Occidental Israeli Rotating Header Image

Middle East

Sharon on Gaza, 1989

Jeffrey Goldberg cites a particularly poignant passage.

What will we do once we withdraw from Gaza?…. What will we do when the Katyusha fire starts hitting Sderot, four miles from the Gaza district, and Ashkelon, nine miles from Gaza, and Kiryat Gat, fourteen miles from Gaza….Or what shall we do if the U.N. or  multinational forces are positioned around Gaza and there is still terrorism?

מילים כדורבנות*

And he did it anyway…

*If anyone knows how to properly translate that, please let me know.

Changing Hamas?

Although I disagree with his conclusion regarding Fatah, Jeffrey Goldberg does a good job of explaining why Hamas’ position is intractable, why “Hamas cannot be cajoled into moderation.”

Normally I refrain from addressing anything Thomas Friedman says. His foolish theories, backed by his immature optimism, are rarely worthy of comment. His basic assumption is that everyone is a rational actor, and that everyone weighs all the variables in every situation in the same way he does.

Unlike Goldberg’s actual researched conclusion regarding Hamas, this is what Friedman had to say about Hamas in Gaza, not based on much: “If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims. Now its focus, and the Obama team’s focus, should be on creating a clear choice for Hamas for the world to see: Are you about destroying Israel or building Gaza?”

Friedman insults all actors in the region by thinking that the following has any resemblance to reality: “Hamas has to signal a willingness to assume responsibility for a lasting cease-fire and to abandon efforts to change the strategic equation with Israel by deploying longer and longer range rockets.”

UPDATE: Noam Scheiber points out one of Goldberg’s most enlightening points, regarding the results of the competition between the terrorist organizations who are dedicated to Israel’s demise.

Operation Cast Lead – Jewish World

Military and political aspects here, international opinion here, etymology of Cast Lead, and first, second, and third parts about the Arab World’s opinion, and the Israeli public’s reaction (at time of writing).

The reaction of the Jewish world in the diaspora to the events in Gaza has been, frankly, highly disappointing. Not extremely surprising, but disappointing nonetheless. I do not mean that I expected an outpouring of support for Israel, but at the very least, not to take an indefensible stand against Israel. Granted, most young American Jews don’t care about Israel very much, but, as a Zionist, I cannot help but express my disdain for opinions that, in effect, value Israel’s enemy over the lives of fellow Jews.

I attended a rally in support of Israel last week, in Washington D.C. No, I still don’t believe rallies and demonstrations from over here change much over there. However, I was pleased to see that most of the Jewish community and its leaders do support Israel and do support Israel’s self-defense. In the back of the room (the rally took place in a synogogue that is also used to host events from time to time), there were two girls holding up signs saying “Not in my name.” I wanted to say, that if that is how you think, and you say that from over here – then yes, Israel is not acting in your name, for you have effectively cut yourself off from the Jewish people. You have rendered yourself solely part of some amorphous group that calls itself “culturally Jewish,” or “Jew-ish.” Jews are a people, and don’t worry, Israel doesn’t act in your name, Israel acts in defense of the Jewish state.

About eight months ago, an organization by the name of J Street was founded, a left-wing political action committee on issues relating to Israel and the Middle East. They portend to represent the silent majority among American Jews, which I doubt. But if they do, American Jewry is even more hopeless than I thought. Relatively early during the Gaza campaign, they came out with a long statement, calling for an immediate end for violence in the region, and showed their utter lack of understanding when it comes to Israel:

While there is nothing “right” in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing “right” in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them.

I could go on about how Israel is not “punishing” anyone. Punitive actions have not be carried out by Israel in decades. I could call them on the moral equivalency they, in effect, claim exists between Israel and Hamas’s actions. I could criticize their extreme naviete, at best, and at worst, their willingness to allow Israelis to be targets of Hamas’s antisemitism. However, others have done this for me. First, Eric Yoffie (president of the Union for Reform Judaism), not a man with whom I ordinarily agree, has responded to J Street directly, calling their statement “deeply distressing” and “morally deficient,” and he correctly sees the “Israeli government doing what it must to end rocket attacks against its citizenry.”

Another, much harsher, response to J Street, takes an extra step and calls them anti-Israel. Noah Pollack writes in Commentary’s blog, Contentions, and questions “any limits to [J Street's] capacity for self-delusion about the nature of Hamas,” and declares: “It is time that thinking people started calling J Street what it actually is — an anti-Israel group.” Even Jeffrey Goldberg, on the opposite end of the political spectrum from most of Commentary’s writers, said about their statement: “J Street Blows It.”

James Kirchick, also at Contentions, made the strongest argument against J Street. Since arguing with them point-by-point would be futile, Kirchick said this: “Street has the right to its extreme leftist, capitulationist opinions, but it does not have the right to claim, as Ben-Ami once did, that it represents the “broad, sensible mainstream of pro-Israel American Jews.’” Game. Set. Match. They have every right to their opinions. However, they represent, largely, well, themselves.

Another player on the Jewish world scene is blog, Jewschool. With the start of Cast Lead, this was posted. Advocating against Israeli self-defense, the writer preempts any intellectual discourse, calling it a “perverse game of rhetorical ping-pong,” and accuses Israel of “squeezing the life out of Gaza.” I might be not up to date on the latest terminology, but will someone please explain to me how allowing thousands of tons of medical supplies and food furthers a cause of “squeezing the life out of Gaza”? Not to mention the warnings, so that empty buildings will be hit, or the dud missiles, or the Gazans being treated by Israel, in Israeli facilities. But no, the Jewish world’s reaction is apparently another example of “protest oppression and human-rights abuse anywhere in the world, but are all too willing to give Israel a pass.” He accuses world Jewry of practicing a double-standard against Israel. Unbelievable.

