My attempts to get a handle on the
Gaza situation are serious and earnest. But, as one close associate said
to me tonight, "Your problem is that you're trying to do a rational analysis of
a situation that is not rational." And oh, is that the case.
Every talking head has something
else to say. Every Internet sources has different "inside" information. I
don't use talking heads as my sources, and not primarily Internet
sources providing that "inside" information, either. I try to pick
the brains of analysts and those in the know -- as I've explained before,
including some who are Arabic speaking. And I have found it very
difficult.
This, it seems to me, is an
important part my report -- to reflect the turmoil that is swirling about
this issue, with all its complexities. To say that the dust hasn't
settled, and that everyone has a different
take.
~~~~~~~~~~
I would like to provide an
overview here that, hopefully, will be reasonably clear. Then, in
coming days, as new information and perspectives emerge, I will share them
with you.
~~~~~~~~~~
From my perspective, the first
concern is not that we stopped before going into Gaza, it's that ceasefire
agreement. I would have been far more comfortable had we simply
stopped and let Hamas know that if they start again so will we. But the
fact is that a document was drawn up, and it touches upon a number of
issues:
[] What we're seeing here is
an agreement between Israel and Hamas (with Egypt as facilitator), for the very
first time. Not between Israel and Egypt and/or Israel and the US,
concerning Hamas -- with Hamas, as a terrorist organization, not directly
included. This set-up gives Hamas increased legitimacy internationally,
which will create problems down the road.
No where in this agreement is it
implicit that Israel was in a self-defensive posture against a totally
unjustified and unprovoked Hamas rocket attack. This essential reality has
been obscured, as it speaks of hostilities on both sides ceasing.
[] The Muslim Brotherhood
Egypt has also been accorded enhanced status by the US for its
role.
[] Not insignificantly,
that Muslim Brotherhood Egypt has been named as the arbiter, the source to
which Israel is supposed to go to register complaints about Hamas
violations, rather than responding directly to the violations.
This demeans Israel. In this
part of the world it is not just power that matters, it is perceptions of
power. Thus is the situation that has been set up with this agreement
seriously unsettling. At least
in theory, it limits Israel's autonomy and her ability to act
independently to defend herself.
[] Lastly, I am very unsettled by
the role of the Obama administration in putting this together. Obviously,
Obama and Clinton endorsed and likely promoted the problematic stipulations
in the agreement that I have just outlined above. This, once again,
puts the lie to the notion of Obama as a friend of Israel who is concerned about
Israeli security.
As I see it, it seems similarly
clear that there was coercion involved. With regard to Morsi, the
issue of US funds for a near-bankrupt Egypt was the key.
But with Israel? The
facts are hard to nail down. We know that Obama was opposed to a
ground operation in Gaza, and was keen to stop the fighting. He
released a statement about the fact that he "advised" Netanyahu to accept the
ceasefire; an "interesting" way of putting it that has about it some suggestion
of a power play.
I wrote recently about a
report from a highly credible source that said Obama carried to Israel
information about Morsi's threat to abrogate the peace treaty if Israel
went into Gaza; as Obama could have scotched that threat and didn't, he was
complicit in it. Elsewhere I have read that Obama threatened to side with Abbas
at the UN if Netanyahu didn't cooperate. I don't know if this is
true.
~~~~~~~~~~
Carolyn Glick wrote a piece
yesterday that, with regard to these concerns, essentially dovetails with
my thinking on this issue; I share part of it here (emphasis
added):
"The cease-fire agreement that
Israel accepted Wednesday night to end the current round of Palestinian rocket
and missile attacks is not a good deal for Israel by any stretch of the
imagination.
"At best, Israel and Hamas are
placed on the same moral plane. The cease-fire erases the distinction
between Israel, a peace-seeking liberal democracy that wants simply to defend
its citizens, and Hamas, a genocidal jihadist terrorist outfit that seeks the
eradication of the Jewish people and the destruction of
Israel.
