[Marxism] "Gaza war changes Middle East equation at Israel's expense"

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

http://mondediplo.com/2009/02/02gazawar

The long march of folly that began in 1967
Gaza war changes Middle East equation at Israelâs expense 
The European Unionâs policy of funding Gazaâs development is just one 
casualty of Israelâs unprecedented attack, which has weakened the Palestinian 
Authority but left Hamas politically stronger than ever
 
By Alain Gresh 
 

âTheyâre still living in the War of Independence (1948) and the Sinai 
campaign (1956). With them, itâs all about tanks, about controlling 
territories or controlled territories, holding this or that hill. But these 
things are worthless. (â) The Lebanon war (2006) will go down in history as 
the first war in which the military leadership understood that classical 
warfare has become obsoleteâ (1).
 
This view, expressed in September 2008, comes not from an Israeli pacifist but 
the countryâs prime minister, Ehud Olmert. It would take a highly 
sophisticated analyst to fathom the subconscious of this politician, who is 
responsible both for the catastrophic war in Lebanon in 2006 and the recent 
offensive in Gaza, and who at the same time claims his country needs to abandon 
its narrow vision of security.
 
He and the majority of those who govern Israel probably share the view bluntly 
expressed in 2002 by Israelâs then chief of staff, general Moshe Yaalon: 
âThe Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their 
consciousness that they are a defeated peopleâ (2). With each new war comes 
the same old refrain from Israelâs leaders: the Arabs only understand force; 
teach them a lesson and peace will at last be possible. âWeâre going to 
keep our finger on the triggerâ (3) was how foreign minister Tzipi Livni put 
it. Olmert and his government are in favour of peace in the same way that the 
US government in the 19th century was in favour of the peace âthey decided to 
impose on the Native American tribes.
 
The shelling of Gaza came to a provisional halt on 18 January. The Israeli 
government wanted its troops out of Gaza before Barack Obama was sworn in and 
Hamas gave Israel a week to withdraw its soldiers and reopen crossing points 
with Gaza. Beyond the deliberate destruction of vital infrastructure â which 
includes ministry buildings and fire stations, the parliament and the 
university â the human cost shown on TV screens the world over has been 
overwhelming. Even the French media, which has previously been very timid, 
hasnât been able to obscure the extent of the catastrophe. Leaving to one 
side a moral reckoning and the crimes which may mean that Israeli leaders one 
day face an international tribunal, how has the fighting changed the political 
landscape at local and regional level?
 
The prime objective of the Israeli government was to permanently weaken Hamas 
politically and militarily. It claims to have succeeded in this and taught the 
âterroristsâ a lesson. But is it that simple? The tactic of massive 
bombardments and avoidance of close combat limited Israeli army losses â the 
third phase of the operation, which was never put into action, would have been 
an infantry assault of towns â but hasnât broken up the military core of 
Hamas, which comprises between three and five thousand fighters. Like Hizbullah 
in 2006, Hamas was able to keep firing rockets until the very last moment and 
its arms supply lines held up, albeit at a reduced level.
 
Whatever the criticisms of Hamasâs strategy, including their rocket attacks 
on civilian targets, the vast majority of the Palestinian population holds the 
Israeli government responsible for the destruction. As Elena Qleibo, a 
Gaza-based aid worker from Oxfam and an ex-Costa Rican ambassador to Israel 
says: âPeople are extremely angry, and the level of hate against Israel is 
very high. I have lived and worked in Gaza for many years, and I have never 
seen such hatred from the populationâ (4).
 
The Palestinians also resent the Palestinian Authorityâs passivity during the 
war. The internal crisis in Fatah, which was already factionalised, has 
deepened, in spite of the call for unity and resistance made by Marwan 
Barghouti from prison. President Mahmoud Abbas, who is himself weakened and 
marginalised, has called for the creation of a government of national unity. So 
the Gaza of tomorrow will either remain under Hamas control or will be governed 
by a national authority in which Hamas plays a central role. Surely not what 
Israel wanted.

The next phase
The focus of the next phase will be the reconstruction of Gaza, which the 
Israeli government wants to control tightly. No project will be accepted and 
not a dollar will reach Gaza without their agreement, according to Israeli 
officials. In addition, Hamas are to be prevented from claiming this aid. 
Israel has gained support on this from the EU commissioner for external 
affairs, Benita Ferrero-Waldner (5), but as there is no other authority in Gaza 
but Hamas, reconstruction risks being limited to humanitarian aid. All the 
conditions for renewed hostilities against Israel will once again be met; the 
Israeli blockade was one of the principal causes for the last escalation.
 
