Israel Gears Up for a Ground War in Gaza (News Round-Up & Commentary)

by Teh Nutroots | So says The Murdoch Times.

Israel is poised to launch a major ground offensive into Gaza tonight after allowing hundreds of foreigners living in the devastated territory to evacuate.

After a week of air strikes that have killed at least 420 Palestinians and left scores of buildings in rubble, the Israeli army was set to fling hundreds of troops and tanks into a blitz to stamp out Hamas’s military wing, The Times understands (Times of London).

The UN says that more than a quarter killed so far have been civilians.  (Reuters)  Their sufferings continue to be severe.  Meanwhile, Hamas does its all to keep the violence going:

Despite the looming onslaught, more Hamas rockets – which have so far killed four Israelis – were fired into southern Israel today.

The Islamist group vowed that its attacks, which have lasted for years and which finally provoked the massive Israeli campaign, would not stop.(Times of London).

Its leaders vow it will meet the challenge, etc., etc.

In Damascus, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal sounded a defiant note in a televised speech.

"We are ready for the challenge, this battle was imposed on us and we are confident we will achieve victory because we have made our preparations," Meshaal said.  (Reuters)

UN Special Reporter on Human Rights Richard Falk provides a perspective at HuffPost you won't see reflected in the American media or in the public comments of any America politician.

For eighteen months the entire 1.5 million people of Gaza experienced a punishing blockade imposed by Israel, and a variety of traumatizing challenges to the normalcy of daily life. A flicker of hope emerged some six months ago when an Egyptian arranged truce produced an effective ceasefire that cut Israeli casualties to zero despite the cross-border periodic firing of homemade rockets that fell harmlessly on nearby Israeli territory, and undoubtedly caused anxiety in the border town of Sderot. During the ceasefire the Hamas leadership in Gaza repeatedly offered to extend the truce, even proposing a ten-year period and claimed a receptivity to a political solution based on acceptance of Israel's 1967 borders. Israel ignored these diplomatic initiatives, and failed to carry out its side of the ceasefire agreement that involved some easing of the blockade that had been restricting the entry to Gaza of food, medicine, and fuel to a trickle.

Israel also refused exit permits to students with foreign fellowship awards and to Gazan journalists and respected NGO representatives. At the same time, it made it increasingly difficult for journalists to enter, and I was myself expelled from Israel a couple of weeks ago when I tried to enter to carry out my UN job of monitoring respect for human rights in occupied Palestine, that is, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as Gaza.

At The Nation, freelance journalist Laila Al-Arian---whose grandfather lives in Gaza---discusses the suffering of some of Gaza's civilians:

Much of the territory's civilian infrastructure, including police stations, universities, mosques and homes, has been decimated. In the Jabalya refugee camp, five sisters, the eldest aged seventeen and the youngest only four, were killed on Monday as they slept in their beds when an Israeli air strike hit a mosque by their home. Their parents told reporters they assumed they were safe, since houses of worship typically are not military targets. The cemetery where the girls were buried was filled to capacity, so they were placed in three graves.

A United Nations spokesperson said the killing is a "tragic illustration that this bombardment is exacting a terrible price on innocent civilians." The bereaved father expressed the sentiments of so many in Gaza in an interview with the Washington Post. "I don't have anything to do with any Palestinian faction. I have nothing to do with Hamas or anyone. I am just an ordinary person." A few days after the attack, I found out that the girls were relatives of our family friends in Florida.  (The Nation)

Glenn Greenwald comments on the disconnect between political rhetoric and the actual views of a substantial number of citizens.

This Rasmussen Reports poll -- the first to survey American public opinion specifically regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza -- strongly bolsters the severe disconnect I documented the other day between (a) American public opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel and (b) the consensus views expressed by America's political leadership. Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip" (44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive -- by a 24-point margin (31-55%). 

By stark constrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62-27%).

In fact, Bush weighs in as follows:

"Another one-way ceasefire that leads to rocket attacks on Israel is not acceptable."

"And promises from Hamas will not suffice -- there must be monitoring mechanisms in place to help ensure that smuggling of weapons to terrorist groups in Gaza comes to an end," he said in remarks prepared for his weekly Saturday radio address, which was released Friday.

The United States has demanded Hamas, which Israel says has been smuggling weapons through tunnels under Gaza's border with Egypt, take the first step by halting rocket attacks on Israeli.  (Reuters)

Let's hope they do.  Though they won't.  And the civilians get caught in the middle.

As Greenwald says, it's clear why Republican politicians support the Israeli offensive, but not so clear why Democratic politicians do.

...Democratic Party leaders -- including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- are just as lockstep in their blind, uncritical support for the Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions.  While some Democratic politicians who are marginalized by the party's leadership are willing to express the views which Democratic voters overwhelmingly embrace, the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy which typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel -- thou shalt not speak ill of Israel, thou shalt support all actions it takes -- is in full force with this latest conflict.

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?  More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)?  Does that happen with any other issue? (Salon)

At Whiskey Fire, Thers remarks:

On Israel, there's no particular difference in substance between the statements of Nancy Pelosi and, say, Pamela Oshry. As Glennzilla goes on to glumly observe, wingnuts -- the very people who have been so colossally and disastrously wrong about Iraq -- are completely in charge of the way Israel/Palestine is discussed in America. They have a monopoly on the definition of "legitimate" opinions about the conflict, the ones you can express officially. Hence they are able to get away with the most preposterous and insulting declarations -- that disagreeing with Israeli actions makes one an "anti-Semite"; that Israeli and American interests are identical; that criticizing Israel equals support for terrorists.