"...At worst, the cease-fire
places Israel beneath Hamas. The first two clauses require both sides to end
hostilities. The third suggests Israel is expected to make further concessions
to Hamas after the firing stops.
"Then there is the cease-fire's
elevation of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood government to the role of responsible
adult. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egyptian
President Muhamad Morsi openly supports Hamas...
"Over the weekend, Egypt's Muslim
Brotherhood held what the media claimed was a stormy meeting. Its members were
split over what to do about Israel. Half wanted to go to war with Israel
immediately. The other half called for waiting until the Egyptian military is
prepared for war. In the end, the voices calling for patient preparation for war
won the day.
"And for their patience, the
Muslim Brothers received the plaudits of the US government. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and her boss President Barack Obama were effusive in their
praise of the Egyptian government, and joined Egypt in placing Israel on the
same moral plane as a terrorist group.
"Moreover, Obama and Clinton
compelled Israel to accept wording in the cease-fire that arguably makes
Egypt the arbiter of Israeli and Palestinian compliance with the
agreement.
"Aside from the administration's
de facto support for the Hamas regime in Gaza, it is hard to think of a
greater humiliation than Israel being forced to submit complaints to its sworn
enemy about the actions of the sworn enemy's terrorist
client.
~~~~~~~~~~
Having said that this dovetails
with my own thinking, I must now add some provisos and additional
information:
Glick speaks elsewhere in
this article about Netanyahu signing on the dotted line. She may have
meant this metaphorically. But in any event there was no dotted line:
It turns out that no one signed this document.
What I am as yet unable to
determine is whether the document carries weight even though it is not
signed. One analyst said that it most certainly does, for Israel publicly
acceded to this. Another said that virtually there is no document and
Israel can do as she pleases.
~~~~~~~~~~
What we must continue to hope is
that whether this unsigned document carries weight or not, when
the moment comes for responding to renewed Hamas aggression, the
Israeli government will act decisively on her own, without delay.
~~~~~~~~~~
The fact that this feels like a
bad deal for Israel does not mean that there were no Israeli gains or
victories. The pinpoint elimination of Hamas leaders, done with absolutely
no collateral damage was fantastic, and struck a note of terror in the hearts of
the terrorists.
We also took out a sizeable number
of smuggling tunnels -- more than we had previously. There are still many
more, however, and I'm sure the terrorists are digging like crazy as I
write.
And most of the Iranian Fajr
long-range missiles were taken out -- although thousands of the medium range
rockets are still in place.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to those long-range missiles, I
picked up some interesting information tonight. A few of the Fajrs were launched
by Hamas, towards Tel Aviv, certainly, and I believe also towards
Jerusalem. I've been told that Iran was angry about this, for they didn't
provide those missiles to Hamas for them to use at their discretion. They were
intended to be used only when Israel attacks Iran and a second,
diversionary, front is supposed to be initiated by
Hamas.
Several significant thoughts
follow from this:
Israel's primary objective in
responding to Hamas right now may have been taking out those Fajr missiles,
precisely so that they will not be in place when (if?) we attack Iran.
Israel may not have truly been interested in taking on Hamas beyond this at
this point in time. Netanyahu and Lieberman both made comments about now not being the
time to take Gaza.
For Netanyahu and his ministers,
this entire issue may dwarf the question of whether Israel needs to report to
Morsi if there are Hamas violations. This is speculation -- I have no
private information on Netanyahu's intentions vis-a-vis Iran, but it provides a
different perspective.
If this is the case, then it
explains why Iran already has even better missiles in the pipeline. No
time to be wasted, it would seem. Our actions in this regard would have
alarmed Iran.
And it makes even more critical
the issue of how Israel intends to stop the smuggling and prevent the new
missiles from being set in place in Gaza. On this, I have no information,
and truly wish I did.
~~~~~~~~~~
As far as stopping the smuggling
is concerned, what I can say is that this will not be accomplished by US troops
placed in Sinai by Obama next week. This is not a facetious
statement. It is a response to a story making the rounds, sourced by
Debka, that claims this is going to happen.
