Foundation for Israeli Foreign Policy? Joshua 6
Operation Cast Lead was the name given to the recent Israeli operation into the Gaza Strip. The two official reasons given for the campaign into Gaza are 1) to put an end to the rocket and mortar fire coming from Gaza; and 2) to restore Israel’s deterrent, which Israel has lost since it withdrew from Gaza. Although these may be a few subsidiary reasons, the real reason Israel is back in Gaza is much more startling: destruction, conquest, and subjugation.
That may sound a bit crude, but sometimes it’s better to be blunt and to the point. This is exactly what preeminent international theorist and self-avowed realist John Mearsheimer does in his recent article about the Israeli war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. As any good realist does, Mearsheimer lays out the case that the Israel’s latest war will not make the country safer and will exacerbate the already desperate Israel-Palestinian conflict. But the more interesting part of the article is how Mearsheimer sets the record straight, in regards to Israel’s attitude and overall policy regarding the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Mearsheimer discusses how Israel has done very little to mitigate the conflict and has done almost everything in its power to exercise its powerful will over the Palestinians.
It’s a good article and Mearsheimer does an excellent job describing the reality of the situation in addition to arguing why Israel’s latest war cannot be won. Mearsheimer state’s bluntly in the first paragraph that “Israel has foolishly started another war it cannot win.” In case you’re pressed for time (or just perhaps enamored with my deft insight), here is a brief summary of what the article says.
- Israel does not wish for any sort of lasting peace, a viable Palestinian state, or a fair resolution to the half-a-century long conflict. Israel intends on controlling all of what was known as Mandate Palestine (current Israel, plus the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) in order to create a “Greater Israel.” This has been Israel’s unofficial policy since it declared independence in 1948.
- The way Israel plans on achieving a Greater Israel is by inflicting massive amounts of pain and suffering on the Palestinians so that they will learn to accept their fate as a defeated and subjugated people. Israel does not seek equality between races, religion, or aspirations; they seek total domination.
- The Israeli caused breaking-up of the National Unity government between Fatah (West Bank) and Hamas (Gaza Strip) lead to the expulsion of Fatah from Gaza and a breakdown in political cooperation. This lead to the eventual blockade of Gaza by Israel. The Gaza Strip is a 139 sq. mile strip of coastal land that is home to 1.5 million people; this gives Gaza a population density of almost 11,000 people/sq. mile. (Rhode Island is bigger than the Gaza Strip by 10 square miles and has roughly 500,000 less people.) The blockaded Gaza Strip is nothing short of a prison. Hamas responded to the blockade by continuing to fire rockets and mortars across the border into southern Israel. This eventually lead to the June 9th, 2008 ceasefire between Hams and Israel.
- Despite what many have said, Israel was never interesting in sustaining a ceasefire and is the ones responsible for its collapse. During the June 9th ceasefire period, Hamas drastically reduced the number of attacks on southern Israel. Israel, on the other hand, continued arresting and assassinating Palestinians on the West Bank and sustained the suffocating blockade on the Gaza Strip.
- Throughout the conflict leading up to operation Cast Lead, Hamas maintained the position that they are seeking long-term stability and peace with Israel if they are willing to stop assassinating their leaders and end the deadly blockade of the Gaza Strip. Also important to note is that between Nov. 4 and the Israeli operation in Gaza, zero Israeli’s were killed by rocket or mortar fire form Hamas.
- Since Operation Cast Lead began, more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed and over 4,000 wounded. More than half of the casualties have been civilians. Three Israeli citizens and one solider have been killed by rocket fire, 9 have been killed since ground forces moved in (4 from friendly fire) and 98 have been injured.
Israel’s operation into Gaza is nothing new. It’s just the next step in a futile attempt to divide and conquer all of the territory once designated as Mandate Palestine. People who attests that Israel is simply practicing self-defense against the terrorist forces of Hamas are simply blinded by Western biases and the West’s (especially America’s) special, albeit irrational, relationship with Israel. If Israel really wanted to stop the rocket and mortar fire, it could easily do so by negotiating a real, faithful, and long-term cease-fire with Hamas. However, Israel does not intend on doing anything resembling this. Israel intends on controlling all of Palestine by the use of force. This policy is commonly referred to as the “Iron Wall” strategy. The Iron Wall strategy means forcing the Palestinians to accept their role as a subjugated and dehumanized population.
This violent and cruel policy is clearly reflected in Israel’s incursion into Gaza. Israel claims that the IDF is going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties – even putting its own soldiers’ lives at risk to avoid unnecessary collateral damage. This is absolute non-sense. Set aside the fact that it is nearly impossible to avoid huge civilian casualties while firing cluster bombs into Gaza, Israel does not care for the well being of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. For example, Israel’s opening salvo on Dec. 27 took place as children were getting out of school, and one of Israel’s first targets was a graduation ceremony for police cadets — not exactly Hamas terrorist. In the meantime, Israel has launched its typical propaganda campaign to hide the true reasons and travesties of the war (one only need to browse the headlines of Ha’arretz or Arutz Sheva); Israel has also disallowed reporters into the Gaza war zone.
The timing between the recent one-week ceasefire agreement and the upcoming inauguration of Barack Obama is no coincidence. Some hope that Obama will be less supportive of Israel’s aggressive policies in Palestine, but I am highly skeptical of any such notion. I’ve written about the Israel Lobby before (coincidentally, a review of a book by Mearsheimer) and its immense influence in American politics. I’ve also noted how Israel supporters are able to berate even objective criticism of Israel’s policies in Palestine. For most Americans, Israel is the rough and tough nation, surrounding by heathen on all sides, always on the brink of annihilation. What they fail to acknowledge is that most of Israel’s troubles are self-made.
Perhaps what makes this entire operation so egregious is that it is essentially subsidized by the United States. We are the enablers of the Iron Wall policy. We give Israel the money, the weapons, and the encouragement to go about its business of subjugating an entire people and aggravating East-West relations. Don’t get me wrong, I support Israel’s right to exists and defend itself when the situation warrants such action and I also acknowledge the fact that Hamas partakes in “terrorist” activities. However, the situation is so lopsided and misrepresented, making Israel look more righteous in the conflict, that the distinctions between who’s terrorizing and who’s simply defending themselves may not be what is perceived as. Moreover, I cannot support policies driven by a policy of divide and conquer, nor can I look at the current war in Gaza and think that Israel’s actions are justified.
Perhaps this quote in Mearsheimer’s article from Arnon Soffer, a prominent Israeli demographer who advises the Israeli government, best captures the hopelessness that Israel has created.
When 1.5 [sic] million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.
It’s just the next step in a futile attempt to divide and conquer all of the territory once designated as Mandate Palestine.
Are you so sure it’s futile? They have done a pretty good job of it so far. Are there any signs that they could take as much of Greater Israel as they have but for some reason will be unable to completely envelop the rest? Maybe there are, but without international and US policy shifts to pressure Israel from the outside, I’m not sure I would describe Israel’s expansionism as futile.
Perhaps what makes this entire operation so egregious is that it is essentially subsidized by the United States.
That is exactly it. I hope your skepticism (and mine) is relieved by Obama’s Middle East policy. It does seem like the timing is more than just coincidence, but what hints have there been from Obama that he would be less supportive of Israel? Anytime he is asked about it, he gives the same tired lines as every other successful national American politician.
You article is exceptionally well-written, and articles like these are probably why we never saw any of those free copies of the Dershowitz book.
Hear, hear! Or is it: Here, here!
Either way, thank you for writing this article.
This is not going to be an easy battle, as it hasn’t been. Really need to get people like Dennis Ross out of the administration! Hillary won’t be much help here either. More than one too many liberal hawks flying around the white house at a time like this.
ProIsrael Rallies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig
But the intellectual atmosphere is shifting for the better it seems. (Praying)
PS- amconmag is one of the few publications i pay for.
Thanks Jesse. At least we can agree on something. ;)
It’s really a rather depressing issue to think about, from an American policy perspective, because I don’t think we’ll do a damned thing to bring about a change to the defunct Israeli-Palestinian relations. Although our policy isn’t as allowing as, say, the “give war a chance” strategy that Kissinger adopted, it is sort of ambivalent, isn’t it? Europe is down Israel’s throat. What are we doing? Giving them money and weapons (so perhaps it isn’t ambivalent, just enabling).
I’m actually reading through Ross’s book on Statecraft right now. His analysis is decent. But perhaps I’ll come across something I really disagree with. I’m still towards the beginning; he hasn’t said anything particularly profound, yet.
I agree it was a good post, primarily because it rejects the dopey, middle-of-the-road, “gosh how can we solve this impossible problem” view one generally finds in the US.
It’s 100% clear what the problem is, and 100% clear what the solution is. What’s making the situation impossible is that our political establishment is wicked.
*What are we doing? Giving them money and weapons (so perhaps it isn’t ambivalent, just enabling).*
My organizing metaphor for Israel’s behavior isn’t quite so high-minded as y’alls. I go to the MTV show, ‘My Super Sweet 16.’ If you continually indulge someone who’s dependent upon you to a level past all reason, you really can’t be shocked when they aren’t exactly motivated to get along with the people around them. They’ve gotten their teeth rotten by the last eight years. My hope is that the Obama administration will inform them that the tap is going to be shut off if they continue to be belligerent.
Also, would the early US settlers’ behavior toward the Native Americans have looked so different from the Israelis’ treatment of the Gazans?
No, probably not. But that doesn’t make it “right.” Whatever “right” is. There are a number of differences between the Indians and the Palestinians. Probably the most notable one being that the Palestinians are quite capable of fighting back and have some degree of international sympathy. Regardless of the parallels though, how American settlers treated American Indians doesn’t really matter. If anything, we should say that we’ve learned a lesson.
A more objective, or realist, view of the situation is that Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians is contrary to their national interest, namely national security. I suppose if the Israelis completely annihilated the Palestinians then there may not be as big a problem (or perhaps it would set off a worldwide intifadah). But this isn’t going to happen, either. As long as Israel continues its conquest of Palestine, there will be those who seek to oppose Israel, and probably with just cause. So, one could make the argument (which Mearsheimer does) that Israel’s behavior is totally irrational.
If Israel is in fact engaging in a “divide and conquer” policy with the Palestinian and not one of self defense, I’m curious how you would explain what most would argue is a different approach that Israel takes with the West Bank. Sharon and Olmert have met with Fatah several times and, for the most part, have been willing to work with them.
The different approach could be indicative of Israel not feeling threatened by Fatah and therefore indicative of a defensive stance.
I must always caution this discussion because when you look at a nation-state, you can find whatever you want. There are people in Israel that want to give Palestine independence and there are others that are right-wing fanatics who want to subjugate Palestine.
BTW, I’m not arguing in support of the current war. I’m only arguing against the notion that the modern modern (repetition intended) day state of Israel is overwhelming hawkish and imperialistic.
Chris, take a look at this map of the West Bank, which includes the walls and fences erected by Israel and the multitude of settlements inside the border, and tell me, in good faith, whether you think Israel practices a divide and conquer strategy.
Just think if Canada started sending pilgrims into Montana and Minnesota to establish Canadian settlements within the U.S. border. And in addition to the settlement camps, they also built concrete walls and fences around major cities in Montana and Minnesota, creating small enclaves. There would be small exploding hockey pucks flying across the border, eh?
Why do walls and fences necessarily constitute a divide and conquer mentality? If since 1967, Israel has been ceding more and more land and autonomy to the PLO in the West Bank, how do you say they are trying to take it over? Does the possibly not exist that the remaining settlements in the West Bank are protected by walls and fences for defensive purposes? Again, we’re talking post 1967. And really, the last decade or so.
I like the map by the way.
To answer your question, yes and no. It just depends on the segment of the society.
The operation in Gaza is overwhelmingly popular in Israel. Not because Israel wants more control over Gaza. If that were the case, the last three decades of Israeli policy would make very little since.
They support the invasion because it is mostly seen as defensive. Of course there are notable segments of Israeli society that would love complete control over Gaza and the West Bank. But to say that Israel is a dividing and conquering nation seems difficult to prove.
Why do walls and fences constitute a divide and conquer mentality? Do you not see that they are literally dividing up the West Bank into Palestinian enclaves? This is accompanied by Israeli settlers moving into the West Bank.
Moving beyond the divide and conquer strategy debate, Israel seeks to dominate Palestine. Period. And we (heavily) subsidize their efforts.
Listen though. I’m no big idealist here. I cannot understand what it’s like to an Israeli or a Palestinian in the Levant region. I don’t pretend to understand the emotional aspect. However, I think I am warranted in making an objective (see realist) judgment. It’s a game of power, and Israel has had, has now, and will probably always have the upper hand. From their line of reasoning, why negotiate when you can rule? For the Israelis, belligerence keeps them safe. (of course I think that’s wrong — but I think that I understand where the Israeli’s are coming from).
Why do walls and fences necessarily constitute a divide and conquer mentality?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that this will be the most obtuse sentence of 2009.
I’ve looked at that map several times and it looks to me more defensive than anything. They look more like Israeli enclaves to me. Also, I still think the power that has undeniably been ceded back to the West Bank is important in this argument.
JH: I don’t know who you are but you can make some of the least constructive comments sometimes. I’m not trying to win an argument here. I’m trying to learn and give my thoughts as they come to me. Does it make you feel big that you can come on to someone’s blog and tell them how stupid they are?
People like you are as guilty of obstructing free thought as the administrators at Harding which you rightly criticize. People like you are no better than the Republicans who ignored the Democratic Party while they had a majority in Congress and had the White House. If we are going to progress, we have to learn to actually listen to people and not make biting, unthoughtful comments to them. I could very well be wrong about what I said (I don’t think I’m wrong but I could be). At least say something constructive. You may or may not have noticed, but I have certainly changed a lot of my viewpoints since I began blogging (as has Steven). If you convince me that my arguments are flawed, I’m bound to change. If you come on here and just tell me I’m a moron, my views are bound to become hardened.
Well, look, do I really need to make an argument as to why building a giant wall inside a people’s territory and restricting their movements is a divide and conquer strategy? I realize you’re off the conservative reservation in many ways, and I do appreciate that, but you really do drop some major turds in the conversation from time to time (viz. “Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals, they’re just as free to marry someone of the opposite sex.”)
greenwalds article from jan 8 is pretty sweet.
Both parties cheerlead still more loudly for Israel’s war
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/08/israel/
“This afternoon, the Democratic-led U.S. Senate did just that by enacting — via a cowardly voice vote — a completely one-sided, non-binding resolution that expresses unequivocal support for the Israeli war, and heaps all the blame for the conflict on Hamas and none of it on Israel…
…ThinkProgess noted yesterday that Democrats took the lead in drafting the Resolution because they did not want to be “out-hawked by the Republicans,”
….The Resolution demands that Hamas take multiple steps towards peaceful resolution but demands that Israel do absolutely nothing.”
James Bovard gives some historical background on “the history of the Israeli government’s long war on terrorism was its covert financing, cosseting, and arming of Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement.”
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/01/08/senates-know-nothingism-on-hamas/