William Kristol on Why Gazans Must Die....So We Can Defeat Iran

William Kristol argued yesterday in the New York Times that, "the conventional wisdom will be proved wrong. Israel could well succeed in Gaza":

For one thing, southern Lebanon is a substantial and hilly area, bordered by northern Lebanon and Syria, through which Hezbollah could be re-supplied, both by Syria itself and by Iran. Gaza is a flat, narrow strip, bordered by Israel, as well as by the sea and by Egypt, no friend to Hamas. By cutting off the northern part of Gaza from the southern, Israel has basically surrounded northern Gaza, creating a military situation very different from that in Lebanon in 2006.

And:

In addition, in Lebanon, Israel proclaimed war goals that it couldn’t achieve — such as retrieving its two kidnapped soldiers and disarming Hezbollah. Now the Israeli government says that it seeks to weaken Hamas, lessen its ability to fire rockets from Gaza and secure new arrangements along the Egyptian-Gaza border to prevent Hamas from re-arming. These may well be achievable goals.

Fair enough. But Kristol then attempts to portray the Israeli move into Gaza as the latest salvo in the 'war on terror':

An Israeli success in Gaza would be a victory in the war on terror — and in the broader struggle for the future of the Middle East. Hamas is only one manifestation of the rise, over the past few decades, of a terror-friendly and almost death-cult-like form of Islamic extremism. The combination of such terror movements with a terror-sponsoring and nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian state (aided by its sidekick Syria) has produced a new kind of threat to Israel.

But not just to Israel. To everyone in the Middle East — very much including Muslims — who aren’t interested in living under the sway of extremist regimes. And to any nation, like the United States, that is a target of Islamic terror.

And then there's this:

But a defeat of Hamas in Gaza — following on the heels of our success in Iraq — would be a real setback for Iran. It would make it easier to assemble regional and international coalitions to pressure Iran. It might positively affect the Iranian elections in June. It might make the Iranian regime more amenable to dealing. [Emphasis added]

That's right. A 'success' in Gaza- like the 'success' in Iraq- "might" make the Iranian government easier for the US to deal with. Might. Might not.

Firedoglake, meanwhile, reacts to Kristol's piece thusly:

Once again the calculus is this:

-- Random indiscriminate car bomb or ill-aimed mortar -- the most awful tragedy ever (from Gaza, rocket attacks killed 15 people over 8 years).

-- Carpet bombing killing hundreds -- AWESOME!

There's never a question of proportionality as long as a Muslim is on the receiving end of Bill Kristol's notion of justice.

Comments

[Dave]

"Once again the calculus is this:

– Random indiscriminate car bomb or ill-aimed mortar — the most awful tragedy ever (from Gaza, rocket attacks killed 15 people over 8 years).

– Carpet bombing killing hundreds — AWESOME!

There’s never a question of proportionality as long as a Muslim is on the receiving end of Bill Kristol’s notion of justice."

Jews killing Muslims is a big deal. Muslims killings Muslims is no big deal, apparently - as was the case of that female suicide bomber yesterday in Iraq.
----------------------

"Fair enough. But Kristol then attempts to portray the Israeli move into Gaza as the latest salvo in the ‘war on terror’:

------------------------------

War on 'Islamic jihad' is more accurate.

[Mike Dunn]

"War on ‘Islamic jihad’ is more accurate."

But that would sound like a war against the Egyptian Islamic Jihad group. Plus it doesn't make any allowance for non-violent jihad.

[Dave]

I refer to the militant jihad as expressed in the Koran. Egyptian Islamic Jihad doesn't have ownership of the term.

[Mike Dunn]

I didn't mean EIJ has ownership of the term, just that if the 'war on terror' became known as the 'war on Islamic jihad' it would cause a huge amount of confusion. And it still wouldn't differentiate between "militant jihad" and peaceful jihad.

[Dave]

What exactly is peaceful jihad? As I understand it, one aspect of non-violent jihad is improving the society in which a Muslim inhabits. Would that mean an attempt to redefine the cultural and political landscape of his homeland -- UK or Switzerland, for instance?

[Canuckistan]

As I said a few days ago, Hamas is not Hezbollah and Gaza is most definitely not Gaza. This is more of a doable operation than 2006 which is probably part of the calculation.

Based on Kristol's record as a prognosticator, Israel should be concerned by his suggestion that it "could well succeed in Gaza”

[Dave]

Canuckistan,

If Hamaz is on the verge of defeat in Gaza in the next couple of days, do you think Hezbollah will open up a second front? Not because it really wants to, but rather because it feels it must? Syria still wants a peace deal with Israel, but will Iran give the green light for such a move?

[Kate]

Muslims killing Muslims actually is a big deal to Muslims - Muslims leaders now urge their communities not to react to such outrageous provocations on the part of extremists from wherever they come in order to avoid further escalation of such meaningless violence - and from where they come is not by any means clear. On the other hand Europe and America continues to openly back the MKO terrorists who without doubt committed the most terrible attrocities against ordinary civillians for political ends while the House of Saud openly backs extremist insurgents out of fear of its own downfall.

As for the Israeli regime it has held a long established agenda to erradicate Palestinian Arabs (Muslim and Christians alike) from the land with the simple aim of occupying and controlling the region. This is not a misunderstanding of the character of Israel, the historical sources are readily available and explicit.

For Dave - The concept of Jihad in the Quran that you project would not be accepted by major Islamic thinkers and rather reflects a distorted and uniformed view. Whilst extremist interpretations cannot be discounted it must be remembered that extreme interpretations are held only by a minority and furthermore Muslims in no way hold a monopoloy over extremism. Let us not forget that the problem faced by the Jewish communities both in the East and in Western Europe was by and large the result of centuries of hateful propaganda concocted and perpetuated by extremist Christians.

What kind of peace deal would be on the table for the Palestinians? What is the past experience and the present position from which Palestians could negotiate? Would a peace deal between Syria and Israel include any benefit for the Palestinian people?

The opinion of Kristol and others of his ilk supports America and Israel in its opposition to the political position or view of any regional or 'Muslim' power simply on the basis that these may not fit in with an outcome favoured by US/Israeli self interests - that is they are not willing to accept the possibility or even suggestion that these regional players may propose a more just and equitable solution to the conflict that avoids the complete anihilation of either side.

The American establishment must feel a lot in common with the modern state of Israel, since both these entities were established through invasion, colonisation and the genocide against the indigenous people of the lands they now both occupy.

Israel is still a young entity and it has made too many mistakes in such a short span. It may be that the first generation of Palestinians who felt the initial wrath of Israeli brutality are no longer with us. However the continued onslaught and slow but sustained occupation has meant that generation after generation has a lived experience and memory - the young children in Gaza today will live with this memory not passed on but experienced first hand. This is not a recipe for peace.

If the world powers held a sincere interested in peace, justice, and stability they might well look to the South African experience, and the experiences of other traumatised communities of that continent for better approaches to conflict resolution and reconcilliation - with particular reference to their colonial experience.

The most troubling aspect of the conflicts of these recent decades, the decades in which the ideals of respect for the sovereignty of nations and human rights have rang out loud, is that we are witnessing the richest and most powerful governments on earth pulverising the most impoverished communities on earth - with a total lack of respect for the humanity for those in the firing line nor for the sovereinty of their home lands nor for the autonomy of their very bodies and minds.

It is all a game in the politics of power waged by career politicians and supported by some very warped/extremist ideological and philosphical world views. Unfortunately there is no room in this game for compassion, understanding, compromise, negotiation, fairness, forgiveness, or justice.