What this means is that discussion of Israel/Palestine is at best puerile and at worse insane. Here's both, from Krauthammer:

Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.

Anyone who can look at dead children and preserve "moral clarity" is a psychopath. Clearly.

As to the merits of the non-argument, Greenwald says:

Ultimately, what is most notable about the "debate" in the U.S. over Israel-Gaza is that virtually all of it occurs from the perspective of Israeli interests but almost none of it is conducted from the perspective of American interests.  There is endless debate over whether Israel's security is enhanced or undermined by the attack on Gaza and whether the 40-year-old Israeli occupation, expanding West Bank settlements and recent devastating blockade or Hamas militancy and attacks on Israeli civilians bear more of the blame.  American opinion-making elites march forward to opine on the historical rights and wrongs of the endless Israeli-Palestinian territorial conflict with such fervor and fixation that it's often easy to forget that the U.S. is not actually a direct party to this dispute. 

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. 

For those reasons, the pervasive opposition and anger around the world from the Israeli assault on Gaza is not only directed to Israel but -- quite rationally and understandably -- to America as well. (Salon)

For a different perspective, see  Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal.org. 

Opinions on both sides are so hardened that it's become nearly impossible to have a cogent and unemotional conversation on the topic. But, I love a challenge - and after all we are a foreign policy blog -- so I'm going to give it a try.

First, as I noted over at TPM cafe the other day, the root of the current crisis is not Israel's settlement policy or even Israel's economic blockade of Gaza (both of which are odious), it is the continued refusal of Hamas to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist. This is not to say that one side in this conflict is wrong and the other is right, but that the presence of a group (Hamas) that rejects the very outlines of a two-state solution and the land for peace model is not a group that is going to play a positive role in peace negotiations. If Israel dismantled all its settlements tomorrow, Hamas would not turn around and renounce violence; but if Hamas were to recognize Israel the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve.

It's worth noting that the acceptance of a two-state solution is today largely the norm in the Arab world (as demonstrated in part by the Saudi peace plan, which is now more than 6 years old) and in Israel - Prime Minister's Ehud Olmert's extraordinary September interview with Yedioth Ahronoth, a fascinating example of the movement even by former Israeli hawks toward tacit recognition of the need for a viable Palestinian state.

Considering Hamas's continued rejection of this solution - and it's continued reliance on terror tactics -- it's hardly surprising that Israel would respond with devastating attacks on Gaza. To be honest, it's also rather justified. After all, Israel has a right and need to defend its citizens from terrorism.

Yes, but... well, see Matt Yglesias's response.

Michael Cohen writes:

If Israel dismantled all its settlements tomorrow, Hamas would not turn around and renounce violence; but if Hamas were to recognize Israel the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve.

This is totally true. But consider this proposition:

If Hamas were to recognize Israel tomorrow tomorrow, Israel would not turn around and renounce settlements; but if Israel were to dismantle all settlements the path to reconciliation would be far easier to achieve.

That’s also true. But by arbitrarily shifting the standard, so that Israeli actions are judged according to whether or not they would magically cause the other side to become reasonable, whereas Palestinians are merely asked whether or not making unilateral concessions would in some sense make reconciliation easier to achieve, Cohen has managed to put a heavily pro-Israel spin on the banal observation that both sides could do more to improve the situation but that achieving real peace requires steps on both sides.

Meanwhile, of course, there’s still such a thing as ethics and so forth...Israeli actions that are wrong are wrong independent of whether or not Hamas is launching rockets.

It's the latter point that seems to elude the unquestioning pro-Israel side of the argument:  because Hamas is wrong---and all the critics of Israel agree:  HAMAS IS WRONG---doesn't mean that Israel's response is the best response.

Cohen responds to a different point:  that Hamas is more an obstacle to the peace process than Israel.

After all, movement on the peace process only began in 1993 when the PLO pledged to recognize Israel and renounce terrorism and Israel accepted the idea of a two-state solution that would involve the creation of a Palestinian entity in the West Bank and Gaza. Today, Israeli accepts the two-state formula; so does Fatah. Hamas does not.

This isn't a pro-Israel observation; it's a pro-common sense observation.

Again, I don't know anyone who would argue with this.  No one I know is arguing that Israel can't, or shouldn't, defend themselves.  Most of the people who are criticizing Israel are arguing that what they are doing now in Gaza goes beyond what is needed for "self-defense."   We're arguing at cross-purposes.

At LGM, Paul Campos avers that he knows too little about the issue to comment, but adds:

[T]he present conflict illustrates some depressing things about the orthodoxy of the American political elites, the assumptions of bad faith on the part of one's opponents by everyone who argues about this, and the increasingly meaningless status of the word "terrorism."

And at Comments from Left Field, Kathy has a telling response to Dershowitz's op-ed.

More at Memeorandum....

RECENT POSTINGS AT BUCK NAKED POLITICS

Progressive Blogger Greg Sargent to Leave TPM for New Washington Post Site

Burris Sought Death for Innocent Man -- Despite Other Prosecutor's Objections

Congress to Get Raise: Bad Political Imagery or Good Strategy?

Media Puts Questionable Number on Shareholder Losses in 2008

Minnesota Recount Update— Coleman Campaign Tactic Skews Absentee Count
Justice Department Needs to Investigate Post-Katrina Killings

Zbigniew Brzezinski to Joe Scarborough (Re: Mideast Crisis): " "You Have Such a Stunningly Superficial Knowledge of What Went On That It's Almost Embarrassing to Listen to You"

Alberto Gonzalez Promises a "Tell-All" Book, Though He Still Can't Remember Doing Anything Wrong

Meet the New Year, Just Like the Old Year....?

Snarking in the New Year....