ON THE CONTEXT OF GAZA WAR

ROCK AND A HARD PLACE*

 This New York Times editorial on the current war in Gaza doesn't seem to convey the broader context of what appears to be going on.
It starts on a note most Americans would be in agreement with:

"Israel must defend itself.
And Hamas must bear responsibility for ending a six-month cease-fire this month with a barrage of rocket attacks into Israeli territory.
Still we fear that Israel’s response — devastating airstrikes that represent the largest military operation in Gaza since 1967 — is unlikely to weaken the militant Palestinian group substantially or move things any closer to what all Israelis and all Palestinians need: a durable peace agreement and a two-state solution."

But going further, the piece does not highlight the broader context of the current attacks, including the close, hotly fought elections in Israel.  Here, as in elections everywhere, candidates need to prove themselves "tough on external threats" to be seen ready to lead at 3 a.m. 

The only reference to the election is as follows:

"The Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, promised a “war to the bitter end.”

We hope he does not mean a ground war.

That, or any prolonged military action, would be disastrous for Israel and lead to wider regional instability. Mr. Barak and Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, both candidates to succeed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in elections set for February, must not be drawn any further into a competition with the front-runner, Benjamin Netanyahu, over who is the biggest hawk."

This Bloomberg News piece highlights the political stakes in Israel in greater detail:

"Israel’s Gaza military offensive against Hamas may make or break Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s political future, and that of his Labor Party.

With national elections scheduled for Feb. 10, the offensive is scrambling the political calculations of both Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the prime-minister candidate of Labor’s coalition partner, the Kadima Party, and Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu. At the same time, the stakes are highest for Labor leader Barak, 66, who was prime minister from 1999 until 2001.

Success in Gaza -- defined as a cessation of the Palestinian rocket attacks that followed the Dec. 19 end of a six-month cease-fire with Hamas -- probably wouldn’t be enough to propel Barak himself to the prime minister’s office. But it would strengthen his position within the ruling coalition, reinforce his perceived public image as the country’s top military strategist and help restore Labor’s flagging political fortunes."

And the only reference to the virtual blockade of Gaza, where 1.5 million civilians have literally had no meaningful access to resources from the outside world for months, as Israel and Egypt have hermetically sealed the territory, is in this one statement:

"...Israel never really lived up to its commitment to ease its punishing embargo on Gaza."

A Google search of the phrase "Israel blockade Gaza" produces over 2 million hits. 

The other place where some restraint is called in the editorial, is the following statement:

"Israel must make every effort to limit civilian casualties."

This in one of the most densely populated places on the planet, where the population literally lives in squalor on top of each other.
Some balance is called for in how the current conflict is perceived, especially in the context of both America and Israel's long-term well-being. 

And the only place to see it in the context of the NYTimes editorial, is in it's 200 plus comments by readers.

Interested parties should read both the editorial and the comments in their entirety to get a better sense of who's doing what to whom for what types of motivations, and what should or should not be done about it all.

It's not just the civilians in Gaza who are between a rock and a hard place. 

The long-term future and well-being of Israel, and America's options on guaranteeing the same, are in the same place as well if the current debate continues to be viewed through this narrow prism.

*Image source.

Comments

[Robert G.]

Michael thanks for posting this thoughtful piece on a very complicated and troubling issue. I think the conversation has been held captive by the extremists on both side and you are right to question the motivations of the Israeli politicians. In talking to a number of Israeli's I've come to learn that building a coalition government there is a very tricky business and often requires catering to the hawks who are in a minority and not serving the best or majority interests of the country.

All that said I would also encourage people to look at the other side, who in my opinion have been even more egregious for a very long time. And this unfortunately extends well beyond Hamas into other Arab countries. They like their Israeli counterparts and many politicians are exploiting people to maintain power. Plenty of blame to go around.

The hope is that centrists on both sides can prevail and find charismatic leaders who believe more in helping their people then themselves.