Whenever you hear Gaza described as an “unwinnable conflict” ask yourself: do they mean that victory is similarly prohibited to Hamas? Bill Roggio notes that Iran, Syria and Hamas are aiming for nothing less than a Hamas victory over Fatah, and in the long run, Israel. For these three, war isn’t futile. It’s is working pretty well for them.
“The Iranians and Syrians are using Hamas to undermine the Palestinian Authority and other moderate Arab governments,” the Fatah official told The Jerusalem Post. “Victory for Hamas in this war would mean victory for Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. This is something we need to prevent.”
If that’s correct, then any outcome which ensures the survival of Hamas are deathblows to the peace process, since by definition it means a defeat for anyone willing to negotiate with Israel. Syria and Iran know this and are determined to keep the party of war in the saddle.
Hamas may be under pressure to continue fighting despite a recent statement by Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’ political leader in the Gaza Strip, that he might be willing to implement a cease-fire. Iran has warned Hamas that its funding would be shut off if it cut a deal with the Israelis, an Egyptian government official told The Jerusalem Post.
“As soon as the Iranians heard about the Egyptian cease-fire initiative, they dispatched the two officials to Damascus on an urgent mission to warn the Palestinians against accepting it,” the Egyptian government official said.
“The Iranians threatened to stop weapons supplies and funding to the Palestinian factions if they agreed to a cease-fire with Israel,” the official continued. “The Iranians want to fight Israel and the US indirectly. They are doing this through Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.”
With Hamas taking its orders from Khaled Mashal in Damascus and its weapons and money from Iran, one might be forgiven for thinking that the rocket attacks on Israel are really a thinly disguised act of aggression by Damascus and Teheran. But we are never to think that. What we are meant to believe is that the cause of peace requires that Hamas be allowed to survive and the Iranian weapons shipments to continue.
The conventional wisdom is that Israel “can never win” and must therefore buy its way out from under the rain of rockets. Who do they make the check out to? Hamas, Damascus or Teheran?
Wretchard, a minor typo: “With Hamas taking its orders from Khaled Mashal in Damascus and its weapons and money from” Iran, not Israel.
As always an excellent post. You have the best spot on the web.
,
Jim,
Fixed. Thanks.
If Strategypage’s sources are correct, it seems that keeping Hamas alive in any military sense may be throwing good money after bad:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/israel/articles/20090113.aspx
From what I’ve read, Israel’s position is not too shabby right now. Improved tactics have given them a very favorable casualty ratio, domestic support for Cast Lead is solid, the Northern Front remains quiet. International reaction is, if anything, less strident than one would have expected. Ohlmert seems to be keeping his nerve this time, perhaps because of Barak’s steadying presence. Certainly, things could be a lot worse, and the fact that the Israelis have suffered so few casualties from hostile fire is key.
Ralph Peters’ January 10, 2009 New York Post column, Demons of Gaza, is worth a read. In fact I think it is one of Ralph’s best columns.
The modern version of the boy who cried “wolf” are the activists who cry “peace” — and give you war. Maybe the reason why, despite the chorus of support from the press for a ceasefire, that there is less receptiveness to the idea, is that even the dullest person has figured out that it’s a lie. But what’s replaced the public’s former credulity isn’t enlightenment but cynicism. That’s why conservatives shouldn’t automatically assume that just because the Left has wrecked its own credibility that the Right will automatically become believable.
Just as you don’t need a ‘sure thing’ to reject a scam or have an infallible climate model to disbelieve in the global warming swindle, you don’t really need to become a fan of Israel to understand that Hamas is a P.O.S. One day we’ll stop believing in “peace”, environmentalism and government not because they don’t exist but because its so-called advocates have ruined the causes for us all. Someone said, ‘the best way to discredit a noble cause is to advance it with venality’.
I think the “Peace Process” can survive the conflict in Gaza. I’m not so sure whether it can survive it’s “idealists”.
Whoa, now there is no golden mosque to bomb, what can Hamas do to take the pressure off of their bad selves. Perhaps what few leaders can escape will end up in Ayatollah class with Al Sadr. Seems they’ve been visited by the same Qods Special groups financiers that rallied Muktada. What a bargain, your life or no money.
