Israel and Hamas: Two to Tango

The first thing to understand about what is going on in Gaza is that it is not the result of a sudden decision or an immediate and intolerable provocation by one side or the other; this thing has been in the planning by both sides for months. It was only a question of when to trigger events; both Israel and Hamas can always be relied upon to overreact to a provocation, thus each side has the ability to effectively schedule the others' overreactions.

In this case, Haaretz investigations have shown the operation was in the planning stages for six months. Israelis on the Right criticized the government for its inaction in this period, but the IDF was spending the time poring over photographic data from drones and satellites, pinpointing bases, weapons silos, camps, and the homes of officials; Hamas used that same period to make its own preparations including booby traps and IEDs (many of which appear to have been destroyed by Israel's air and artillery bombardments). The final plan was presented to Barak on November 19, and approved by the Cabinet on December 19th, following which Livni vlew to Cairo to brief the Egyptian government. The timing on the Israeli side obviously involves considerations of upcoming Israeli elections -- both Livni and Barak have shot up in the polls over the past week -- and the last chance to act with the anything-goes free pass of the Bush administration. The timing considerations on the Hamas side are less clear, but may well include a desire to create a certain set of facts on the ground for the new American Secretary of State.

The data developed during this six month period are so complete that during the air operations the IAF frequently calls houses up by cell phone and delivers ten minutes' warning, a maneuver called "roof knocking." In the past, sometimes residents of targeted houses would take to the roof of the targeted house in defiance; sometimes the IAF pilots would not fire. Such a warning appears to have been given in the case of Nizar Ghayan, who was killed along with his four wives and eleven children. Why did Ghayan not leave his house? Maybe he wanted martyrdom -- he had previously sent his son on a suicide bombing mission that killed two Israelis -- or maybe it is just not possible to get 16 people out of a house in ten minutes and he did not want to choose.

At the beginning of last week, it seemed clear that this was a conflict of something like mutual agreement. Both sides wanted to improve the terms of the existing truce, and both saw military conflict as a way to get there. Israel had never been satisfied with the conduct of that truce: no suicide bombings was a relief, but continuing (albeit much fewer and ineffectual) rocket attacks and above all continued weapons smuggling were intolerable. Hamas, in turn, was governing a besieged and slowly starving population that was rapidly heading from crisis into something close to famine. (The cynicism of Tzipi Livni's assertion in Paris that "there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza" was simply breathtaking, as is the hypocrisy of the constant description of conditions in Southern Israel as "intolerable" while residents of Gaza are reduced to eating pet food.) So the usual cycle of provocation and response ensued just as it did in 2004 when Israel ended a previous truce by assassinating Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi. This time it was an IDF attack on a tunnel, to which Hamas responded with renewed rocket attacks, to which Israel responded with its air campaign.

Up until Saturday Hamas seemed to have blundered badly, as the operation seemed to be working out to Israel's advantage to an almost startling degree. Most importantly, an emergency meeting of Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo produced statements by Arab governments that essentially blamed Hamas. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal told the session "this terrible massacre would not have happened if the Palestinian people was standing united behind one leadership," and Arab League Secretary General Amr Musa focused on the "unacceptable" disputes within Palestinian ranks and the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit declared that Hamas had "given Israel an excuse" and declared that rocket fire into Israel must stop as a condition of any truce deal as Mubarak steadfastly ruled out opening the Rafah crossing until it is in the control of the Palestinian Authority and international monitors, and Cairo police clashed with demonstrators as 40 Muslim Brotherhood leaders were arrested.

Meanwhile, while Syria and Iran issues the expected denunciations, Hezbollah has shown no interest in launching attacks from the North. In Jordan -- with its 3 million Palestinians still in giant refugee camps -- King Abdullah stated that "nothing justifies the world's failure to hold Israel back" and Queen Raina spoke of a "crime against human dignity," But Jordanian responses, both government and private, have been focused on providing humanitarian relief, no on threatening to cut off ties with Israel. Through the weekend protests in Amman were peaceful and relatively small (the biggest saw 24,000 people in the streets near the foreign embassies and was entirely law-abiding). Even Hamas' leadership seemed to be of two minds: on January 1, on the same day that Ismail Haniyeh said there could be no truce until the siege of Gaza was lifted, senior Hamas official Ayman Taha told reporters that "as soon as we receive a proposal, we will study it. We support any initiative that would end the aggression and lift the siege." And exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mishaal spoke to Russia's foreign minister of "readiness to cease armed confrontation but on condition of the lifting of the blockade of Gaza" according to a statement by the Russian foreign ministry on Dec. 31st. Thus at the end of the second or even the third day of air strikes, had Israel pulled back it would have seemed to be in an excellent position to seek truce terms more to its liking, with Arab support for international monitors and an end to weapons smuggling and an increased role for the PA at the crossings. In return, perhaps, Israel would have considered lifting the siege of Ghetto Gaza.

