I keep reading pieces claiming that the latest battle between Hamas and Israel is a watershed event. Nothing will ever be the same after this.
Huh? As near as I can tell, it was such a standard little war as to be almost boring. Hamas did what it always does, Israel did what it always does, and after a couple of weeks everyone pretends that their objectives have been met and agrees to a cease-fire. After that, things go back to exactly how they were before.
What am I missing here? When I say "the way things were before," what I mean is that (a) Israel controls everything utterly, and (b) every once in a while Hamas (or Hezbollah or some other Palestinian group) decides to lob a few thousand rockets in the general direction of Jerusalem in order to demonstrate that they still exist. The world condemns Israel for acting disproportionately, but Israel knows that no one is really serious about this and basically ignores it.
What exactly is different this time, aside from the fact that it happened over the past two weeks and we haven't forgotten about it yet?
To be fair this latest round of Arab rocketry is the direct result of the Israeli security forces attacking (with less lethal but serious weaponry) the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem while services were going on.
I agree nothing's changed in the Middle East. I do sense that in America, it is now possible to criticize Israel without being reflexively damned by just about everyone as a terrorist-loving Islamofascist fanatic. Baby steps.
No, even this isn't particularly new. The most Zionist organizations will still condemn you if you criticize Israel, and there was an overall tolerance for condemning Israel's use of force for at least a decade or two.
Bibi Netanyahu’s general repulsiveness is at least one reason for that, I think.
And his wag-the-dog brutality to distract from his own political and legal trouble
I guess there was a general strike, and maybe a bit more unrest among Palestinian citizens of Israel than usual? But even that might taper off - they're now at ceasefire, with both the leader of Hamas and Netanyahu having shored up their domestic political power.
It's pretty hopeless. The Israelis mostly have the Palestinians bottled up aside from rockets from Gaza, the surrounding Arab country governments (as opposed to their citizens, but they're mostly not democracies) don't care, the issue feels a lot less prominent since the Syrian Civil War and ISIS, and Israel's government has no real reason to budge on either the long-dead Two State Solution.
Is it permissible in the progressive parts of the good old USA to criticize the Palestinians and specifically Hamas? For instance...
The real sin, the real crime of Israel is in not removing the actual occupying force of Hamas in Gaza. If Israel really cared about the Palestinians, (they don't), they would go in and entirely remove Hamas as a political institution instead of blowing up valuable infrastructure.
With Gaza freed of Hamas, the Palestinians could finally make common cause with the West Bank Arabs and actually move forward towards an independent state.
But Israel actually needs the status quo, and their real war crime is not having a real and honest military goal...except to pound the rubble.
When you win a war, you replace the previous government or rulers as the case may be...This purposeful failure is Israel's actual sin.
Best Wishes, Traveller
How would the Israelis remove Hamas from Gaza? They invade, arrest the leaders, and then leave. None of that has helped to build a functioning, non-Hamas state. Indeed, it only serves to reinforce the idea that, if you want to stick it to Israel, you support Hamas. There isn't any alternative. The PA is even more discredited and disliked by Palestinians than Hamas is. The only two options Israel would have after invading is to stay and try to run Gaza themselves, which already proved to be a failure, or withdraw and let Hamas refill the inevitable vacuum.
The real Israeli crime (or one of them) is the blockade of Gaza. Aside from being a massive violation of international law, it emphasizes that there is no upside for Gazans in cooperating with Israel. They might as well applaud Hamas firing rockets at Israel, because they have nothing left to lose.
Yeah it's not at all well understood in the US that Hamas functions mostly like a government, providing services to Palestinians, and that's how it's seen there. Its military activities are, for most Palestinians, secondary. The notion of "replacing" it in Gaza -- and some other places -- is absurd.
"they would go in and entirely remove Hamas as a political institution instead of blowing up valuable infrastructure."
Yeah, just like we did to the Viet Cong in Vietnam. It's just so simple.
Here's Peter Beinert's take:
The reason the American debate over Israel-Palestine could shift dramatically and quickly is that many Democratic politicians don't need to be convinced that what Israel is doing is wrong. They just need to be convinced that they can say so without hurting their careers. (@PeterBeinart).
That the second part will come to pass is hardly a given. But it does seem significant if true.
I endorse this message. What's different this time around is that world opinion (among the educated classes) seems to be decisively against Israel.
The blockade is obviously not very effective if you can smuggle in at least the 3,449 missiles fired at Israel in the most recent conflict. Imported steel and concrete is diverted to the underground "Gaza Metro."
So a very porous blockade at best.
I sense that Israel is playing a very dangerous game allowing Hamas to continue to exist...a three front war, even with interior lines of defense, would be very difficult for Israel.
And Jerusalem is just non negotiable, (because tickets were inexpensive, I ended up spending a Christmas in Israel...even as a non religious person, spending a little time in the close confines of Christ's tomb...grabbed a hold of me in ways I would not have expected.
