Thomas Friedman “Is There” for Ehud Olmert

The Israeli right continues to exploit the increasingly bitter sense of frustration in Israel over the sad results of the July fiasco, cooked up by Olmert and Bush. Israel wants to know what happened, how and why. Unfortunately, it has still not yet dawned on broad sections of the public that the cardinal question was and remains that of policy and not performance.

Meanwhile, Olmert is trying to weather the latest storms. A vicious “battle of generals” has erupted, and instead of serious analysis of the strategic and tactical flaws that marred the IDF efforts, the big boys are playing a very rough version of the old blame game. General “A”, head of the Northern command, broke rank with a public letter of resignation arguing that his boss, the chief of staff, Halutz and the Minister of Defense, Peretz, and not him, were responsible for the failure of the ground operations. Then, Halutz’s immediate predecessor, “Boogey” Ya’alon, came out, guns blazing, blasting the war and everything connected with it.

Ya’alon on Olmert: “Going to war was scandalous, and he is directly responsible for that. The war’s management was a failure and he is responsible for that.”
Ya’alon on Halutz: “The chief of staff failed in the management of the war. He gave the political echelon the feeling that he had the capability, which in practice he did not have, to bring about a political achievement by means of an extremely aggressive military operation.”

Ya’alon on the ground operation at the end of the war: “That was a spin move. It had no substantive security-political goal, only a spin goal. It was meant to supply the missing victory picture. You don’t do that. You don’t send soldiers to carry out a futile mission after the political outcome has already been set. I consider that corrupt.” (Ari Shavit, Ha’aretz, September 14, 2006)

Enter Thomas Friedman with his Head in the Dyke

One important observer has some advice for Israel. Friedman tells the Israelis to “get a grip.” Friedman is tough: Stop whining, you won the war. “Nevertheless, Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, did a better job under the circumstances, than he is being credited with, and more important, the situation evolving in South Lebanon now has the potential to offer a whole new model for peacemaking.” (International Herald Tribune, September 14, 2006

Friedman is so enthralled by the new model for peacemaking that he suggested it for the Israeli-Palestinian (non-existent and non-recognized) borders. Friedman wants us to believe that peace is absent because the Palestinians are unable to control territory which Israel has left. He ignores the need for anything so elementary as negotiations and an agreement on the establishment of an independent, viable Palestinian state.

Unfortunately, Friedman’s pals in Israel shot the whole idea – the new model for peacemaking - down before it could get off the ground. Tom is there for Ehud, but Ehud is not there for Tom.

UN Security Council Resolution 1701 – Fact and Fantasy

This resolution which is supposed, according to its main sponsors to establish a new reality in the Middle East, does nothing of the sort. Characteristically, Thomas Friedman’s sales pitch for the resolution is just another example of the wish being the father of the thought. Phrases, noble or base, rarely shape reality. Basically, the resolution contains two operative elements: the imposition of a cease-fire on Hezbollah and Israel and the provision for the introduction of strong U.N military presence in South Lebanon.

The new edition of the fresh UNIFIL mandate is an extraordinary document whose origins have little to do with Lebanon proper. The idea for an international force is in one respect a product of internal struggle in the U.S. ruling circles. Condoleezza Rice exploited the recent crisis to promote a revision of the Rumsfield-Cheney demand for exclusive U.S. hegemony as a condition for any international cooperation. The miserable results of the basically unilateral invasion of Iraq inspired Rice’s attempt to sponsor a counter model of diplomatic and military action.

Rice had hoped that successful Israeli military action would make the picture easier to manipulate. But the Israeli attack failed to come close to breaking Hezbollah and actually strengthened it politically. The new edifice that was supposed to be put in place to “prevent the return to the status quo anti” did nothing of the sort.

What it did do was to create a UN military force in South Lebanon which is nothing more than a base for diplomatic jockeying by the countries represented. In truth, France entered the fray to reestablish its traditional links with Lebanon, the Europeans wanted to give Condi a leg up in her battle against Rumsfield-Chyney and a number of Asian countries are interested in religious and economic links in the region. None of these countries is the least bit serious about their troops fighting anyone, least of all Hezbollah.

Everyone is agreeing to 1701 because everyone understands that nothing has been decided and hopes that nothing will have to be decided. Bush’s brainstorm to let Israel lead the battle to realign Lebanese politics did not quite work out. Washington and Jerusalem did impress everyone that they are trigger happy and ready to use their technological arsenals to unleash death and destruction, but they also need to recuperate from the recent fiasco. Teheran is busy with the nuclear negotiations. Damascus and Hezbollah are tip-toeing in order to consolidate their gains. And Israel is having more and more trouble convincing itself that 1701, that reads well but has very little or no impact on reality, proves that it has won the war.

Peace Now Silent as Canons Roar

Abject Opportunism and a Total Loss of Political Self-Respect

Instead of a normal response by any self-respecting peace organization, instead of issuing a position paper or clarifying its position in a clear and acceptable manner, Peace Now has opted for something absolutely original. In an email to its membership, Peace Now wrote:

“In the wake of the events, a delegation from PN will be hosted in atzimmer in the north (this week-end), in order to support the residents and to monitor events and to warn against unnecessary escalation.” (July 13, 2006).

A young activist, G.R., took the idea one step further, and suggested that the PN delegation bring greetings (and candy) to the soldiers and delay any politics to a “later stage”. The veteran activist, Yair Inov, burst into the email discussion: “What has happened to us? Are we in competition with the Committee for the Soldiers Wellbeing? Don’t we have a political message?” Some activists supported Inov’s complaint and mocked the idea of a trip to the north. But the PN General Director, Yariv

Oppenheimer summed up the matter: “To all the cynics: The trip to the north is linked to a political message that calls on the government to act with logic, to use its head and not its guts. Only in this way can we say something a bit different in this very complicated reality.”

No statement! No Secretariat! No collective discussion!

Peace Now’s leadership has effectively taken the movement out of the peace camp in the not so distant past by totally swallowing the Sharon-Ulmert-Ramon bait for a unilateralist approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Poor Mr. Goliath

The infrastructure for the recent, new escapades by Israel and the IDF is to be found, of course, in the ’special relationship’ between the United States and Israel. This relationship provides the military wherewithal and the political “cover” for any Israeli action and is the geo-political instrument through which the United States imposes its hegemony in the region. Both sides are obligated to a coordinated response when and if their interests are endangered. Though it is a firm and long standing alliance, each partner does have its own way of looking at things and can develop separate modes of operation.

Israel for its part is more and more intoxicated with power. This state of perpetual inebriation seems to have impaired Israel’s sense of proportion and understanding of reality. One might have to admit that there is something intoxicating in the control over arsenals of doom’s day weaponry and the enjoyment of unlimited superiority against any of its opponents. This sense of superiority nurtures a specific Israeli neurosis, one that engenders illusions, which may in the long run turn out to be self-defeating.

Neither the Palestinian irregulars nor the armies of the neighboring Arab countries are capable of launching any military action that could endanger Israel’s existence or even cause it serious harm. In these circumstances, the Israeli ruling circles have a wide range of strategic alternatives at their disposal. Instead of utilizing these advantages, Israel threatens disproportionate massive military responses to each and every incident. By insisting that it will not distinguish between different levels and types of military actions against it, Israel paints itself into a corner. This fact is not lost on those interested in defying the present status quo.

A Soldier is Kidnapped

Everyone understands that any soldier, even if he is a member of the strongest army in the world, can be easily taken prisoner by the enemy. And what is the strategic significance of such an occurrence? Of course, having one of your soldiers kidnapped is not a very pleasant affair. Even so, a kidnapping is almost always an expression of local and chance circumstances, and in and of itself has no strategic or political importance. It isn’t a pleasure, but it is not the end of the world. This also holds true in principle regarding the dispatch of primitive, home-made rockets from the conquered territories into Israeli towns on the periphery.

Of course, the injured side will look for ways to prevent the recurrence of the rather degrading low-casualty incidents which cause more harm to Israeli prestige than anything else. A responsible government in these circumstances, faced with provocative and embarrassing incidents, would know how to articulate its demands without tying its hands and promising the public that it will respond to every future incident as it were an existential challenge. Responsible statesmen do not usually post a “price list” of retribution and revenge in order to impress everybody that they may throw restraint to the wind. It is precisely this kind of arrogance that ups the ante and promises rewards to those forces determined to prevent the consolidation of a new status quo. The disproportionate threats to launch a full scale offensive over what are really local incidents does go down well with most of the citizenry, but it also creates a dynamic that can spin out of control.

In order to prevent actions which are of course inherently loathsome to any occupying power, Israel is wont to classify each as a causa belli. However, it is quite clear to almost everyone that Israel is simply trying to stamp out embarrassing incidents and events that are inevitable expressions of resistance, even within the given relationship of forces, so overwhelmingly favorable to Israel. In its frustration, Israel issues threats which tend to force its own hand. It seems that the Israeli leaders have begun to believe their own manipulations to the effect that anything less than full scale aggression would damage their credibility and deterrent capacity. However, Israel’s ultimatum demand for a quiet and undisturbed occupation is as unrealistic as it is immoral. Thus, Israel beats the drums and builds tension that sets the stage for wide scale military action.

Wiser politicians would be honest enough to explain to their electorate that the law regarding the limitations of power is also operative regarding Israel, and there are certain types of occurrences that it cannot prevent, as long as the conflict goes on. Instead of acting with restraint, Israel begins declaiming the mantra that “no sovereign country can allow itself to tolerate such things.” Any time that the “empire” suffers indignity, even though the actual damage is minimal, it proceeds to feed media hysteria. Thus, Israel actually promotes initiatives such as kidnappings, and this is, of course, especially true regarding planning by any group whose political goal is served by undermining the present status quo.

Bush – Jerusalem – Beirut

It is indeed probable that Israel, carried away by an attack of self righteousness, has forgotten its main task in the region: to maintain a modicum of calm and normality in order to block developments that could harm the basic interests of the United States or Israel. Israel’s pretensions to maintain a “quiet occupation” without any challenges has hurled the region into a new round of war and destruction. Israel, quite clearly guilty of serious crimes against humanity by creating a major humanitarian crisis in Gaza in the south has gone on a campaign of aggression against Lebanon in the north.

In accordance with the norms of the “special relationship”, Washington has issued the obligatory condemnation of the Hezballa and cited the responsibility of the Syrians and the Iranians. At the same time, Washington has made every effort to ignore the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It is still not clear how the U.S. and Bush are involved in Israel’s recent escapades. Bush is, of course, up to his neck in Iraq. Though, we must countenance the possibility that there are some forces in Washington which might be playing with a monstrous scheme for a wider conflagration in the entire Middle East, it is too early to see the recent Israeli adventures as a prelude to a wider aggression and hard to believe that Washington is ready for all out confrontation with Iran and Syria.

Meanwhile, with Israel choking Lebanon and starving Gaza, it will be more and more difficult for (even) Bush to justify all this under the cynical caption of “Israel has the right to defend itself.” After all, Lebanon, now being pulverized by IDF bombs was supposed to be the U.S. star pupil in democratic transformation.

Israel has made its move: it demands that the world recognize its right to a deluxe, resistance free occupation or it will go to war. The international community will have to take a stand on this issue, sooner than later. At the heart of this crisis: the refusal of the international community to fulfill its duty to establish a just peace based on the creation of an independent, viable Palestinian state. History will not bypass this requirement.