Gaza Update (5 a.m. Israel; 10 p.m. Eastern US): This is "All-Out War"

Latest Updates: Gaza: This is an (Israeli) War of Choice
and Gaza: The Futility of the Israeli War

Israel's bombardment of Gaza has entered a fourth day, with ministerial offices targets and the Islamic University hit again. At least 350 Palestinians have been killed, and hospitals are overwhelmed with casualties. Four Israelis have been killed by rocket fire.

The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, has now called for a cease-fire. Perhaps most significantly, at least for US-European relations, the British Government is distancing itself from Washington and calling for a cessation of hostilities.

Gaza: OK, So What's the Endgame?

As the death toll climbs above 300 and Israel threatens the next step of a ground invasion of Gaza, Juan Cole puts the point concisely:

What I can't understand is the end game here. The Israelis have pledged to continue their siege of the civilians of Gaza, and have threatened to resume assassinating Hamas political leaders, along with the bombardment....Do the Israelis expect the population at some point to turn against Hamas, blaming it for the blockade and the bombardment? But by destroying what was left of the Gaza middle class, surely they a throwing people into the arms of Hamas.

Rhetorically, the Israeli Government is pressing ahead, with Defense Minister Ehud Barak telling the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, "This is an all-out war against Hamas and its branches." This has been backed up by a Cabinet call-up of 7000 reservists, a step which should be approved by the Knesset on Monday.

Airstrikes continue, with the Hamas Interior Ministry amongst the latest targets. But as it becomes clear that, for all the destruction, the political situation in Gaza has not changed --- Hamas is still in control --- Israel faces its next decision. How many of the troops and infantry now massing on the border are sent across?

Ethan Bronner inadvertently captures the difficulty in a rather confused piece in The New York Times. He parrots the official but rather misleading line of "Israeli military commanders" that "they did not intend to reoccupy the coastal strip of 1.5 million Palestinians or to overthrow the Hamas government there". The aim is “to stop the firing against our civilians in the south and shape a different and new security situation there.”

Yet Bronner opens his piece with the assertion that the broader Israel objective is "to expunge the ghost of its flawed 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and re-establish Israeli deterrence".

A moment's reflection would highlight the contradiction, and thus the problem, for Israel. The 2006 war was not one of "deterrence". It was an attempt to shatter Hezbollah as an effective political and military force.

That attempt failed because, after Israel had inflicted all its military might in Lebanon, Hezbollah still remained, killing Israeli forces and avoiding its final destruction. More importantly, the organisation was politically stronger, a boost which means that today it is a key player in the future of the country.

So, to return to Juan Cole, who also notes the 2006 precedent of Israel bolstering, rather than breaking, its enemies:

By refusing to negotiate with Hamas, Israel and the United States leave only a military option on the table. The military option isn't going to resolve the problem by itself.

Meanwhile, the ripples of Gaza spread across the Middle East. The inaction of Arab Governments is prompting large demonstrations by their populations, criticising not only Israel and the United States but their own political leaders.

Gaza: Israel's Attacks 24 Hours Later

Late Night Update: Pressing the Bombardment

A five-step guide to understanding the events of the last 24 hours and what is likely to happen in the next few days:

1. THE ISRAELI OBJECTIVE: BREAK THE HAMAS SECURITY SERVICES, PUNISH THE POPULATION

The rocket and mortar firings into southern Israel were not the cause of the Israeli action. They were the pretext.



This is not to assert the "innocence" of Hamas and any other Palestinian groups sending those rockets. This is not to ignore that more than 60 rockets were launched on Wednesday. It is not to deny that missiles cause damage --- physical, psychological, and economic.

However, Daniel Levy asserts that from 19 June until yesterday, there was not one Israeli fatality from a Hamas attack, and life was improving in border cities like Sderot. (I would be interested to know of any evidence countering this claim.)

The Israeli military operation, therefore, was not a defensive response to an imminent Hamas threat. It was not directed against those sending the rockets into southern Israel. Instead, it was designed to take out as many Hamas security personnel as possible: 32 police stations were attacked yesterday, and 2/3 of the casualties were Palestinian policemen.