While in France, and in New York people rally in defense of Israel, on sites such as Jewschool and in Canada Jewish groups attack “Israel’s massacre,” effectively in defense of Hamas. The Canadian group is either confusing or practicing demagoguery, drawing a false analogy between targeting civilians and implementing a ground offensive. With regards to larger organizations, here is JTA’s overview of their positions.

To sum up, most of world Jewry supports the operation, but an increasingly loud minority, claiming to represent more people than they actually do, has come out against Israel, not only from a strategic standpoint, but claiming Israel has no moral standing to act in self-defense.

Kadima to End Operation Cast Lead Early?

It appears my assertion regarding the government’s reasoning for Operation Cast Lead was correct. Now that Israel seems to be actually winning in Gaza, it seems like Livni and Barak are in favor of an early end to the operation.

Livni contends that continuing the offensive could harm the deterrence it has achieved so far and damage Israel diplomatically.” Has she not learned anything? Anything Israel does in self-defense will harm Israel’s diplomatic image. Furthermore, she is just throwing around the word “deterrence” for populist reasons. True deterrence will only be restored if Israel truly routs the enemy – if Israel forces a de facto surrender, if not on paper. Stopping now will grant Hamas bragging rights, which are worth a lot more in the Middle East than in kindergarten. Bragging rights practically determine who won and who lost, and Hezbollah has been bragging plenty since 2006.

One last point – Olmert is now against an early end to the operation, accurately stating that “stopping Operation Cast Lead now would be a missed opportunity.” I am really not sure what brought about this change in the outgoing PM. Is this an attempt at some sort of redemption? Can anyone shed some light on the topic?

I truly hope that Israel will not stop yet another operation halfway through. Unfortunately, history shows that the only way to truly gain respect in the Middle East is to be feared. Fear, as a result of a resounding victory. Israel has not won such a victory since 1973 (despite the initial stages of that war). Israel needs to win this war, and stopping it now is not the way to do it.

Proportionality

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.”

Ceding Land

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?

Operation Cast Lead – Israeli Public

Military and political aspects here, international opinion here, etymology of Cast Lead, and first, second, and third parts about the Arab World’s opinion.

I think an overview of the Israeli public’s reaction is necessary before contrasting it that with the rest of the Jewish world. By now, with regards to the public reaction, the two major stages of the operation should probably be looked at it differently. The first week, comprised solely of massive aerial strikes on hundreds of Hamas targets, was incredibly popular. Initial polls showed the operation was supported by 81% of the Israeli public. In fact, even before Cast Lead began, far-left Meretz called for an attack in Gaza, in a press release: “the time has come to act without compromises and without political considerations and to defend the residents of the Gaza area and Sderot.” (Hebrew)

Even the famous authors, Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, bona fide members of the Israeli far-left, supported the start of this operation, though they called for “a cease-fire as quickly as possible. And finally, Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit has written a pretty good description of how Israelis feel about Cast Lead and what the sentiment is, with regards to Israelis who oppose it, calling them “Israel-hating Israelis,” saying that “[t]heir self-righteousness is not at all righteous, and their moralizing has no morality.”

Opponents of the operation, include, of course, Peace Now. But even they seem to base their calls for an immediate ceasefire on the initial results of the operation, calling on the government to take advantage of the message that has been sent to Hamas and to “cease fire now!” (Hebrew) This is similar to David Grossman’s piece in the NY Times, calling on the government to hold its fire, arguing strategy, not morals.

The part of the operation that began two days ago, on the ground, also enjoys widespread Israeli support, only a few days ago a poll showed 65% in favor, and 23% against. This poll can be miscontrued to believe that that Israelis who oppose this stage of the operation, oppose on moral grounds, and think it is wrong for Israel to harm Gazans in this way. Though there exists such a small minority, for the majority of this group, this is not the case. Most would probably say such an operation is simply not wise, because it will cost Israel too many lives, in return for very little. Even Meretz was careful in its wording. While they do not seem to fully support the operation any longer, the reasoning used is very important, “deepening the fighting endangers IDF soldiers and entangles Israel…” (Hebrew) In other words, the operation has not been deemed “unjust” by Meretz.

The opposition to fighting on the ground is, to a large extent, a result of the disaster that was the Second Lebanon War, and Shmuel Rosner does a good job of explaining these feelings. Ronen Shoval, writing in Ynet, also explains the moral quandary in which Israelis have found themselves. In addition to the over-cautiousness in dealing with Israel’s enemies at the expense of Israeli lives, over the years, IDF soldiers have become less of Israel’s army, and more “our children,” people that need to be protected, instead of those who protect us. Granted, IDF soldiers’ lives are very valuable, but “defense of soldiers’ lives, at the expense of placing Israeli civilians at risk” is a backwards rationale, and is indefensible from a moral standpoint. (from Hebrew)

Nevertheless, the ground operation is underway, and hopefully it will continure to be succesful, in the short run, as well as in the long run. With regards to Hamas, Israel’s neighbors, time and again, miscalculate the determination of Israelis to fight once a defensive operation is undertaken. The weakness perceived by the public’s reaction to kidnapping of soldiers leads them to anticipate, wrongly, that Israelis will prefer not to fight, and suffer under Hamas’ definition of “calm” or a “lull.”

NEXT: The Jewish world and its reaction.

Operation Cast Lead – Web Update

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).

Operation Cast Lead – Arab World III

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.

Operation Cast Lead – Arab World II

Posts dealing with the military and political aspects here, international opinion hereetymology 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.