#pillarofdefense

Morning after the cease-fire agreement was announced: the tension in the air has decreased but everyone is skeptical. A couple of rockets overnight and some false alarms... but things seem to have quieted down. IDF and Hamas wait with baited breath. You can feel it in Tel Aviv, the media knows it - there is no way it was that simple, especially after the bus explosion in Tel Aviv yesterday, a symbol of Antifada times for Israelis. 

A long term solution to the region is not something that can be attained without force, this is for sure and I think Operation Pillar of Defense has shown this. But can it ever be achieved at all? Maybe Israel can negotiate with Hamas, but does Hamas have control over other political and military factions in Gaza? And poor Abbas and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and his UN non-member status appeal, he gets bupkis? Protests in the West Bank show that this non-violent Palestinian sect is starting to get pissed off...

There are two narratives of the Arab-Israeli conflict (specifically the Palestinian-Israeli conflict) - we know better than to generalize at this point because the two are very different identities that sometimes happen to overlap:

1) The West Bank and Palestinian Authority - non-violent but not exactly on friendly relations with Israel. On the UN non-member track but it does not look promising at this point

1) Hamas in Gaza - plus the other factions and fringe groups, including Islamic Jihad Organization. Backed by Iran with military and material support?

A unified Palestinian state is not realistic considering Hamas and the PA don't agree with each other's tactics... so what does Israel do since it has more than one enemy that want the same thing (destruction of Israel, death to all Jews... maybe the leaders want this, but the civilians just want a better quality of life and not to live in fear). 

So, a third option could be to support another faction in Gaza, or perhaps even the PA in the West Bank in order to delegitimize Hamas. Could work, except that it hasn't in the past: Isn't that what we did to delegitimize Arafat and the PLO? A good case to analyze and compare is a previous Israeli operation in Lebanon in the early 1980s and of course the Second Lebanon War in 2006. 

Israel was directly involved in the Second Lebanon War, but I think it's important to illustrate a few things about the First Lebanon War, mainly the creation of Hezbollah. 

Hezbollah first emerged in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, during the Lebanese civil war.[14] Its leaders were inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.Hezbollah's 1985 manifesto listed its four main goals as "Israel's final departure from Lebanon as a prelude to its final obliteration", ending "any imperialist power in Lebanon", submission of the Phalangists to "just rule" and bringing them to trial for their crimes, and giving the people the chance to choose "with full freedom the system of government they want", while not hiding its commitment to the rule of Islam.[16] Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, which they refer to as the "Zionist entity".[16] wikipedia. 

So Israel gets involved, Hezbollah is created as a response to get Israel out. So far so good, except Israel now has another army/enemy (backed by Iran with military aid and politically by Syria). Every time Israel takes a step either to the right or left, forward or backwards, a fringe group or leader gains notoriety and strength. Israel does something very interesting before they leave Lebanon in 2000 -they create (support) the South Lebanese Army (SLA), a Lebanese militia or guerrilla army created during the Lebanese Civil War which split apart from the Army of Free Lebanon. During 1982 - 2000, Israel supports and even trains the army and in return they aid them in fights against the PLO and Hezbollah. When Israeli ended their military presence in Lebanon in 2000 (due to military pressure), they leave the SLA on their own, but now they are considered traitors in their home countries. Mostly Christians, they are tried in army courts, some flee to Israel; the army collapses with many casualties without Israeli support. Ehud Barak is criticized for stepping out of Lebanon without consulting the SLA. Leaving them stranded was immoral and inhumane. 

The Lebanon case analysis is a bit different from the situation going on between Palestinians and Israeli's now; however, I do think it illustrates very well the limited options Israel has in making any moves. Support the PA to delegitimize Hamas is a tricky situation that will probably blow up in Israel's face and getting other people to fight your battle, that doesn't seem to be the answer either, especially since their demise is probably imminent (this kind of guerrilla army won't be possible again since no one will trust Israel to provide for them if they help them fight). 

