Tag: gaza
When you are in a hole, stop digging
The world awaits retaliation against Israel for its assassinations last week. Both were relatively surgical affairs that killed the military commander of Lebanese Hizbollah in Beirut (as well as some women and children) and the political spokesman of Hamas in Tehran. Expectations for retaliation focus on a large missile and drone attack from all directions.
I doubt that. If successful, such a raid might mobilize the US to join Israel in a further escalation. That is something the Iranians don’t want.
It need not be an air raid
Israel has seemed invulnerable for decades. Its sophisticated air defenses have prevented thousands of missiles and drones from reaching population centers.
Iran and its partners might be better served to assassinate one or more major Israeli political or military figures. That would be a symmetrical response that some might argue does not justify further escalation. It would also strike fear into the hearts of every Jew in Israel. The only major Jewish figure murdered in modern Israel was Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin, killed by a Jew.
The Israelis have demonstrated that they can track and strike major figures in the capitals of their adversaries. Is it really possible that the “axis of resistance” has not developed a comparable capability inside Israel?
The capability need not necessarily be technologically sophisticated. Knives, guns, and grenades can be smuggled and murderers deployed or hired. Targets of opportunity should not be difficult to find in a small and relatively open society.
Iran has assets it doesn’t want to lose
The Iranians will decide. Hizbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis may have been relatively free to do what they wanted since October 7, but no doubt Tehran is now coordinating the retaliation.
Iran has reached nuclear threshold status. It is able to build a nuclear bomb within weeks with material in its possession. Prime Minister Netanyahu is looking for an excuse to damage that capability. In April, the Israelis demonstrated their ability to reach Iran’s nuclear facilities with drones that went undetected. Iran may want to hide its hand in the retaliation, mirroring Israel’s refusal to confirm its hand in the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran.
Netanyahu wins, Israel loses
A successful assassination or two, or a successful air raid, will put the Israelis again on the spot. President Biden has already made clear to Netanyahu that the US will not back further escalation. If Netanyahu pays heed, the cycle will end. If not, it will continue.
That said, Netanyahu has already accomplished several of his own goals. The Gaza talks can go nowhere until the escalation ends. He does not want the ceasefire/prisoner exchange that Washington is insisting on. The Democrats risk a major war during the election campaign, giving advantage to Trump, whom Netanyahu favors. The crisis will enable him to stay in power at least until October, when the Knesset returns from recess, and likely beyond.
Israel is the big loser. The ferocious October 7 attack was far from an existential threat, but Netanyahu and many Israelis have characterized it as such. That justified the ferocious response in Gaza that has in turn led to the assassinations and potential war with Iran and its partners. That really is an existential threat. When you are in a hole, stop digging.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The applause won’t echo for long
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress yesterday was in sharp contrast to President Biden’s brief address from the Oval Office. Biden said he sacrificed himself for the sake of his country. Netanyahu is ready to sacrifice his country for himself.
The unmerited applause
The Congress members present, who were mostly Republicans, reacted positively to Netanyahu’s presentation. They applauded at virtually every sentence. There was particular enthusiasm for his introduction of wounded Israeli soldiers, one of whom was Druze and one Muslim. They represent however a small fraction of the force, especially at the officer level.
More important are the ultra-orthodox who serve in the IDF. Netanyahu did not mention them. The US has threatened their Netzah Yehuda (Judah’s victory) battalion with sanctions for their behavior on the West Bank. The US has already sanctioned settlers there. The IDF record of accountability for war crimes is weak. Its “much-vaunted “fact-finding mechanism” results in precious few indictments.
Quite a few Democrats, including the Vice President, absented themselves from the speech. Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib held up a sign saying “war criminal.” Vermont Senator Sanders called Netanyahu a war criminal in advance of his speech:
Other things Netanyahu omitted
The Prime Minister neglected to mention other important things:
- His own responsibility for the intelligence and security lapses on October 7.
- The Israel Defense Forces have freed few hostages in rescue operations.
- The hostages freed so far have overwhelmingly been freed in negotiated exchanges with Hamas.
- A ceasefire is needed to enable further exchanges of hostages and prisoners.
- The majority of Israelis support a ceasefire and exchange.
- They also want Netanyahu out. He continues the war in order to prevent that.
- First-hand accounts of the IDF targeting of children and civilians in Gaza.
