Share

Analysis: "I Don't See How This Ends Well" in Gaza

by: Dion Nissenbaum  |  McClatchy Newspapers

photo
A Palestinian man tries to free a trapped Palestinian prisoner after the prison was bombed by Israeli forces. (Photo: AP)

    Jerusalem - As Israel clamps down on the Gaza Strip and prepares for the possibility of sending thousands of soldiers into the Palestinian area controlled by the militant Islamic group Hamas, its leaders are facing a diplomatic conundrum: They have clear military goals but no political vision for how to end the confrontation.

    "I don't see how this ends well, even if, in two weeks time, it looks like it ends well," said Daniel Levy, a political analyst who once served as an adviser to Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister who's now leading the military campaign against Hamas as Israel's defense minister.

    Israel's expanding air strikes already have delivered a costly blow to the Hamas rulers in Gaza by killing hundreds of the group's soldiers and decimating its network of government security compounds.

    Beyond that, though, Israeli leaders haven't explained what could bring the violence to a halt. Once the smoke clears, the rubble is removed and the dead are buried, Hamas is still almost certain to remain in control of the Gaza Strip, and its hard-line leaders are already vowing to strike back.

    "To the extent to which there's a scenario where Israel wins a tactical round, it will again lose a strategic round," said Levy, a senior fellow at The New America Foundation, a liberal policy institute in Washington, D.C. that's providing ideas and personnel to the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama.

    Israel's ongoing campaign is already creating an early foreign policy test for Obama, who's pledged to make Middle East diplomacy an early priority when he takes office next month.

    On Sunday, Obama chief lieutenant David Axelrod offered tacit backing for Israel, blaming Hamas for sparking the conflict as the Bush administration also has done. If Obama continues to offer similar unqualified support for Israeli military action, it could make it harder for him to demonstrate to the Arab world that he's a more even-handed middleman than Bush has been.

    Israeli officials Sunday said their top priority is to destabilize Hamas and cripple its ability to keep firing the crude rockets into southern Israel that have killed seven Israelis in the last two years.

    Here the Israeli government appears to have learned a lesson from its bungled 2006 war in Lebanon against fighters from Hezbollah, another militant Islamic group. There, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert failed to achieve his main goals: Forcing Hezbollah to return the two Israeli soldiers whose capture sparked the 34-day war and silencing rocket fire from Shiite Muslim militants in southern Lebanon.

    "What we want to do is significantly reduce the rocket fire," said Miri Eisin, a reserve colonel in the Israeli Army and spokeswoman for the Israeli government. "If Hamas says no more rocket fire, then we'll see where that goes."

    Olmert and his government, however, refuse to negotiate directly with Hamas until the group, which is supported by Iran and Syria, renounces its goal of destroying Israel.

    The standoff worsened last year when, after winning 2006 democratic elections that were backed by the Bush administration, Hamas seized military control of Gaza in a humiliating rout of forces loyal to pragmatic Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

    Since then, Israel and the U.S. have been trying to provide political support to Abbas by trying to revive stagnant peace talks and helping to rebuild his security forces in the West Bank, between Israel and Jordan.

    The goal is to show the Palestinian voters who propelled Hamas to political power in 2006 that Abbas and his pro-Western government are a better alternative.

    "We have a dialogue with the Palestinian Authority," said Eisin. "You don't have an alternative to that at the end of the day."

    If anything, however, the U.S.-Israeli effort has pushed Abbas and Hamas farther apart and made re-uniting the rival Palestinian factions more difficult.

    That leaves Israel, the United States and Abbas with few diplomatic options: Hamas refuses to abandon its pledge to destroy Israel while Israel and the U.S. refuse to talk to Hamas until the group does. Abbas, meanwhile, refuses to reconcile with Hamas until the group surrenders control of Gaza.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

"They have clear military

"They have clear military goals but no political vision for how to end the confrontation." Does this sound familiar to anyone?

How's that for double speak

How's that for double speak - that quote by Levy at the beginning of the article. "I don't see how it ends well, even if it ends well" Huh? My mother told me as I was growing up - that two wrongs don't make a right. Both sides are wrong. Both sides need to take a step back and stop. I know - easier said then done, but it's the only way it "won't not" end well. Let us pray for peace in the Middle East.

Look. I am a Canadian. Mr.

Look. I am a Canadian. Mr. Axelrod would be just as happy to see a bomb drop on me as on Gaza. But you are Americans. Your vote can put him out on the street begging quarters. Do something. If you do nothing, you are guilty.

This article is far too

This article is far too generous, though it at least makes a stab at being more balanced that the standard corporate media in the US. What "clear military goal" is he talking about? Israel - and Olmert in particular -- has learned nothing it seems from the fiasco of lebanon in 2006. This is catastrophic for Israel's image in the world. Bombing the heck out of Gaza -- already facing an unreported humanitarian nightmare (courtesy Israel's blockade) -- isn't about to persuade Palestinians to vote "nicer." It won't work any more than a similarly blind policy of bombing all of Lebanon persuaded the Lebanese to turn against Hizbullah. Both backfired royally. Time for the incoming Obama Administration to get serious about "changing the culture of how foreign policy is made in Washington." This is the KEY opening test -- whether it's more coat holding for Israeli hardliners, or being a serious friend to Israel who knows when to say no. (like Bush I ) Will the grown-ups show up? Or will it be Ross II?

I agree that this article is

I agree that this article is too generous- it should be noted that these airstrikes, before a ground invasion, have killed more than 300 people. This article puts the number of israeli dead from rocket fire at 7 over the last 2 years. This isn't a 'military operation', it's a massacre of a captive population. This sort of war crime should be condemned by our government in the U.S. and all nations around the world.

Another cowardly attack on

Another cowardly attack on essentially defenseless population. This is sickening and the worst part is that we are so silent in North America...or are we? Do we just seem silent because the mainstream media do not report dissent against Israël in this Country. Even Truthout is complicit. But maybe this show that Truthout is just another front for the war party.

Even the "even handed"

Even the "even handed" reports aren't. "[A]fter winning 2006 democratic elections that were backed by the Bush administration, Hamas seized military control of Gaza." Hmm, you win a quite clean election, but the levers of power stay in someone else's hand until you "seize" them, like a snatch thief "siezing" an old lady's purse. Then we have "pragmatic Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas" whose " pro-Western government" is supposedly a "better alternative" than Hamas despite his having gotten nothing for the Palestinians since his election. Note particularly how 'pragmatic' is interchangeable with 'pro-Western'. Being pragmatic includes overturning the results of elections if they don't suit; nasty old Mugabe was just being pragmatic. Abbas has learned his quisling lessons well: if you ain't with us, you're with the terrorists. BTW, the Israelis ain't done yet: they got another 400 "terrorists" to kill before they reach their own quota of 100 Palestinians for 1 Israeli. Some folks is just worth more than others. But we knew that.

Why not try ENDING THE

Why not try ENDING THE ILLEGAL OCCUPATION???? And then try helping the other side!!!!!!!!! See if it works better than ALL THESE YEARS OF FAILURE.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actions speak louder than

Actions speak louder than words. Israel talks of peace but its action proclaim that its principal intention is to acquire the land set aside (by the UN mandate) for a Palestinian state. Let us merely look at the death toll on either side since 1967, which is something like five Palestinians killed for every Israeli casualty. Now tell me, who has the security problem, Israel or its neighbors? During this time Israel has never stopped building new settlements, "facts on the ground" as they are called. Facts for what purpose? An objective person has to factor this in when trying to understand Israel's aggression.

The comparison of the Gaza

The comparison of the Gaza strip with the Warsaw ghetto is one that had occurred to me long ago. It has seemed to me for decades that the only lesson the Zionist element of Israel has learned from the Holocaust is HOW to do it, not that you DON'T do it. I see no real difference between what the Nazis were doing to the German Jews and what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. It is only a matter of difference in "execution" of the program rather than a substantial qualitative difference in the program.