War, when practised by Israel, is frequently seen as having paradoxical consequences. The more often it inflicts damage and defeat on its enemies the stronger they are held to become. Never mind that Egypt and Jordan long since grew sick of defeat and signed peace treaties with the Jewish state, never mind that Syria, with the partial exception of the First Lebanon War, hasn’t risked a direct confrontation with Israel since 1973 and never mind that part of the leadership of the Palestinians accepts Israel´s existence; victory is still seen as making Israel weak and its enemies strong.
This logic was applied with particular vigor to the Gaza Campaign. It was condemned as being militarily and politically counter-productive and bound to strengthen the hand of Hamas, an organization whose behavior could not be changed by force but only by negotiation.
Now think about all that and consider this:
When Israel withdrew [ from Gaza ] in January, leaving 1,387 Gazans dead (according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem), thousands homeless, and factories, schools, and infrastructure smashed, Hamas hailed its survival as a great victory. But Israel imposed its own terms, forcing Hamas to quietly drop demands that Israel lift the blockade before Hamas stopped lobbing rockets at the Jewish state. While the range of Hamas’s rockets has increased from fifteen to forty kilometers, bringing Tel Aviv suburbs within reach, Hamas has, since the end of the Israeli incursion, fired rockets rarely if ever, and restrained Islamist rivals, such as Islamic Jihad, from doing the same. Between March 17 and September 22 Gazans fired some eighteen short-range rockets without loss of life. Israel has responded with incursions and sometimes fatal bombings. In effect, Hamas now acts as Israel’s border guard, preventing further attacks.
It’s from this assessment of Hamas rule in Gaza. Note that while the article as a whole is scrupulously fair to Hamas and contains much information that ought to give Israel pause for thought about the consequences of its policies for ordinary Gazans, it provides no support for the view that the use of force by Israel against its enemies will always end up strengthening them and weakening it.
Now it might be argued that the relative quiet in the south of Israel and, for that matter, the north, is only a transient phenomenon and that as the root cause, as it’s called, of the conflict hasn’t been addressed then things could turn bad again at some point. This is true. It’s not possible to predict the future with much accuracy. What does seem to be the case is that Israel’s deterrent power is, at least for the time being, in pretty good shape. So, long live the Dahiya doctrine, a doctrine of deterrence and, therefore, a peace doctrine.
Excellent post, Eamonn.
“Never mind that Egypt and Jordan long since grew sick of defeat and signed peace treaties with the Jewish state, never mind that Syria, with the partial exception of the First Lebanon War, hasn’t risked a direct confrontation with Israel since 1973 and never mind that part of the leadership of the Palestinians accepts Israel´s existence; victory is still seen as making Israel weak and its enemies strong.”
I would also add that the massive destruction of Germany and Japan during WW2 have turned two war like nations into pacific ones.
“I would also add that the massive destruction of Germany and Japan during WW2 have turned two war like nations into pacific ones.”
Would you recommend the same treatment for Israeli aggression?
“Never mind that Egypt and Jordan long since grew sick of defeat and signed peace treaties with the Jewish state, never mind that Syria, with the partial exception of the First Lebanon War, hasn’t risked a direct confrontation with Israel since 1973 and never mind that part of the leadership of the Palestinians accepts Israel´s existence; victory is still seen as making Israel weak and its enemies strong.”
Do you guys come from the same planet? Peace treaties were signed after the war and the pressure made by the Arab countries on the oil Market. Your war logic is taking you nowhere.
kitty “Would you recommend the same treatment for Israeli aggression?”
You obviously would, since you can’t tell the difference between aggression (being attacked by Arab armies in (1948, 1967, and 1973) as well as by Arab supported Arab terrorism since 1947, and a people trying to defend itself against another promised Genocide.
A Morsi “Do you guys come from the same planet?”
Probably not since you say:
“Peace treaties were signed after the war and the pressure made by the Arab countries on the oil Market.”
You are probably talking about the war of 73. If this is the case then you are completely off about what created the condition for a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.
The oil embargo had little or nothing to do with it since Egypt was ostracized by the Arab world after it signed a peace agreement.
What created the condition for such an agreement was, first the defeat of 73, and second Sadat’s desire to break his country’s dependence on the Soviet Union. IN any case the embargo took place in 73 and the peace accord wasn’t signed till 1979.
“Your war logic is taking you nowhere.”
It’s not Eamonn who got the historical facts wrong, Morsi.
Having personally seen what Israeli bombs did to Dahiya a year later and having also seen what Israeli bombs did to the Fakhani section of Beirut in their 1982 war on Lebanon, I can only say to those Israelis and their supporters who support such crimes of war and against humanity, what goes around comes around. It is not just the Palestinians that have been zionism’s victims but the people of Lebanon, as well. And they haven’t either forgotten or forgiven.
Just so readers know, the Jeff who wrote the comment above is Jeffrey Blankfort, one of the more, shall we say, eccentric anti-Zionists in America. He is a fervent believer in the doctrine that Zionists control America and he does things like counting the number of Jews in Congress. And if his comment is anything to go by, he is now fantasizing about the violent elimination of the State of Israel and its population.
Our readers like to engage in debate and we encourage that. And if anyone out there wants to argue with Jeff, go ahead. My own view is that, when it comes to folk like this, it ain’t worth it - if you want to get a flavor of the kind of company Jeff keeps, have a look at http://www.marwenmedia.com/, a site which manages to be both laughable and nauseating. There is a good deal of dreck coming to Z Word by way of Mondoweiss - note that Morsi dutifully follows his master’s stunningly original formulation, asking us whether we come from the “same planet” - which probably explains why some of the comments above are big on heat and woefully short on light.
I don’t know who Jeff Blankfort is but from his post I would guess that it would be a waste of my time to answer his simplistic message.
As for Philip Weiss, there is something insane with a “Jewish” blogger who defends Patrick Buchanan against charges of antisemitism (he writes anti Israel columns for Buchanan’s online magazine)
http://www.amconmag.com/search.html?v&m=2&search=philip+weiss&start=0&end=25
and is quoted by stormfront (the pro Nazi website):
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=540611&page=2
and here
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=6093346#post6093346
Philip Weiss has written that all Jews should assimilate at the New York Observer (before he was fired from that magazine) and believes erroneously that Norman Mailer “assimilated” (gave up being Jewish) and should not be considered a Jewish writer.
I don’t know if Philip Weiss is an antisemite but he certainly loves the company of antisemites.
This is a policy I have long advocated. It seems that the majority of Gazans willingly voted for a party dedicated to genocide.
Thanks for the info about Blankfort, Ben. Also, thanks to Jacob for noting that Weiss (who I am familiar with), actually has penned pieces in Buchanan’s paleoconservative rag.
I’m also quite familiar with Adam Horowitz at Mondoweiss. Horowitz, in his role with Amer Friends Service Committee, organized a Sabeel Conference, where the likes of Jeff Halper and Marc Ellis waxed poetically about how Israel is really no different from Nazi Germany. And, Halper, at that same Sabeel Conf, refused, when asked, to condemn terrorist attacks on Israeli children as young as 4. (I was there monitoring the event) The ‘’socialism of fools” doesn’t begin to describe it.
Israel has gone to a lot of trouble trying to persuade the world that it’s a “Light unto nations”. It used to have a certain amount of success. But boasts of operating the “Dahiya doctrine” (and threatening Gaza with a Shoa) make Israel look more and more like a pariah nation.