Occidental Israeli Rotating Header Image

Middle East

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 – 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.

Syria? Peace? Carter? What?

‍‍טז כסלו תשסט - Dec 13th, 2008
by LB.
6 comments

Carter recently visited Syria and met with Bashar Assad. He uttered yet another gem, showing his still has no understanding of world affairs, let alone the Middle East,  “Peace will not be achieved in the region without a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights and the other occupied Arab lands.” (Hebrew)

The notion of peace with Syria is a myth that has been resurfacing with increasing frequency lately. The idea that Israel should give up a large swath of land, which it won in a defensive war, which does not have demographic dilemmas, in return for an elusive peace, is utterly ridiculous. To begin with, the current situation is not half-bad. There is quiet on the Syrian front, and it is not because of any formal peace agreement. Furthermore, even states with which Syria does have peaceful relations do not really have peace. It continues to harbor various terrorist groups, active against its neighbors  (Turkey, Lebanon), as an insurance policy of sorts. Its determination to keep the upper hand in these political power plays prevent it from ever being a fair partner for anything.

Israel should not sign any agreement with Syria in which it would give up any land. There is simply no compelling interest to do so. Also, Carter’s eagerness to meet even with Hezballah was met with coldness, no one wants him here. He really needs to go back to his peanut farming already.

Justice?

‍‍כט חשון תשסט - Nov 26th, 2008
by LB.
No comments yet

It appears that Olmert is not quite coated with teflon, after all. After being investigated for numerous charges of corruption, at least one indictment might actually be handed down. This news comes after the Talansky bribery case fell apart a few months ago. Attorney General Mazuz intends to charge the outgoing prime minister with fraud, breach of trust and tax evasion. Olmert “allegedly” over-billed “abroad sponsored by Jewish institutions, and either pocketed the difference or financed trips for relatives.”

Olmert’s attorneys continue to defend this despicable person, denying the any wrongdoing, and calling the likely indictment “puzzling and unreasonable.” What is unreasonable is that Israel continues to be led by a corrupt individual, who is arguably Israel’s worst prime minister in history.

I only hope that some modicum of justice actually be served, and Olmert will see the inside of a prison cell very soon.

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?

A Positive French Influence?

‍‍כו חשון תשסט - Nov 23rd, 2008
by LB.
No comments yet

In Israel’s early years, its ties to France was one of the better relationships Israel had with the western world. Throughout the 1950s France was Israel’s primary arms supplier, and was party to the early stages of the Kadesh Campaign in 1956. All that changed in 1967 under Charles de Gaulle, whose administration reversed course and criticized Israel for its actions in the Six Day War, and its presence over the Green Line (as have subsequent French administrations). A few years after the war, France also began selling arms to Arab states, strengthening its relationship with Israel’s enemies.

After 1967 France has feigned “even-handedness,” claiming it would not support either side in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nevertheless, France continued to devlop close ties with the Arab world, most notably its strong relationship with Iraq, which ended with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, in 1991.

Elected President in May 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy appears to have changed France’s attitude towards Israel somewhat. Calling Israel a “dear and steadfast friend”, he has often made statements reminiscent of American politicians running for national office, marking a clear departure from France’s official stance on Israel over the past 40 years. He has promised “never [to] jeopardize Israel’s safety,” and “always [to] be at Israel’s side when its security and its existence are threatened.”

Recent statements, both by Sarkzoy and by France’s Foreign Minister, regarding Obama’s foreign policy appear to signify a real change in French foreign policy on issues relating to the Middle East. Last month Sarkozy, in a closed forum, called Obama’s stance on Iran “utterly immature” and made up of “formulations empty of all content.” It is unclear how this view matches his intentions to persuade the incoming American administration “to continue the current policy on Iran,” considered the ambiguity, at best, of this policy. Nevertheless, the mere fact that a senior European leader is not in line with the international worship of Barack Obama, daring to criticize his foreign policy, from the right no less, leaves some room for hope.

Today, France’s Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, voiced additional criticism of Obama’s stated intentions, in dealing with Iran. Kouchner is a founder of Doctors Without Borders, supported Sarkozy’s rival, Ségolène Royal, in the 2007 elections, and is a former member of France’s socialist party (his membership was revoked for accepting his current post). Kouchner expressed his concern about Obama’s plan to hold direct talks with Iran, warning “against any form of dialogue that would jeopardise the unity not of the Western side but of the whole of the P5, that is the five (permanent U.N.) Security Council members plus Germany.” Kouchner added that France has “negotiated [with Iran] at great length. People came to France, we sent people to Iran, we met them and unfortunately this dialogue produced nothing.”

Perhaps France (or at least its government), is truly adapting to the realities of the world. One can only hope that Europe will cease acting as a doormat in the face of those who wish to end Western Civilization with their version of a murderous crusade.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →