our neighbors’ opinions, as well.

Ever since Israel retreated from Gaza, the number of rocket attacks from the “disengaged” region has increased exponentially. Many of these rockets landed in an IDF basic training base, near Kibbutz Zikim, just north of Gaza. After an attack injured numerous soldiers in 2007, many parents of the new recruits demanded that IDF either fortify the base, to protect them from future attacks, or move the new recruits elsewhere.

In June of this year, the IDF decided to move the trainees to a different base, claiming “the decision is unrelated to the threat of Qassam rockets from the Gaza Strip.” (Want to buy a bridge?) When the decision was announced, many feared it would send the wrong message to Israel’s enemies, and would portray Israel as more vulnerable, an image that, in the Middle East, basically begs for more attacks. Labor MK, Danny Yatom, even agreed with Aryeh Eldad (National Union-NRP), saying, “the evacuation of the entire base due to the attacks on it is a severe move and sets a bad example for the citizens of the Gaza-vicinity communities.”

Today, the decision was carried out. The base will not be completely evacuated, and will be manned by a yet-to-be-named division. So it’s not a complete retreat. OK. However, to add insult to injury, pictures of flags being taken down were released to ynet, and published online. Predictably, the Palestinians rejoiced (Hebrew). A statement was released by Abu-Abir, spokesperson for the Popular Resistance Committees (who are still in possession of Gilad Shalit):

The evacuation is yet more proof that the Israeli military is moving from one defeat to another. It began with the withdrawal from Lebanon, continued with the withdrawal from the [Gaza] Strip and the defeat in the [Second] Lebanon War, and of course, also in the daily defeat in the struggle against the Palestinian resistance. Zikim will not be the last place the Israelis evacuate.

Abu-Abir added that in order to win, military superiority is not enough and that determination and faith, two things Israel lacks, but the Palestinians do not.

I am sorry to say I agree with him. He is right on the money. Currently, Israel does lack faith and determination. In recent years Israel has been evacuating, retreating, and losing. However, it is not the military’s fault. The governments and politicians (which include IDF top brass), over the years, have led Israel nowhere good. It’s time that changed. Where is our faith? Where is our determination? At the very least we should not be aiding the enemy by showcasing our weaknesses.

UPDATE: Here is the English version of today’s ynet article.

Newer Posts →