The aftermath of the Gaza war

Some perspectives on the aftermath of the current Gaza war:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21610312-pummelling-gaza-has-cost-israel-sympathy-not-just-europe-also-among-americans?fsrc=email_to_a_friend
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14552

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.