Ground War in Gaza UPDATE
Any thoughts on where this is going. What is the end game here?
Glenn Greenwald asks some pertinent questions:
Though the ins-and-outs of Israeli grievances and strategic considerations are endlessly examined, there is virtually no debate over whether the U.S. should continue to play such an active, one-sided role in this dispute. It’s the American taxpayer, with their incredibly consequential yet never-debated multi-billion-dollar aid packages to Israel, who are vital in funding this costly Israeli assault on Gaza. Just as was true for Israel’s bombing of Lebanon, it’s American bombs that — with the whole world watching — are blowing up children and mosques, along with Hamas militants, in Gaza. And it’s the American veto power that, time and again, blocks any U.N. action to stop these wars.
Here’s his whole post: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
This from Steve Clemons at TPM
…My friend in Israel asked me for some help on shaping questions that he might pose to various Israel pols. I shared with him some of my thoughts on what he could ask. . .particularly the question of how Israel views long term US support.
I told him that in my view America’s increasingly consequential failures to generate stability in the Middle East is like an eroding levee in New Orleans — and those levees at some point are going to fail leaving Israel quite vulnerable unless Israel and other stakeholding neighbors achieve a different equilibrium in the region. . .and soon. There is great doubt around the world in the ability of America to pursue and achieve its objectives — and this doubt has consequences for Israel’s national security calculus, whether it is acknowledging it or not….
And from my Arabic blogging friend, I received this note — and I should add that this guy is about as positive about “modernity” as one can find in Middle East blogging circles: “Happy new year Steve .. Though GAZA is making this new year very sad for us here .. but i’ll try to smile whenever I can .. I might stop blogging until the war finishes .. it is really hard watching death day and night so close by ..any way .. how are the 1st world countries doing ?”
I agree with Zbigniew Brzezinski that the worsening tragedy in Gaza is part of the blur we have been seeing for some time. I put a lot of the blame on Labor Party Leader and Defense Minister Ehud Barak who has been itching to manage a war.
But as Brzezinski said, the Israelis and Palestinians have proven unable to rise to a level of strategic, forward-looking maturity to solve this problem and others now need to stabilize the situation, engage in a credible peace negotiation process that involves the other major Arab stakeholders, the US and Europe.
Clemons post here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/03/watching_death_day_and_night_s/#more
J Street is the newest American-Jewish lobby; it has questioned Israel’s current military actions, and has been attacked. Here is a response–and a clue to their thinking.
http://www.jstreet.org/blog/?p=69
Juan Cole’s post today (January 4) has some helpful observations about Israel’s macro and micro wars: http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/gaza-2008-micro-wars-and-macro-wars.html
There is no way you will get elected statewide in New York without blindly supporting Israel. It is a matter of politiical financing rather than the will of the electorate. The Jewish lobby in the US is huge. Money runs that ideology.
Jimmy Carter is rare among politicians who are critical of Israel. He need not worry. He is not running for anything. Follow the money.
But why is the Church so quiet,
This is the silence of an intimidated organization that fears the Lobby.
If this is not a moral crisis of conscience for the RCC, what is?
This attack is simply the Slaughter of the Innocents, but the bishops say not a word!
I have a question about Hamas. They had to know, from past experience, that Israel would eventually do what they did in response to the rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel. So why start them up again? I mean, strategically Why? What was it hoped would be gained? Why do they persist in the rocket attacks now? This is not a defense of Israel, but a simple question–I don’t understand what Hamas hoped and hopes to accomplish.
Chesterton remarked that a democracy may do awful things. Consider the Jim Crow laws, consider abortion. Ought one not in considering U.S. support for Israel {I do not say whether it is good or bad] simply consider Chesterton’s observation? The Congress and the Executive are elected by the people. They are not chosen by polls. If the Jewish lobby and the Jewish vote are strong and determining, why then they are strong and determining. If anything they are certainly more honest than ACORN,
Wherein lies the problem? Those voters are part of the U.S. electorate. It would be more to the point to attempt to argue with them, to convince them of one’s own position, rather than merely demonize them [as does the cited SALON article].
Joe K: Hamas says it’s out to destroy Israel. Lobbing rockets won’t do it. Getting Israel to invade Gaza mimicks Hezbollah’s 2006 strategy in which Hezb. declared victory simply because it survived. Hamas may plan the same. The question is what is Israel doing? They say they don’t want to occupy Gaza, do not want to destroy Hamas. But what else is there?