On the face of it, this is not a
plausible possibility when you consider how hard Obama is working to extricate
US troops from doing battle with Islamists forces; he's hardly likely to open on
a new front. But we also have official denial of this from the
Egyptians: http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=59185.
~~~~~~~~~~
Glick refers to Israel being
required by the ceasefire agreement to make further concessions to Hamas, and we
are already seeing indication of this: Israel is now permitting Gazan
fisherman to go six miles into the Mediterranean, instead of the three miles
permitted until now.
I find this unsettling because of
the increased possibility for smuggling via this avenue that this greater
latitude presents. Ships farther out at sea can drop weapons, in sections
and carefully packaged, into the water, where they move with currents.
Fishing boats out another three miles into the sea have a greater chance of
picking them up.
~~~~~~~~~~
Part of what's happening here,
though, is that Hamas is lobbying for lifting of restrictions that will mprove
the economic situation of Gaza, making it a more viable entity. This is
just one more step towards encouraging the world to see Gaza as an entity (quasi
state) that can be dealt with.
It's very important to note that
the PA and Abbas are increasing irrelevant, with what's going on -- notice that
Abbas had no role. Hamas's goal is the takeover of the PA/PLO in due
course. We're looking at a shifting dynamic.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to an Israeli ground operation
into Gaza, there is fairly broad consensus on the eventual need for this.
There is the feeling that we cannot continue with the status quo, with
indecisive battles with Hamas every few years. But there is no
unanimity on when or what precisely should be accomplished.
There are those who maintain that
we must start to work towards retaking Gaza. (Glick addresses this
issue.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Others believe that we should do
in Gaza what we did in Judea and Samaria in 2002 in Operation Defensive
Shield. When horrendous terrorists attacks -- which emanated from
Palestinian Authority areas of Judea and Samaria -- occurred repeatedly,
the IDF entered those areas. The PA wasn't "defeated" or driven out, but
the IDF maintains a presence in these places to this day. That's what keeps
Israel quiet today: there are operations nightly that round up terrorists,
confiscate weapons and explosives, and shut down weapons factories.
What is suggested is that Hamas
not be taken out completely, which would then make us responsible for the civil
administration of over a million not particularly friendly Arabs. We would
instead maintain a presence there sufficient to interfere with rocket launching
operations, while Hamas continued, in a sense, to operate as a civil government
in Gaza.
Yet other suggestions include the
re-taking of the Philadelphi Corridor at the border between Gaza and Sinai, in
order to prevent smuggling, and dividing of Gaza into several sections that
would make movement (and thus terrorist actions) difficult.
What will transpire, and when,
remains to be seen. But it's good that we are talking about it. It may
well be that this truly was not yet the time, because a take-over in Gaza, at
whatever level, would represent a huge undertaking at a time when we truly do
have to focus on Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama had said that he was opposed
to a Gaza operation by Israel because this would increase unrest in the area and
threaten stabililty in both Egypt and Jordan (which is very shaky right now,
with Islamists seeking to overthrow the king). I confess that this logic
confuses me. Where Jordan is concerned, one would think that a
weakening of Islamist elements anywhere in the region would be a good
thing. As to a Brotherhood-leaning government in Egypt, what would his
preference be?
~~~~~~~~~~
One final word in closing.
Right after the finish of the operation, I wrote about the groundswell of
protest that it had been stopped, and the desire of Israelis to see the IDF move
into Gaza. That is, very much, what I was picking up in personal
communications. There were demonstrations in the south on this issue, as
well, and a poll indicated that some 70% of the population wanted the operation
to continue. Thursday night I encountered in town some soldiers who
were returning. "Yes, we're coming back," one said. "Haval." (It's too
bad.)
Certainly, 70% is not everyone,
and I must acknowledge this. I've had messages from two readers making
this point to me. One of those readers had a grandson at the border,
waiting to go in. She is greatly relieved that he's not in battle --
as undoubtedly are many like her. This is understood and
appreciated.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
If
it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment