The political paradox of the Gaza attacks

Well, you've hit on the paradox of why it's often the right-wing that can actually end up being the one that achieves peace or diplomatic breakthroughs (i.e., Nixon ending Vietnam or opening up China). Or put another way, only a hard-liner like Sharon could have abandoned Gaza (which looks pretty dumb these days).

But, one problem with your analysis is the question of what constitutes victory. If it's just the leadership of Hamas surviving they can just hide underground, come out when the bombs stop and declare victory amid the rubble. If it's getting the rockets to diminish and to get Hamas to the negotiating table, then the military operation is already a limited success, because Hamas is already asking for a ceasefire.

Another problem with your analysis is that it seems like it really won't matter how flexible a leader is heading Israel if Hamas is in power, because they state pretty clearly that they won't accept anything less than Israel's destruction. Doesn't leave a lot of diplomatic wiggle room. So, this would indicate that any chances of a negotiated settlement, regardless of who benefits politically in Israel, is dependent on a victory over Hamas; if Hamas is emboldened the chances of peace would seem to go pretty close to zero, no?

Another possibility is a victory over Hamas, but enough saber rattling or even direct action by Iran to push the public to the right.

I'm not sure what is so strange or remarkable.

"If you want peace, prepare for war." Peace through strength.

Simple.

The NYT piece exaggerates the effect of the operation on Barak’s political future. If things go well for Israel, he as well as Livni will be the winners, on the expense of Netanyahu and some other smaller right-wing parties. Keeping in mind the Israeli political system, the next government will be a coalition of either Likud-Kadima or Kadima-Labor at its center. It seems to me that the attacks, at least partly, pushing for the latter, probably with Livni in the front seat.

Also, I am somewhat skeptical that this problem even has a military solution, certainly in the long run. Regardless of the outcome of the recent crisis, both sides are not going anywhere anytime soon and will have to talk to each other, either directly and tacitly (as they already did).

Barak or Netanyahu have little in common with their Western images. Neither are far apart on foreign policy substance (though they form coalitions with individuals who are very far apart). Barak has been planning this mission for some time. That some members of the American political establishment consider him a peacemaker says more about them than it does about him.

The military action has moved Barak from a distant third to a potential close third, as they have reminded the Israeli's that Barak is further to the right than he is often stereotyped as. But there is little chance that a failed attack will move Israel to the left. Israel's biggest long term security threat is not from another intifada, rather it is from a peace agreement that only holds for say 25 years and is broken by a land invasion from a well armed Palestinian military, possibly one that has launched rockets many times during the 25 years while blaming "splinter factions" and insisting the West strengthen their "moderate" faction. This is precisely the type of agreement that Hamas wants to negotiate. If the problem is defined as avoiding this scenario, than the current policy seems like a significant part of a solution to it even if Hamas is perceived as winning the war.

I tend to side with those who believe that there is no solution to this problem, military or otherwise.

Whether a problem has a military solution may depend on what one thinks the problem is.

The Israeli-Palestinian problem, viewed from across the Atlantic, has no military solution. It might have had one in 1948, and again in 1967, but it doesn't have one now. The Israeli government, however, seems to think the problem that needs solving is Hamas rocket fire directed at Israeli towns. This problem may have a military solution, though whether it is the best solution or worth its potential costs to Israel is another matter. Meanwhile, Hamas appears to see its problem as maintaining a suitably militant attitude toward Israel for purposes of internal Palestinian politics. To the extent firing rockets at Israeli civilians prompts Israeli protests, or even better Israeli retaliation, this problem has already acquired a military solution.

The difficulty here is not the means chosen to solve problems, but rather how the problems each party seeks to address are identified and defined. Hamas appears not to have believed Israel would respond to the latest round of rocketry with this level of violence; moreover it foolishly neglected the possibility that an Obama administration would be less uncritically supportive of any Israeli action in Gaza than the Bush administration has been -- while the attitude of an American administration does not always matter in Palestinian politics, it always does in Israel's (I do not, for what it is worth, agree with Shadi Hamid that Hamas leaders thought this matter through -- though they surely wanted to provoke an Israeli response, they are much less able than Hezbollah was in 2006 to withstand it or limit casualties among their own members and leadership). Israel for its part appears eager to attempt in Gaza what it failed to accomplish in Lebanon two years ago, to change the attitude of one of its principal antagonists by subjecting it to Israel's greatest asset, its superior conventional military force. While this is one possible outcome, it may be more likely that what will change is the attitude of Palestinians in the West Bank and Arabs elsewhere; as Israeli airstrikes take a larger and larger toll in Gaza, more Arabs outside the strip will become sympathetic to Hamas, an organization that some Arabs have viewed with distrust.