Gabriel Austin: A Rasmussen poll of recent days has Americans: evenly divided on supporting Israel with 15 percent don’t know. The vast majority of Republicans are in support; the vast majority of Democrats are against. The tides are shifting certainly among U.S. Jews and among many Americans. I am not sure that will make any difference in U.S. policy. That will be too bad for Israelis and Palestinians alike. But we will see come January 20.
It is a puzzle that many U.S. Catholics deplore what we have done in Iraq with our weapons, and yet fall silent when those same weapons and resources are used as they are being used in Gaza. Afraid of being called Anti-Semites?
Peggy: I know that Hamas wants to destroy Israel, but what does suffering the immense losses of material resources it knew it would likely suffer contribute to that goal? Is it all symbolic? Cynicism? I find it incomprehensible.
What is incomprehensible is how the West could uproot a people to satisfy a religious desire to possess a land. It was not guilt but, as now, a prodigious amount of money and lobbying. General Marshall warned Truman not to do it saying the problem would be enormous and endless. The creation of the state of Israel has to be one of the greatest blunders in history.
Joe: I can only speculate: Hamas is operating in a different political/teleological framework than we do and the Israelis do. The “true” believers don’t care if they are martyred, and they don’t distinguish between military and civilians. I doubt that most Gazans share their framework; most of them are trapped; they can’t get out and they have no where to go. In a more realpolitik framework, it may be that Hamas saw the tide going against it certainly among the Egyptians and the Saudis (I do think that a good part of the Arab world is sick of this and would like some kind of peace deal). Not the Iranians; not they Syrians for the moment. That’s why I think the Israelis should have bided their time.
But it’s Israel that I don’t understand. Frankly I think there is a large electoral gambit by Ehud Barack here. As the current minister of defense and candidate for pm, he has to show that he is tougher and more agressive than Netanyahu, the current favorite in the polls. Of course, there are other factors: new U.S. Administration that may (and I say may) not be so compliant and complacent; demographics are steadily moving against an exclusive Jewish state; the Jewish population is itself steadily becoming more religious and “fundamentalist” with secular Jews perhaps feeling if they can’t control Hamas the game is up for a secular state. But still, I think the current assault is a gamble that Israel could lose.
Would agree with Ms. Steinfels’ analysis. The sad part in this war is that most of the civilian populations of both the Palestinians and Israel only want peace at this time. What we see is the result of politics on both sides – Israel is split among numerous parties vying for power and control. Hamas like Arafat before it really do not care about the Palestinian people – only about their goals and aims.
My speculation is that the political elections in Israel and the US administration change drove Barack and his team to this decision. Unfortunately, like Lebanon in 2006 it does not seem like they can gain anything but continued hostility despite their overwhelming military success.
It is my hope that the new administration will take some daring steps to address this region:
1) as Ms. Steinfels has mentioned in other posts, move away from a unilateral Israeli stance, punish and limit all financial support based upon easily tracked steps to implement the two state proposal – this means upsetting the huge and influential Jewish lobby but all continued support needs to be contingent; this would be the first time since 1956 Suez Canal incident when Eisenhower threatened to stop American aid unless Israel abidded by the UN call;
2) appoint a team (e.g. Presidents Clinton, Carter, GHW Bush) to work with Blair, Sarkozy, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. Set a timetable.
3) would link the two state proposal to a unified approach to Iran, Syria, and Hezobollah – if reports can be believed, Syria and Israel were in negotiations and yet Isreal was willing to suspend this effort to attach Gaza? Why? Appears that this could have split Syria from Iran/Hezbollah?
Eisenhower forcing Israel to give up the Sinai was new info to me. Does anyone have the details on exactly how that came about?
We are sitting safely in our comfortable studies wondering why Hamas dares to incur Israeli anger when they know retaliation will be terrible. I would submit that we have no idea what their lives are like. We have no idea what it feels to have lived under a brutal occupation such as they have been enduring. Gaza has been starved of food and medical supplies. They have the right to resist.