The IDF's hysterical quest for a victory at the end of the Second Lebanon War brought nothing, except for unnecessary battles over the planting of flags in places no one ever heard of. In the end, that war created deterrence, despite the failures of the Olmert government and the IDF, because Israel used a massive amount of force. Hezbollah suffered heavy losses and damage, and since then it has been wary of another round of fighting. - Haaretz article 'Who won this roung in Gaza, Israel or Hamas? Only time will tell' by Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff

It does not look like Hamas is wary of another round of fighting, but it's too soon to tell if the unsigned cease-fire document has any weight or will create any significant change. US President Obama looks good because he's taking an active part in peaceful diplomatic relations (that's his keta, right?), Hillary just looks tired. Morsi might get nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize... the region is more stable today that it was yesterday, right? Also, if anything happens and the cease-fire is broken, Israel is justified to use more force, which makes a lot of politicians here very happy. tick-tock, tick-tock.

Today was a shit day, but it could have been worse. Working for a newsroom is pretty exhilarating during war time, even though it's a very strange time to officially jump into the job. I barely kept up, but I hope I was at least somehow helpful. I didn't want to leave work because being there keeps me busy, and keeps me from being alone in my apartment waiting for a siren to go off. I'm not scared of it, although it is fuckin' scary, but it's the anticipation of it that kind of drives me crazy. 

I went to bed last night with a lot of hope. I had just come home from my International Law class at Tel Aviv University, and really felt better informed about the situation after discussing it in an academic setting instead of sticking to the syllabus and ignoring the painfully obvious reality of war surrounding us. I started thinking about the situation more objectively for the first time since it started, and I was finally able to be less emotional about it. We discussed options in the class and what the Israeli government was dealing with in international law terms. For the first time, I was grasping what was going on because it wasn't coming form an emotional place. I came home feeling a bit better about everything and hopeful that a cease-fire could be negotiated and felt that even a temporary solution would be better than this constant and terrifying back and forth. 

But today was a bad day in Tel Aviv. An explosion was set off on a public bus in the city center, wounding about 20 people. No casualties were reported, but for Israelis an image of a burned/shattered/bombed-out bus is their worst nightmare. And it's been more than 6 years since a suicide bomber (Hamas' responsibility) attacked in Tel Aviv. There is a reason why the Israeli government builds settlements, and although I don't 100% agree with the rationale behind them, it's mainly to keep the majority of the Israeli population, who live in the country's center, safe. So for me, an American, it was horrible, brutal, tragic and really scary. For everyone else around in me in the newsroom, who have more experience with this, it was a wave of intense emotions. People calling their loved ones to make sure everything is ok, text messages, and the website needed to be updated. It was probably one of the most intense things I have experienced, professionally and humanely. 

As of thirty-three minutes ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that there is a cease-fire with Gaza. The agreement was organized by Egypt's Morsi (Islamic Brotherhood) and in my (poorly) legally trained eyes makes no sense. See text here. More importantly, I don't understand why it took 8 days, US and Egyptian intervention, and a lot of rockets, casualties, and stress to broker such simple terms without really addressing the "hows". Basically both sides agree to to give assurances to Egypt - ok, that's good. We definitely need a third party to mediate between the two and I commend Egypt for stepping up. I also commend the US for getting more involved than I had anticipated. But back to the terms, it's a simple statement that both sides wont bomb each other any more. But there is no time frame on it and no concessions are mentioned if either party should break the agreement (except that both parties are to answer to Egypt - this might have weight, but I'm not entirely sure how much). Perhaps this has to be done hastily at first, before something more concrete can be arranged in the coming days? But the bottom line is that this region is always like this, what is going to change? The negotiations mention nothing to this effect. It's all politics - international law is politics. But maybe I don't care because this is a step in the right direction?

