Given the complexity of the situation, I'm reluctant to get too deep into the weeds on the December War (because the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah was the "July War," right?) but I do have to question Israel's aims in escalating the conflict. First, here's a comment by Israel's President, Shimon Peres:
Speaking to reporters along side IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, Peres said that the goal of the current operation was not just to stop the continuing rocket fire from Gaza, but to put a halt to terror worldwide.
"Terror is a worldwide problem, and it is ours as well," Peres said.
A brief reality check: This operation will do nothing to stop terrorism worldwide, and in fact it will likely exacerbate the problems of terrorism around the world in the near- and long-term, as once again terrorist groups have a bloody shirt to wave and a grievance to claim, while their operational capabilities will not be affected. HAMAS is a pernicious actor and should recognize Israel and make other concessions towards the peace process, but it doesn't appear that they will, or that this conflict will lead them towards doing so. In the best case scenario, the specific capabilities of HAMAS will be retarded in the Gaza strip area, although for all of the bombing it seems that HAMAS is still quite capable of launching Qassam rockets at Israel.
The Israeli cabinet has decided that the goals of Operation Cast Lead (at least a less euphemistic name than "Enduring Freedom") are "creating a different long-term security situation in the south, while bolstering Israel's deterrence." That whole news analysis, entitled "Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation in Gaza," is worth a read, and also raises the question of why certain foreign policy thinkers always do their best to give enemies, whether HAMAS in Gaza or Al Qaeda in Iraq, exactly what they want. But look again at the goals of that statement. Bolstering deterrence, sure, but I don't think anyone in Palestine (or any of Israel's neighbors) didn't believe Israel would be willing to use overwhelming force in defense of their country. Meanwhile, how is this conflict creating a different long-term security situation? HAMAS may now be more popular among the Palestinian people than before, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has only worsened. It seems that it will be nigh on impossible to eliminate the threat of Qassam rockets without some kind of massive occupation of Gaza, which doesn't seem to be in Israel's best interests, either.
The news analysis concludes:
As for the Palestinians, they plan to declare victory regardless of what happens. If the IDF withdraws rapidly, without a ground operation and without having seriously reduced the rocket fire, Hamas will boast that it survived and Israel blinked first.
It seems unwise to become involved in a conflict where, no matter the outcome, the perception is that the other side has won. Perhaps the conflict will carve out space for Arab moderates to separate themselves from HAMAS, but given Mark Lynch's analysis of Arab media thus far, that's not the first reaction. But the real question now is how this ends, and the most depressing thing to realize is that no one has any idea about how that will happen. Both sides are searching for a third party to moderate, and neither the U.S., Europe, or the Arab league has jumped up to fill the role.
Dear internet: Before you critcize my naivete concerning Israel's security posture, point me towards an explanation of how this conflict is in Israel's interest, or more important from my parochial point of view, how the Bush administration's response to the conflict is in the United States' best interest. Also, I don't really have any interest in who's fault what is, because that line of discussion doesn't lead towards any kind of resolution.
-- Tim Fernholz