Peters drives me nuts, he’ll temporize on a tactical level, then put up a jewel of an article like in the post. He still doesn’t get it, though. He still hasn’t figured out how to define who our friends might be opposed to who our enemies are. He speaks of moderates, but seems blind when allowing for a path to moderation.
In her testimony before Congress Hillary Clinton said that she would emphasize diplomacy over military power as an instrument of national policy. Presumably she would build on the Clinton Admin’s solid record of peacemaking in the Middle East, you know, the one that did not produce anything but war.
As for emphasizing diplomacy, the Clinton Admin used military power in:
Iraq, (more than once)
Somalia
Bosnia
Kosovo
Afghanistan
Haiti
The War Mongering Bush Admin used military power in:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Somalia to a far more limited degree than Clinton
Cooperative but non-combat roles in a number of other nations. This is usually considered to be an act of diplomacy.
As long as the West ignores the fact that our enemies don’t pursue a “Total War” strategy simply because they lack the intellectual and economic capacity to do so, these wars will grind on and on.
Indeed, the enemies of the West have been wildly successful in racheting down the definition of Total War. One hears of “carpet bombing” and “massive casulties” but anyone with even a passing knowledge of WWII would suggest that massive casualties resulting in just one night from the actual carpet bombing of Hamburg, Colongne, or Tokyo far exceed whatever the Israelis have justifiable inflicted on the Palestinians.
Someday, populations will get carpet bombed again, and the nature of true Total War a la Sherman, LeMay or Harris will be re-realized.
One thing about the Palestinians is unique, as far as I can tell. It was an article of faith that “Democracies don’t make war on one another.” Well, HAMAS was democratically elected into a position of authority by the majority of the Palestinian people.
Now, one of the moral arguments against carpet bombing was that average Joe of Hamburg, Colonge or Tokyo really didn’t have a say in the policies of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. He was a cog in the machine, and his choice was between being immolated by Allied bombing or garroted by Nazi piano wire.
So, when democracies do war on one another, and one side elects a political organization that is genocidial in its charter, does that mean that the citizens of that now genocidial state are now more legitimate targets? Its hard, if not downright impossible, for people who voted for HAMAS not to know its positions.
One of the down-sides of democracy is the solidification of the “choice, meet consequence” fact of life.
RWE – if I have learned one thing, it is that when a Democrat leader says “I will do X”, you can be sure that they won’t do it. And vice versa. Once you get over the rage induced by their doublespeak, they become quite predictable. And it seems that the Bush Administration has been infected with it too. Hank Paulson, “We will use the TARP monies to sop up the tainted assets.” Ooops! We actually used it to punch up bank balance sheets, turn non-banks into banks, and make loans to car companies.
I think Wretchard is spot on (yet again) – our ‘leaders’ continue to hack away at their own credibility. I anticipate the day that We The People finally get up the Courage to toss them overboard like so much Tea from the holds of the Beaver.
“If that’s correct, then any outcome which ensures the survival of Hamas are deathblows to the peace process, since by definition it means a defeat for anyone willing to negotiate with Israel.”
Why?
Seems to me like a weakened Hamas is the best ruler for Gaza. It allows Israel to provide disparate treatment to the West Bank and the Gaza strip, and have Palestinians compare and contrast their standard of living. (Never mind that the higher standard of living in the West Bank results from Israel’s security penetration there, that gives Israel the comfort to permit trade to flourish – Hamas will take the rap.)
The alternative options are – what? Fatah? That would undercut the “divide and not-have-to-reconquer” point above. Al-Qaeda? Much easier to get Sunni bloc diplomatic cover for warfare against an Iranian proxy than against a Wahhabist-inspired movement.
The corruption in the Federal government is vast. Clinton gets millions from the Saudi Arabians and other Arabs. For what? Well just wait until Hillary undermines Israel while Obama smiles.
The next Sec Treasury does not pay all is taxes and used an illegal housekeeper. Congress is passing laws to enrich trial lawyers and union bosses.
Note that Livni and Barak want to accept the Egyptian cease fire. I assume that they want to get the left vote in the upcoming election. The Israeli left live in places that as yet are not under missile fire. But Israel is a tiny country. So the left mania affects the minds of people whom are directly under threat of being wiped out.