JAK –
If I’m not mistaken there was a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas which expired immediately before the Hamas rocketing started again. The new rocketing was really just business a usual for them. The major military attack of Israel, on the other hand, is something new. It is not unusual just before a war seems to be ending for one side to grab as much territory as possible prior to peace talks. (See, for instance, the Soviets’ military push to Berlin at the end of WW II.) Perhaps Israel is anticipating that the new American administration will push for a general peace in the Middle east, and it wants to be in as strong a military position as possible.
Then there in Osama bin Laden, the elephant in the living room who has not forgotten and will never let the world forget that Palestinians were removed from their lands to make way for Jews from other countries. The Jews, after the Holocaust were trightly the object of great sympathy because of what the Nazis had done to them. But I have never understood why, given Jewish/Nazi history, the Allies didn’t give the Jews the German Black Forest or some other chunk of Germany as a homeland, as a minimal restitution for what they had been subjected to. Giving Palestinian lands to the Jews has never made sense to me. Yes, one can appeal to the Bible as history to stake a Jewish claim — those lands had been the land of the Jews. But what is the ethics of this situation? What is the moral status of such ancient claims?
Ms. Stienfels – will try to provide some links. The 1956 situation was complex just as today – with Britain, France, and Israel allied together. So, Eisenhower was dealing with all three. You may also find it interesting that the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt and how that strip was being used against Israel dating back to the war of independence.
Main link: Eisenhower address to US people summing up actions around the UN, the Suez Conflict, and US intent to support UN peace in Suez and Gaza despite Israeli disagreement: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/ikewarn1.html
Links – respones to Eisenhower’s demands from Ben-Gurion: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/bgrep.html
Links on supporting UN stance vs. Israeli concerns only: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/bgike.html
Eisenhower talking to Ben-Gurion about the Suez incident: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/ikesuez.html
One other link: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/bgrep1.html
Ann Oliver is it historically accurate to say that Palestinian lands were given to the Jews, actually the Zionists? In the Balfour Agreement, the British agreed to a Jewish homeland. But in the interim the Zionist organizations created a de facto government so that when the British withdrew there was a structure in place that became the State of Israel. My impression is that this the fairly standard account by both Israeli and Palestinian historians.
Early on there was an alternative proposal that European (and Eastern European Jews) go to Madagascar to escape the ghettos and pograms. Theodor Herzel and others chose Palestine and began buying up land early in the last century; I don’t know the percentage figure but Jewish organizations and individuals bought up a good deal of land between that time and 1948 when the State of Israel came into existence.
My point is that whatever we make of what has happened or the ethics of ancient claims, the Jewish community chose to be the creator of its own destiny.
Ms. Steinfels – agree that the majority of historians would agree with your “standard account.” But, the standard account misses the emotion, rage, and significance of the 1948 War of Independence and the impact on the Arab/Palestinian mindset.
See this link: http://www.religiousconsultation.org/NEWS/Palestinian_catastrophe.htm
I probably should add – does one Holocaust justify another “holocaust” in terms of the Palestinian lands and peoples? Would agree that most Jewish leaders chose to create their own destiny at the expense of another race, people, cultures.
The solution has to be objective and balanced – the citizens of both Israel and Palestine are the victims of history, politics, and war. See another proposed solution: http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/3037
Bill DeHaas, I have found Rashid Khalidi’s, The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood (2007), illuminating on Palestininian viewS, i.e., there was not and is not one view among them. Thanks for all of your cites; I’m working my way through your list.
Thanks, Ms. Steinfels. Always appreciate your well-written and well-researched articles and opinions.
Unfortunately, the more you drill down on both sides, the more complex and divided it becomes. There is no one Israeli; there is no one Palestinian view, experience, etc.
A couple of other comments: I read the piece by Juan Cole – realize that he is painting with a broad brush but he completely skips over the period from 1920 until 1948 – there were plenty of opportunities for both sides to work and develop a “single nation solution” but Arab nationalism, Jewish statehood aspirations, and an on-going and growing guerilla war by both sides (with some fairly atrocious village slaughters) destroyed any hope of that direction. WWII and the British put a lid on most activity for 5-8 years but then in 1946 it began in earnest again.
Finally, the demographic threat in Israel from its own Arab citizens will only increase their need to destroy any and all perceived threats to their existence. In some ways, the positions of 1948 have changed – Jewish refugees fresh from the European Holocaust, unwanted by the rest of the world but able to leverage finances, sympathy, and better education/culture/business bought or fought for their own country in the face of their Arab neighbors who were X times their size in population. Now, we have Israel dominant militarily and financially encircling Palestinian people as a result of 40 years of forced immigration, not wanted by other Arab countries but leveraging hatred, arab sympathies but little to no political or financial leverage.