Be that as it may, the geography is such that there is a valley from the old city proper and to the east, the Mount of Olives and the Garden of Gethsemane, from the top of that ridge back to the East, yes....but none of the old city.
This is my view, (and yes I spent a week in the West Bank, but obviously not Gaza)
Traveller
Israel, or at least Bibi, is happy to have Hamas in power in Gaza. Gaza is completely isolated from the main Israeli economy, so losing access to it is no big deal to Israel.
With Hamas in power there, but not in the West Bank, Israel can claim that the Palestinians are divided, that a significant number of Palestinians support a terrorist group whose charter calls for Israel's destruction. Most importantly, Hamas can be easily provoked to launch an attack on Israel whenever the right wing government is threatened by more moderate parties, leading to a 'rally around the flag' effect that keeps Bibi in power.
Both sides think they can make the other so miserable that they will just leave. So far, both sides are wrong.
Do I really need to tweak people's memory and recall that originally Hamas was the creation of Israeli intelligence services ... to combat the awesome (existential! it was claimed at the time) menace of Arafat and the PLO?
Big The Break Up starring Jennifer Aniston & Vince Vaughn energy.
A few points:
- Israel cannot destroy Hamas short of genocide, which would destroy their UN support.
- Hamas frequently serves Israel's leadership's desires, like they did here. Bibi needed that attack to survive. Honestly, it would not surprise me to find out Mossad calling the shots, but that isn't necessary - Hamas is so weak, they're easy to push around.
- An ethnically cleansed Israel will, long term, lose the support of the rest of the world, including the US.
As a certain economist likes to say, solve for the equilibrium.
Nothing has changed... and I still don't care. Religious fanatics killing each other and ruining life for everyone else. My contempt for religious people of any sort is unchanged.
Not so sure this is a "religious" conflict.
I think if you have a focus that is not just US-centric, but almost totally inside the beltway, you perceive a change in the willingness of Democratic politicians to criticize Israel. But that "major" change (it's major only from a very limited perspective) is unlikely to have consequences in the next 20 years, which means, given the unpredictability of world events over that time frame, it may never have any effect.
I laughed at the same article. "Everything has changed"? Really?
One point that I don't think is made frequently is that wealthy Arab nations could really being about major change, for the lives of ordinary Palestinians and hence for the conflict with Israel, but they don't want to. They're happy to leave the Palestinians miserable and oppressed, as a huge thorn in Israel's side. Their actions -- and inactions -- are as much a cause of the conflict as anyone's, and they're particularly reprehensible.
Tell me, I'm curious: Why should they 'want' to? As opposed to merely wishing the Palestinians well in recovering their stolen property? Go for it, I'm sure you'll make a very convincing case 😉
What do you mean, "nothing has changed"? A few Israelis got killed this time! Others had their dinner hours disrupted by air raid sirens! Their DINNER HOUR! Atrocity!
I'm supporting the move in Congress to block the latest sale of military hardware to Israel. Let 'em buy it themselves, and NOT from the United States. If these constant bursts of "mowing the grass" (as dehumanizing an expression as I've ever heard) to facilitate Netanyahu's political career actually cost the Israeli taxpayers, maybe they'd think twice about cheerfully raining death and destruction on their captive Palestinians in their open-air prison.
The big change is the first major demos of Israeli Arabs who are 20% of the Israeli population, with citizenship rights. They are taking up the Palestinian cause after years of quiesence, using Black Lives Matter tactics. Mobs of right wing Israelis and the police responded violently. "Pan-Palestinism" is a new twist as Arab MKs are gaining influence in the Knesset. This Arab response may grow, as Israeli Apartheid grows.
This was Bibi's last hurrah. For anything good to happen in Israel, he must move on.
The only change I see is slightly less support for Israel to do whatever it wants in the US, but not enough to make any real difference. Pretty much the same as it ever was. I stopped following it closely about 20 years ago. I don't take sides in mob wars.
Poll numbers down? Let's have a little war to boost them.
Biden was forced to use the term equal in what both sides deserve. That's big. In fact in presidential speeches it's NEVER been used in regards to palestine arabs.
And equal is the crack in the wall that we can put a stop to our support of Jewish bullying.
Some things have changed:
+ Israeli Arabs and Jews (IOW those not in occupied territories) are trying to kill each other -- that's a first.
+ A lot fewer tall structures in Gaza -- that's never happened before.
I see Mr. Drum is getting back to his trend of "Everything is whatever" writing.
I appreciate the fact people can float ideas here to test them out...
I still like the idea that it is Hamas that is the occupying power...
And I probably disagree that there is no alternative political option in Gaza other than Hamas
But obviously many smart people here disagree...
So thanks for the feed back.
Traveller
Pingback: Quiet Intensive Tact | Just Above Sunset