1. USA and the world need to stay out of this battle.
2. Hamas needs to fight “to the last man” and only surrendered citizens are left.
3. Israel needs to finish the job by defeating Hamas in detail.
Novanglus:
The curious thing is that they always, always, falsely accuse the Right of doing what they actually do. The list is incredibly long.
I guess this is all part of their justification process, ala “They did it first!”
The Soviets were especially fond of that.
Jay:
Funny, huh? You oppose the war in Iraq – as people did who were bribed by Hussein – and it turns out that you are dirty yourself.
You are all for stopping Global Warming – which is a scam – and it turns out that you are part of other scams, such as the ones put on by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns.
It is almost like dishonesty in one area indicates a more general problem. Who woulda thunk?
The conventional wisdom is that Israel “can never win”
No, I’m pretty sure that’s merely what the Fifth Column reports the conventional wisdom as, not what it actually is. The Fourth Estate is reporting the exact opposite of truth (as frequently happens), since a quick glance at military history since WWII would be more accurately described as “Israel always wins.” Even when they’re announced the loser, any objective measurement of goals and effects shows either achievement of objectives or (at worst) the maintenance of the status quo.
Brock (@16):
a quick glance at military history since WWII would be more accurately described as “Israel always wins.”
Well put, Brock. Sometimes I feel stupid, because I still can’t figure out why everyone says that Israel lost and Hezbollah won in Lebanon in 2006.
Tinfoil #8 said, Well, HAMAS was democratically elected into a position of authority by the majority of the Palestinian people.
This is a typical confusion between democracy and plebiscite. What Hamas had was a plebiscite — a single instance of a vote that put tyrants in charge. Democracy includes plebiscite but also requires much more, including freedom of expression, reliable contracts, honest judiciary, and the peaceful transition over the course of elections from one faction or party to the other.
We make a big mistake in our rhetoric if we confound the single plebiscite with the term democracy.
imho the iranians are hoping their proxy war will push up oil prices.
It worked before.
why would it not work again?
they are shooting their last bullets.
maybe not. they’re working hard on nukes.
Well, of course Israel lost and Hezbollah won in 2006. And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. More news you can use from Airstrip One (otherwise known as the BBC).
Gee, I wonder if the new CIA under uber-genius Leon Pannetta can task agents to divine the hidden meaning of this development.
Livni and Olmert are indeed playing a pretty shallow game, with elections coming up shortly in Israel. Still and all, I am surprised by how much they have done against Hamas in the Strip.
But don’t ever expect them to inflict a ‘Carthaginian peace’ on these characters. As someone else at the Belmont Club so wisely put it, the Jews in Israel are a little too moral to inflict Die Endlosung on any of these entities.
Unwinnable, a quagmire, futile: if these describe Israel’s chances in Gaza, then stoic resignation to the masters’ control is this once-proud nation’s only option, or so the MSM’s reportage implies.
After the young male elephant has settled into the binds and his trunk no longer pulls violently at the bamboo bars of the cage, the trainers move on to the next stage. They work to convince the pacified slave that his masters are his friend: they slowly remove the knobbed probe from the pelvic wound where it was put to use aggravating a key nerve, and they feed their charge a small portion of sweetened rice gruel – but only so long as it does not struggle against the
Jihadi’smasters’ binds.It is painfully clear in the MSM’s one-sided reportage from Gaza that the MSM has volunteered to assist in this second stage for the global jihadis. It is a free republic’s resistance to confinement that is the “root cause” of human suffering, and submission to
Islamits master will end the pain.Next: after the horrific taming, the elephant is yoked and saddled, and put to work. Watch for the Global Tax to come down the UN’s rails soon.
I expressed my skepticism about the usefulness of an Israeli incursion in the forum after Israeli bombs started dropping but before the ground attack because I thought the international heat would be higher and Israel’s resolve lower. Happily, I seem to have been wrong on both points! I think Wretchard’s points on credibility appear to apply to the MSM as well. People just know what they are hearing about “disproportionate” Israeli actions is crap and so does our incoming new administration, who now have to put their money where their mouth is.
