If you’d believe that, you’d be wrong.
Michael Totten has written a great, in-depth explanation of proportionality, relating to Operation Cast Lead, and why Israel is well within its rights to act as it is, from a legal standpoint.
And today, Michael Walzer, author of what it is arguably the modern-day “bible” on Just War Theory, raises the difficult questions the media refuses to, “Disproportionate violence for [the media] is simply violence they don’t like, or it is violence committed by people they don’t like.”
The events in Gaza make it clearer than ever before that Abba Eban was right, “The Arabs never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Yes, it’s cliché, but it’s truer than ever before. Israel’s opponents (which still include most, if not all, of the Arab world), by protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza now, are handing withdrawal opponents an clear-cut argument on a silver platter, to be used next time a withdrawal is proposed.
The main argument used by Israeli politicians in defense of withdrawal from various swaths of land is that once Israel withdraws to an “internationally recognized border,” it will then be able to strike back the first time Israel is attacked from across that border. This was the argument used by Ehud Barak in favor of the withdrawal from the security zone in southern Lebanon. He said that if Hezbollah attacks Israel after the withdrawal, Israel would be able to fight back, and enjoy international support. The very same argument was used by Sharon and his supporters with regards to the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza.
Israel suffered numerous attacks after the 2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon, including the kidnapping of three soldiers, and it took six years for Israel to react (badly). Qassams have been raining down on the Sderot area for years, and Israel hasn’t truly responded until now.
What do people think is going to happen next time a withdrawal is proposed? What is going to happen the next Israeli politician who advocates another withdrawal? When Israel restrains itself for years, and once it finally does respond, Israelis find themselves on the receiving end of international condemnation, how many Israelis are going to believe the same argument?
I will get to the Jewish world and the Israeli public, soon. In the meantime, here is a short update from around the internet.
First, here is latest War in Gaza roundup from Jack.
A few other things I’ve found that are interesting / horrifying.
I really hope the IDf gets back on track, and that the errors of the past 24 hours are over. Pray for our soldiers, and that all will return home safely. Since the ground part of the operation has begun, 5 have lost their lives for Israel’s safety – יהי זכרם ברוך (Blessed be their memory).
Posts dealing with the military and political aspects here, international opinion here, as well as the etymology and first and second parts about the Arab World’s opinion.
The Arab League, headed by former Egyptian foreign minister Amr Moussa, also used bland language, in relation to Arab responses to the fighting 2002 (Defensive Shield), he “called for an end to the Israeli air-strikes on Gaza insisting that a lasting solution was needed to achieve any real results in the troubled region.”
The positions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad are, well, under attack right now by the IDF. Nevertheless, Israeli TV has reported a statement from Hamas sources, nearly identical to Nasrallah’s, in 2006: “If we knew this [Israel's massive strike] was going to happen, we would not have broken the tahadya (cease-fire).”
It is especially interesting to see the development of the relationship between Hamas and the PLO faction of Fatah. Hamas’ actions in the Gaza civil war of 2007 seem to be repeated during this operation, as well. The Jerusalem Post has reported on the ongoing internecine fighting in Gaza. Not only have many Fatah members been placed under house arrest “out of of fear that they might exploit the current IDF operation to regain control of the Gaza Strip,” but Hamas members have been assaulting Fatah members since the beginning of Cast Lead, shooting at least 75 in the legs, and breaking others’ hands. Furthermore, Hamas has also “executed” more than 35 people, suspected of “collaborating” with Israel.
PA chair, Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu-Mazen), has been giving the appropriate lip service to the fighting against Israel, calling the operation a “brutal aggression.” Other senior PA figures have made similar statements, calling on Hamas to involve Fatah members in the fight against Israel, but others, including a senior aide to Abbas, have attacked Hamas “and accused it of being a puppet in the hands of Iran.” Although speaking anonymously, the same aide mentioned that the PA has banned all pro-Hamas demonstrations in the West Bank. One top advisor to Abbas did speak openly, though, “Tayeb Abdel Rahim… accused Hamas of spreading ‘lies’ and of incitement against the PA leadership.”
Jeffrey Goldberg is also reporting that some Fatah members are supporting the IAF. Memories of the civil war are still fresh in the minds of Fatah members, and apart from just talking, Hamas has been reporting that Fatah supporters are actually assisting the IDF in Gaza. The reliability of these reports is questionable, given their source. Nevertheless, the very fact that such an idea is even being floating is a testament to the rift between the rival groups.
Update regarding Egypt’s role: Former Egyptian ambassador to Israel and current MP, Muhammad Basyouni, attacked Hamas for abandoning Gazans, asking, “Where are the Hamas leaders now, when the residents of Gaza are getting killed?”
NEXT: The Jewish World’s reaction, and the Israeli public’s.
It’s up, at Ima on (and off) the Bima – go check it out.
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.
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.
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.
The New York Times does not just discriminate against Israel. Apparently, it just has a general aversion to self-defense. On Saturday, it came out with a feature article accusing Georgia of more than just provoking the August war with Russia, but with actually starting it:
Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm.
