Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘martin-peretz’

Peretz, Olmert Feud Over Israeli-Palestinian Ceasefire Proposal

Monday, November 20th, 2006

The danse macabre between Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz continues. It’s a wonder they haven’t come to blows yet at a cabinet meeting. Today’s Haaretz reports a series of fascinating stories that begin with a telephone call Peretz placed to Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday asking if the Palestinian resistance groups would respond favorably to a bilateral ceasefire offer from Israel. On the strength of this call, Abbas called an urgent meeting of the factions to discuss the proposal. Hamas representatives responded favorably and said they’d be willing to institute an immediate cessation of Qassam attacks:

Hamas told Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas it was prepared to immediately halt Qassam attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip. The announcement came at a meeting on Monday of Palestinian factions, in which Abbas presented Defense Minister Amir Peretz’s proposal for a mutual cease-fire…

The meeting…took place Monday afternoon in Gaza, and was attended by representatives of…Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP)…

Abbas opened the discussion by reporting he had received a proposal from Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz for a mutual cease-fire. He said that as opposed to previous cease-fire initiatives, in which Israel made unilateral demands of the Palestinians, Israel would agree this time to stop the fighting from its side, as well. “I told Peretz that Israel must also stop firing,” Abbas said of his response to Peretz’s request that the Palestinians halt their Qassam attacks.

Abbas conceded, however, to those present that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s position on the cease-fire was still unclear, in light of media reports Monday that the prime minister had prohibited Peretz from meeting with Abbas.

Palestinian sources said Hamas representatives…expressed willingness to stop firing Qassams at Israel. However Abbas also demanded a commitment from Hamas to stop attacks in the West Bank. In response to this, the two men said they would need additional time to consult with senior members of the organization before coming to a final decision on the matter.

But acting like a petulant boss whose subordinate has just upstaged him, Olmert has slapped Peretz around publicly for his temerity in taking such an initiative. Now Olmert’s henchmen are trumpeting that Peretz’s days are numbered as defense minister. So much for what started out as a promising initiative:

Aides to Ehud Olmert were quoted Tuesday as saying that the prime minister will act soon to replace Amir Peretz as defense minister, in the wake of fierce feuding between the leaders.

The degenerating relations between the two reached a new low this week, after Olmert learned after the fact, that Peretz had spoken Sunday night before by telephone with Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas in order to discuss a Peretz proposal for a mutual cease-fire.

But we must remind everyone that it was Olmert, the lying scoundrel who tells George Bush and the world how willing, nay eager he is to meet with Abbas and sit down to resolve the crisis, who turned his back on this excellent opportunity. Olmert, you can lie but you can’t hide. Peace has come knocking on your door and all you think about is whether your rival is upstaging you.

Senior Hamas representatives have confirmed their interest in the Peretz proposal. But in this case, it is the Israelis who seem to be in disarray–or I should say that it is Olmert who is scurrying from this proposal as fast as his little legs will carry him lest it edge him closer to having to sit down with Palestinians to negotiate a peace deal:

The head of the Hamas parliamentary faction, Salah Bardawil, told Haaretz on Monday that his organization was prepared to engage in an immediate cease-fire with Israel, on the condition that it be mutual. Bardawil said Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh had proposed returning to an agreement on a tahadiyeh – a temporary cease-fire, before, “but now the problem is on the Israeli side.”

He added, “Peretz and Olmert are divided in their opinions and it is not clear to us what Israel’s position is on stopping the fighting. Peretz asked Abu Mazen [Abbas] for a cease-fire, the chairman asked for an Israeli commitment to stop the firing on its side, but Peretz cannot give an Israeli answer on this subject.”

While I have been critical of Peretz here, I admire this bold move. Even if his days are numbered as defense minister, which is by no means guaranteed, he ought to conduct policy as if he were an independent player in the cabinet. The days of playing for the team should have been over long ago.

Tzipi Livni learned as long ago as the days of the Lebanon war that joining Olmert’s team and cheerleading for the war would be disastrous not only for Israel, but for her political career. Now, she’s the most popular politician in Israel (that’s not saying much considering her competition). Peretz should learn a lesson and bring his dovish principles back into play. Even if Olmert shoots him down, so much the better. At least Peretz will have presented an alternative to Olmert’s stonewalling policy. It wouldn’t be hard to make Olmert look like a dithering fool before the entire Israeli electorate when it comes to relations with the Palestinians.

Another Haaretz article points out that pressure for an Israeli diplomatic initiative also comes from Tzipi Livni and Shimon Peretz. But, of course, Mr. Nyet has the last word and that word is…yes (or I should say “No”), you guessed it. Does this guy sound insecure or what?

During the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, Olmert asked his ministers to stop “bringing [up] a new diplomatic initiative every day.”

Olmert’s response to calls for a diplomatic agenda was rejected by Defense Minister Amir Peretz, who feels that he is being sidelined by the prime minister’s rejectionist stance.