Israel seeks to preserve the political status quo, without the rocket attacks, holding open the possibility of meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians later, after the domestic Israeli political process produces a government able to deal. Hamas seeks to alter the political status quo, using the one tool guaranteed to reduce Israeli interest in political means of making this happen. By defining the problem each party faces in the way each party has, both parties make it less likely that solutions other than military ones will be applied -- a fact that is causing great hardship to Palestinians in Gaza now, and is likely to cost Israel considerably over time.

Keep in mind if you don't believe there's a military solution to the problem that Hezbollah, since the 2006 war they supposedly won, has been pretty much completely non-aggressive toward Israel in the time since--during which several of its top leadership have been assassinated. Again, it matters how you define the problem: if you define it as a reduction or cessation of the missile attacks, then there may be a military solution, just like there was with Hezbollah. If you define it as an overarching path to peace, then your analysis would be different; the obvious next question would be if Israel, by deciding to allow Hamas to send 200 missiles a day into its country would have been closer to a negotiated peace. I can't think of any historical parallel where a country that allowed itself to be repeatedly bombarded without a response brought about a negotiated peace--unless perhaps it was a surrender.

Israel's resort to force is easily understandable--how can any sovereign state do nothing as rockets rain down on its territory?

But the force employed is certainly much greater than the force employed by Hamas. So also the number of innocent Palestinians killed greatly exceeds the number of innocent Israelis killed.

Moreover, it must be recalled that Hamas is the party preferred by a plurality of the Palestinian people in a reasonably fair election. Of course the Palestinian people may have made an incorrect--morally or politically--choice, but nevertheless the elections were reasonably fair. It's the nature of democracy that good procedure may generate bad substance, and it's presumptuous for outsiders to deny the legitimacy of those chosen to rule.

True, Hamas is at best equivocal in accepting the legitimacy of the Israeli state. And true, they have no right to kill innocent Israelis. But nor is it fair or right for Israel to impose a blockade that has the effect of immiserating and bringing early death to the inhabitants of Gaza.

Israel remains the dominant military power in the region. It can deter an attack by any other state. It evidently cannot deter rocket attacks staged by Hamas from Gaza. Before resorting to war, Israel chose to respond to Hamas' electoral victory by inflicting very considerable suffering on virtually all the inhabitants of Gaza. If the Israelis thought that the infliction of suffering would induce the inhabitants to turn against Hamas, they were mistaken. If they now think that the added suffering inflicted by bombing will have the desired effect, who supposes they're not mistaken again?

Both sides have killed many innocent people. Both believe--with much justification--that they have done so in retaliation. But Israel has killed many more, and Israel is the dominant power. It is not a matter of taking risks for peace--causing the deaths of more and more innocent Palestinians is a policy bound to evoke as much hostility as can be from the Palestinians. It is a matter of acting as a dominant power can and should, and seeing that much of what the weak may do cannot serve to diminish the dominance of the more powerful, and much of what the dominant do can serve only to diminish their security.

"I tend to side with those who believe that there is no military solution to this problem."

You are absoulutely right. Unfortunately, there is no non-military solution either. In forty (sixty?) years of hypothesis testing, that prediction has never failed.

So why do we cling to the hope that there is some solution if only [fill in blank]? The truth is so awful that no one wants to face it.

what do you mean there is no military solution to this problem? Any future solution, no matter what it is, if it is, will have an irrevocable and undeniable military component to it: what you mean to say is a military solution in and of itself is not viable - but then that's been more or less true of any conflict ever. Present hostilities will inform future 'negotiations' - for better or worse cannot be known, but interested parties are obviously predisposed to make 'educated' guesses in accordance with their 'sympathies'.

@Tacitus,

It's a vicious circle. The 'blockade' of Gaza and the West Bank involves building walls which do large damage to the Palestinian economy (and not a little damage to Israel's economy also). So why the walls? To keep Hamas and Fahtah from suicide bombing Israeli territory and people with impunity. Rememeber Arafat's infitada after he turned down Camp David? There was a suicide-bombing each day for a long time. The walls stopped that, so now Hamas shoots rockets over the wall.

I don't see a solution except for Hamas to negociate a settlement stopping the rocket attacks in return for Israel opening ways through the walls to redress the economic damage. Someone on the Palestinian side will have to agree to that - and be prepared to stop the suicide bombers on the Palestinian side of the walls. By force if necessary. Then Israel can open checkpoints on the walls, perhaps eventually tear the walls down when mutual trust goes that far.

Otherwise it's just more of the same....

"If the attack fails — which suggests that a there is no military solution to Gaza-"

Is very weird reading that. There are no facts at all that support that assertion.
In what part of this operation Israel commited sizable forces and will to destroy Hamas?

First off, every last one of you on this forum are zionist bastards. You are disgusting. Your tone and attitude is so violent and arrogant. Gaza is a giant prison camp with people being starved and bombed to pieces, and you act like this is a tactical question. go to hell.

And just for the sake of accuracy, there is only one solution to this problem, the destruction of the State of Israel (different from the destruction of the Jewish people). Palestine should be given back to the Palestinians, and the Jews should either humbly ask to be allowed to stay with equal rights (one-state solution), or they should go back to where they came from. The State of Israel is a violent cancer that must be ended. My preferred solution is a simple one-state solution. If the zionists continue to believe they have the right to kill any one who opposes their criminal destruction, theft, occupation and oppression of Palestine, well, they are fighting a losing battle. There are 350 million Arabs who increasingly despise Israel. The Islamists are becoming increasingly extreme and violent because of Israel and the USA. And the military balance is slowly shifting. Maybe the USA and the zionists have the upper hand today, but that will hardly last.

And when the time comes, Israel will be treated by those that were oppressed just as Saddam was beheaded by the Iraqis when they became free of his yoke. The Arabs will not forget this violence caused by Israel. It is just a matter of time. It is up to them whether they want to accept peace with equality and humility, or whether they want to continue along the path of violence. If they continue to chose violence, they face a sure defeat.... And it will be s defeat that they deserve.

Amazingly, Bronner's piece entirely ignores any consideration of Gaza situation from other side of the checkpoi... err, border.

I watched a Rice presser yesterday, said Bushco has "laid a strong foundation" for a Palestinian peace. Also said same admin was (my paraphrase, from memory) 1st to further discussion of an independent Palestinian state.

Go figure...

Looks like more "birthpangs" to me.

I watched Netanyahu yesterday describing Palestinians as nothing but terrorists, the difference between them being Palestinians "laugh" when Israelis are killed.

Sent a shiver down my spine, just as he did many times prior demonstrating his commitment to derailing Oslo.

Meanwhile, al-Maliki is calling for Islamic ME state boycott of Israel. Large protests in Lebanon: 10k + in Beirut, 3k+ in Sidon. Other Islamic moderates making similar statements... BBC summary of statements here. Even Sistani expressing same meme.

And talk about "political paradox"(s), WP yesterday:

One senior Bush administration official said he thinks the Israelis acted in Gaza "because they want it to be over before the next administration comes in." Although Bush has largely been supportive of almost any Israeli action taken in the name of self-defense, the official pointed out: "They can't predict how the next administration will handle it. And this is not the way they want to start with the new administration."

Lovely... just peachy.

Just wondering, where's W's ME envoy (Blair) right now? Is he still aghast over border/living conditions, or has he gotten over it and back on message.

I thought Bush/neocons said the Palestinian solution "went through Baghdad"... what happened to that?

Yes Joe M, I am on Israel's side, and why shouldn't I be? I tend to side with people that have similar values and don't want to see me dead. I agree with the one-state idea... I say everybody should just let Israel and the Palestinians fight it out until one side surrenders unconditionally. How bout it, sound good to you?

If the positions were reversed, and it was the Jews who were in the prison camp:

1) how do you think they'd be treated?
2) would you then be on their side?

Justin,
If you are proud of your values that support oppression of the weak and continued destruction of the defenseless, then you are scum. Those are the values that the Israelis continue to show and that the Arabs oppose. Those are the American values that George Bush has expressed to the world.

So, continue to be proud of the values of the destruction of the innocent, the wholesale bombing of cities, the occupation and destruction of societies... These are your values, this is what you support. You can deny this, but the actions are speak much more clearly than anything else.

My values are life and freedom for those that also value them. Hamas values neither, to put it lightly. I do support oppressing those determined to destroy you, and have no problem saying so. Why is your desire for oppression and destruction of the Israelis more righteous? Beyond that, what reason do I have to be on the side of the Palestinians?

Let me answer your question without expressing (much) the disgust i have for views.

What reason do you have for being on the side of the Palestinians?

there are two ways to answer this, one is an appeal to justice, and one is an appeal to self-interest. The appeal to justice is self-evident, as the Palestinians are suffering one of the worst crimes of the 20th century, were dispossessed by a group of Europeans, had their land stolen from them, forced into refugee camps, their society and way of life destroyed... and continue to be occupied, attacked and demonized even today. If you don't have sympathy for their plight, there is nothing i can say to you. And, that is independent of what you may think of the Jews, the plight of the Palestinians is shocking. Simply on the basis of an appeal to justice, you should be on their side.

