December 28, 2008

Why Gaza? Why Now?

By Charles Chuman

The Israeli attacks on Gaza took the world by surprise. Why? Why now? And is it surprising?

A common response about the reason for the current military action is that

Posted by Charles Chuman at December 28, 2008 3:24 PM
Comments
From what I have been reading today, some informed commentators believe that this is an all-out attempt to destroy Hamas. If they can destroy Hamas enough to make it vulnerable, anti-Hamas forces in Gaza may well take power away from them. Also, up to forty tunnels were providing a super-highway for arms smugglers and Israel knew that if it wanted to avoid a Hezbollah 2006- type of contest it needed to get in early. It never ceases to amaze me that Israel has to constantly plead its case in public forums when it protects its citizens from terror attacks.
Posted by: PresterJohn at December 28, 2008 4:10 pm
Why Gaza?
Is this really a question?
Why Now?
I do not burden myself with over speculation. Only Israeli brass knows why now.
As far as I am concerned it was long overdue and that is all.
"It never ceases to amaze me that Israel has to constantly plead its case in public forums when it protects its citizens from terror attacks."
I hope after Russia's foray into Georgia Israel is free to do whatever the hell it wants.
Posted by: leo at December 28, 2008 10:01 pm
Why now? As noted, Likud's standing in recent polls (much to my satisfaction) and Washington, 20 January 2009 looming on the horizon. A more appropriate question is why not before now? How long would the U.S. tolerate a rocket and mortar barrage along the Rio Grande? As for the despicable cowards in Hamas who embed among civilians to gain the publicity civilian casualities bring, a U. S. military term is appropriate: irreconcilables, in reaction to which only one response is appropriate.
Posted by: Paul S. at December 28, 2008 11:54 pm
Go Israel! Don't stop the terrorist b****tds.
They have my full support, and I make sure my politicians know it (not that it necessarily makes a difference, but....)
Posted by: rsnyder at December 29, 2008 4:01 am
"On December 20, 2008 Hamas ended the six month Egypt-brokered truce with Israel..."
The timing seems rather lackadaisical, considering that Hamas' rate of outgoing rocket fire had increased dramatically back in November. It wasn't zero during the "truce" either.
Posted by: fche at December 29, 2008 4:55 am
While I more or less agree with the article, the opening rhetorical question is rather bewildering. Why Gaza, why now? Come on, you can do better than that. The ceasefire only ended a week ago, didn't it?
The author is also wrong in saying that halting the qassam fire is a "simplistic" explanation for the attack. Actually, this is the explanation for the attack. Period. The rest of the stuff - elections, etc. is circumstantial. Otherwise stated, Israel is fighting this war to win. Without knowing,(obviously) I feel quite certain that when it's all over Haniyeh will be dead or in an Israeli prison, like Saddam Hussein. Israel will not leave Hamas in place. They will not negotiate with it. This is a war to restore Israel's deterrent capability and Israel will go all the way.
There's been a creeping assumption around the world that Israel must learn to live with enemies that threaten it's existence. That's about to be reversed. The new lesson will be that countries (or pseudo-countries) that threaten Israel's existence are themselves under existential threat.
Posted by: MarkC at December 29, 2008 6:31 am
Media bias: Israel's response:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129101
"Israel does not intentionally hurt Gaza civilians, while Hamas intentionally aims for Israeli civilians, Livni said in the interview. Hamas bears the responsibility for any civilian casualties in Gaza, because the group's terrorists hide among the civilian population, she said.
Posted by: Paul S. at December 29, 2008 4:33 pm
Why do the Palestinians deserve a state? What have they done to deserve it? Hamas throws its enemies off of tall buildings and has summary executions in the street. It wants to destroy Israel and...what else? They had Gaza and had a chance to do something with it, had a chance to demonstrate that they could do something besides try to kill their neighbors in Sderot.
Arafat, of course, had a chance to have a state, and pissed it away; of course, his life was dedicated to murder, so he couldn't accept Israel's 97% of the West Bank being offered to the Palis. So he caused the death of thousands on both sides, and was fully supported in this by the Palestinians, who in every poll, supported the intafada and the suicide bombings.
They had their chance, now they can strictly go to hell, and if takes Israel to send them there, good!
They deserve NOTHING until they can prove they want to live in a real peace, and give up their dreams of death and murder and destruction. Until then, while they dream of the sword, they can just die by the sword. Harsh? You betcha, but I have no remorse over this position.
The sad, sad irony is that were the Palis to say, "enough, we want peace for your children and our children", most Israelis would extend a hand and would help the Palis become something, have good lives, just as the Israelis themselves have tried to do, even under onerous conditions. And no, it has not been because they screwed over the Palis, the Palis screwed themselves over.
So, no, the Palis deserve NO state until they can prove they do deserve it.
Posted by: Maurice S at December 29, 2008 5:38 pm
"Unlike 1967, Gaza is blockaded, semi-contained, and Hamas does not pose an immediate existential threat to Israel, as Egypt and Syria did. The attacks alienate Palestinian populations in the West Bank, provoked the ire of the Arab League, and have incensed international observers."
Charles - I am reading a great book today called "Kingdom of Iron", about the rise and fall of Prussia. An interesting item was the use of "re-emptive" war by Frederick when faced by "existential" threats from Austria or France. In that case the threat was not "imminent", but could be foreseen eventually and the enemy was certainly quite capable of ending Prussia's existence. Anyway, it struck me that taking action against a foe BEFORE they are capable of ending your existence has a very long history that we all appear to have forgotten about (esp. when it comes to Bush II).
Now, with Israel, is it your position that Israel should wait until Hamas has the weapons and population capable of ending its existence BEFORE they can use full force to defend themselves? I am not trying to bait you, but to properly understand the argument here. Thanks!
Posted by: sean at December 30, 2008 8:51 am
How long would the U.S. tolerate a rocket and mortar barrage along the Rio Grande?
It might be as long as 5 minutes.
After that, various people in Mexico City would be informed that if the situation is not remedied RFN, someone else will be in charge of Mexico shortly.
I don't see any reason for the Israelis to take a different approach.
Posted by: rosignol at December 31, 2008 6:03 am
Post a comment

Winner, The 2008 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Read my blog on Kindle









Sponsored Links

Buy a used boat

Shanghai Hotels

Yachts for sale


Recommended Reading