Gaza: This is an (Israeli) War of Choice

Unlike the confused and improvised Israeli response as the war against Hizbullah in Lebanon unfolded in 2006, Operation Cast Lead appears to have been carefully prepared over a long period.

-----

A depressing morning of news from Israel and Gaza, with the death toll approaching 400, no end in sight to the bombardment, and a possible Israeli invasion on the ground.



And a depressing morning for so-called analysis. The evasions of moral responsibility by those sanctioning the launching of rockets into Israel and those ordering the bombing of built-up areas in Gaza are matched by columnists like David Aaronovitch ("Let's have a pointless discussion about Gaza and begin it by talking about whether Israel's bombing is 'disproportionate'") and Mary Dejevsky ("The Palestinians of Gaza have worn their victimhood as a badge of honour.")

So as others, such as Benny Morris in The New York Times, rationalise this conflict as a defensive outburst, "Israel’s sense of the walls closing in on it has this past week led to [a] violent reaction," let's be clear:

This is a war of Tel Aviv's choosing.

Picking up on reports in the Israeli press, Ian Black in The Guardian summarises:

[There were] six months of intelligence-gathering to pinpoint Hamas targets including bases, weapon silos, training camps and the homes of senior officials. The cabinet spent five hours discussing the plan in detail on December 19 and left the timing up to Ehud Olmert, the caretaker prime minister, and his defence minister Ehud Barak. Preparations involved disinformation and deception which kept Israel's media in the dark. According to Ha'aretz, that also lulled Hamas into a sense of false security and allowed the initial aerial onslaught to achieve tactical surprise - and kill many of the 290 victims counted so far.

Friday's decision to allow food, fuel and humanitarian supplies into besieged Gaza - ostensibly a gesture in the face of international pressure to relieve the ongoing blockade - was part of this. So was Thursday's visit to Cairo by Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, to brief Egyptian officials.

As soon as June's truce was agreed, the Israeli Government was not only anticipating its breakdown but laying out its course of action. And that course of action, authorised before a single Israeli died from a rocket or mortar attack, was to strike Hamas (and, incidentally, the Palestinian population) and strike it hard.

I leave it to others to explain why there is no need for moral calculation when considering this chain of events and planning. But, to modify Robert Fisk's comment, "How easy it is to snap off the history of the Palestinians", it seems just as essential (you can supply the reason) to snap off the history of the last six months to make this a simple narrative of rocket-and-reply.

Peace on Earth, Goodwill to All Men (Except in Gaza)

Five days ago, after the cessation of the truce between the Israeli Government and Hamas, Enduring America wrote:

There will be a series of bombings and targeted assassinations as the rocket attacks continue. In effect, this is a situation of deadly stalemate.

And so it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut would say. After an increase in rockets into Southern Israel, the Israeli Defense Force swung the heavy fist this morning. More than 30 missiles have killed more than 150 people so far.



We mention our prediction not to brag but to point out the near-inevitability that "the cycle of violence", that over-used but over-appropriate phrase, was going to spiral. Groups in Gaza, either directly responsible to Hamas or independent of the Gazan Government, were going to increase the firing of rockets and missiles. That scatter-gun attack, sooner or later, was going to kill an Israeli, and when it did, both the pretext and the political necessity would be established for a large-scale response from Tel Aviv. (Doubly so, when the current Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, is locked in a tense struggle with Benyamin Netanyahu to become Prime Minister.)

And so earlier this week "Israel's cabinet approved a possible operation that could last several days". There were the near-obligatory visits by Israeli officials, including Livni, and Hamas leaders to Egypt playing the near-obligatory role of mediator for a renewed ceasefire. It was clear, however, from the statements of Livni and Netanyahu that the Israeli hammer would have to fall, at least for a deadly, symbolic period.

That has now begun. Israel will count on a window of support from many in the "gatekeeping" media in the United States and Europe; Hamas, or at least the people of Gaza, will get the sympathy of media in the Middle East and the Islamic world. Precious little will be done to ratchet down the violence as it plays out for a necessary period for both Hamas to maintain its authority in Gaza (which it will) and for key Israeli politicans --- with Livni and Netanyahu scrambling to show which one of them is tougher --- and the Israeli military to show that they are not "weak". (Doubly so, after the Lebanon debacle of 2006)

All this will be propped up by the human cost --- in damage and a handful of deaths on the Israeli side of the border, in damage and dozens if not hundreds of death on the Gazan side. The causes of this latest conflict will be set aside because, with eye-catching images of destruction, who needs to seriously consider the strategy of political isolation and economic blockade that pretty much ensured this would happen?

There is a wrinkle in this normal pattern of events, which could occur over days, possibly over weeks. Normally the US Government would have to --- reluctantly, in the case of the Bush Administration --- make some noise about trying to restore stability while allowing Israel a "decent" period of time to assert military strength.

This time, however, Washington is in transition to President Obama. He has offered the platitude that "seeing if we can build on some of the progress, at least in conversation, that's been made around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be a priority". If this fighting carries on until Inauguration Day, however, the 44th President won't be dealing with platitudes but with a foreign-policy choice foisted upon him. Does he --- in the name of "American leadership" --- put Israel-Palestine at the top of his problem-solving agenda or does he take a step aside, allowing others to make the running both as warriors and as peacemakers?

Happy Holidays, everybody....