But additionally, there is an appeal to your own self-interest. Assuming you are a typical white american, you are increasingly hated in the world because of your hatred for the poor and oppressed in the world. Your fascistic government has already spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting against the rage of the people you so quickly blow off is irrelevant. You might not realize this because you are blinded by the logic of your retarded president, but this lexicon of "life and freedom" are total bullsh%t. If the Palestinians have learned life is cheap, it is because the USA and Israel have forced that lesson on them for half a century. The lack of freedom the Palestinians feel is because they are under total zionist occupation and unable to leave or move. These are lessons your enlightened violence has taught them. And they are lessons the Palestinians will not forget.

Yet, even pragmatically speaking, some alternative power will eventually come and harness the anger you have nurtured in the Arabs, and they will use it against you. The vengeance of Bin Laden will be mere child's play in comparison. Because no people will forget the violence that your ignorance and lack of interest manifests. Additionally, no people are so generous to forgive the violence that you have advocated against them.

Right now, as you know, there is a resurgence of Islamist thought. And you may be too stupid to realize it, but this religious movement is actually your own creation. It is the beginnings of the effort unify this anger into a political movement. And it can only be stopped with generosity and humility, not with tanks and f16 bombers. Hamas, Hizbullah, the Islamists in Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood... and the more radical Islamists will only grow in strength with every bomb that drops on the Palestinians. And you might not believe this (because you think they are irrational and crazy), but they will also decrease in strength with the growth of justice. They don't determine their own path, they follow the path that the zionists and the Americans create for them. And the more blood in the streets, the more blood to come. It is your choice.

I will close by saying that I do not want to see more blood in the future, and am simply reporting the most obvious facts. My ideal solution to the question of Palestine is a one-state solution where Jews and Arabs share equal rights in a unified political entity, without either side dominating the other.

But America and Israel are utterly foolish to believe that they can control the world by force and buy their safety with advanced military equipment. Because the anger they have created will always continue boil every time they forget the history of war and violence they have created.

People are wrong to say that there is no military solution. Israel could impose a military final solution in a week or so. No need for diplomacy or any negotiation, they have the strength to create a permanent solution to the gaza problem at any time, they merely lack the political will.

There's a lot of truth to Joe M's rants, but still israelis are morally better than the nazis were. This may be one of the top ten crimes of the 20th century but it couldn't possibly be in first place.

But if genocide is ruled out, how can there be another military solution? The palestinians are about as much militarily defeated as it's possible to get already. They just refuse to surrender. Israel pulled back from outright military occupation -- making the whole place a big prison camp -- partly because they didn't want to pay the expenses. Every palestinian retaliation could have been prevented if israel had wanted to bother to prevent it. They just didn't want to make the effort; they want the palestinians to run the prison camp and guard themselves.

Possibly the palestinians will surrender for real. Or possibly the israelis will get the stomach to genocide them. But barring those two possibilities there are two remaining choices. They can negotiate a way to live together. This is unlikely; israelis say there's no point in negotiating because palestinians would demand more than israelis would be willing to pay. Or israelis can keep kicking palestinians around until some external conditions change.

Joe, you could have saved a lot of typing by just saying "submit, infidel." Thanks for answering though, I won't bother replying to you again in the future.

Justin,
You must be illiterate. Because, despite my occasional type-os, I never made a reference to your religion, and made it abundantly clear that the bombing and violence you support (or ignore/justify) are against your own self-interests.

J Thomas,
Reread my post more carefully. I never mentioned the Nazis, and I said "the Palestinians are suffering ONE of the worst crimes of the 20th century". I don't think there is much dispute about that.

Also, I agree with you that the zionists do not want to make any efforts for peace. But I will just reiterate that the one-state solution is the only real way to solve the conflict. Eventually, in my opinion, the zionists will be forced to accept a one-state solution or will be forced to leave. I prefer they stay, but really they are the ones making the choice. their violence speaks louder than words.

Joe M, I didn't say that you mentioned the nazis, or that you said that zionism was the worst. I just wanted to point out that so far they aren't the very worst.

I don't see anybody imposing much on the israelis for the foreseeable future. They are too strong and they have too much US support.

It used to be the foreseeable future for me was about 5 years, but these days I don't feel confident looking more than 3 years ahead. Or even less.

As oil supplies tighten, could israel face a real oil embargo? Might europe declare sanctions? Either of those looks plausible to me but not for the foreseeable future, say the next 2.5 years.

It's easy to blame the problem on the zionists, just like it was easy to blame a lot of 20th century european problems on the nazis. But in both cases it isn't really their fault. In both cases a whole group of people saw that no one would stand up for their legitimate rights, that no one really cared whether they lived or died, and they decided to take what they wanted by sheer force. We haven't yet found a way to help people gracefully back down from that. We need one. If israel hardens too much into a masada complex the results will be bad for the world.