Sorry for the long commentary below. It just kinda snowballed and I thought these articles made a lot of interesting points.
As before, sentiment in Europe is generally more
anti-Israel than in America. This is possibly driven by the larger
Muslim populations in the EU, as well as those gov'ts more dovish
politics vs. America's. However, the pro-Israel camp is chalking this up
to deeply-rooted European anti-Semitism (affecting as many as 165MM
Europeans according to some of their think tanks - but then again, when
you are a hammer, you see nails everywhere). Strange that the
"anti-Semitism" only rears its ugly head when the IDF murders scores of
Palestinian kids. I guess they only come out when the liberal, pro-Hamas
media incite them? Obviously that is ridiculous, and I think most
Europeans don't have a problem with Israel (or worldwide Jewry) when
that country isn't breaking laws and hurting people. Unfortunately,
there has been some real anti-Semitism too. I am not sure about the
death/damage from hate crimes, but some Jewish establishments in the EU
have closed as a precaution until the war blows over. Still, some
hateful words at an overseas rally is different than a modern military
destroying lives and property of poor people, and not compensating them
for it (as usual, the international community will pay the tab of Gaza
rebuilding - only to be leveled again in the next war).
Globescan took an average of 20 countries'
opinions on whether certain nations had overall positive or negative
influences on the world. GER, CAN, and UK lead the pack with about a 3:1
ratio of positive-to-negative. US and China are similar at 1:1 (way to
be a zero, USA! USA!). Israel is in between Russia and N Korea, at about
1:2 negative (however they can still gloat that they are better than
Iran, at over 1:3 negative). I know opinion polls have limited value,
and I don't know how they selected respondents, but this seems to
suggest that world opinion is generally negative on Israel.
Hamas/Palestine was not part of the survey, but I can imagine their
rating would be pretty low too. Israel might chalk this up to ignorance
or anti-Semitism again, but this survey was about a country's impact on
the world, and more Jews live outside of Israel than within it. I think
it's a reflection of gov't policies.
In the US, non-Republicans and Americans under
50 tend to evaluate Israel's actions in Gaza as unjustified, while
older folks and Republicans (who tend to be Evangelicals) take the
opposite view. Regarding age, this is likely influenced by memory -
folks over 50 may actually remember the Arab-Israeli wars (when it was
an old-fashioned army vs. army fight, not occupying bully vs. poor
resistor). So that clouds their perception of the current conflict, and
like Fox News, they may only see Israel as the innocent victim
surrounded by strong, evil enemies. This is likely how the Tel Aviv
propaganda machine wants us to feel, even if it's incompatible with
current realities.
The West is also seeing Israel become less Western. The
Economist says that this could be driven by the 1990s influx of 1MM
Eastern European Jews who were less educated than previous waves of
emigres, and not accustomed to democracy and Western thinking (they may
have lived under the Soviet regime). They are part of the "might makes
right" camp, and may be more accepting of brutality to ensure a strong,
secure Jewish State. This has manifested itself in internal media
censorship, marginalization of the peace movement, more racism toward
Palestinians, and possibly the rise of Likud over Kadima a few years
ago. The West may have less in common culturally with Israel now,
thereby reducing the likelihood that we will agree on policies,
priorities, and tactics. Maybe that is why many in the West are outraged
about the civilian casualties and expect the IDF to hold themselves to
higher standards than that. Whereas the Israelis may take it less
seriously, or prefer to focus on Hamas' role in the casualties - whether
accurate or not (stop using them as human shields, if you didn't fire
rockets we wouldn't have to invade in the first place, they don't accept
our right to exist, etc.). Still, allies don't have to totally
understand each other to have a fruitful relationship. However, what has
the West really gotten out of its relations and investments in Israel?
Israel would say that they are the front lines of the War on Terror
(similar to Pakistan, but the difference is we fully acknowledge the
problems associated with our partnership with Pakistan), and they keep
madmen like Assad and Ahmadinejad in check. I don't buy that, because
Sunni nations in the area can fill that role if Israel wasn't involved
(and they would likely do it less belligerently). Israel obviously
contributes a lot of good to the world in terms of science, commerce,
and human capital - but I seriously question their value to US
strategy/interests in the region (esp. for the price tag - both
financial and perceptual).
Israel could be reacting to this souring Western
sentiment in 2 ways, both of which are not helpful for the future. (1)
If Europe and younger, non-Republican Americans are so anti-Semitic, we
won't be able to count on them when times get tough. Therefore, let's
just do what we want and not care about their opinions. Pro-Israel
lobbying will make sure US aid will still flow and we'll prevail. (2) We
need a PR offensive in the West. To counter all the pro-Palestinian
lying voices on social media, let's shout louder and re-hash the IDF's
talking points. Westerners are just being deceived; let's show them the
truth.
Re: (1), it's never a good thing when a state is accountable
to no one. It's not that Israel isn't reliant on other nations (not
necessarily for survival, but they are not immune to sanctions either),
but those partners are unlikely to administer the tough love if Israel
oversteps its bounds. Or in other words, people may rather let
Arabs/Palestinians suffer than dealing with the costs of disciplining
Israel. Re: (2), it's sometime true that many people will believe a huge
lie, but usually the public can sniff out BS. I say this time and time
again, but if your side is so right, why do you need to bend over
backward to convince people? It should be self-evident. Like no matter
how many millions the Chinese spend on PR and what defaming things they
say about the Dalai Lama, I think very few non-Chinese will side with
them on the Tibet issue.
---
Regarding the fragile ceasefire now and potential
peace resolution, Norman Finkelstein (the DN link) has an interesting,
and disconcerting take. The vast majority of Israelis support actions
like the current Gaza war (because they feel it makes them safer, costs
them little, and hurts their sworn enemy), and are not that serious
about working hard for a two-state solution (little to gain from their
perspective and potentially a lot to lose in terms of national
pride/Zionism and security). Unfortunately, their history in Gaza has
only reinforced this. After Sharon pulled the settlers out, Hamas took
over and the rockets started to rain down. Israel was "forced" to invade
at least 3 times. Maybe some in Israel feel that it was better when
they outright controlled Gaza (now they are more like prison guards). So
the land-for-peace model seemed to fall on its face, and Israelis may
have less faith in it for the future.
So re: Gaza, some refer to it as "mowing the lawn." Every now and
then, they have to blow stuff up, to keep them off balance for the next
time Israel "has to" invade. So this current invasion is not about the 3
Israeli teens, not about the rockets, and not about the tunnels
supposedly infiltrating Israel proper (you see how the gov't changed its
premise for war mid-stream just like the Bushies?). Regarding the
teens, there is no proof that Hamas was behind that, and some new
evidence suggests the contrary. That was a tragedy, but not
justification for a war. Regarding the rockets, the new Egyptian regime
(that took over after Mubarak) destroyed most of the smuggling tunnels
on that border, so it is very unlikely that Hamas is well stocked or
equipped with newer "super rockets" from Iran that are supposedly
deadlier. Regarding the tunnels into Israel - a tunnel has 2 openings,
right? Why go through the effort of invading Gaza and killing thousands
when Israel can just destroy the tunnel openings on their side any time
they want (if such tunnels exist)? Also, attacking hospitals and a power
plant have nothing to do with those stated goals. So this war is more
and more looking like just mowing the lawn. They learned their lesson
from the problemating Lebanon invasion. They don't want Hamas to
"fortify" Gaza and make it harder for them if a serious invasion becomes
necessary. Hamas is a lot weaker than Hezbollah, but they have been
building tunnels and defenses within Gaza. That could help explain why
the IDF death toll this year was around 60 soldiers, vs. 10 in their
2008 Cast Lead invasion. But they have spent this month destroying all
that Hamas stuff. So clearly Gaza is not "independent" if Israel has
this level of destructive influence on a whim.
Finkelstein thinks that the ceasefire will hold because Israel
has finished mowing the lawn for now. Israel ends an invasion when (a)
their objectives are met or (b) there are no more targets to attack
except ones that would involve an unacceptable level of civilian or IDF
deaths. Even the IDF realizes that if they went deeper into the most
populated areas of Gaza, the death toll could be 5-10X higher, and then
they might have real issues with the int'l community. Also, if they
press on, they risk losing more soldiers - and being a conscript army,
the Israeli public is very sensitive to losses. That's why they bomb
targets to hell (in spite of collateral damage) before they put boots on
the ground. But still, no more targets are available in Gaza without
incurring higher risks. He also predicts that Hamas will agree to peace
with the conditions that the blockade is lifted and Fatah polices the
border crossings. That would essentially neutralize Hamas' ability to
put up any meaningful resistance in the future, and I am not sure how
many functional rockets/ammo they still have in storage. So in a sense,
this lawn mowing strategy has worked for Israel. The rockets and small
IDF losses were minor annoyances, but they eventually may get Hamas to
disarm and fade out of relevance. If that plays out, it would set a
scary precedent for Israel and other occupying powers. Take the
hard-line approach but blame the resistance for the violence. You have
the resources and staying power, so keep the pressure on and starve the
resistance into irrelevance. This is pretty much what Syria, Sudan, and
Russia did/are doing. So no one has to make a deal or make concessions
for peace, you can beat the resistance into submission.