- Settler violence, supported by the IDF, in the West Bank against Palestinians.
- The expanding war with Lebanese Hizbollah in the north and Yemeni Houthis in the South.
- Iran becoming a nuclear threshold state because of Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal.
Yes, the Hamas attack was barbarous
I can agree with Netanyahu that the October 7 Hamas attack was barbarous. But Israel’s response has not been civilized. It has been excessive and ineffective. That is a particularly bad combination. Israelis know this and want him out. Most Americans also have little or no confidence in Netanyahu. The applause in Congress won’t echo for long.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
How the Democrats will win
How the Democrats will win
I am a registered Democrat. Unlike most of the media and virtually all Republicans, I believe the Democrats can and will win. This is how they will do it:
- Biden will withdraw as a candidate. Campaign contributions will balloon.
- The convention will enthusiastically select a new candidate, most likely Kamala Harris.
- She will choose as her vice president one of the younger Dems with a national security track record.
- Both will run on Biden’s economic and political record and against Trump’s unpopular platform. Or if you want the official version.
- Biden will campaign for her energetically in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
- She campaign nationally but focus extra attention on Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona.
- The Democratic Party will produce a first-rate get-out-the-vote campaign drawing on younger voters.
Every step will be fraught with peril, but it is doable. Ukraine and Gaza may haunt the candidate, but rarely does foreign policy decide an American election.
Biden has succeeded…
Ultimately the merits weigh heavily in favor of the Democrats. The economy is doing at least as well as under Trump. Energy production and exports are way up. Consumption and imports are happily down.
The only real demerit is persistent inflation, which is slowing. It could still reach the 2% target sometime in the fall. Unemployment is up from historic lows due to the Fed’s anti-inflation rate increases, but employment growth is still healthy. Despite Trump’s opposition, Congress is providing ample assistance to American science and industry, green technology, and Ukraine. Contrary to Trump’s assertions, violent crime is declining. So too is illegal immigration, due to Biden Administration action that may not hold up in court.
…Trump will not
Biden took action because the Republicans blocked legislation to better control the border. Many of them want to ban abortion and in vitro fertilization countrywide. Trump has said he intends to deport tens of millions of immigrants and fire tens of thousands of civil servants. Neither is feasible or desirable. Republicans defend the January 6 rioters. Two-thirds even want them pardoned. Trump is intending to give more tax breaks to rich Americans while raising taxes (via across-the-board tariffs) on people who spend rather than invest. That’s why some rich Silicon Valley types are supporting him:
Day Two
Trump has vowed to be a dictator on Day One. You don’t have to ask how he will govern on Day Two if he allowed that opportunity. Only someone prepared to ignore the will of the people would run on the Republican platform. Even after the disastrous debate and the controversy surrounding his competence since, Biden is no more than a couple of points behind Trump. Once the Biden cloud has passed, the sun will shine.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Harris would be a solid candidate
I thought everything that could be said about President Biden’s poor debate performance last week had been said. Until I read my son Adam’s call for Biden to resign now. Caveat emptor: I’m his father. But he makes the case well. If Biden is too old to debate effectively, he is too old to govern. And his yielding the presidency to Vice President Harris would help her to gain traction after a late start. Her polling is already about as good as Biden’s, and incumbency would give her additional advantages.
A constitutional glitch
The glitch in this scheme is the 25th amendment to the US constitution. It requires a majority of both Houses of Congress to confirm nomination of a Vice President before s/he takes office. This looks doable in the Senate, where the Democrats have a slim majority.
But in the House of Representatives the Republicans have a slim majority. We can hope that at least a few Republicans would vote to confirm. But if they don’t Harris would presumably remain in the Presidency as “Acting” for a few months. Otherwise there is a real risk of discontinuity at the apex of the US government. That would not benefit no one.*
Harris’ record
As a California Senator, Harris voted the same way as Bernie Sanders 93% of the time. That puts her on the Democratic left. But prior to that she spent decades as a tough-on-crime prosecutor, albeit one who increasingly opposed charging minor crimes. As Vice President, she has been leading on reproductive rights, voting rights, and the southern border. None of those issues has provided triumphs, but her positions on them will solidify Democratic support. Republican criticism will be especially focused on southern border issues. The Republicans are trying to duck on abortion and voting rights, both of which they oppose.
