Larison comes back on me, suggesting that even if Hamas already had popular support, there's always room to gain. He also points to a Reason blurb from a few days ago that suggests perhaps Hamas was on the wane before the newest Israeli offensive. Now, they're surely enjoying the full support of Gazans (and many others around the region).
I should make it clear that the reason I support the continuation of the current operation -- one of the biggest reasons, anyway -- is that I am and always have been against the Gaza siege, for all the reasons that Daniel is enumerating. Hamas caught the international community, Israel included, with the proverbial pants down last year, and the Knesset wasn't able to develop any good ideas fast enough to actually solve the problem. Their response was reactionary and counter-productive.
But I don't understand how Daniel can, in one moment, condemn the siege for the obvious mistake it is, without seeing the necessary follow-up: the continuation of the siege, without tangible positive result, is a clear indication that something beyond strategy is driving it.
That 'something else' is Israeli public opinion, which has no interest in lifting the blockade on a territory that has been shelling it consistently for over a year now. Forget about Larison's brand of rational discourse -- Israelis are pissed. That's why the siege has continued, and that's why the operation in Gaza enjoys popular support despite its echoes of Lebanon '06. There simply isn't a critical mass of Israeli voters out there willing to stomach delivering food and supplies to a population they perceive as actively making war on them.
Ironically, the same Reason article that Daniel cited points at the issue. Hamas violence, however practically mild in comparison to the Israeli response, has nonetheless radicalized the Israeli population as much as Israeli violence has to Gaza. The only way to cool down will be for one side to stop shooting.
It's very clear that Hamas has no intention of doing that -- as has been pointed out, the shooting is precisely what's reinforcing their support. And Israel, while it may be persuaded to come to a temporary ceasefire, will certainly not lift the blockade while shelling continues. Any politician who does so is committing instant political suicide. If Barack Obama were reincarnated tomorrow in the body of a wizened Israeli general, he couldn't pull it off.
The only way to solve this problem is disarm Hamas. 'Nikudah,' as they say in Hebrew. The Israeli government knows that the siege of Gaza is not working. But they require serious political capital to lift it, and the only way to gain that capital is to halt the shelling. The fact that it was Israel itself that did the disarming is a big bonus that will only speed the process.
Hamas cannot be permanently disarmed. But as I said to Freddie, Gaza is not Lebanon. Unlike Lebanon, Israel exercises significant control over Gaza through that very same siege. In Lebanon, Israel's lack of territorial control set the stakes too high: either Hizbullah would be totally annihilated, or it would regroup and rearm via Lebanese and Syrian infrastructure. It was far too easy to fail, and Israel never really had a chance.
But Hamas will not have the ability to rearm. Their only chance was cooperation, or at least tacit understanding, with Egypt. But as Egypt is more fully pulled into an ugly, public battle with an Arab neighbor, the likelihood of its interest in a continued Hamas presence in the region is fast decreasing. There will be no rearmament through the Rafah crossing.
If Israel can get into Gaza on the ground and destroy the remaining rockets, we could be looking at a solid year or two of relatively stable cease fire. That's not a permanent solution. But it will give the Israeli leadership the room it needs to back down from the siege -- the only move that might actually delegitimize Hamas. And when that happens, one hopes, the moderate Palestinian element in Gaza will reemerge, and begin the difficult work of tempering or replacing their extremist rulers.
It's an imperfect plan fraught with uncertainty. But it is far better than forcing Israel to pull out of the operation now, when nothing has been accomplished except for more increases in death and resentment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Max, what is your take on missile defense for Ashkelon, Sderot etc.? Wouldn't simply making Hamas impotent be more effective than actually taking their bait and using drastic military force?
Good stuff by the way. I'll be adding you to the sidebar this evening.
There is a missile defense strategy, believe it or not, although it doesn't get much press coverage. The Home Front Command, as it's called, is deployed in every city within range. They run the sirens, which go off about 45 seconds before an incoming rocket. They also help the elderly get out of their houses and into shelters, when possible, and they provide shelter services and updates door-to-door on how many rockets to expect in a day. Most recently, they've started distributing cement sewer pipes to every street. At every alert, residents are supposed to climb into these pipes, which will protect them from anything but a direct hit.
I assume you're asking more about satellite-based, guided-intercept type defense. I don't know anything about that, but I assume that Qassams and Grads are fired too low, and too fast, for that tech to be effective (especially when, as I understand, the US hasn't even gotten it right for long launches over the sea.)
The defense measures I outlined are insufficient in two ways. First, they don't prevent the rockets from actually falling, which pisses Israelis off tremendously, and has been the impetus for the operation, as I've been trying to explain to American readers for awhile now.
Second, while few have died in the attacks, whole communities in the south are slowly dying. It's no longer possible to earn a living in Sderot -- and with expanded range, that may become true for Ashkelon and Beer Sheva soon. Businesses have all gone north, as have most young people interested in living lives not constantly on the edge have also emigrated. As you can imagine, in a country as small as Israel, shutting down an entire region economically is not a laughing matter.
Thanks for the explanation, Max. There is certainly cause for the current invasion. I only hoe it doesn't make matters worse. Essentially, it seems to me that Israel lacks resolve or the "long-view" necessary to commit fully to such operations, thereby having to do them over and over again. I hope that at least if they do carry this out that they follow it through, and then work to find some way to ease the suffering of the Gazans while at the same time disarming and crippling Hamas. Doesn't sound easy in the least.
Post a Comment