Obligatory Post About WaPo's "Israel Should Lift Its Gaza Blockade" Editorial
Obligatory not in the usual sense of "everybody's going to blog this so here it is." More "someone's got to blog this and it got assigned to me." Seriously. There was a cabal meeting last Thursday. First we discussed how we were going to deal with Iranian TV for blowing the lid off our Mumbai terrorist assault. That took a while. Then we split this week's editorials. Half of us get to write them and then the other half have to respond. Anyway, long story short, I drew the short straw. Screwed again.
For reasons that will soon become obvious I'm starting - as the theater kids are wont to say - in media res. Mere Rhetoric, Dec. 22, 2008:
Things could get very interesting electorally if a Gaza operation succeeds. Which is why the faux sophisticated media frame will be "Israeli politicians are killing innocent Gazans to get elected." That's not technically "accurate" as such - the ceasefire just expired last week and Israel is only doing what any other country would've done months ago. And it wouldn't be unseemly even if it was - democratic elections are supposed to focus politicians' minds on things they're supposed to do. But why let that get in the way of a good blood libel?
Washington Post, Dec. 23, 2008:
Hamas may have calculated poorly. Israel is in the midst of a heated election campaign, and its two leading candidates are taking a predictably hawkish tack: Both promised over the weekend to "topple" the Hamas government. With the United States in the middle of a presidential transition, Israeli military action against Hamas is unlikely to prompt a significant response from Washington.
For. Fuck's. Sake. In how many different ways can two sentences of asinine intellectual strutting be egregiously wrong? First point: the presidential transition actually makes it more likely that Israeli military action will prompt a negative US response. Iran would inevitably "warn Israel" against attacking Hamas, complete with vague insinuations about "radiation" and "incitement." That's what they did during Lebanon II and that's what they do every time Israel is about to take on one of their proxies. The impression would be that Israel is knocking out Obama's diplomatic knees before he even takes office. In State Department parlance: Israeli self-defense measures would be "unhelpful" insofar as they would fail to take due "consideration" of "the morning after." Which is exactly why American diplomats have gone out of their way to pressure Israel not to undertake any pre-Obama action against Hamas.
Second point: yes it's "predictable" that Benjamin Netanyahu would vow to dismantle Hamas "in the midst of a heated election campaign." It's also "predictable" that Benjamin Netanyahu would vow to dismantle Hamas "in the aftermath of an election." Or "during breakfast." Or "when he's awake." That's his position. It has nothing to do with the election. As for Livni: she's been an anti-Hamas hawk within Kadima since she got into the government. She's fundamentally a moderate in that she believes that the way to secure a Palestinian state is to bolster Fatah. But she ends up being classified as a relative hawk because she thinks that bolstering Fatah requires dismantling Hamas. Again - nothing to do with the election per se.
Third point: Israeli electoral dynamics actually complicate the possibility of a Gaza invasion. Barak is standing in the way of a large-scale operation precisely because of the election. That's his gamble: grab the bulk of the peacenik left while letting Likud and Kadima split the center-right. And even in general – "heated election campaigns" are as likely to produce Israeli concessions as Israeli military action. The sitting government often tries to demonstrate that its diplomatic programs are paying off dividends. That's why Israeli political instability are accompanied by frantic peace gambits: Taba, Sharon's Syria overtures, etc.
And that's just two sentences from the middle of this masterpiece of faux sophistication. After the jump, the whole article top-down.
After six months of relative calm, hostilities once again are escalating between Israel and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Between Friday and yesterday some 60 rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel, whose air force responded with strikes against the launchers. So far there have been no serious injuries on the Israeli side, and one Palestinian has been reported killed.
That's a blase way of putting it. I would have written something like "over the weekend Palestinian soldiers rained down explosives on Israeli schools and hospitals, reaching Israel's largest port city, scoring direct hits on homes, and turning southern Israeli into a warzone." But I guess "some 60 rockets were fired from Gaza" adequately conveys the situation. And I do appreciate how they're using the passive voice / active voice trick - "rockets were fired" / the Israeli "air force responded." It's been a mainstay of anti-Israel bias since before I began blogging and I give a little sniff of nostalgia every time I see it.
Incidentally, isn't it weird how the "between Friday and yesterday" timeline allows them to avoid mentioning the three Israeli injuries from Wednesday?
But the ugly slide from here is easy to foresee: more rockets fall, and Israel steps up its airstrikes; Hamas turns from homemade rockets fired by proxies to Iranian-made missiles that can reach large Israeli cities. In the last instance, Israel could finally launch the ground invasion of Gaza it has frequently threatened, triggering a bloody conflict that could spread to the West Bank and Lebanon.
And how would it "spread to Lebanon"? I'm thinking by magic. Or by Hezbollah following Hamas's lead and raining down explosives on Israeli schools and hospitals (coming to a WaPo editorial near you: "rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel"). But definitely one of the two.
Neither side seems to want such an all-out fight -- particularly not Israel, whose defense minister has pointed out that an invasion could cost hundreds of lives and leave thousands of Israeli troops stranded in Gaza without an exit strategy. But neither Israel nor Hamas has been satisfied with the informal cease-fire they reached in June with the help of Egypt.
Actually Hamas has been pretty satisfied with the ceasefire. Reports from the last few days say they've managed to smuggle 10,000 missiles as part of the "most intensive military buildup... in modern history." That they now plan to use their weapons to negotiate even better terms doesn't mean they weren't satisfied with the ceasefire while it lasted. For its part Israel has been desperately seeking to maintain the ceasefire on its current terms. So while you could say that "neither Israel nor Hamas has been satisfied with the informal cease-fire," your words would be the opposite of true.
During the summer and fall, the rocket fire from Gaza diminished but never entirely stopped. Israel, in turn, allowed only a modest increase in the flow of goods into Gaza, which has been under virtual siege since last year, and frequently sealed off the strip entirely in response to fresh attacks.
Does anybody else remember a time when fisking de facto anti-Western journalism was interesting? When editorial boards were really sneaky about their cheap moral equivalence and you actually had to spend time untangling articles? The Papal Jihad: that took 40 posts to unpack. And now they're peddling this nonsense? "Hamas routinely committed war crimes" vs. "Israel, in turn, only modestly increased the amount of fruits and vegetables that got into Gaza"? This is what contemporary journalism has been reduced too? Newspapers never take the time to pen really good bias these days. It's sad, really.
Hamas's Damascus-based leadership appears to have imposed a decision to end the cease-fire upon its administration in Gaza, which will have to live with the resultant suffering.
Poor babies. You know how Gazans - geographically isolated from Damascus as they are - could go about dealing with that? Instead of firing rockets at Israeli civilians they could not fire rockets at Israeli civilians.
The aim appears to be to force Israel to lift the blockade on the territory, something it is already under growing international pressure to do.
Actually the aim is to alter the terms of the ceasefire so that Hamas will be allowed to continue firing rockets and mortars at the western Negev at will. But why quibble about motives like "wanting to help Gaza civilians" vs. "wanting to murder Israeli civilians"? There's no way it would make a difference to readers.
But an increasing number of Israeli thinkers are pointing out that the prevailing strategy of trying to isolate and destroy Hamas while building up the rival Palestinian leadership in the West Bank hasn't worked.
Ironically an "increasing number of [anonymous] Israeli thinkers" also point out that the Washington Post makes things up. Although in fairness - there are some Israeli thinkers who don't think that political isolation is weakening Hamas. Many of them have been calling for a Gaza op for months.
Some 200,000 Gazans recently turned out for a rally in support of Hamas; a war would only strengthen the movement's most radical factions.
I'm not sure about that. I can see an argument for how systematically dismantling Hamas's infrastructure would weaken Hamas's infrastructure.
Israeli officials rightly point out that no country should have to tolerate missile attacks on its cities; such attacks justify a military response.
Here comes a "but..."
But...Sigh.
... Israel would be better positioned to defeat Hamas politically and diplomatically if it allowed the full resumption of food, medicine and fuel deliveries to Gaza and made clear its willingness to end other restrictions on civilian trade in exchange for a full cessation of rocket attacks and other hostilities.Oh please. Israel let a million dollars of medical aid into Gaza yesterday after a weekend of rocket barrages. And any insinuation that Israel's causing a medical shortfall in Gaza is flat out false. Ditto for insinuations that Israeli actions have caused a fuel shortage. Or a food shortage. Or an anything shortage. Flat. Out. False.
But wouldn't it be great if they were true?
There's a substantive critique of this editorial to be made: opening up the Gaza Strip would pave the way for European recognition of Hamas, accomplishing the exact opposite of what the editorial claims to want to accomplish. And it's doubtful that giving Gazans even more assistance would give Israel diplomatic leverage to pressure them since political isolation is their leverage. But explaining the downstream effects of banal "cycle of violence" nonsense is trivial - of course policies based on this much confusion are going to go awry. That's why, instead of writing things that are wrong, journalists should try writing things that are not wrong.
References:
* Iranian TV blames 'United States and Zionists' for Mumbai terror attacks [Israel Matzav]
* Israel Suiting Up For Gaza Op? [MR]
* More Rockets From Gaza [WaPo]
* Iran: Israeli Self-Defense is a Cause for War [MR]
* Iran warns Israel not to attack Lebanon [JPost]
* US Warns Israel Against Pre-Obama Attacks On Iran Or Hamas [MR]
* Livni: Do not waver on Hamas [JPost]
* ANALYSIS / Barak's restraint in Gaza is a huge elections gamble [Ha'aretz]
* Smug Liberal Sophistication Undisturbed By Decades Of Disastrously Wrong Domestic And International Predictions [MR]
* IAF air strike destroys two rocket launchers in northern Gaza Strip [Ha'aretz]
* Hamas Rockets And Missiles Hit Israeli Mall, Injure 3. It's Almost Like There's No Ceasefire At All! [MR]
* Study: Reuters Headlines [Honest Reporting]
* Israel: Hamas rocket arsenal doubles to 10,000 [World Tribune]
* Israeli Intel: Hamas Military Buildup "Most Intensive In Modern History" [MR]
* Maybe Hamas Will Extend The Ceasefire They Keep Breaking With Daily Rocket Barrages... [MR]
* Index To MR's Series On The Anti-Papal Riots [MR]
* Israel expects Hamas to turn up heat on Gaza border [Ha'aretz]
* Israel allows aid into Gaza [Elder]
* New Data Confirms Old Data: Blaming Israel For Gaza's Medical Collapse Is A Vicious Lie [MR]
* Analysis: Palestinian aid and politics [BBC]
* Fuel Shipments Renewed After UN, EU Blame Israel For Hamas's Intentionally Created Humanitarian Crisis [MR]
* Breathless HuffPo Headline About Gazans Eating Grass Contradicted By Rest Of Headline, Linked Picture, Reality (Plus: Anti-Semitic Comments Ensue Anyway) [MR]Previously:
* Livni: Hey, I Guess These Daily Rocket Attacks Aren't Much Of A Ceasefire After All
* Hamas: As A Reminder, We're Not Renewing The Ceasefire We've Been Breaking On A Daily Basis [MR]
* Palestinian Soldiers Prostrate Themselves Before Altar Of Holy Missiles