The issue came to a head on Sunday, when Peretz and Olmert clashed over the Labor leader’s request to meet with Abbas.

No one will meet with Abu Mazen before me,” Olmert told Peretz.

Here is how Haaretz describes the showdown between the two men after Peretz spoke with Abbas:

Peretz asked for an urgent meeting with Olmert and informed him of the conversation.

The prime minister told his defense minister to let the matter rest.

“We are dealing with it,” Olmert said. “A cease-fire is not declared in five minutes. Orderly discussions are necessary.”

“I am not a minister of assassinations,” Peretz responded angrily, referring to the policy of targeted killings. “I am the head of the peace camp! I need to talk about a cease-fire. I am not only responsible for the intensity of the fire!” Peretz continued in protest.

The incident was interpreted by Peretz and Olmert differently. Peretz complained that Olmert had undermined a bold effort to gain an end to the Qassam rocket attacks. Olmert opposed what he saw as an effort to bypass his authority, and his aides described the Peretz-Abbas telephone conversation as an exercise void of substance.

An “exercise void of substance?” I’d say that pretty much describes Olmert’s entire policy regarding the Palestinians (and Lebanon) and indeed his entire prime ministership.

I find it laughable that Condi Rice is putting her money on this horse to deliver a bold initiative that will help break the logjam of Arab hate for the U.S. and its Mideast policies. Olmert’s about as fleet of foot as the old gray mare who “ain’t what she used to be.” If I were Condi I’d whup ol’ Ehud upside the head and tell him to get with the program: “we want a ceasefire and we want it now,” should be her mantra. To that she could add: “By any means necessary.”

Martin Peretz, Blogger?

Tuesday, September 12th, 2006

Oh please God, just what the blog world needs: Martin Peretz. David Carr, in his too solicitous profile of The New Republic lets us in on the secret. The pro-Israel hack who “never met an Israeli military offensive he didn’t like” (Carr’s words, my beliefs precisely) will join the blog world next week. I don’t know about you but I can’t wait (cue gag reflex):

Martin Peretz, the editor in chief of the magazine and one of its owners, is less sanguine about the possibilities of online journalism than Mr. Foer. “The political dialogue has been digitally enhanced, but it has also been digitally diminished,” he said. He plans to address these issues, among other topics, on — what else? — a new blog called The Spine.

“I would hope the name is accurate, that I have the kind of conviction that will lend itself to the medium,” he said.

Oh, I have no doubt he’ll have conviction. But that’s all he’ll have: full of sound and conviction signifying nothing. All the rest will be ideological propaganda for his right-wing pro-Israel demagoguery.

His blog will have its debut next week. Mr. Peretz, who recently signed on to a committee to raise funds for I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, indicted on a perjury charge in the C.I.A. leak case, and who never met an Israeli military offensive he didn’t like, cares little for the conventions of objectivity that constrain most working journalists. Perhaps he was always a blogger waiting to happen. But is he ready for the blood sport that goes with it?

“I do not remember a time, even during the 60’s, when there was such uncivil discourse,” he said. “Even at Harvard.”

I do so look forward to reading his defense of Libby. I imagine that the latter has done some big favors for Aipac and the pro-Israel crowd over the years and they never leave their own behind wounded on the battlefield.

UPDATE: Here is part of what Peretz has to say about his good friend and “American patriot:”

Let me concede: I am a friend of Scooter Libby. But I do not like his boss. And I do not like his boss’s wife. I know this gets me no credit with the all-or-nothing crowd. Still, I like Scooter, who is quite brilliant, very honest, and brave. Also funny. I’ve contributed to The Libby Legal Defense Fund and have joined the fund’s advisory committee, which is not large because in Washington old pals dessert when even their college roommate gets into trouble. In a time when self-styled civil libertarians are giving money to defend Muslim terrorists, I am happy to help defend an American patriot, some of whose politics I do not share and some of whose politics I do, from a cynical onslaught of the special prosecutor who put journalists into jail for not telling him what he already knew.

C’mon Marty, you’re a neocon. Stop temporizing and beating around the bush (so to speak).

I bet there are a few of us lying in wait for Marty. But I also bet he won’t allow comments or if he does they’ll be heavily moderated. I don’t see him as someone who embraces a debate he can’t control.

UPDATE I: Marc Cooper has just written about The Spine’s inaugural post. It’s a turgid, stiff (get it, The Spine?), self-serving and self-promoting effort completely lacking in verve. I found this passage to be unintentionally funny for its self-delusion:

Then there is the spine of my past: a man in his mid-sixties, a family man with children, a teacher at Harvard for almost four decades, formerly of the New Left (very important to understanding my spine) now of the center, at the helm of The New Republic (which I have deliberately maintained as undogmatic center-left) for 32 years.

A “man of the center.” Indeed. But center of what? The Likud party? The Joe Lieberman party? How ’bout the New Republican representing the “undogmatic center-left?” That’s a real whopper.

Annan Accuses Israel of Lebanon Ceasefire Violations, Calls for Lifting Blockade

Tuesday, August 29th, 2006

Israel lifted its air blockade of Lebanon long enough to allow Kofi Annan’s helicopter to fly from there to Tel Aviv where he met with families of the kidnapped soldiers and defense minister Peretz. But after hearing the statements he made Israel may’ve wished it hadn’t let him in:

Annan said this week the Lebanese saw the blockade as a “humiliation and infringement of their sovereignty”. But he also urged Beirut to exert control over its borders to stop arms smuggling.

“I will also discuss … with the prime minister the need to lift that blockade as soon as possible in order to allow Lebanon to go on with normal commercial activities and also rebuild its economy,” he said.

Israel provided a semi-response which at least puts it on record as signaling an indefinite time in the future when it would end the blockade:

Mr Peretz said told the secretary-general that Israeli troops would remain in southern Lebanon for “several weeks, no longer than that”, and would pull out once the UN’s expanded peace force was on the ground in “reasonable” numbers.”

But those Israelis must think Kofi’s a big kidder because this is what Haaretz reports on the subject:

However, a diplomatic source told Haaretz Tuesday that while Annan has publicly expressed reservations over the ongoing blockade, the UN quietly recognized that the blockade had to continue until UNIFIL forces completed their deployment along the Lebanon-Syrian border.

Interesting that Haaretz quotes a “diplomatic source” who in turn quotes an unnamed UN source leaving you unable to determine whether this statement is worth a wad of toilet paper in terms of credibility. I’d tend to question it myself as Israel doesn’t have a stellar record of truth-telling when it comes to this war.

The NY Times notes that Annan also charged Israel with numerous ceasefire violations:

A daily report from Unifil that Mr. Annan gave to Israel’s defense minister, Amir Peretz, Tuesday evening showed that Hezbollah had violated the cease-fire four times, while Israel had done so nearly 70 times. “Hezbollah is showing incredible discipline,” Mr. Annan said.

The BBC notes that it highly unusual for a UN secretary general to visit Israel:

Put simply, Israel currently needs the UN…

Mr Olmert’s only hope of regaining public support is a secure northern border – and that can only happen through the UN force, our correspondent says.

In fact, I can’t remember this happening in my lifetime going back to 1967, though my memory may be faulty. It’s quite astonishing to see, since the only thing that Israelis hate more than the UN is Palestinian terrorists–or so it has seemed to me when I lived there. The idea of an Israeli PM “needing” the UN so much that he welcomes the Secretary General there is something akin to Alice watching herself grow taller and smaller in Alice in Wonderland–it’s just that strange. And it illustrates how tenuous Olmert’s hold on political power is right now.

Lebanon War Fallout: Peretz’s Career Over; Nasrallah’s Regret; and the War Protesters’ Confused Message

Sunday, August 27th, 2006

God, if this interview with Sheikh Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, doesn’t make you pissed then nothing will. I bet many of my fellow bloggers in Lebanon are enraged:

Hezbollah would not have abducted two Israel Defense Forces soldiers on July 12 had it known that the action would lead to war in Lebanon, the movement’s secretary general Hassan Nasrallah said in an interview on Lebanon’s NTV Sunday.

“We did not think that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me if I had known on July 11 … that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not,” he said.

Nasrallah also said he did not believe there would be a second round of fighting with Israel, and stated that Hezbollah would adhere to the cease-fire…

Well, gee. Thanks for your candor and admitting that you goofed big time but…1,000 Lebanese dead, $1-billion damage, 1 million displaced and only now you say you miscalculated. Goddamn. The guy should be flogged within an inch of his life for the utter stupidity of his remarks and strategy. From Beirut to the Beltway has a much fuller and clearer portrayal of Nasrallah’s remarks.

Not that I’m letting the other side off the hook either. Far as I’m concerned, Olmert and his crowd are a perfect match in horrific miscalculation for Nasrallah. The latter didn’t expect Israel’s PM to turn into a virtual madman; and Olmert didn’t expect Hezbollah to fight. Oh how they both erred and both deserve each other! So far none of the leaders have paid for their cruel mistakes–only their people have paid with their lives, the homes, and their livelihoods. To quote a famous 19th century Hasidic rebbe: Leyt din v’leyt dayan (“There is no justice, there is no judge”).

Can Amir Peretz’s political career be over? If recent polls are any indication it might be:

As public criticism against the country’s leadership mounts in the wake of the war in Lebanon, senior sources at the Labor Party predicted Sunday that Defense Minister Amir Peretz might be forced to fight to keep his position as party chairman sooner than in the primaries scheduled for May 2007.

Peretz plummeted in polls held on the weekend, and Labor was shown to have lost half of its support.

According to the sources, “when Amir Peretz scores a single percent on the question whether he is suitable to be prime minister, his public career is over.”

“It is clear to all that a party that wants to survive cannot have as its leader a person who cannot be elected, and it seems that there is no choice but to replace Peretz,” the sources said.

“A single percent?” Wow, that’s amazing. And to think that only six months ago many observers like myself were so hopeful with his victory over Shimon Peres and ascendancy to leadership of the Labor Party. I recall writing here when Peretz accepted the defense portfolio that it was a big gamble which didn’t seem a sure enough bet to be worthy taking. Certainly, if Peretz had been a successful defense minister then his career would’ve been made and he would appear as a truly wise politician. But it seemed more likely that defense might be a trap. He could just as easily fail at a job he’d never had any real preparation for and then be made the scapegoat by his political opponents for his failure. This is precisely what has happened. To quote that old folk song: “I don’t know why he swallowed that fly? I think he’ll die” (politically, that is):

Many at the Labor link the party’s debilitated public standing with Peretz’ agreeing to assume the position of defense minister in the hope this would help build his image as a leader on a national scale.

…Minister Ophir Pines-Paz on Sunday blamed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for having appointed Peretz as defense minister.

Speaking on Army Radio Pines-Paz said he believes Olmert was wrong in declining Labor’s request to appoint Peretz as finance minister: “This is where the original sin began.”

Yes, indeed the original sin was Olmert’s. But Peretz had the power to say no and ultimately didn’t. It was his career to make or break. And he appears to have broken it.

I have been following the Lebanon war protests as they’ve evolved in Israel over the past week or so. And I must say I’m befuddled. In the U.S., we have an anti-war movement that reflects upon the failure of the Iraq war. But this movement doesn’t say the U.S.’ main mistake has been in not taking it to our enemy forcefully enough. That’s one of the main criticisms offered by the Israeli protesters. I just don’t get it.

You’ve just fought one of the most disastrous wars in the nation’s history. Hundreds killed and wounded. Cities and villages ravaged. The war’s goals unrealized. I’d have thought that the Israeli protesters would have focused on this and drawn the proper conclusion: that the goals and strategy of the war were flawed. But in a country dominated by a military culture and security obsession it is sometimes hard to see things like this clearly.

Gideon Levy has written an incisive critique of the protest movement for Haaretz:

The confused youth who sat crying with their guitars and candles in the city square in Tel Aviv after Rabin’s assassination are now sitting in the Rose Garden opposite the Prime Minister’s Office, no less confused, and seemingly protesting against the war – of course only after it ended.

Just as it was impossible to know what the candle kids wanted, it is difficult to understand what the reservists and the bereaved families want. Most of their complaints should be directed at themselves: Where were you until now? If it is only the demand that some officials go home, it’s a waste of their time and ours. Clones of those who are deposed will replace them very quickly and nothing will change. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz will go home, and Netanyahu, Mofaz and Barak will come to power.

For the first time after many terrible years in which we killed and were killed for no reason, there are question marks hanging over the public discourse. That change should be welcomed. But those who examine the content of the new protest should not hold out great hopes. The arguments of the protesters come down to two main issues, both of them as narrow as the world of the reservist: the IDF wasn’t prepared for the war, and the war was cut short.

On the first matter, many are responsible, and the second issue doesn’t warrant protest. Much weightier and deeper questions hover in the air about why we even went to this war, how it could have been avoided, why is war our only language, what are the limits of power that can be used and where are we going now. The new protest movement is not raising those questions.

…Above all, the petition signers and sit-in protesters in the Rose Garden should ask themselves where they were until now. Except for the “oranges” among them, most voted Kadima, maybe Likud or Labor, many of them served in reserves in the occupied territories, dealt with their personal affairs and kept quiet. For years they took direct or indirect part in worthless national projects, from building the wall to the settlement enterprise and deepening the occupation. With their own eyes they saw how the IDF was turned into an occupying police force, bullying the weak but untrained to deal with the strong.

They protected settlers, saw the suffering caused by the occupation, were witness to or participated in abuse of Palestinians. The responsibility for the IDF’s lack of preparation, therefore, is theirs, partly because of what they did and partly because of their silence. They cannot claim now that they were surprised by the IDF’s failure to execute: they were there when the army changed its face. They knew all these years that checking IDs at roadblocks, invading bedrooms, chasing children in alleys and demolishing thousands of houses is no preparation for war.

Levy raises an important objection to the protesters’ charge that the war was cut short. His sentiment is one I’ve voiced here in praise of Olmert’s decision to curtail the war:

The other matter, the halt in the fighting, certainly does not warrant protest, but actually a compliment. Instead of asking why the war broke out, the protesters are asking why it ended. If there is anything that the war’s command deserves credit for it is its hesitation in the final stages of the war. It is a shame they did not hesitate sooner. And if we had continued the war, where exactly would we have ended up? It was the resolve, hubris and haste of the war’s leadership in the first stages that were the original sin against which the protest should be directed.

Levy concludes with his most telling criticism of the new protest movement: it’s lack of moral focus.

Above all, it is depressing to find out that none of the protesters are raising moral questions. A protest movement that says nothing about the terrible destruction we wreaked in Lebanon, how we killed hundreds of innocent civilians and turned tens of thousands into impoverished refugees is by definition not a moral movement. Even after it has been proved that the excessive force was not effective, no protest has been directed at it. How long will we only focus on ourselves and our distress?

Is it too much to ask for the protesters, who are supposedly the cadres of the avant garde, to look for a moment at what we did to another nation? Why is it that after Sabra and Chatilla massacres, which were not even directly our handiwork, masses of people took to the streets and now nobody peeps about the destruction we sowed in Lebanon with our own hands, and for nothing?

This movement has no clear vision, no clear agenda, no clear purpose other than removing Olmert, Peretz and Halutz from office which, as Levy says is a terribly limited set of objectives. I don’t see how it can gain traction and resonate with the broader public in the long term. And if it does, then I fear the damage that will be done in terms of the quality of politicians who will be ascendant in the wake of Olmert’s demise: Netanyahu, Lieberman and the crazy-quilt of the Israeli far right. What a way to run a country! Put the militarists in charge after the utter failure of a militarist solution to the Lebanon conflict. Makes perfect sense to me.

Israel Preparing for Lebanon Ground War?

Thursday, July 20th, 2006

There are so many things wrong with Israel’s current policy toward Lebanon and Hezbollah. It’s about as bad as it gets in terms of the miscalculation and foolhardy assumptions. But it can get worse and it just might if some Israeli ex-generals and the Likud hardline opposition have their way. Those generals fought and lost the last Lebanon war started by Ariel Sharon in 1982. In 2000, Ehud Barak unilaterally withdrew the IDF from southern Lebanon after the country’s misadventure there ended in abject failure. Now, they want to do it again. As Robert Rosenberg writes:

There is talk — but still only talk — of Israel launching a massive ground operation into Lebanon, to once and for all, as the proponents say, to clear south Lebanon of Hizbollah militiamen and their rockets. Those in favor of such an operation tend to be ex-infantry and armored corps generals from the days of the original Lebanon war, wanting to refight that lost war, or Rightist politicians like Likud MK Yisrael Katz, whose rise in Likud politics began when he served as an aide to then-defense minister Ariel Sharon.

On Army Radio today, Katz eerily echoed Menachem Begin, and apparently unwittingly so, when he said that Israel has to get over the ‘Lebanon trauma … and go into Lebanon in full force to get the job done.’ Begin, in his day, proudly explained that Operation Peace for Galilee, more popularly known as the Lebanon War, would ‘once and for all erase the trauma of the Yom Kippur war.’

Katz, now in the opposition and far from the reigns of power, tried to sweeten his vision of a corps of Israeli soldiers riding tanks and APCs into the quagmire of Lebanon, by saying, ‘they won’t be going into to stay there, just to do the job and get out.’ Shades of Begin and Sharon’s promise of an incursion that would only go as far as 40 kilometers, the range of the Katyushas that were in the hands of the PLO at the time.

Cabinet secretary Yisrael Maimon, pressed by Israel Radio’s Ayala Hason did admit today that there are plans for a massive incursion into Lebanon, but those plans are ‘not on the agenda.’ Instead, the current ground operations, he said, would suffice. Those operations are by elite commando units, target spotting for the aircraft overhead or ambushing Hizbollah cells still operating in south Lebanon — or much further north.

The NY Times today notes that Israel has greatly increased its ground operations in southern Lebanon over the past day or so. Two IDF soldiers were killed in a ground engagement yesterday and another two were killed today. These were the first ground force deaths since the war began:

Israeli officials suggested that Israeli ground troops may take a more active role in combating the Hezbollah militia and more strong condemnations were heard of Israel’s massive use of force in Lebanon.

So why would Israel fall into a trap it has already snared itself in to its great cost? First, you must understand the paucity of strategic vision that Olmert and Peretz possess. While I’m no military strategist, even I understand that when you use force you must have clear and limited objectives. You must have benchmarks to tell you when you’ve achieved them. And once you do you must stop and turn to political negotiation to achieve the remainder of your goals. What Israel has done both in its Gaza and Lebanon invasions is to weigh down the operations with many overlapping and sometimes conflicting objectives. Free the prisoners. Destroy Hamas and Hezbollah. Force the “moderate forces” in Lebanon and Palestine to “take control” of the situation. Strike blows against so-called proxies like Iran and Syria. With so many objectives you practically guarantee you will realize none.

There is also an improvised, catch as catch can element to both operations as if the commanders are making it up on the fly. If Hezbollah does one thing, we respond with another. If we see an opportunity to engage Hezbollah ground forces we take it even though a ground engagement may not be part of our operational mission.

Second, Olmert fronting a relatively weak government coalition is always looking over his shoulder at his political right (his original home). And Netanyahu and the other rabble-rousing extremists smell blood in the water and are in a feeding frenzy for the head of Nasrallah. As Robert said above, they and the former generals are itching to refight the last war they lost. Since the nation mistakenly perceives itself “winning” the Lebanon war the siren call of “finishing them off” beckons ever so seductively. And the best way to do this supposedly would be through a ground assault.

The concept of a ground assault is a fatal vision for Israel. It would be oh so easy to get sucked into a protracted ground war and ongoing occupation of southern Lebanon. Israel is not like Hezbollah or Hamas. It does not have endless stocks of recruits to expend in the process of pursuing its military objectives. A guerrilla insurgency is the worst type of war for Israel to fight as we are seeing ourselves in Iraq because it slowly bleeds your side dry with each new death or wounded victim.

Aron Trauring believes Israel will invade with ground troops. I doubted him. But now I’m not so sure. One thing we both agree on is that such an operation would only compound the blunder of Israel’s initial strategy of invading Lebanon and turning much of it to cinders. I pray that there are enough cooler heads in the IDF officer corps and military intelligence to persuade Halutz, Peretz and Olmert that this is not in Israel’s best interest. But somehow I doubt there are.

Gaza and the Twilight War

Thursday, June 29th, 2006

We are in an eerie phase of Israel’s Gaza invasion. Operations have begun and Israeli forces have entered the territory. Some offensive operations have begun but mostly from the air or artillery. The major expected ground assault has not materialized. Palestinians are poised for the worst, but they know they’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg.

Reading today’s Haaretz, it seems there may be disagreement among Olmert, Peretz, chief of staff Halutz and his own senior commanders on what the proper order of battle should be:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Thursday rejected a proposal by Defense Minister Amir Peretz and the Israel Defense Forces for a ground operation in the northern Gaza Strip against the ongoing Qassam rocket fire.

According to government sources, the operation, which will target Beit Hanun, will take place, but Olmert wants the operation to be “prolonged and exhausting,” and did not believe that the plan he was shown fit the bill…

The sources added that while IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz approved the plan, other IDF officers opposed it, and Olmert was informed of their objections.

The operation was aimed at halting Qassam rockets from being fired at southern Israel. Meanwhile, six of the homemade rockets struck the western Negev and Sderot on Thursday evening.

As best I can tell, Peretz (possibly along with Halutz) seems to have prepared a short range plan that would attempt to knock out Qassam sites, but would not involve a thorough “cleansing” or wholesale or long-term eradication of such capability. Olmert, after hearing of displeasure expressed by Halutz’s commanders has ordered Peretz’s plan thoroughly revised so that it will be a longer and more comprehensive operation.

One can only wonder what more Israel can do than it already has done to stop the rocket launches. And certainly no plan, whether it be Peretz’s or Olmert’s will stop a determined enemy from attacking Israel in whatever way and by whatever means are available to it.

Another consideration may be causing a delay in the full-scale assault: an Egyptian request to give its mediators several more days to broker an agreement. Notably, Khaled Meshal was due in Egypt today to speak with Egypt’s intelligence chief presumably to find a way to reach a compromise that might satisfy both Israel and the militants. Peretz appears in favor of the delay while his presumably more hot-headed field commanders may be tearing at the bit to attack. At any rate, there seems little love lost between the Defense Minister and whoever the unnamed “defense officials” may be who are referred to here:

Defense officials were furious at Peretz Thursday night, accusing him both of revealing that the planned military offensive in northern Gaza had been postponed and of denying initial reports that the postponement had been at Egypt’s request.

Part of the IDF’s plan in supposedly rooting out the Qassam menace appears to involve a forced exodus of the Palestinian civilian population from northern Gaza:

Meanwhile, in Gaza…leaflets were flung from helicopters last night over Beit Lahiye and Beit Hanoun, the two northeast corner towns of Gaza used by Qassam rocket launching crews to set up their attacks on the Israeli hamlets and towns around Gaza. The leaflets warned residents ‘to stay away’ as the IDF prepared to shell the residential areas and move in. Not since Operation Grapes of Wrath in southern Lebanon, when Israel warned civilians to leave south Lebanon and then proceeded to shell the region to drive out Hizbollah forces, has Israel taken a step so clearly aimed at forcing people out of their homes…Operation Grapes of Wrath ended with an accidental Israeli shelling of a UN encampment set up to provide refuge for fleeing Lebanese, killing some 120 people. As of noon…there were reports of hundreds of Beit Lahiye and Beit Hanoun families moving out of the area.

Robert adds the reference to the grave shelling error during Operation Grapes of Wrath which forced its demise. This of course reminds us of just how capable the IDF is of royally messing up its operations through the wholesale killings of Palestinian civilians. Would anyone care to doubt that this outcome is certain if all-out hostilities commence in Gaza?

Presumably, elimination of northern Gaza’s civilian population would give Israel freer reign to extirpate both the Qassams and the militants who fire them. But to me this strategy is little better than the U.S. strategy in retaking Fallujah last year. You have a “cesspool of violence” (their view not mine) and so decide to root out the evildoers. First you uproot civilians, then you go in and get the bad guys. Problem is, the bad guys have long gone by the time you get even remotely close to where you could catch them. Eventually, you have to leave as you cannot occupy the town forever. So what happens? The bad guys reinfiltrate Fallujah and you’re back where you started. Except for the casualties and dead on our side and theirs.

And even should you “cleanse” Fallujah (or northern Gaza) of bad guys, they just move elsewhere finding a weak point in our defenses to exploit. In the case of Fallujah, the insurgents moved to other towns in Anbar province.

One only wonders how this would work out in Gaza. But it’s entirely possible that once the IDF leaves the bad guys will simply move back into northern Gaza and take up where they left off. Unless, that is, the IDF plans on entirely and permanently uprooting Beit Lahiya and Beit Hanun, the two towns nearest to the launching sites. This of course would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions as would be a semi-forced expulsion/exodus of civilians from the area in order to promote the IDF’s ease in uprooting the militants.

In this hour of darkness, it is some small comfort to find brothers and sisters in arms who share my mistrust of the IDF’s plan and motives; and who hold out some hope that somehow common sense, cooler heads, call it what you will, can prevail and avoid the utter horror and bloodshed that appear to be in store should the IDF let loose with a full scale assault. Robert Rosenberg has been that “brother” over the past few days. His Ariga report today echoes many of the thoughts I wrote in yesterday’s report on the Gaza horror (given the time difference between the west coast and Israel, we may’ve even been writing at almost the same time).

Israel Using Hamas Political Echelon As Bargaining Chips?

Rosenberg expands upon the Shin Bet’s strange plan to arrest virtually the entire Hamas political echelon (at least those who weren’t smart enough to go underground to evade capture) and investigate them for their supposed complicity in terrorist crimes:

…Israel…put into motion a secret plan approved weeks ago by Attorney General Menachem Mazuz — the arrest of dozens of Hamas officials, including ministers and parliamentarians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The 87 Hamas officials, including 64 elected officials, from Palestinian parliamentarians to at least two major city mayors (Jenin and Qalqiliya), are not being held as counter-hostages, as part of Israel’s efforts to win the release of captured soldier Gilad Shalit, Israeli officials insisted. They are all going to be questioned as suspects in specific terror cases and charged if evidence is found against them. Among those arrested are at least two Palestinians suspected of direct involvement in the murder of Asheri.

A separate Haaretz article quotes the IDF’s denial that the detainees (or should we call them ‘kidnap victims??’) are ‘bargaining chips’:

An IDF spokeswoman said the arrests were part of an operation against suspected terrorists, and were not “bargaining chips” for the release of abducted IDF soldier Corporal Gilad Shalit.

“They are not bargaining chips for the return of the soldier. It was simply an operation against a terrorist organization,” she said. “They will be investigated, brought before a judge to extend their detention and charge sheets will be prepared.”

You can see how much credence Haaretz gives to the army’s denial in the following sentence which directly contradicts the IDF:

The arrests are part of several moves designed to increase pressure on the militant group to free a captive soldier. Israel blames Hamas for the abduction of Shalit, kidnapped Sunday by militants who attacked an IDF post near the border with Gaza.

Army Radio speculated that the lawmakers might be used to trade for the captured soldier, but the IDF refused to comment on the matter.

Those who follow official Israeli government pronouncements as I do will know how to read these tea leaves: whenever an official denies that Israel’s tactics are intended to achieve thus-and-such a goal, you pretty much know that the denied motivation is precisely the actual one that motivates the Israelis. So of course the Hamas operatives ARE being held as counter-hostages despite what Israel’s Kabuki spokespeople say. But the very idea that such a stupid plan can have its desired impact of threatening or cowing or even dismantling Hamas and the PA is ludicrous as Robert notes:

The more pressure on the population, the more the Hamas government wins popular support;

Arresting Hamas Legislators As Attempt to Derail National Unity Government

Today’s NY Times adds another interesting and convincing dimension to the Israeli sweep against Hamas’ elected officials:

Ali Jarbawi, a professor and dean at Birzeit University here, said he thought the real goal was to remove the Hamas government from power.

Israel wants to continue with its unilateral policies based on the idea that there is no “Palestinian partner,” said Mr. Jarbawi, who turned down an offer from Hamas to join the government as an independent. “If you build up your strategy on having no partner, then you have to ensure you don’t have one. So when Palestinians tell you that there is about to be a political agreement among the factions, putting their house in order at last, you intervene.

So, according to this thinking the coming together of Hamas and Fatah in a national unity government severely threatened Olmert who would rather have a divided and severely weakened PA.

Rosenberg views dubiously Israel’s entire rationale for the Gaza operation:

Operation Summer Rains is thus gradually transforming from an operation…meant to put pressure on the Palestinian population to put pressure on the Hamas government to put pressure on the Hamas militants who are holding Shalit, into an operation with three goals: freeing the soldier, ending the Qassam fire, and bringing down the Hamas government.

But it is not at all clear if it can accomplish any of those three goals. The more pressure on the population, the more the Hamas government wins popular support; even as Israel was issuing dire warnings about the Qassam fire coming from the northern Gaza area, Qassams were being fired into the Western Negev; and even if Israel were to arrest all the Hamas parliamentarians and all its ministers, the Fateh leadership would not be able to step in lest it appeared as if they were merely Israeli collaborators.

Finally, he raises this chilling possibility should Israel actually fully eradicate Hamas and the PA:

Indeed, if Israel is not careful…it could bring down the PA itself. And that would mean Israel is once again responsible not only for security, but for the health, education and welfare of the Palestinians, to the tune of billions of shekels. Furthermore, it would likely mean a new eruption of intifada-style warfare in the territories, which would once again damper the Israeli economy, driving away tourists, harming international investment, and curtailing the impressive 5-6 percent economic growth rate Israel has enjoyed for the last year.

But of course it is not in Israel’s interests to entirely eradicate the PA. Just to cause enough disintegration to prevent anyone from being able to govern effectively. Israel for many reasons vastly prefers a fragmented, ungovernable Palestinian entity to one that is stable and coherent. For while a stable, coherent Palestinian government might rein in militants and end terror; it would also command the respect of the international community and possibly force Israel to negotiate with it in good faith. While some may see this view as cynical, I ask how in heaven’s name can Israel believe what it is doing now can ever lead to any coherent Palestinian governing authority? Sure they can try to destroy Hamas (and fail), but what is their alternative? Fatah? They think Fatah is going to be more moderate or amenable after this mass-hooliganism on Israel’s part? All I can say is “Hah.”

Mubarak Announces Hamas Agrees to Terms for Kidnapped IDF Soldier’s Release

I can’t believe I read the entire Haaretz article referenced above and almost missed the most hopeful part of it (at least potentially hopeful). Hosni Mubarak says that Hamas has agreed to terms for Corp. Shalit’s release:

Palestinian militants have agreed to a conditional release of Shalit, but Israel has not yet accepted their terms, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said in remarks published Friday.

In an interview with Egypt’s leading pro-government newspaper, Al-Ahram, Mubarak said “Egyptian contacts with several Hamas leaders resulted in preliminary, positive results in the shape of a conditional agreement to hand over the soldier as soon as possible to avoid an escalation.

“But agreement on this has not yet been reached with the Israeli side,” Mubarak said.

The president said he had asked Olmert “not to hurry” the military offensive in Gaza, but to “give additional time to find a peaceful solution to the problem of the kidnapped soldier.”

A Foreign Ministry official said Israel did not know of such an offer.

“In general Israel’s stance is, as the prime minister said earlier, that the soldier will only be released unconditionally and there will be no negotiations with a gang of terrorists and criminals who abducted a soldier from Israeli territory,” the official said.

Mubarak’s remark implied he was claiming a role in Israel’s decision.

“Israeli leaders promised, and I hope they will stick to it, not to shed the blood of innocent Palestinian civilians in any hurried military operation,” Mubarak said.

“At the same time, Egypt warned Hamas leaders of the dire consequences of adopting of tough positions and urged them to shoulder their responsibilities in view of the dangers and difficulties faced by the Palestinian people at the present time,” Mubarak said.

It is hard to know what all this means. Is Mubarak exagerrating the possibility of a solid agreement in order to burnish his own credentials as Mideast peace negotiator? In the event that Hamas is willing to engage in a prisoner swap for Shalit will Israel go along or will it truculently try to force the issue and go it alone in attempting to secure the soldier’s release? I have said many times here that both sides in this conflict “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Cleary, Mubarak is warning both sides in this particular contretemps not to make the same mistake they’ve made in the past and botch an opportunity to potentially resolve the crisis short of a bloodbath.

And I’d like to know where the Hell is the Bush Administration on this? Why aren’t they restraining both sides with forceful statements instead of milquetoast pronouncements forgotten as soon as they’re uttered? We’re AWOL as usual when push comes to shove in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel’s conduct is becoming so outrageous, so beyond the pale of accpeted international norms, that some cooler heads outside the immediate zone of conflict must prevail.