That choice of targets, in turn, points to an Israeli decision to hit built-up areas, places where civilians would also be killed and wounded. Police stations are usually located in the centre of towns and communities, not in isolated "military" areas. The New York Times records the outcome:

The center of Gaza City was a scene of chaotic horror, with rubble everywhere, sirens wailing, and women shrieking as dozens of mutilated bodies were laid out on the pavement and in the lobby of Shifa Hospital so that family members could identify them.

Or, in the words of Sami Abdel-Shafi in The Independent:

Mobile phones did not work, because of electricity outages and the flood of attempted calls. I flipped the electricity generator on so that we could watch the news. We wanted to understand what was going on in our own neighbourhood. However, this was impossible. Israeli surveillance drones flew overhead, scrambling the reception. All I could do was step outside, where I found crowds of frantic people, lines of rising smoke and the smell of charred buildings and bodies that lay around targeted sites nearby. Somebody said the bombs had been launched in parallel raids over the entire Gaza Strip. What was the target here? Perhaps a police station about 200 metres away. Other bombs annihilated blocks less than a kilometre away, where one of the main police training centres stood. When the strikes began, a graduation ceremony for more than 100 recruits in a civil law enforcement programme was under way. These were the young men trained to organise traffic, instil civil safety and maintain law and order. Many of them were killed, it is said, in addition to the Gaza Strip's police chief.

The attacks are continuing today, with the headquarters of Al-Aqsa Broadcasting and a mosque hit and a police station and a factory reportedly targeted. They are likely to continue throughout the week unless Hamas is unexpectedly broken or asks for a renewed cease-fire.

The lingering issue is whether Israel ups its assault --- and thus the political ante --- by sending in ground forces.

2. THE US POSITION: GO, ISRAEL, GO

The BBC World Service politely called it a "green light" for the Israeli operation. More bluntly, the Bush Administration is trying in its last days to provide political cover for the Israeli attempt to break Hamas.

The State Department's press briefing could not have been more blatantly. When Gordon Johndroe said, "These people are nothing but thugs,” he wasn't talking about the military personnel killing hundreds on the ground below. Instead, it was evident --- and thus acceptable --- that “Israel is going to defend its people against terrorists like Hamas”.

The American position is a logical extension of its ongoing effort, since Hamas changed the political equation by winning elections in Gaza, to isolate the organisation and encourage either a takeover by the Palestinian Administration or another form of "regime change". The paradox, of course, is that this Israeli operation makes this far less likely because....

3. HAMAS APPEARS TO BE SECURE

Amidst the death and destruction in Gaza, the political beneficiary is the Hamas leadership. That's not to say that the de facto Prime Minister, Ismail Haniya, is welcoming the pain being inflicted on the population, but --- if he avoids assassination by Israeli missile --- he can make statements about the resolve of his Government and assert that Hamas is still in control. (I would think it's a possibility that Haniya and his advisors, deciding not to renew the truce with Israel, calculated that this would be the Israeli response and that it would have the effect of rallying Gazans behind their leadership.)

Indeed, the longer that Hamas can hold out amidst the bombardment, it's not a question of whether they are overthrown but whether they have "won" by not being toppled.

4. THE ARAB RESPONSE: WHAT ARAB RESPONSE?

This one's easy to set out: at the Governmental level, the Arab world are bystanders right now.

The Arab League has postponed its "emergency session" from Sunday to Wednesday on the grounds that Arab ministers are occupied in regular meetings. That's an excuse that even my nine-year-old daughter could shred in a heartbeat.

None of those in power from Cairo to Riyadh to Amman wants to see Israel succeed but none of them want to tilt fully behind a Hamas leadership which is in rivalry with the Palestinian authority. So do nothing and let the Israelis make difficulties for themselves.

5. SIDE EFFECTS: THE US, EUROPE, AND THE UNITED NATIONS

For those looking at the world beyond Gaza, the European Union issued one of the most telling statements yesterday. It unequivocally condemned attacks from all sides and called for an immediate cessation.

Of course, that call will have little effect upon Israel or rocketeers in Gaza. However, given the US role in supporting the Israeli assault, this is a clear signal that the Europeans no longer want to be pulled along in a de facto "Western" acceptance of conflict.

A symbolic smackdown to a Bush Administration that faced down "Europe" to get its ill-fated war in Iraq in 2003 or a longer-term sign of a diverging European foreign policy from that of Washington? That may depend on what responding signals President Obama offers in the early days of his Administration.

Meanwhile, keep your eyes on the United Nations Security Council, which followed its emergency meeting early this morning with its own call for a cessation to hostilities. Since Israel is unlikely to heed that demand, the issue will be whether a cease-fire resolution will be put before the Security Council, putting "Europe" (will it continue to stand apart from the US?), Britain (dare it not break from Washington?), and the US (does it cast its veto and effectively endorse more attacks?) to the test.

Gaza Update (6 a.m. Israel/Palestine; 11 p.m. Eastern US): How Far Will Israel Go?

Latest Update: Pressing the Bombardment



The basics of today's developments are unsurprising. Given the lack of political and economic progress, the truce was going to lapse last Friday between Hamas and Israel. There were going to be rockets and mortars fired into southern Israel --- even during the six-month truce, there were rockets and mortars sent across the border. Israel was going to use one or more of those rockets and mortars as the rationale for a military assault.

Israel was going to launch that assault partly because of the dynamics of domestic politics and the electoral campaign. More importantly, it was going to do so to put pressure on Hamas, if not to break the organisation and ensure that it was overthrown in Gaza.

Yet, for all this inevitability --- which includes the inevitability of the deaths of civilians as well as fighters --- significant questions arise from today.



The most immediate concerns how far Israel wants to take its attempt to break Hamas. The scale of the death toll, the largest in a single day in Gaza since 1967, is both unexpected and revealing. Set aside the hypocrisy about wanting to prevent civilian casualties. This was not a surgical strike against Hamas militants.

This was a systematic attempt to damage the political and military infrastructure of the organisation and, at the same time, to punish the population. That punishment, provoking fear, disillusionment, and panic, might also provoke the anger leading Gazans to turn against the Hamas leadership.

I think that is a miscalculation, however, especially in the opening phase of operations when the population is more likely to rally behind its Government and against perceived aggressor. So Israel faces the next step: does it support air attacks with a ground invasion?

The easy answer is yes. A show of force will include tanks across the border. However, that show of force is complicated somewhat by Israel's last experience of sustained ground operations to try and separate the population from an enemy organisation --- the campaign against Hezbollah in 2006.

That attempt failed spectacularly, as Hezbollah grew stronger inside Lebanon and the Israeli military and political leadership was blamed for miscalculation. A second mistake in three years, getting bogged down in a bloody occupation of Gaza, is not a welcome prospect even for the most hawkish of Israelis.

Gaza Update: More than 220 Dead

Latest Update: Pressing the Bombardment

And so the tragedy unfolds.

The death toll from today's Israeli attacks on Gaza is now more than 200 with at least 700 injured. The Israeli Government has made clear that the assault will continue. (Significantly, the statements have come from Defense Minister Ehud Barak --- ""The operation will go on and be intensified as long as necessary" --- and spokesmen for the Israeli Defence Forces. Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was less than enthusiastic about an assault, has joined in, "Israel is now seeking to wipe out the terrorism which is trying to undermine the whole area.")


The political leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, has made equally clear that Hamas will stand firm. A spokesman emphasized, "We will continue our struggle with absolute strength and steadfastness."

The State Department, predictably, has lined up behind Tel Aviv, blaming the deaths on Hamas' irresponsibility. More intriguing is the quick condemnation of the attacks by Palestinian Authority and West Bank leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad, despite their rivalry with Hamas for political leadership throughout Palestine.

In short, the immediate effect of the Israeli operation is to suspend any other regional initiatives, such as negotiations with the Palestinian Authority to bolster the West Bank and "isolate" Gaza. Of course, Abbas and Fayyad could be playing the game of condemn the attacks in public and applaud them in private but, if that's the case, they will eventually pay the political reaper for selling out Palestinians to the Israeli offensive.

The suspension of political process is redoubled in cases such as a possible Israeli-Syrian rapprochement, given Damascus's support of Hamas. And don't expect the population of the Lebanon to be eagerly embracing a Western narrative of "freedom" that includes these developments.