Writing in Haaretz, Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel note the test Israel will face when Hamas resumes firing rockets, which the group surely will:
We have already failed that very test at least three times in the past: After the pullout from Lebanon in 2000, after the disengagement from Gaza in 2005 and during the cease-fire with Hamas in 2008.
In all the aforementioned cases, the threat of a harsh response on Israel’s part turned out to be an empty one, and hostilities against Israel continued to trickle in, eventually resulting in a major conflagration.
Because Israel appears to have chosen a Syria-style approach to Hamas — leaving its leaders in place in the hope that they will be deterred by the punishment the IDF is capable of inflicting on their subordinates — Israel must now demonstrate that it intends to enforce a new and more edgy standoff. Some semblance of honor can still be salvaged if Israel responds to any rocket attacks by inflicting irreversible damage, such as by targeted killings of Hamas leaders and commanders, or by occupying the Philadelphi corridor. A return to the pre-war arrangement, in which Israel acquiesces to an interminable rocket war on several of its cities, will be more than dishonorable, and will mean more than retroactively rendering the Gaza War futile. It will vindicate the Hamas/Hezbollah/Iranian strategy of using small conflagrations to extract concessions and foment world opinion against Israel. In other words, any Israeli reluctance to respond to rocket fire will encourage more of it.
If the “international community” actually cares about peace it will encourage Israeli retaliation to rockets, so that a more useful standoff with Hamas can be established. Of course, the problem is that the international community is not actually interested in peace. Especially among its European members, it is far more intimidated by the way that Israeli military action causes the eruption of the famed Arab street in places like London and Paris. One of the things that the Gaza War seems to have established very clearly is that the tranquility of many European cities depends on restraining the IDF from defending Israel. As European demography continues its ineluctable shift, this problem will only get worse.
Abe Greenwald, ace blogger. Thank you.
i take back what i’ve said about the times not being a ‘well edited’ paper…apparently, the – ahem – ‘news’ editors pay more attention than i give them credit for…
Wait, I thought the One would speak and everything would be healed? What’s this? The Russians aren’t being swayed? I am shocked. Just shocked.
Tehran is going to go nuke.
The creepy mullahs are going to embark on a course of national martyrdom, wrapping nuclear weapons around their people like a vast, national suicide vest.
New York City is on borrowed time, as is the nation’s capital.
What’s next? An editorial entitled ‘Dizzy With Success,’ perhaps.
Does this mean the oceans will not be healed?
Thoughtful (or responsible) much, Greenwald?
What a total joke.
Except that they basically say two seperate things. The first implies that Russia rejected the offer outright, and will not negotiate vis-a-vis Iran. The second implies that Russia is willing to negotiate, on both issues, but is not willing to trade one for the other directly. So the most likely explanation is that the original write up was crudely done, someone, probably from the Russian consulate, complained that it misrepresented *Russia’s* position, and the language was cleaned up to provide a more accurate report of *Russia’s* position.
But I suppose it’s easier to imagine everyone is out to get you.
Where’s the letter? Let’s see it and answer the mystery. Barack and Holder had no problem releasing, just yesterday, materials from the administration of the previous president.
How about some of that famed transparency?
I am placing Abe Greenwald under arrest… For being sexy, and for being smart.
RAAAWWWWRRRR!!!!
A quick thanks to my impersonator here and in the “Nyet” thread. Truly flattered.
That is interesting about the NY Times change in words. I do think this entire situation needs to some reviewing. To begin with, does the U.S. even want to remove those missiles in exchange for Russian reassurance? It is quite possible that this would not be a fair exchange. And since Medvedev will not even give such minimal reassurance to the ordeal, it does seem as if there are too many problems for it to truly be helpful. I watched an interesting video with differing opinions at newsy.com earlier. It’s worth watching:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/u_s_russia_trade_off/