Michael Totten, in his prize-deserving piece on the conflict, has actually done the legwork, and unsurprisingly, came up with drastically different conclusions regarding who’s at fault.
Georgia didn’t start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili [the Georgian president] sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.
The New York Times, no longer a publication known for its pursuit of the truth, decides to start with what was really the second day of the conflict.
According to the monitors, an O.S.C.E. [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] patrol at 3 p.m. on Aug. 7 saw large numbers of Georgian artillery and grad rocket launchers massing on roads north of Gori, just south of the enclave.
What is the problem with amassing artillery and rocket launchers in response to an armed uprising, supported by the invading Russian military?
The night of August 7, Saakashvili did, however, make a severe public relations mistake, by claiming the Georgian actions were intended “to restore constitutional order” in South Ossetia. Thomas Goltz, speaking with Totten, explains that this phrase, “in the post-Soviet mindset is what Boris Yeltsin was doing in Chechnya.” Considering what the Russians did in Chechnya, that is not exactly something that would calm the tensions in the region.
According to O.S.C.E. monitors, “the attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation.” Anyone who has follows the Middle East knows that international monitors are rarely, if ever, to be trusted, especially when accusing a state of acting “disproportionately.” This term is extremely overused, most of the time incorrectly.
Writing two years ago about the Second Lebanon War in The New Republic, Michael Walzer, the widely respected expert on modern Just War Theory, did a great job of explaning exactly a proportional response means. “[P]roportionality 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” (Sorry, TNR’s website is acting up, as usual). In other words, a proportional response must be proportional to the threat the enemy poses, not to the attacks already carried out.
Concerning the conflict in the Caucasus, Russia poses an incredible threat. In the same discussion with Michael Totten, regional expert Patrick Worms explained:
Starting in mid July the Russians launched the biggest military exercise in the North Caucasus that they’ve held since the Chechnya war. That exercise never stopped. It just turned into a war.
…
On the evening of the 7th, the Ossetians launch an all-out barrage focused on Georgian villages, not on Georgian positions. Remember, these Georgian villages inside South Ossetia – the Georgians have mostly evacuated those villages, and three of them are completely pulverized. That evening, the 7th, the president gets information that a large Russian column is on the move. Later that evening, somebody sees those vehicles emerging from the Roki tunnel [into Georgia from Russia]. Then a little bit later, somebody else sees them. That’s three confirmations.
Another member of the O.S.C.E. team made the same mistake about the justification of an attack. Referring to Georgian claims of the Russians shelling villages in Georgia, Wing Commander Stephen Young said, “If there had been heavy shelling in areas that Georgia claimed were shelled, then our people would have heard it, and they didn’t.”
First, as I’ve already said, I do not trust “independent” monitors almost ever. All one has to do is look at UNEF, UNTSO, and of course, UNIFIL, to lose any trust in international peacekeeping or monitoring. These organizations are not just biased. Often, in order to protect their lives, they actively aid the aggressors in various conflicts, thereby defeating their very raison d’être. I have no reason to believe these, either, especially considering Russian actions as the conflict progressed (which include completely ignoring ceasefire agreements, claiming full compliance while actively occupying a sovereign state).
Second, as previously mentioned, a Russian column was moving through the Roki Tunnel into Georgia. How is that not a threat that deserves a response? That is more than a mere threat, that is an act of war.
In order to really gain more of an understanding of the conflict, go read Michael Totten’s piece. Then read the NYT’s a poor excuse for journalism. Compare the two, and you won’t understand why the NYT is still held in such high regard. The New York Times, if it hasn’t already, is moving fast towards becoming nothing more than a partisan rag, as it continues to come down on the wrong side of the truth, time and time again.
Even the perception of freedom of speech is under attack in Israel. A few months ago Ynet published an article about the IDF plan that took place in late August and early September. Under the plan, anyone could return illegally held military property to any military base or police station, and not face any negative repurcussions. No names were to be taken or anything of the sort. So far, nothing new, the IDF does this every few years.
Apparently the “talkbacks” section of the online article included a number of comments by reservists regarding the quality of military equipment and the embarrassment of the Second Lebanon War, in which reserve units were not given the appropriate equipment (in same cases, they did not even get enough food and water). The comments also included information revealing that they were in possession of military equipment.
Soldiers serving in the Criminal Investigations Division of the Military Police, who apparently have way too much time on their hands, decided they didn’t like this and demanded that Ynet hand over the IP addresses of these commenters (again, in Hebrew), so that their identities could be revealed, and they could be prosecuted in a military court, as soldiers.
Thankfully the judge denied their request. His reasoning, however, was not the right of free speech. It was because the reservists’ lawyers relayed (anonymously) that they did not steal the equipment, but use it in their capacity as combat (reserve) soldiers, and intended to return everything when they would be discharged from reserve duty permanently.
Free speech in Israel is fast approaching the status of a privilege and not a right.