It’s too bad we can’t just remove the peace-loving (and -wanting) folks on both sides to new homes outside this piece of real estate, provide bombs and ammo to the warmongers on both sides, and allow them to blow each other up to smithereens!
I realize this is a pipedream, but, really………..what to do when there are Israeli and Palestinian troublemakers not willing to compromise?
“Ann Oliver is it historically accurate to say that Palestinian lands were given to the Jews, actually the Zionists? ”
Ms. Steinfels –
You’re right. I’m relying on my inaccurate memory of times past, conflated with my assumption that if the Palestinians arae refugees they must be refugees from their homeland.
Years ago I met a young Palestinian gave me a very different view of the formation of Israel than I had had. He said that the native Jews and Palestinians got alone well until the English Zionists imposed their will on Palestine with the subsequent demographic changes that made life intolerable, it seems, for many Palestinians. The young man blamed it all on the foreign Zionists. No doubt there are two sides to the history, and thank you for all the information. I had no idea that Herzel et al had bought up land in Palestine. That does change the moral situation quite a lot. However, my sympathies are still more with the Palestinians. They have lost so very, very much with little or no hope of righting their situation.
Bill DeH. –
I just happened to read this yesterday at Wikipedia in the Manuel Quezon article:
“n a notable humanitarian act, Quezon, in cooperation with United States High Commissioner Paul V. McNutt, facilitated the entry into the Philippines of Jewish refugees fleeing fascist regimes in Europe. Quezon was also instrumental in promoting a project to resettle the refugees in Mindanao.
I wonder if anything came of the initiative.
Thanks, Ann. When I was teaching on this subject, I remember finding many examples of various efforts such as this. But, my focus was more on the US policy subsequent to the ending of WWII – it was heavily anti-Jewish immigration. From this, you get a strengthening of the US Jewish lobby, the push for recognition of Israel, etc.
The period between WWI and WWII was a defining moment for this land. When teaching, I compared Palestine to the 19th century US West and the native americans. Their societies, cultures, etc. were based on generations of tribal history, systems, families. The westward expansion, industrialization, town and city growth, the overlay of a state system, as we now know, exterminated almost all of the prior Indian cultures and policy was to push them into reservations. The result was a loss of culture, roots, etc. and doomed these folks to poverty, lack of education, lack of political rights/representation and they received almost no compensation for these losses.
Palestine was basically tribal families – some anchored to villages, some to towns, some were Bedouin and migratory. Yes, there always existed some small Jewish communities e.g. Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, etc. Between the wars, the Israeli statehood movement was more organized, ran along modern financial lines, had the ability to purchase land and organize politically basically replacing the arab tribal system. Unfortunately, instead of merging the two peoples – it became an underground struggle that eventually became war and independence resulting in wholesale migration and possession of arab lands by Israelis. Historically, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt did not want these Palestinian peoples – they were forced into internment camps. Not much has changed.
Bill DeH. -
Thank you very much for the history. How can there possibly be justice for the Palestinians? Their nomadic laws and Wrstern laws of land rights simply are not commensurate – fitting any solution to the facts fairly would be like trying to fit two different jigsaw puzzles into one harmonious scene.
Oi veh!
That is the complexity and dilemma that the world faces with this event. Continuing my parallel thoughts, now 150 years later we are just now redressing the native american wrongs of the 19th century – yet, we have not allowed them to “return to their original lands”; in almost all cases, we have not paid them reparations for their losses.
This crisis has three elements:
a) the issue of 1948 – Jews see Israel as the answer to their Holocaust; the war of independence is seen by arabs as their holocaust – nakba. Any nations seeking peace will have to pay respect to both hurts but not let it derail future steps;
b) the issue of “return of Palestinians” – Israel already faces a 20% arab population and will be unviling to see that number grow. Yet, to be fair, they must allow for some type of return to the West Bank, Gaza and there must be serious efforts to pay reparations – peace and reconciliation UN committee. Part of this issue are the Israeli settlements in the West Bank – some resolution has to be made to abandon these or negotiate some border swaps;
c) Jerusalem – open UN city that is recognized as both the capital of Israel and Palestine;