If Israel just shuts off the idiot tube of CNN and Al Jazeera, hangs tough and works their plan in Gaza, they just might gut the entire Hamas organization top to bottom and do civilization (and themselves) a great big favor. We should use some of the stimulus money to buy their bullets for them.
From approved US domestic manufacturers who have made the proper political contributions, of course.
Yeah “peace process” how exactly does one go about negotiating peace with a foe who’s stated goal is to wipe you from the map…? oh wait “smart power” to the rescue.
@Mike Sylwester,
Because people naturally compare 1982 and 2006. Always deliver more than you promise. Did Machiavelli say that ore was it Henry Ford?
If Israel really was the repository of evil geniuses that fill the masturbatory fantasies of the Islamists then the Technion should be busy perfecting a fast spreading bacterium that turns oil into methane. Their problems could go away in earth’s greatest flatus, sorry India.
Furthermore “winning” to the left and MSM is making the rest of the world FEEL GOOD about what you are doing. War winning is no longer about eliminating or rendering the OPFOR ineffective.
Much easier to get Sunni bloc diplomatic cover for warfare against an Iranian proxy than against a Wahhabist-inspired movement.
What’s the point of warfare if you never intend to win? Is it to get cover to conduct more warfare? To keep the “peace process” going? There is no reason why the only alternative to Hamas must be Fatah. Any meaningful operations must aim to widen the choice between evils; to provide the emergence of an option which is a positive good. As it is, fighting without winning guarantees that future choices will be confined to evils. Why? Because winning against evil is proscribed by the rules of the game; forbidden moreover in the name of ‘peace’ or at least diplomacy.
Any real victory for Israel requires facilitating the emergence of a Palestinian government willing to live in peace and concentrate on governance. To let Hamas survive to get more “diplomatic cover” and “create a contrast” so that you can justify fighting it again perfectly describes how diplomacy has become an end in itself. Endless talking has become confused with peace, but it’s really just the conversation between rounds in a bout.
If Israel will just play Uncle Billy, they will prevail.
“Marching through Gaza” should be their incessant theme song.
The difficult part will be the occupation of Gaza. However, they may well be prepared for what it takes having learned from the US mistakes in Iraq before General Petraeus straightend things out.
Let us hope and pray that them Joos keep at it until victory. ‘Tis the Christian thing to do.
“What’s the point of warfare if you never intend to win? Is it to get cover to conduct more warfare? To keep the “peace process” going?”
Please note that this is exactly the Left’s approach to “solving” every problem. Social Security, Medicare, environmental issues, Civil Rights, Education, even space exploration, they just keep the ball rolling.
Perhaps this is not just a result of the Feminization of the Left but the Bureaucratization as well. Feminists want everyone to feel good and no one to lose. Everything has to have a soft landing. Bureaucrats are always trying to figure out how to expand their grasp and keep their personal empires from falling apart. The two types are quite compatible.
A Good outcome for Gaza is to kill every military age male, sell the women and children to the Sods, and repopulate the area with Ethiopian Jews and Christians.
Absent the old time religion Israel is just playing at war in a never ending tit for tat with an endless supply of teenage gunmen outfitted in French jeans paid for with UN checks.
Any strategy that includes Fatah as “moderate” is insane in the most clinical sense of the term.
Until the war is brought to Egypt, Syria and Jordan there is no solution.
Slightly on topic: The morality of “telling the truth” is an Anglo-Saxon peculiarity. In Arab culture it’s considered more polite to tell people what they want to hear even if it’s a bald face lie. With that in mind, it’s interesting to read newspapers written in Arabic. The official state newspaper of Egypt is “al Ahram” (it’s essentially the mouthpiece of the Egyptian government). The URL for al Ahram is:
http://www.ahram.org.eg/
What you’ll first see is incomprehensible Arabic script. Now open a second window at:
http://translate.google.com/
Set the translator to: Arabic to English. Then cut-and-paste the Arabic script from al Ahram to the google translator and press the “Translate” button. What you’ll next observe is another miracle of the Internet along with some insight into Middle Eastern duplicity. You can play the same game with Syrian newspapers as well.
