Big bang or chaos: What's Israel up to?

[subsuelo]

Why did Israel attack Gaza with such brutality? Did Israeli officials think, even for a fleeting moment, that their army's attacks could halt, as opposed to intensify, Palestinian rockets or retaliatory violence? Indeed, was Palestinian violence at all relevant to the Israeli action? Was the Israeli bloodletting in Gaza solely relevant to the Gaza/Hamas context, or is there a regional dimension that is largely being overlooked?

There are two lines of military logic that Israel resorts to. One is motivated by the "chaos theory", the idea that seemingly minor events accumulate to have complex and massive effects on dynamic natural systems. For example, Gaza might have been attacked with the hope of provoking a streak of suicide bombings that would eventually be blamed on Syrian planning and Iranian financing - thus provoking a major showdown in Lebanon. The history of Israeli-Arab conflicts demonstrates how many major invasions are justified by seemingly irrelevant events, such as the 1982 Lebanon War.

But is Israel capable of sustaining another conflict in Lebanon after its miserable - and costly - failure in July-August 2006?

That's when the US becomes even more relevant. Just as Israeli attacks occupied major headlines around the world, the USS Cole and two additional ships - including one amphibious assault vessel - were quietly making their way from Malta to the shores of Lebanon. The ships were dispatched as a "show of support for regional stability", according to US Navy officials.

With the gung-ho George W Bush administration's time in office coming to an end and waning public enthusiasm for war against Iran, Israel cannot afford allowing the regional setup to be stacked in the following way: Hezbollah dominating south Lebanon, Hamas dominating Gaza and Iran becoming an increasingly formidable regional power.

This leads to the other line of Israeli military logic, the "big bang" theory. The self-explanatory logic of this theory is applicable in the sense that a regional war - accompanied by mini civil wars in Palestine and Lebanon, along with other attempts at destabilizing Iran and Syria - could work in Israel's favor.

...The facts - as demonstrated by the US-Israeli role in the turmoil in Lebanon, the consistent attempt to arraign Iran, and the Israeli provocations and bombings in Syria - all indicate that Israel's plans are regional, with Gaza being a testing ground, and the least costly target to isolate and brutalize. Already a massive concentration camp with a largely starving population, Gaza has provided Israel with a perfect opportunity to start sending stern messages to the other players in the region.

Asia Times

[leveymg]

1. And, it could just be that this is another self-defeating policy built on flawed assumptions about

Israel's own power and relationship with the U.S.

What Israel got away with in Lebanon during 1983, they couldn't repeat in 2006. What the U.S. might be goaded into in 2003 in Iraq, we sure as hell aren't going to try again against Iran in 2008.

It's as if Likud/Kadima are stuck in a self-destroying Boolean logic loop, which they are doomed to repeat and repeat and repeat with declining returns and growing costs to themselves.

If there's another war anytime soon, they'll lose, because the U.S. won't help them next time. The only winning war-fighting strategy for Israel is to not start one.

Chaos just leads to worse chaos. Big-bangs just blow up the bangers.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. Makes one wonder about their long term goal, doesn't it? nt

[leveymg]

4. Collective suicide is my first thought.

But, it's probably more a matter of Israel being stuck in a self-destructive strategy by an internal politics that's deadlocked by factions that don't have fundamental differences and insufficient incentives to change.

For the U.S. to expect that Israel is going to snap out it, and start dealing realistically with its neighbors, is like a parent expecting an addicted child to go straight while they continue to let him live in an opium den with an unlimited credit card. Who should one blame?

The parents have their own problems to work out. Time for an intervention by the rest of the family.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. Well, aren't you a breath of fresh air in the I/P forum!

I hope to see you around more often!

[leveymg]

6. I'm an addict's worst nightmare.

An uncle who cares enough to talk the parents into cutting off the credit cards and force the kid into rehab.

(And, I might add in case anyone misunderstands, a recovering addict's best friend.)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. Every intervention needs one!

[leveymg]

8. Glad you understand.

Shalom, Salam.

[Phx_Dem]

13. Snap out of it?

Like snap out of it and sign the peace deal that the Palestinians are offering? What peace offer?

Snap out of it and sign a peace deal with Syria? What peace offer?

Snap out of it and sign a peace agreement with Hizbullah? What peace offer?

Snap out of it and sign a peace agreement with Lebanon? What peace offer?

Your post it so one-sided it's silly.

[bemildred]

15. Google is your friend:

Only takes a minute or two.

Poll: 58 percent back accepting Syrian offer

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3332877,00.html

The Arab Peace Initiative

http://www.jordanembassyus.org/arab_initiative.htm

Israel Rejects Peace Offer
Hezbollah signs on to Lebanon's proposal for a cease-fire and prisoner swap, but disarmament is not included. The pace of diplomacy quickens.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/62/21470

Lot's more for the interested. Just google "xxxx peace offer" and see.

[Phx_Dem]

18. Countries that genuinely want peace with Israel

have found Israel to be receptive. You know like Egypt and Jordan.

[bemildred]

20. Some countries, some times. Other countries and other times, not so much. nt

[LeftishBrit]

14. Couldn't one also say:

'But, it's probably more a matter of Gaza being stuck in a self-destructive strategy by an internal politics that's deadlocked by factions that don't have fundamental differences and insufficient incentives to change.'

'But, it's probably more a matter of America being stuck in a self-destructive strategy by an internal politics that's deadlocked by factions that don't have fundamental differences and insufficient incentives to change.'

'But, it's probably more a matter of Britain being stuck in a self-destructive strategy by an internal politics that's deadlocked by factions that don't have fundamental differences and insufficient incentives to change.'

'But, it's probably more a matter of Iran being stuck in a self-destructive strategy by an internal politics that's deadlocked by factions that don't have fundamental differences and insufficient incentives to change.'

'But, it's probably more a matter of Russia being stuck in a self-destructive strategy by an internal politics that's deadlocked by factions that don't have fundamental differences and insufficient incentives to change.'

And so ad infinitum. Most countries have self-destructive policies and are badly influenced by their internal politics. Israel's hardly unique - or even as severe an example as some I could mention.

And one thing that is definitely NOT true with regard to your paragraph about Israel, is the idea that the 'factions.. don't have fundamental differences'. You think there's no fundamental difference between Likud and Meretz, or even between different factions of the ILP? No fundamental difference between Peace Now and the extreme fringes of the settler movement?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. Except Peace Now isn't a political party. Is there a fundamental difference in occupation policy

between Labor and Likud? Any of them and Kadima?

[leveymg]

24. Yes. Israel is a pretty severe example of political deadlock.

As for the fundamental differences, not so much between the major parties over foreign policy. The Peace Camp is not in a position to lead a government or make key foreign policy decisions (not suggesting Israeli politics is monolithic, just deadlocked between the cebter-right and far-right, if Olmert and Peres can be said to be the two polls that define the center).

I am not aware that any of the six major parties polling more than 7% wants to ceed over all or even the greater part of the West Bank. None of them seemed all that upset about the Lebanon incursion, at the beginning. All of them were pretty well outraged afterwards.

Even within Peace Now and Meretz, there was a split opinion at the beginning over the Lebanese incursion, as Prof. Galia Golan of Peace Now explained in July 2006: http://www.boell.org.il/en/web/356.html

"In the executive of Meretz and the executive of Peace Now you have the same situation. There is a division of opinion on whether the war should have been started or not and when and how it should be stopped."

Not suggesting Israeli politics is uniquely deadlocked, just extremely so.

[pelsar]

25. you confuse deadlock....

with a general consensus......center left...center..center right

[leveymg]

26. Allow me to clarify. It's a consensus that assures a continued foreign policy deadlock

No, um, I don't think I'm confused about that. There's a lot I don't know about Israeli politics, but I believe I got that part right.

IMHO, until that consensus changes, I doubt there can be an end to the external deadlock. That change needs to include general acceptance by the Israeli public, as well as any particular government, of a wider regional deal, one which Israel has to be party to.

Without a grand bargain -- including, at minimum, the US, Israel, Iran, Iraq, KSA, the Emirates, Syria, Turkey, the Kurds (let's not forget Russia, the EEU and China) -- there can't really even be a reasonable basis for conclusion of the Iraq occupation, something which Washington desperately will seek next year. It would be in Israel's interest to be a transparent and conciliatory leader rather than a lagger, or worse obstruction, to that process.

What incentive is it going to take to shift the political concensus within Israel toward accepting giving up most of the West Bank as part of a larger settlement? What would be an acceptable security guarantee or economic inducement? Obviously, George Tenet's services were inadequate the last time around.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

2. Interesting analysis.

The regional arab press surely connected the presence of US naval ships with Israel's incursion, and their inhibiting effect on Hezbollah.

[azurnoir]

12. Would Hezbollah really have come to aid of Hamas?

My feeling is that Nasrallah can see the "bigger" picture.

[bemildred]

19. Maybe, but not a slam dunk.

They do cooperate, e.g. Hamas did try to take pressure off Hezbullah in the Second Lebanon War, but the recent violence may not have risen to the level required to call in that debt. There are elements on both sides that are hot for a rematch, too, and they would not want to expend their resources before the proper time.

I did consider that the movement of those ships was intended to intimidate Hezbullah and Syria, but more in relation to Lebanese domestic politics. But I could be quite wrong. As an US citizen, it's embarrassing to watch that sort of feeble gunboat diplomacy.

[azurnoir]

9. Whatever they're attempting

is apparently isn't working, none of the "bigger" players flinched. Although this does explain the need to blame last weeks Yeshiva attack on either Hezbollah or Hamas.

[bemildred]

10. Yep. Lebanon just "postponed" the election of a new President again.

I assume that was one of the things that was supposed to be "influenced" by this pointless dick-waving. That and the summit in Damascus, and Lord knows what other fantasies.

[bemildred]

11. There is a large component of Israeli domestic politics involved.

And that should not be ignored. As in the USA, or many other fat, dumb, and happy countries, you can make a lot of political hay with military dick-waving, and few are willing to step up and advocate for "failure" and "defeat". The recipe is too attractive to ambitious but inept politicians to be forgone. It is notable that the Yurpeans, which have been repeatedly devastated by ill-considered political wars still remember, and are still not buying that sort of rhetoric.

[azurnoir]

17. That's true

I think Olmert needed to appear to be "doing something" and simultaneously appease the right wingers concerning he rocket attacks, so let's go kill some Gazan's and as history has shown as long as the number is kept "relatively low", nothing except some finger wagging from the international community can be expected.

[bemildred]

21. Yes. The right-wing will go bonkers on him if he doesn't appear to be "doing something".

It's true he is an inept weasel, like Barak and Nuttyahoo, but he is not a free agent. I'm not a fan of Ben-Eliezer, but he nailed this one today:

Infrastructures Min. Ben-Eliezer warns of next political murder

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/963108.html

[azurnoir]

22. Thanks interesting read n/t

[breakaleg]

23. What does it say about this yeshiva that is a leader of the settlement expansion and they don't even

have enough respect to welcome their government's leader? Clearly Israel needs to rethink its policies if they go to supporting the likes of these people.