Instead Israel launched a ground offensive that Defense Minister Barak promises will be "neither short nor easy." The question now is, what is Israel after, and what is its exit strategy? That question rests solely on Israel at this point; on Saturday, Jan. 3, when the U.S. government vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for a truce Alejandro Wolf explained that it was because the United States saw no prospect of Hamas abiding by last week's council call for an immediate end to the violence. Think of it as the logical next step in the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war; pre-emptive non-diplomacy.

At the outset of the air campaign, government representatives were eager to assure the world that the only goal was a cessation of rocket attacks. IDF Brig. Gen. Mike Herzog told reporters that Israel had no intent to topple Hamas, and the IDF's recommendation (again, as reported in Ha'Aretz) was that "more pressure . . .be put on Hamas to make it agree to a long-term cease-fire under conditions more favorable to Israel" by an intensive but brief incursion. But even before Saturday the tone from the civilian leadership was different. It is clear that the Israeli leadership has no intention of ordering a cessation of operations until its goals are met, and that its goals go far beyond a cessation of rocket attacks and weapons smuggling. In Paris, Livni spoke of "changing the reality." Since then Livni has spoken repeatedly about the idea that having Hamas in power in Gaza is intolerable -- she seems especially concerned that the group not attain the status of legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

Livni's comments to journalists on December 28th in Sderot were particularly interesting. For one thing, she declared that "this is a zero sum game . .. not between Israel and Hamas, this is a zero sum game between the extremists and the moderates, between Hamas and Fatah, between Abu Mazen and Haniyeh." For another, she declared that "Hamas is not legitimate and Hamas control of the Gaza Strip is not legitimate" and called on the international community to avoid "legitimating" Hamas. The key, Livni insisted, is that the Annapolis approach represents an attempt to reach out to "pragmatists." "We decided to initiate the Annapolis process according to a strategy that was agreed with the international community and with the pragmatic part of the Palestinian Authority. The idea was to work with the moderates, to work with the pragmatic leadership of the Palestinian Authority in order to reach a peace treaty." Friday evening Vice Premier Haim Ramon told Israeli TV that "we need . . . to reach a situation in which we do not allow Hamas to govern."

So there are two distinct sets of goals at work, here: 1) to end the rocket attacks and weapons smuggling and bring international monitors and the PA into the process of monitoring truce terms; and 2) to bring down Hamas and strengthen the PA and "pragmatic" elements in Arab states everywhere. The problem is that these goals are incommensurate, and the strategies for pursuing one contradict the strategies for purusing the other. The first set of goals are pragmatic, concrete, immediate, and promise to lessen tensions and improve security. The second set of goals are ideological, global, and promise endless war until final and complete victory. Which is Israel pursuing? With the commencement of the ground operation, there is very grave reason to fear that the "pragmatism" that Livni praises on the part of Abbas is not part of her own strategic vocabulary.

What exactly would this mean for military operations over the next week? Think about those six months of careful preparations. When an IDF spokesperson says "we have a long list of targets," one has to wonder what these "targets" comprise; names of individuals? is the whole ground offensive an enormous murder raid to take out the Hamas leadership? Put it this way: supposing it wanted to (it doesn't), how could Hamas "surrender" at this point? By offering up the dead bodies of every elected official? That's how sieges used to end. The siege has already produced a situation in which electricity, heat, hot water, food, and medicine are only intermittently available; does Israel contemplate a complete and final destruction of Gaza's infrastructure? Our own little African-style famine right here on the shores of the Med? That seems extreme, but if that is not the goal, what is it?

Weakening Hamas makes sense if it means strengthening the PA -- the Annapolis model -- and bringing Arab states into the process in a positive way. But "weakening Hamas" by producing mass civilian casualties and an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, that is something else. There is a real and immediate danger that Israel will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The attacks from the air, although savage, were relatively contained and focused. By contrast, the use of artillery and ground forces is not. The goal of truce terms that would put an end to weapons smuggling and involve international monitors, accompanied by the promise of a lifting of the siege of Ghetto Gaza, was one that aroused considerable support within the Arab world. A campaign to exterminate Hamas at the cost of thousands of civilian deaths is not.