The war has profoundly altered the regional order, too, though not in the way 
that Israel wished. First, it has confirmed the isolation of the Palestinian 
Authority. It has encouraged the consolidation of a resistance front based in 
Qatar (site of the biggest US base in the region) and Syria. This alliance was 
made concrete at a meeting in Doha, in which 12 Arab countries took part (among 
them Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon and Iraq, Americaâs supposed ally) along with 
Senegal (which holds the presidency of the Organisation of the Islamic 
Conference), Turkey, Indonesia, Venezuela and Iran. Mauritania has suspended 
diplomatic relations with Israel and Qatar has broken off economic links. 
Venezuela and Bolivia have also severed their diplomatic relations.
 
A few days later, on 19 and 20 January, the Arab summit in Kuwait brought a 
fragile reconciliation even if it didnât remove differences of opinion. This 
was made easier by Israelâs refusal to negotiate a ceasefire as proposed by 
president Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. Angered by this rebuff and by the signing of 
a separate US-Israeli agreement to combat arms imports to Gaza (and therefore 
control the border with Egypt), Mubarak toughened his stance.
 
Turkey, Israelâs traditional ally, has confirmed its growing importance on 
the regional stage. Like Mubarak, Turkeyâs prime minister, Recip Erdogan felt 
humiliated by Olmert, who kept quiet about his intentions regarding Gaza when 
he saw his Turkish counterpart during a visit to Ankara on 22 and 23 December. 
The day after the offensive was launched on 27 December, Erdogan said: âThis 
attack, coming while we are making such efforts for peace, is a blow against 
peaceâ (6). Not only did Turkey, the mediator which had brought Israel and 
Syria to the verge of resuming direct negotiations, suspend its efforts, it 
also called for Israelâs suspension from the UN the day after it fired on UN 
buildings in Gaza.
During the crisis, Turkey has strengthened its relations with Hamas and is 
hoping to mediate between it and the Palestinian Authority. And Turkish popular 
opinion has translated into demonstrations in which several million people have 
taken to the streets in Turkish towns âand villages.
 
Iran has also seen its regional position strengthened. It has extended its 
alliances in the Arab and Islamic world. Its radical discourse has been 
increasingly echoed within the region and it is now in a position of strength 
vis-Ã-vis the new US administration. However, Tehran has shown restraint in 
the crisis. Iranian supreme leader ayatollah Ali Khamenei has even declared 
that âour hands are tied on that terrainâ (7). The firing of rockets from 
Lebanon prompted fears that a second front might open up. Although this 
didnât happen, the incident can be taken as a warning: Iran has told the 
Egyptian government through diplomatic channels that it will not allow Hamas to 
be crushed.

Contempt for Arab opinion
Western governments have nothing but contempt for Arab popular opinion. This 
was clear when they challenged Hamasâs victory in the democratic elections 
held in Palestine in 2006. They simply shrugged when in a communiquà on 12 
January the Saudi government condemned the âracist genocideâ in Gaza. They 
ignore the extent of protest in the Arab and Muslim world, especially in Egypt 
(despite the state of near-siege in Cairo) and in Afghanistan. Yet which Arab 
government would now be willing to sit down to peace talks with Israel? The 
Saudi king has announced that the 2002 Arab initiative for a comprehensive 
peace between the Arab world and Israel in exchange for the creation of a 
Palestinian state on territory occupied by Israel in 1967 wonât remain on the 
table for much longer.
 
Meanwhile, on Sunday 18 January, while Western journalists broadcast images of 
Gazaâs lunar landscape, prime minster Olmert was to be seen expressing his 
pleasure to six European leaders, including Nicolas Sarkozy, over their 
âextraordinary support for the state of Israel and their concern about its 
securityâ. More than in any other conflict since 1967, the European position, 
especially that of France, has been aligned with the Israeli governmentâs 
(see âA people abandonedâ). In retrospect, the upgrading of relations 
between the EU and Israel in early December 2008 looks like a green light to 
the operation in Gaza. In spite of the Israeli offensive, the EU (and France) 
will strengthen their bilateral relations with Tel Aviv (8).
 
