Flying Pink Unicorns

Israel & Gaza-- Take 5,381

The New York Times recently opined about Israel and the ongoing Gaza situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/opinion/08sat1.html

Continuing its perfect record, the Times is, yet again, almost entirely wrong regarding what Israel should do.

First, the Times reflexively calls for a ceasefire every time Israel defends itself. Now I'm the first to admit that Israel generally manages to be both ham-handed (attacking and often killing people not directly responsible for attacks on it, or engaging in collective punishment, such as checkpoints with dubious security rationales) and ineffective (in general Israel recoils from taking the sort of military actions which would actually make a difference in its security, such as enforcing a large exclusion zone in southern Lebanon during the 2006 war, which would be depopulated and thus could not be used for rocket attacks against Israel. Israel prefers looking tough (partial blockade of Gaza, air strikes, pinprick strikes against militants) to taking decisive actions which would actually be tough. Israel's current actions in Gaza fit this tragic pattern all too well.

Still, the New York Times advocates:

1) A cease fire;

2) Negotiations between Abbas and Israel; and

3) Outside pressure on Hamas to behave.

I am absolutely opposed to numbers 1 and 2 above, while # 3 is surely destined to fail and fail spectacularly. Thus the New York Times has it almost perfectly wrong. Impressive, but unsurprising, the Times is always wrong about Israel.

I'll address in turn:

A) I am opposed to a cease fire

A nation does not enter into a cease fire with an enemy bent on its destruction and actively doing damage (lobbing rockets) as Hamas is without a really good reason. Now if Hamas put out a statement, "we recognize Israel's right to exist but only on its 1948 borders. As long as it occupies one millimeter beyond that we are at war, but we are willing to talk to it," that would be a sea change, and could and would justify a cease fire. But the Times seems to think a cease fire is a good thing for its own sake. That is where I part company with the vast majority of the unthinking Israeli left (of which the Times, sadly, is a proud member as the above editorial makes painfully clear).

Now violence for violence's sake is even worse than a cease-fire for the sake of a cease-fire. Accordingly, I sadly agree with this piece from Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546390315&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Glick is a right wing hawk, opposed to a Palestinian state regardless, and seeing the Ps as always wrong. However, she sees Israel's government as nearly always wrong, incompetent, and bone-headed when it comes to Israel's security. Thus although I vigorously disagree with her on settlements and the benefits of a P state (I am bitterly opposed to any Israeli settlement whatsoever, and am strongly opposed to the ongoing occupation, 40 years and counting), I do very much agree that Israel's security efforts are generally lame and lacking. Specifically, Israel's military actions rarely have clear goals, and when they do those goals rarely result in Israel's security being enhanced.

Andrew has often criticized Caroline Glick for not taking her own ideas to their logical conclusion. She is pretty much an unrelenting hawk on how Israel should respond to P actions, yet rarely spells out just what she does want Israel to do, preferring instead to viciously criticize Israeli actions. Now bitterly criticizing the Olmert government is low hanging fruit indeed. Rarely if ever have I seen an elected government so grossly incompetent, and so obviously disinterested in the welfare of the country and instead solely interested in its self-preservation. These people are enough to make me long for the Bushies....

To circle back, I am bitterly opposed to a cease fire. Hamas has fired any number of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel, resulting in some casualties. The quality of the rockets has improved, and Iran is almost certainly supplying them. This is intolerable! I support whatever level of force is necessary to eliminate this threat, or at least to very very radically reduce it. If that requires reoccupying Gaza, I support it. If that requires that Israel evict every civilian for several kilometers or more from the border so as to provide a buffer zone, I support it. Needless to say, I do not support reintroducing settlements, which I imagine even the stupid bumbling land-grabbing Israelis won't do.

B) I am opposed to negotiations between Abbas and Israel.

I believe in diplomacy and peace generally, so it very much goes against my beliefs to oppose negotiations. Yet I have been opposed for several years and remain so. The reason is simple. Abbas speaks for almost no one. He sure as heck doesn't speak for Hamas, and really barely speaks for Fatah. As I understand it, he has very little sway with the average P. In short, even if Israel and Abbas came to an "agreement," it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on, because no one on the P side would take it seriously. In particular, Hamas, the most virulent P enemy, certainly wouldn't. Indeed they have repeatedly condemned negotiations with the "Zionist entity." So why on earth would Israel negotiate with a man (stipulating to his good will and good faith) who cannot deliver any peace? It defies imagination.

You may ask, Ok, what's YOUR solution? Well here it is. Israel should decide on what it sees as the endgame, and simply impose it. Israel should call on the world to recognize a P state, right now, on 100% of Gaza (less perhaps a piece from which civilians have been excluded, as a buffer zone) and whatever percentage of the West Bank Israel is prepared to leave. It should of course police the borders of the P state indefinitely. (That Israel apparently relied on Egypt and the Ps to police the Gaza/Egypt border is an action of such rank idiocy as to defy imagination, but what can I tell you, Israel didn't ask me). That's it. No negotiations, no discussions, no handshakes, no contact, no trade, no nothing. Israel should then bar any Ps from entering its territory, no exceptions. Israel should not trade at all with the fledgling P state, and should disentangle from any assistance/cooperation. Israel should police the borders of the P state, vigorously. But it should end the occupation, immediately. It should have no role in the lives of the Ps, period. If military action against this state is necessary, as is almost certain, Israel should of course take such action, as it would against Jordan, Syria, etc. But with the occupation over, and a P flag hanging in the UN, Israel would be in a good position to tell the world, "that's it, we're done with the Ps." Now I realize Israel would get zero credit for this in the Muslim world, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to clarify the security situation nicely, and so that there are no more damn negotiations.

Look, if I thought negotiations with Abbas even might yield security benefits, I'd be all for them. But I don't. So why negotiate?

C) Pressure on Hamas. Yeah, right. Egypt and Co. are going to exert REAL pressure on Hamas? And how about Iran? Maybe if Israel and Hamas held hands and sang songs that would help too? What on earth is the Times smoking? I'm not opposed to such pressure per se, but I am highly dubious that it would work, and even if it did it would only prove a temporary expedient at best, with Hamas resuming firing rockets at a time and place and manner of its choosing.

There. Comment away.