I skipped my classes tonight because I didn't want to get on a bus, but also because I am emotionally and physically exhausted from all this and I woke up at 6 in the morning and spent the rest of the day in a very intense and stressful environment. It's also been 8 days of surprises. Seeing this conflict as an outsider living in the cozy States a few years ago was an entirely different and very objective/logical experience. I don't support violent means to create peace - it was simple, just like Israel's statement about not negotiating with terrorists. But being in the here, now, I understand so much more why each side is so determined to protect their clan, their territory and their religious convictions (although I'm fairly certain that the conflict has gone way beyond overly simplistic categories of Jew v. Arab). Non-violent means are simply not a reality in this region, and it pains me to admit this, but I now understand why both sides resort to force. I also understand this Israeli sentiment of "them" being animals, but I also comprehend that Palestinians feel caged by "us". I do not believe I was not born into this conflict like most people living here, even though I am Jewish, but I still am angry and most of my anger is directed to the "other" side. But it's only because I'm experiencing it from here. The anger is legitimate on either end but for the first time in my life, I truly understand what it's like to be blinded by it. 

There is a theory, although it is very far-fetched, that Israel invented Hamas in order to create an alternative to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during  negotiations with Yasser Arafat in the early 1990s. Israel's motto "we do not negotiate with terrorists." Arafat was a terrorist, but isn't just saying that very statement a negotiation in itself? It's certainly an offer at the very least, or perhaps an invitation to use force? One thing is certain, Israel definitely had a hand in creating a stronger Hamas - if you identify someone as a leader, they become one; you push them, they bite back; you undermine their rights, they get angry and use that as strength. In 1992 during the First Intifada, Ehud Barak was in charge of ordering the arrest and deportation of all Islamic group leaders. They are all deported to Lebanon in a secret mission. The operation was appealed to the High Court, eventually Israel won and after a year, after the Intifada ends, the angry Islamic leaders return. Except now they are angrier, more anti-Israel and they use their deported status as a rite of passage, so to speak - those who had not been deported were deemed not important enough in Israel's eyes (not a big enough threat) and therefore could not even claim membership as a Hamas leader. Didn't the same thing happen in Afghanistan and al-Qaida? The United States supported a Russian Afghanistan, thereby giving a movement momentum and allowing them to use their anger to organize. 

Bottom line, I think that the cease-fire is a good idea because it's another route. No one knows if it's a good one or what will happen, but it's an option that has not been utilized before and the old methods are simply not working anymore.

ISRAEL: their red line keeps getting extended, rockets are flying over central cities such as Tel Aviv. They no longer have an excuse not to use force. They had/have 2 options at this point:  

1) Attack Gaza, occupy it, kill everyone 

cons: lose IDF soldiers and international support of any kind                                                                          

2) Negotiate with Hamas (cease-fire agreement)

cons: this is an achievement for a terrorist organization (Israel does not negotiate with terrorists); Israel loses its ability for improving deterrence and control of the situation; Hamas also sets an example for other groups surrounding Israel - force is the only way to get their attention (compare to the non-violent Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, where Abbas offers concessions).

Both options are bad ones; however, Israel has already attempted to solve the conflict using the first choice. Operation Cast Lead back in 2008 was thought to be a success at its conclusion, but considering 4 years later tensions have increased, the method has not worked. Also, realistically if Israel goes in they won't eliminate the problem, only postpone it. They'll probably be able to occupy Gaza within a week but most of the Hamas leadership and other factions in Gaza (including Islamic Jihad) will run away to Egypt. In a few more years they will rebuild. But, as we have learned before, they will be stronger and more popular. History repeats itself.

A third option is needed, but that will not be decided tonight. 

10:23 P.M. Gaza militants fire 12 rockets into Israel during hour after cease-fire was announced. The rockets landed in open areas and caused no damage or casualties.  (Reuters) - from Haaretz's LIVE BLOG 

Here is my reaction, paragraph by paragraph, to the New York Times' 'Another Israel-Gaza War?' editorial. The regular text is the editorial. The text in bold is mine.

No country should have to endure the rocket attacks that Israel has endured from militants in Gaza, most recently over the past four days.

And no people should have to endure the daily attacks that Palestinians endure under Israeli control in Gaza.

The question is how to stop them permanently.

Yes, how do we stop this permanently?

On Wednesday, Israel launched one of the most ferocious assaults on Gaza since its invasion four years ago. At least 20 targets were struck and a Hamas military commander, Ahmed al-Jabari, was killed. Israeli leaders also threatened another ground war.

This is true.

Hamas has controlled Gaza since Israel withdrew in 2007. The group has mostly adhered to an informal cease-fire with Israel after the war there in the winter of 2008-09. But, in recent months, Hamas has claimed responsibility for participating in rocket firings, and last week it took credit for detonating a tunnel packed with explosives along the Israel-Gaza border while Israeli soldiers were working nearby.

Such violence is awful. I am with you, New York Times.

Israel has a right to defend itself…

… Stop right there. That is true, but it is a narrow and problematic way to characterize it. Israel really wants these attacks to be characterized as ‘defense.’ The IDF has even named this operation 'Pillar Of Defense.' You, New York Times, seem happy to go along with this characterization, but the problem is that, simply put, it suggests that Hamas started it, and Israel is simply defending itself. Couldn’t you argue that Israel started it with their years of very awful treatment of Palestinians in Gaza as oppressive occupier? Or with their illegal taking over of Gaza in the first place? And that it is Hamas defending its people from these attacks, even if it has chosen a particularly violent/awful/wrongheaded way of doing so? It doesn’t seem right for you to characterize what Israel is doing as 'defense', but what Hamas is doing as 'attacks'.

…but it’s hard to see how Wednesday’s operation could be the most effective way of advancing its long-term interests. It has provoked new waves of condemnation against Israel in Arab countries, including Egypt, whose cooperation is needed to enforce the 1979 peace treaty and support stability in Sinai.

Yes, all of these things are interconnected. This ties in with what I said above. We have to see that the violence coming out of Israel and Hamas just build on each other. Every action has a reaction - and it has dangerous ramifications across the region beyond Gaza. I agree with you on this, New York Times.

The action also threatens to divert attention from what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly described as Israel’s biggest security threat: Iran’s nuclear program.

Hmm. New York Times, you have already gotten a fair bit of criticism for banging the war drums a bit too eagerly when it comes to Iran. This seems to be an example of this. It reminds me of how eagerly you banged the war drums with regards to the unnecessary and bloody Iraq War. You should learn from your mistakes. Though, having said that, I am sure it is true that Israel does see Iran’s nuclear program as a huge security threat.

Engaging in a full-scale ground war is especially risky. Israel’s last major military campaign in Gaza was a three-week blitz in 2008-09 that killed as many as 1,400 Palestinians, and it was widely condemned internationally. It did not solve the problem. Hamas remains in control in Gaza and has amassed even more missiles.

I agree with you on this. Israel’s big shows of military strength, such as the ‘blitz’ in 2008-2009, do not help anyone. They do not help Israel tactically, and they certainly do not help the Palestinian people killed, wounded and traumatized as a result.

Some Israeli commentators have suggested that Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to order the operation is connected to elections in January. But there are other options. Israel could have asked Egypt, whose new Islamist-led government has close ties to Hamas, to mediate a more permanent cease-fire. On Monday, Hamas hinted that it was open to that. Or Israel could have responded as it usually has in recent years, avoiding high-profile assassinations while attacking rocket-launching squads, empty training sites and weapons manufacturing plants.

Hamas is a dangerous adversary that may never accept Israel’s right to exist. But it would be easier to win support for retaliatory action if Israel was engaged in serious negotiations with Hamas’ rival, the Palestinian Authority, and working toward a durable peace agreement.