This Western alliance engaged in the fight against âIslamic terrorismâ has 
more than a hint of the crusades about it. Without going as far as Silvio 
Berlusconi, who explained in Jerusalem: âWhen I heard about the rocket fire 
at Israel, I felt that it was a danger to Italy, and to the entire Westâ (9), 
or the director of LâExpress, who wrote that the Israeli army was fighting 
âfor our peaceâ (10) â some on the right used to explain in the 1980s 
that the apartheid government was fighting âfor usâ in southern Africa, 
against communism, the Soviet Union and Cuba â president Sarkozy has 
explained on many occasions that Hamas bore a heavy responsibility for this war 
as it had broken the truce, which is untrue (see âReasons for war: lies, lies 
and more lies â, opposite).
 
In spite of Sarkozyâs flying around on numerous foreign trips, France has 
lost a great deal of credit, as demonstrated by the unprecedented attacks on it 
in the Arab press, including in moderate countries, where it is now bracketed 
with the US of George Bush. The Saudi daily Al Watan wrote on 11 January âall 
the great powers have supported Israelâs position, including France, which 
has thus far been the symbol of balance in regional causesâ. And Franceâs 
decision to fight against smuggled arms in Gaza can only be construed as an 
operation to protect an occupying power: no one has called upon Israel to stop 
re-arming itself.
 
âA pointless war has led to a moral defeat for Israelâ â so ran the 
headline in the British Sunday paper, the Observer on 18 January. The majority 
of moral barriers have crumbled in Israel during the Gaza offensive. A phrase 
sums up this vision: baal habayit histhtageya (âthe boss has gone madâ). 
Its essence is captured by Giora Eiland, a former Israeli national security 
adviser: âIf our civilians are attacked by you, we are not going to respond 
in proportion, but will use all means we have to cause you such damages that 
you will think twice in the futureâ (11).
 
This tactic was used in Lebanon in 2006 and was referred to as the Dahiya 
doctrine, after the district in south Beirut where Hizbullah was based. The aim 
is to destroy an entire district or village as soon as it is believed to 
harbour terrorists who are firing on Israel. It was employed again in Gaza and 
constitutes what international law recognises as a war crime. Yet it is now 
openly demanded in Israel. In a letter to prime minster Olmert in 2007, the 
former Sephardic grand rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu explained âthere is absolutely 
no moral prohibition against indiscriminate killing of civilians during a 
potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket 
launchingâ (12). The longer the occupation, the more it corrupts the 
occupier. One can only imagine what liberties would have been taken by France 
in Algeria if the war had gone on for 40 years.
 
The South African government, showing more determination than most, has 
condemned Israeli aggression against Gaza. The long experience of fighting the 
apartheid regime taught ANC leaders all about the hypocrisy of western rhetoric 
on violence and terrorism. Writing about his negotiations with the white South 
African government and its demands for the end to violence, Nelson Mandela 
said: âI responded that the state was responsible for the violence and that 
it is always the oppressor, not the oppressed, who dictates the form of the 
struggle. If the oppressor uses violence, the oppressed have no alternative but 
to respond violently. In our case, it was simply a legitimate form of 
self-defenceâ (13).

Translated by George Miller

(1) As quoted in âThe time has come to say these thingsâ, âNew York 
Review of Books, 4-17 December 2008.
(2) Rashid Khalidi, âWhat you donât know about Gazaâ, âNew York Times, 
7 January 2009.
(3) Interview with Le Monde, 18-19 January 2009.
(4) Mel Frykberg, âGazans Do Not Blame Hamasâ, IPS, â20 January 2009.
(5) Declaration of 19 January 2009.
(6) Todayâs Zaman, Ankara, 29 December 2008.
(7) Trista Parsi, âIsrael, Gaza and Iran: Trapping Obama in Imagined Fault 
Linesâ, The Huffington Post, 13 January 2009.
(8) The EU has decided, in agreement with Israel, to temporarily suspend this 
upgrading of relations. The Union for the Mediterranean has also been a victim 
of the war; all meetings have been put on hold at Egyptâs request.
(9) Haaretz.com, 19 January 2009.
(10) Christophe Barbier, âUne guerre juste, juste une guerreâ, LâExpress, 
14 January 2009.
(11) International Herald Tribune, 20 January 2009.
(12) Jerusalem Post, 30 May 2007.
(13) Nelson Mandela, A Long Walk to Freedom, Little, Brown, New York and 
London, 1994, p545.

English language editorial director: Wendy Kristianasen - all rights reserved 
 1997-2009 Le Monde diplomatique. 



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu