Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Israel and Gaza
Israel was criticized for its ineffectiveness in confronting Hezbollah, and replaced its Defense establishment leadership as a result from Amir Peretz - a pol - to Ehud Barak - a military expert and hero. I made the case at the time that Israel was more effective than it got credit for and merely lost a PR battle to Hezbollah. I think the action is Gaza, and Hezbollah's relative inaction in the event, make it clear that Israel damaged Hezbollah sufficiently to remove them from the scene as a lethal force for at least the intermediate term. Nasrallah talks a good game, but doesn't show up in public too much. He's worried about more than shoes being whipped at him. Just ask the Gaza Hamas leadership.
Israel was clearly very effective in its targetted air strikes on a "mystery facility" in Syria, suspected of being a nuclear/WMD base.
And now Israel's action in Gaza - lethal, methodical, well-executed and dominant- again demonstrates that her deterrent capability is stong. Furthermore, the ironic tacit alliance of Israel with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan against Islamic radicalism checks Iranian regional ambitions. Finally, the Gaza incursion has further divided the Palestinians (inciting civil strive between Fatah and Hamas factions) amongst themselves, and awakened them to opposition from the Arab nations coupled with weak support from their theoretical allies. We'll see how they react to their use as cannon fodder.
Strategically, Israel's successes against the Islamic radicals around it and the US success in Iraq suggests there may be an opportunity to reestablish some significant measure of regional stability. Iran's and Syria's reluctance to escalate the Gaza situation into a regional war imply a degree of caution, multiplied by Iran's difficult economic circumstances in the current low oil price environment. Russia and Iran will seek to move oil markets up by threatening instability, but their unwillingness to act forcefully to respond to Israel means they are on their back feet at the moment.
Israeli action and the US success in Iraq have put the Obama administration in a very strong position to push a "stability agenda". How they choose to exercise it is still a mystery, but I think we can expect and outstretched hand to, at a minimum, Syria, in an effort to further isolate Iran.
16 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Jan 21, 10:39:00 AM:
There is no evidence that Israel has "completed" it's mission in Gaza, only that they have ended their action there. Big difference. We'd all like to think that Hamas' wounds are fatal, but that remains to be seen, and even more serious, it's not yet clear that Israel has any strategy for following up on the military success with a means of improving the political/economic situation in Gaza. Without some prospect of a better future, I have a hard time understanding why the area will be better off without Hamas ruling it.
As far as your larger point goes, you should take a gander at this Op-Ed from the J-Post making a similar point.
American involvement in Iraq has always seemed to me like a long term play, since or specific goal was to establish a moderate and relatively secular regime in the midst of the region, offsetting the evils of the neighboring Saudi and Iranian theocracies. The effects of an example like that might be felt quickly, over time, or never at all. No one could really say what the impact would eventually be at the time we started down the road in Iraq (which is one reason I was very lukewarm on the war). I do hope that Bush's policies and our relative success in Iraq have indeed created the sort of latitude the writer sees, and that Obama is capable of seizing the initiative in working to establish some sort of lasting political accommodation amongst these nations before the situation is made worse by a nuclear arms race.
By 
Escort81, at
Wed Jan 21, 12:43:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Escort81, at
Wed Jan 21, 12:45:00 PM:
I agree with your points, but the effectiveness of the IDF in Gaza is small comfort in looking at the longer-term picture in the Middle East. It is not clear to me how Israel can ever live in peace and security until this basic fact is altered: that a clear majority of Palestinian Arabs (and certainly those in Gaza) do not want Israel to exist at all, which had something to do with why Hamas came to power in the first place. They fundamentally disagree with the events of 61 years ago and won't accept it. Until they are convinced that maybe they'd be better off living with Israel instead of fighting for its extermination, it is hard to see light at the end of the tunnel. Israel can live in its current state of quasi-security -- the way it has lived since the first intifada, really the way it has always lived -- and count on having whack-a-mole expeditions every other year or so. It's nice that the IDF has rediscovered its "A Game," but Israeli military superiority has for some time been an implied assumption in and precondition of the ongoing existence of the state. Peace can't come until all of the parties concerned really want it or until one side loses or becomes exhausted.
By , at
Wed Jan 21, 02:18:00 PM:
Hamas is still smuggling weapons into Gaza. It sure would help is Egypt could stop these tunnels from being used. Sometimes I wonder if there is anyone in the region other than Israel who really wants a true peace. I'd feel better about American prospects for helping in the region if the Obama administration had the same concern.
By , at
Wed Jan 21, 04:28:00 PM:
But of course, had Israel "completed" its mission and actually destroyed Hamas to the man, it would have had to have killed at least 10% of the population of Gaza. This was within their capabilities.
And so Israel gets it both ways: mocked when it restrains itself, mocked when it does not.
By davod, at
Wed Jan 21, 05:54:00 PM:
" that a clear majority of Palestinian Arabs (and certainly those in Gaza) do not want Israel to exist at all, which had something to do with why Hamas came to power in the first place."
I think Hamas's social services and the corruption endemic to the Palestinian Government had more to do with the Hamas win than the hatred of Israel.
By davod, at
Wed Jan 21, 06:06:00 PM:
The Israelis will soon have more to worry about than the tunnels. Obamas Middle-East experts seem held bent on giving Hamas the legitimacy it wants. Whether this happens before or after they legitimize Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran, is anyone's guess.
As I recall, the last time our politicians, including Pelosi went to Syria, Assad cracked down on the political opposition. When we made noises about witholding support from the Iranian opposition ouside Iran, the Iranians cracked down inside Iran.
By davod, at
Wed Jan 21, 06:26:00 PM:
Sorry about the multiple posts but it is the first day of the Obama regime.
1. Obama's first call was to palestinan leader Abbas. " The PA reports that Obama called Abbas today to tell him how important it is to help the Palestinians. Obama also told Abbas that he was the first foreign leader the new president has called, and so underlined how important it is to advance the cause of the Palestinians.
He called Abbas, then Olmert, then King Abdullah (Jordan) and Hosni Mubarak. The Jordanians and Egyptians are telling him to embrace the Saudi plan for Israel's removal to the 49 armistice lines and free immigration of "refugees" to Israel.
Yes, YOU READ THAT RIGHT. Obama called Abbas, first thing in the morning at 8am. Then he called Olmert, Mubarak and Abdullah - in that order. Obama told Abbas that he purposely called him first because the new president wanted Abbas to be the first foreign leader that he spoke with. (hat tip Israeli momma)"
HT AlasShrugs.
2. Barack Obama: Administration willing to talk to Iran 'without preconditions' - White House website says president 'supports tough and direct diplomacy with Iran without preconditions'
By , at
Wed Jan 21, 06:52:00 PM:
Okay, who wants to volunteer for the first new permanent US diplomatic mission in Teheran since 1979?
Foreign service, let's see a show of hands. Hmmmm. Not many volunteers for that one. Wonder if in their heart of hearts they think reality is different than the public pronouncements of our betters in elected positions of authority and responsibility.
Stay tuned.
-David
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jan 21, 06:52:00 PM:
Not that I believe that Obama's proposed foreign policy is anything other than naive, but calling Abbas is not as unreasonable as it sounds at first glance. Since the PA basically split into two warring factions, Israel has treated each of them differently. In general, Hamas is the more hostile entity and as a result it is Gaza that has suffered. By comparison, the West Bank is doing splendidly.
One aspect of weakening/destroying Hamas would be to strengthen Fatah, the Palestinians' other alternative.
By davod, at
Wed Jan 21, 07:42:00 PM:
"One aspect of weakening/destroying Hamas would be to strengthen Fatah, the Palestinians' other alternative."
The Saudis are going to give Hamas one billion dollars to help with reconstruction. The phone call must have worked.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jan 21, 09:01:00 PM:
1) That offer was declared before Obama took office, and has nothing to do with the aforementioned phone calls.
2) Do you *really* think that the Saudis are just going to give Hamas, a terrorist group that is increasingly owned and used as a proxy by their chief regional rival, a billion dollars with no strings attached? At the very least, that would make them formal state sponsors of terrorism and severely complicate their international finances.
By , at
Wed Jan 21, 10:02:00 PM:
"At the very least, that would make them formal state sponsors of terrorism and severely complicate their international finances"
And that would be new how? That is what they've been for quite some time already, I see little change here.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jan 21, 11:12:00 PM:
*sigh*
I knew as soon as I hit 'publish' that someone was going to bring this up.
Except for us, Saudi Arabia is the country responsible for the biggest numbers of dead al-Qaeda members. Back in 2003 you couldn't got a week without a shootout somewhere in the kingdom as the Saudis cracked down and destroyed the many dormant al-Qaeda cells they'd long been watching before they could go operational in Iraq.
They're on our side.
It's popular among US conservatives to hold the Kingdom responsible for anything done by any member of the royal family anywhere. It just doesn't work that way. Some of the (thousands of) princes used to donate money to jihadi groups. A few still might. But not the government. In case you people are unaware, bin Laden was stripped of his citizenship by the Saudi government and is their sworn enemy! The Saudis are target #1 for many Salafists. A Saudi king was assassinated and a military uprising was launched in Mecca in the 70s.
Probably the last terrorists that the Saudi government supported was the PLO.
By , at
Thu Jan 22, 01:04:00 AM:
Choosing to embroil himself in the Israeli/Palestinian quagmire so early in his presidency should be, if nothing else, a humbling experience for Obama. Abbas leads one faction of the Palestinians, he controls very little and cannot deliver peace or even stability. There's a reason Arafat didn't take the best deal he could ever have hoped to get when Clinton tried to push it through at the end of his presidency. As Arafat said at the time, he wasn't ready to drink tea with Rabin in heaven. No Palestinian leader will survive a meaningful peace deal with the Israelis.
Hopefully Obama will figure out the pointlessness of all this rather quickly and will choose to move on to problems that actually have a workable solution.
By davod, at
Thu Jan 22, 09:51:00 PM:
"Probably the last terrorists that the Saudi government supported was the PLO."
This is probably a litle late but he above comment should be rebutted.
A collection from the Counterterrorism Blog:
1. Financing: Saudis arrest 10 - Breakthrough or "Show Arrests"? (updated Feb. 4, 2007). The Saudis have, in the past, arrrested political dissidents and called them terrorists/radicals.
2. The Growing Saudi Conundrum
By Douglas Farah.
Well, six years after 9/11, the Saudis continue to be a major obstacle in the fighting radical Islam, while remaining a necessary partner because of the oil reserves.
Two recent stories shed a clear light on the huge damage the Saudi royal family and business elite continue to do in hindering meaningful progress is shutting down the hate speech, bigotry and twisted theology that drive the _jihadist_ movement, financed by these actors.
The first was in the Wall Street Journal by Glenn Simpson, outlining the role of the al Rajhi family and banking institutions in funding radical Islamists, and what the U.S. knew about the activities.
3.Treasury Designates Major Saudi Charity -- Al Haramain - - For Financing Terrorists
Following several years of wrangling with Saudi Arabia over Al Haramain Islamic Foundation’s continuing international role in facilitating terrorism financing, the US Treasury Department has finally acted unilaterally to designate its whole world-wide operation, including Al Haramain's headquarter offices, structure...
Posted in Counterterrorism Blog on June 19, 2008 4:39 PM
Weekly Sandard article: The Saudi Connection In Iraq and elsewhere, terrorism thrives with Saudi support. by Stephen Schwartz
07/30/2007 12:00:00 AM
Asia Times article -
Moscow's cosy Saudi connection
By Stephen Blank
"...This visit represents the burial of these hatchets. And Russia gained the most by far from this rapprochement. Clearly the Saudis have learned from the earlier attacks in May 2003 by al-Qaeda in Riyadh that their financial sponsorship of organizations that covered for al-Qaeda did not protect them from its fury. As a result they have clamped down domestically on terrorist groups and tried to return back to closer ties with Washington regarding terrorism, at least insofar as it affects Saudi rule at home..."
4. TERRORISM FINANCING
Roots and trends of Saudi Terrorism financing
Report prepared for the President of the Security Council United Nations Dec. 19, 2002
New-York, USA
...he al-Qaida organization defies the common understandings of traditional terrorism by being able to hide terror behind a visible, mostly legitimate,
business cover, using and abusing tools and methods that constitute the basis of Islamic banking, religious donations and modern economic globalization to move and raise money, recruit and train operatives, buy arms and entertain
local operational cells able to carry out terrorist attacks around the world.
At the root of that situation is an unresolved dilemma that turned to a confusion between religion and finance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. By fixing religious beliefs, tools and interpretations with financial purposes, without proper regulations and controls, Saudi Arabia opened an avenue for
terrorism financing through the traditional Zakat, a legal almsgiving conceived as a way for purification by the Prophet that turned into a financial tool for
terrorists.
Abusing this pillar of Islam and benefiting from the Saudi regulatory vacuum, al-Qaida was able to receive between $300 million and $500 million over the
last ten years from wealthy businessmen and bankers representing about 20% of the Saudi GNP, through a web of charities and companies acting as fronts, with the notable use of Islamic banking institutions. Most of this financial backbone is still at large and able to support fundamentalist organizations.