Israel seems to believes that it can calculate these things to a nicety; this much horror will be tolerated, this much we can get away with and still have someone to negotiate with afterwards. But that is a dangerous calculation. Already Mubarak has joined Abdullah and Abbas in condemning the ground assault, and Abbas has released hundreds of Hamas prisoners from PA jails. Does Livni really believe that there are no limits to what Mubarak can tolerate? (Were those limits, perhaps, spelled out in their meeting in Cairo just before operations began? Mubarrak, too, is playing a dangerous game.) Hamas is not beloved among Arab governments or among Palestinians; but how long can any of leader in the Arab world hang on to a moderate position in the face of endlessly broadcast video clips of collaterally dead children?

Israel's leaders have apparently decided that stopping the rocket attacks and the weapons smuggling is not so important after all; what is much more important is inflicting misery on Gaza and showing the world that Hamas must never have a place in the discussion. Actually securing truce terms favorable to Israel's security would have required talking with Hamas and international cooperation, which would have bestowed that dreaded legitimacy. Much better to keep shooting and count on Israel being the last one standing at the end. As for pragmatism? Probably overrated.

Comments

[Michale32086]

@ papapj

}}}}}
Link?

..I thought not...
{{{{

Ya know, I LOVE it when people do this.. :D

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/04/gunmen-blow-up-british-cemetery-monument/

You should know that, when I post something as fact, I *ALWAYS* can back it up...

"Pssst... This is about the time you run away..."
-Shrek

Michale......

[papapj]

Unfortunately, you back up your efforts with second hand evidence, quoting a report from Israel Today which claims to cite the "Palestine Press news agency " but provides no proof of having done so..

Very shoddy.

Considering the source though, one can but giggle at the lame attempt at propoganda...

Still, it does seem to make the blissfully ignorant armchair chickenhawks among us as gleefully contented as the chimp who just found a banana....doesn't it, Michale...?

[Michale32086]

In other words, you support Hamas unequivocally and no amount of evidence will convince you that they are terrorists..

Gotcha...

Michale....

[BigPictures]

Many world's problem requires a more effective world government, the United Nations. According to the UN resolution, if the Arabs renouce violence, Israel is obligated to return the Arabs land. Hamas should voice their complaints about Israel peacefully. For a weaker power, the path to its people's dignity is through non-violence principle of Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Israel should consult the UN regardiing how to deal with the Hamas' rocket attacks. The Abrabs Peace Initiative based on the UN resolution is a good principle for permanent Middle East peace. If Obama really wants to break away from Bush's policy and become a true leader of the world, he should find ways to strengthen the UN. One problem with the UN is it is not democratic, so a better UN would be more democratic. Many work needs to be done in international law. Until powerful nations decide to adhere internation laws, there will be no peace on earth. For example, the veto power of the UN security councile present a conflict of interests, which should be abondonded in order to be more democratic.

[bascombe]

only one side has white phiosphorus and depleted uranium.

[Michale32086]

White phosphorus is perfectly legal to use as a smoke screen...

Michale.....

[Magenta]

"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire, but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group. All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings that they were also members of a large Arab nation...Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until the few weeks immediately preceding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a huge Arab majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314."

Edward Said (Israeli historian), "The Question of Palestine."

[samer23]

This is refreshing to read, thank you for actually researching the topic before posting. Reading most posts it seems most people simply heard of Palestine 2 weeks ago.

Thanks again.

[samer23]

Why is it so difficult for people to look at the history of the region to determine how this conflict originated?

Arab Palestinians where on this land long before the creation of "Israel", the Jews were a minority in these lands prior to WWII, the conflict isn't that difficult to comprehend. After decades of being suppressed the Palestinians are fighting back. Nobody labeled the blacks of South Africa terrorists during apartheid. If the native American Indians where to fire rockets into a US city would they also be terrorists? So why do we label Palestinians as terrorists?

So the Jews claim that this land was promised to them by their God, be that as it may, the Jews and Muslims/Christians don't believe in the same God, so how are they to convince the land owners to leave without ethnically cleansing them?

Before an ignoramus responds to this e-mail I would like to mention that I could cite every single word in the previous paragraph with unbiased (some even confirmed by Jewish scholars) facts.

[help4mac]

The author fancies himself as cynical Hebrew columnist but writing in English. Israel might have developed some hopeful outcomes for this conflict, but the strategy of implementing some master plan was blown up with Bashir Gemayel in 1982.

It would be better to draw a parallel with the conflict that occurred in the West Bank a few years ago - to create with it's power a situation resulting in a livable more rational neighbor. For those that care about the Palestinians, now is the time to demand that when Israel withdraws from Gaza, that it actually give it more land. With the appropriate cease fire agreement - no more arms smuggling, no more rockets and missiles and no more Hamas - this is an achievable goal.

[melpol]

Paradise is a place where a woman can afford to have a dozen children and where her lover can spend the whole day playing soccer without having a job. Some of the other goodies would be free housing,food,health care and all the hashshesh that can be smoked. That paradise exists right here on earth---it is called Gaza. Only there is one big problem because somebody has to support this paradise. A large monthly check from the U.N. supports the Gaza community, but due to inflationary pressures that check has to be updated annually . The U.N. has been deaf to the growing needs of Gaza residents and they refuse to listen to their pleas for a raise. Unfortunately It has taken a few hundred harmless rockets into Israel and a war to get the U.N. to listen and write a bigger check. Gaza will soon be restored to a paradise but at great human sacrifice.

[baffy]

You obviously just woke up from a very deep 40 year sleep. Go back to bed.

[jake106]

I kinda of got stuck when he called Gaza paradise. What do you do with a comment like that?

[baffy]

Excellent insight into Israel's actual master plan i.e. decimate Hamas leaving Fatah to "negotiate" a sweetheart deal for Israel. There will be no return of refugees, Israel will keep the large settlements and parts of East Jerusalem and will control borders, airspace, coastline etc. Israel will have control over the water supply. Palestine will be demilitarized but monitored by US troops etc etc. Oh and I forgot, Israeli Arabs will be shipped to Jordan. In short, Israel will have effective control of ALL OF PALESTINE.
Will the world really stand by and let this happen? Keep watching.

[roninroshi]

This conflict is like California vs the rest of the US...

[papapj]

The claims by Israel and the U.S. that the current bloody invasion is a “response” to small-scale and largely ineffective rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza are obscene. They are like the method the U.S. used to justify the genocide of Native Americans by settlers and the military: according to the official narrative, that story “began” with claims of the first Native American scalping of some settler family or soldier—and then anything goes to “respond” to what is declared an atrocity. What came before—what provoked the scalping, the genocidal lies and brutality visited upon the indigenous peoples, and America’s actual agenda of forcible conquest and colonialization—all this is ignored and covered up

[JoeSausage]

That's the American way, and Israel has learned the lesson well. Remember when Japan bombed the military installation at Pearl Harbour? America retaliated by dropping nukes on whole cities. NUKES!!! Remember 911? Saudis, trained in Afghanistan, flew planes into buildings, killing 3000 Americans. In retaliation, America killed 100,000+ innocent Iraqis. Overkill; it's the American Way.

[jake106]

Wow....what a way to ignore history. What a way to COMPLETELY ignore an entire four years of war. Yup, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and we just flew over there the next day and nuked em. Yup.

Trying learning some history if you are going to use it to compare to current times.

[Tobiasism]

You advocate the proportional response?
Like maybe, just sendingin untargeted missles to Gaza for each rocket sent to Israel? WOUld that be "proportionate" enough for you?

Israel is targeting military sites and militants.
they should, with everything that they have.

[Michale32086]

People need to look at the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the definition of "proportionate"..

Proportionate is defined, thru the ICC, as the amount of force necessary to eliminate the threat..

As long as HAMAS missile continue to fall on Israeli soil and kill innocent Israeli citizens, Israel pretty much has carte blanche..

The rest of your post is dead on ballz accurate...

"It's an industry term."
-Marisa Tormei, MY COUSIN VINNY

Michale....

Michale.....

[papapj]

"Israel is targeting military sites and militants"

The civilian casualty numbers show, the IDF is a very poor shot....

[ebaymaniac8]

If the palestenians in gaza are such nice people then why doesn't any other country stand up for them. How come Egypt which borders Gaza, refuses to allow even one of their "brothers" in. And since when is sending over a hundred rockets a day into a country for years "small scale". And how come not a person reprimanded them until now. You make them out to be a bunch wonderful people. I wish I could see the look on your face if they came into your city or town and started shooting rockets daily at your house. I bet you it will not be "small scale then".

[Bendra]

Oh PUHLEEZE... BO has recruited the best minds in America to assist. And maybe you didn't worry that Bush didn't know what to do 8 years ago. Whatever. If we go down, it won't be because BO didn't know how to "act it out."