Gaza Update: US Says, "Go, Israel, Go" (A Bit Longer)

Just watched CNN's live coverage of the press briefing --- which is not yet posted on the Web --- by White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe from the Bush complex in Crawford, Texas.

The key phrase, repeated by Johndroe in his statement and in responses to questions, is that the US supports a "sustainable and durable cease-fire". Johndroe's further explanation? "We don't just want a cease-fire for the sake of a cease-fire." Until Israel and the US get assurances from Hamas that there will be no rocket attacks, "We are not going to have a cease-fire that's worth the paper it's written on."



In other words, the US is not only accepting but endorsing continued Israeli military action. This is in sharp contrast to calls from the UN Secretary-General, the European Union, and even some British officials for an "immediate cease-fire".

There is a recent and important parallel here. Johndroe's wording is almost exactly that used by the Bush Administration during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in summer 2006. As most in the international community called for an unconditional end of hostilities, Washington and London continued to accept Israeli operations under the guise that they wanted a "meaningful cease-fire".

The key reason for the eventually cease-fire was Hezbollah's resistance and the difficulties faced by Israeli ground forces rather than any action by the US or Britain. My money is on a similar outcome --- with Hamas' resistance being more significant politically rather than militarily --- this time.

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.