Marc Lynch writes up a worrisome exchange with Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor:
Meridor's narrative is assuredly familiar to anyone who follows the op-ed pages. He argued repeatedly that "this was not a matter of choice, not something we picked or were hoping for", but rather a war launched by Hamas to which Israel was forced to respond. Hamas must be understood as part of the global struggle against radical Islamic terrorism, he insisted, a war led by Iran ("the world's largest exporter of terror") and employing "sub- conventional weapons of mass destruction" (suicide bombers). The goal, he explained, was to create "a better, more secure situation for us and the Palestinians" by degrading Hamas's capabilities and by re-establishing the credibility of its deterrence.
But how, exactly? After he failed to respond to an initial question about the end-state Israel hoped to achieve, I asked him directly about his government's strategic logic. How, precisely did Israel's government expect its military campaign to achieve its goals? His answer tellingly focused almost exclusively on body counts and targets hit: over 1000 Hamas targets hit ("not a small number"), many headquarters and tunnels and rocket production facilities destroyed. Tactics over strategy.
This is the key stumbling block to understanding Israel's efforts in Gaza. The status quo was untenable for both sides, and something had to be done to stop attacks against Israel as well as relieve the humanitarian situation in Gaza. But why is this assault that something? I have yet to see an argument for even a short-term end state following this conflict that involves an improved Israeli security situation or relief for the beleaguered civilians in Gaza. Should Israel succeed in destroying Hamas -- and there are some reports suggesting that the Israeli military is up to the task -- the ultimate result will be either an "fully" occupied Gaza, which Israel seems reluctant to pursue, or other extremist groups springing up to take the place of Hamas. It's certainly hard to imagine a set of circumstances that would be more effective at moving residents of Gaza in radical directions.
I'm also skeptical of including this conflict as part of a broader struggle against terrorism, since on the whole the events of the past two weeks probably help terrorist groups more than they hurt them and ultimately if we are supposed to believe that this attack 'hurts' Iran in some way it's not clear how.
-- Tim Fernholz