Harris has also racked up more tie-breaking votes in the Senate than any other vice president in American history. That is more a reflection of the slim Democratic majority than any vice or virtue on her part. But it also means that her experience in Congress is longer than the four years she served as a Senator. And watching Joe Biden work the Hill since 2021 is excellent training.
Harris’ virtues
Harris has a lot of electoral virtues. She is clear-headed and would make mincemeat of Donald Trump in a debate. She is both Black (Jamaican) and Indian (Tamil Nadu) by parentage, married to a Jewish Second Gentleman. At 59 she looks considerably younger. She is a graduate of Howard University, a leading Black institution of higher learning in the US.
Shoring up Black support is an important Democratic objective for November. Harris will have an advantage in doing that. She is also a Californian, but that won’t help as its electoral votes a virtual certainty for the Democrats.
Foreign policy won’t weigh heavily in this election. But Harris was relatively early in calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. That could help her with Arab Americans. Their votes in Michigan and a few other states could be decisive. She has been stalwart and blunt in supporting Ukraine:
She stood in for Biden at Ukraine’s recent Peace Summit.
For my Balkan readers: there is no way Harris would support ethnic nationalist proposals for segregation by means of moving borders in the Balkans. I imagine the current Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Jim O’Brien, would remain in place in a Harris administration.
Bottom line
There are still four months before the election. Harris would have immediate access to the resources of the Biden/Harris campaign. She could credibly take credit for the good things Biden has done, including on climate change, student loans, countering inflation, and job creation. Democrats could rally around her faster and easier than around one of the many other admittedly qualified aspirants. Harris is not a shoo-in, but she would be a solid candidate.
*This is wrong. I misread the 25th Amendment. The Vice President would become President on Biden’s resignation. It is a new Vice President who would have to be confirmed in Congress.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Why a negotiated Gaza peace isn’t happening
Israel has been backing away from the Gaza peace plan the Americans say it proposed. After indicating it welcomed the proposal, Hamas is asking for major changes. Here are the good reasons why a negotiated peace in Gaza is not possible right now:
- No mutually hurting stalemate.
- No mutually enticing way out.
- No guarantee of post-settlement security for the belligerents.
Any of these factors might change. But for now all the usual pre-conditions for a successful negotiation are missing.
No mutually hurting stalemate
Neither Hamas nor Israel is hurting enough to prefer negotiations over continued fighting. Military leader Yahya Sinwar thinks civilian casualties help Hamas. He is prepared to continue fighting, as he believes he has the Israelis where he wants them. Israeli officials are letting everyone know the war might last until the end of this year. Prime Minister Netanyahu figures that will postpone an Israeli election that might bring down his government. He imagines an election only after he can claim credit for a complete Israeli victory.
There isn’t even a stalemate. The Israelis are continuing their offensive into Rafah. Hamas is resorting to guerilla tactics in several parts of Gaza. The military situation is still dynamic. It is far from the kind of stasis that would convince belligerents think they can gain more from talking than fighting.
No mutually enticing way out
Even if there were a mutually hurting stalemate, it is hard to imagine a mutually enticing way out that could convince the belligerents to try to negotiate a deal. Israel wants to destroy Hamas’ military and governing capabilities. Hamas might give up the governing role, but it cannot give up its military capability without surrendering completely. Hamas wants to destroy Israel. No one in Jerusalem will agree to that.
Hamas and Israel did live side by side since 2007, albeit with repeated attacks and small wars (compared to the current one). But going back to that from the current situation seems impossible. Hamas isn’t going to trust Israel to leave it alone. Israel isn’t going to trust Hamas to leave the Jewish state alone.
No guarantee of post-settlement security for the belligerents
The only way to square that circle is with outside military and police forces committed to keeping the peace. Tens of thousands would be required. The 4000 police would need to be Arabic-speaking. The 32,000 soldiers would need to be well-equipped and trained. These would need to operate in coordination with 7500 local troops and 4500 local police. Where do you get those in Gaza? Wouldn’t any you find there likely be Hamas-affiliated, one way or the other? The Palestinian Authority has fewer than 10,000 police in the West Bank. What percentage of those could be moved to Gaza?
These are among the issues Tony Blinken is criss-crossing the Middle East to discuss. The Gulfies will likely be willing to write checks, but will the Saudis, Qataris, or Emiratis be putting thousands of their police and soldiers into Gaza? The Egyptians won’t want to either. They controlled Gaza until 1967 and were glad to give it up. They don’t want to re-acquire it.
Scholarship demonstrates that belligerents won’t want to negotiate a settlement that spells doom to themselves. Both Israel and Hamas have reason to fear a settlement without a heavy enforcement presence would do just that.
Wishing Tony Blinken well
I do hope Tony Blinken succeeds, despite the odds. But the circumstances suggest he won’t. The Hamas/Israel war seems destined to continue without a negotiated settlement, until there is a mutually hurting stalemate, a mutually enticing way out, and security for whatever remains of the belligerents. Nothing less will allow a successful negotiation.
Victory by one side or the other is still a possibility. But not one likely to happen soon.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What’s missing from the Gaza peace plan
The Israeli proposal for “General Principles for an agreement between the Israeli side and the Palestinian side in Gaza on the exchange of hostages and prisoners and restoring a sustainable calm” in Gaza seems stalled, despite President Biden’s concerted efforts. What are its prospects?
Security, security, security
In real estate, it’s all about location, location, location. In post-war stabilization and reconstruction, it’s all about security, security, security.
The first security concern is that of the belligerents. They won’t agree to an end to the fighting if they think their own security will be at greater risk. This is especially true in the current case, as Israel has vowed to eliminate Hamas and Hamas’ strategic goal is the elimination of Israel. If Israel is responsible for security in Gaza after the ceasefire, Hamas has good reason to fear the Israel Defense Force will continue to target it, especially its leaders.
The second security concern focuses on civilians. The international community should not be interested in a ceasefire that fails to improve conditions for non-Hamas affiliated Gazans. They need not only to be housed and fed but also protected from gangs and chaos. That requires some sort of police force and rudimentary justice system. Without them, civilians have no recourse when a guy with a gun steals their food, water, shelter, and property.
The third security concern is the region. If war ends in Gaza only to start up between Lebanese Hizbollah and Israel, the Middle East will have gained little. The broader war the region has long feared is already brewing. Iran’s allies and proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria have all been attacking Israel. The missile and drone tit for tat between Iran and Israel in April suggested what a broader war might entail.
The gaping hole in the draft agreement
The peace plan lacks provisions for the first two categories of security. It details the time lines for hostage/prisoner exchanges, withdrawal of Israeli forces, humanitarian relief, return of Gazans to the north, and other requirements. But it refers only vaguely to Egypt, Qatar, and the US as “guarantors” of the agreement. That means little if it doesn’t include provision of security, or at least a leadership role in doing so.
But it is hard to see what those three countries can realistically do about security. Whoever does that will need to speak Arabic. The US has individuals but no military or police units who speak Arabic. Qatar’s army has fewer than 12,000 soldiers. It is hard to picture Doha providing more than 10% to a peacekeeping presence in Gaza. It is much more likely to write the necessary checks. Egypt has many more soldiers, but Cairo does not want to deploy troops in Gaza, for fear of ending up in charge there, as it was until 1967.
Using Jim Dobbins’ numbers for a heavy peace enforcement operation, Gaza would require something like 32,000 troops and 4000 police, in addition to 7500 local troops and 5500 local police. As the available local forces in Gaza would be mostly Hamas-affiliated, which Israel will not allow, the international presence will have to be beefed up accordingly.
I just don’t see how to fill that gaping hole. Are the Saudis, Emiratis, and Kuwaitis going to deploy large parts of their armies to Gaza?
The other security requirement
The third security requirement is the regional one. This need not be in the plan, but it has to be real. The US has worked hard to prevent the wider regional war, but Israel and some of Iran’s friends seem increasingly eager for one. Israel wants to move Hizbollah back from its border so that tens of thousands of civilians can return to their homes in the north. The Houthis want to demonstrate their importance in the region and gain additional aid from Iran.
The Iranians will elect a new president June 28. The Supreme Leader will retain control of foreign and security policy. But that election will likely provide some indication of the direction Tehran wants to take in the future. If the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has its way, which seems likely, the regional situation could deteriorate quickly.
Prove me wrong
I’ll be glad to be wrong. I hope this peace plan succeeds. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
RSS - Posts