Slightly on topic: The morality of “telling the truth” is an Anglo-Saxon peculiarity. In Arab culture it’s considered more polite to tell people what they want to hear even if it’s a bald face lie. With that in mind, it’s interesting to read newspapers written in Arabic. The official state newspaper of Egypt is “al Ahram” (it’s essentially the mouthpiece of the Egyptian government). The web address for “al Ahram” is:
http://www.ahram.org.eg
What you’ll first see is incomprehensible Arabic script. Now open a second window at:
translate.google.com
Set the translator to: Arabic to English. Then cut-and-paste the Arabic script from al Ahram to the google translator and press the “Translate” button. What you’ll next observe is another miracle of the Internet along with some insight into Middle Eastern duplicity. You can play the same game with Syrian newspapers as well.
W
Endless talking has become confused with peace, but it’s really just the conversation between rounds in a bout.
Yes, the bout will go on for many years yet until the conversation gets to the reality that is driving the repetitive rounds – Islamism.
There is a good post over at Harrys Place on the Uber cause. Some quotes are:
One of the most depressing aspects of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas…is the very limited chances of Israel emerging from the violence with a clear, beneficial, long-term result. But fighting battles with Islamism that don’t bring obvious, instant results, is something we in the West are going to have to get used to.
two states is necessary, just and right and Israel should act to make it happen, but it is not a solution to Israel’s security problem, merely a possible start. Gaza has already given us an indication what kind of ’solution’ an Islamist Palestinian state would be.
western government’s are going to have to start thinking of strategies to deal with Islamists in power given that there is no sign that radical Islam is going to fade away.
But while Israel is fated to face the brunt of Islamist hatred for years to come, it won’t only be Israel that has to learn, in the absence of choice, to reluctantly to live with, deter and cleverly try to subvert Islamism until that wretched, inhuman creed follows its totalitarian cousins fascism and communism into the historical dustbin.
ADE
In #10, I think Tin Foil Hatter makes a good point regarding the shared responsibility for Hamas’s actions by the Gazan “civilians,” if for no other reason than the cold, calculating rationalization for not being so finicky aboutr “civilian” casualties.
I’m not endorsing this under the circumstances however, since the Israelis appear to have refined the art of limiting collateral damage by another notch. Besides, many Gazans probably have no use for Hamas, even if they were enthusiastic supporters before.
Huh? I could have sworn “Hatter’s” remark was #10, but it now appears to be #8.
“”"”"”"We make a big mistake in our rhetoric if we confound the single plebiscite with the term democracy.”"”"”"”
Excellent point, but a “plebiscite,” unless spectacularly rigged, indicates at least tacit approval by the “yes” voters for the winner’s policies, ideology, and actions.
>The modern version of the boy who cried “wolf” are
>the activists who cry “peace” — and give you war.
wretchard – that is outstanding!
Bill Roggio has reported that Pakistan is pulling two divisions (30,000 men) out of 100,000 on the line fighting the Taliban up in the tribal territories to move them to the border with India.
Things will be hotting up in Afghanistan and the tribal territories.
Too bad we can’t lend them some air support against the Taliban before they go.
RWE, I do not understand your reply to my post. I did not say anything about the Iraq war or the global warming scam. I supported ousting Saddam and I know a lot about the warming scam.
Yup. “Peace Process” means “we’re going to hamstring you while your enemies go for your throat”
I wonder what would happen if the Israeli government refused to use the words “cease fire” and instead started openly discussing “Hamas terms of surrender” instead.
I think that the low level fighters have been so demoralized by now that if Israel were to offer “POW equivalent treatment” to any Hamas fighter who surrendered in uniform, allowing them to cover their faces to avoid identification, and offering assurance that any fighter not guilty of individual war crimes would be released at the end of the Gaza conflict, you might see a non-trivial number of the fighters or immediately take up the offer. The resulting scenes of masses of Hamas fighters turning themselves in in full green regalia would permanently end the credibility of Hamas.
Israel could then take reframe the terms of the discussion by refusing to discuss “cease fires” or “the peace process”, and make the international discussion entirely in terms of the “Hamas surrender process.”
It can’t be worse than anything they’ve tried before.