Foreign Policy In Focus

The vapidity that often characterizes social media makes it the perfect vehicle to advertise the IDF's senseless attacks on Gaza.

Can you imagine anything more surreal than following a war on Twitter? Imagine, fiddling with your phone on your lunch break, perusing actual hashtagged death threats from representatives of Hamas and the IDF—in between all-caps proclamations from Kanye West and “Shit My Dad Says.”

If you don’t care for Twitter, the IDF is also liveblogging its latest war on Gaza on Tumblr, Pinterest, and Facebook.

Maybe that’s just how people declare war these days. But something about the latest violence in Gaza—which is, by all accounts, utterly senseless—seems uniquely suited to the vapid virality that is the stock-in-trade of these social media platforms.

I have no idea why Palestinian militants continue to fire rockets into southern Israel, except perhaps that they lack the capacity to fire rockets at anything else. These rockets can only hit civilians, clearing away in the rubble a virtual red carpet for the IDF into Gaza. (“Who started it” is always a thorny question when all roads lead back to the Israeli occupation, but my colleague Phyllis Bennis notes that the exchanges of fire began when militants fired on Israeli military vehicles “inside the supposedly not-occupied Gaza Strip.” She adds, “Unlike the illegal Palestinian rockets fired against civilian targets inside Israel, using force to resist an illegal military force in the context of a belligerent military occupation is lawful under international law.”)

Whatever the case, with hundreds of rockets flying into civilian-populated regions of southern Israel, no one would begrudge the Israelis their right of self defense. While these rocket attacks are often little more than hapless gunplay, they do exact a human toll—three Israeli civilians were killed Thursday morning.

But that is where the clarity ends. Israel inaugurated its latest assault on Gaza by assassinating the very Hamas military leader with whom they had been negotiating a ceasefire, virtually guaranteeing that more violence would follow. When you’ve just killed your negotiating partner, after all, who’s going to take his place at the table?

The Israelis took great pains to show how targeted and carefully monitored their attack on Ahmed Jaabari was—the whole operation was essentially liveblogged and tweeted, and a video of the so-called “pinpoint strike” on Jaabari’s moving car was distributed to media only hours after it happened. Of course, if the IDF can exercise the appropriate care to liveblog a strike on a moving vehicle, then how to explain the fact that they are also firing on random houses and killing infants? At least 15 Palestinians—more than half of them civilians—have been killed as of this writing.

Next came reports of the pamphlets dropped over Gaza, warning residents to “take responsibility for yourselves and avoid being present in the vicinity of Hamas operatives and facilities.” The IDF Twitter account lauded this ostensible attempt “to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza.” Right. Don’t be near the wrong guy. In one of the most densely populated enclaves in the world.

Then came the reports that the Israeli Defense Minister was calling up 30,000 reservists for a potential ground invasion. And the reports that Israel could shut down all telecommunications in Gaza.

It would be a real shame to shut down the Internet in Gaza. Because this kind of meaningless flame war belongs on Twitter—not in the real world.

Ahmad Jaabari negotiated the ceasefire that had mostly held over much of the last year.

First posted at the Nation.

Tuesday’s Egyptian-brokered ceasefire between Gaza and Israel collapsed today when Israel launched a major escalation. In airstrikes almost certainly involving U.S.-made F-16 warplanes and/or U.S.-made Apache helicopters, Israel’s air force assassinated Ahmad Jaabari, the longtime military leader of Hamas. As the Israeli airstrikes continued Wednesday, seven more Palestinians were killed and at least 30 were injured, ten of them critically.

Jaabari had been chief negotiator with Israel in the deal that led to the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for the release of more than 1,000 Palestinian political prisoners held illegally in Israeli jails. He had negotiated the ceasefire that had mostly held over much of the last year or more. The attack, code-named “Operation Pillar of Defense” [sic], also killed someone else in Jaabari’s car, and quickly expanded with additional airstrikes against Palestinian security and police stations in Gaza, making it impossible for Palestinian police to try to control the rocket-fire.

So why the escalation?  Israeli military and political leaders have long made clear that regular military attacks to “cleanse” Palestinian territories (the term was used by Israeli soldiers to describe their role in the 2008-09 Israeli assault on Gaza) is part of their long-term strategic plan. Earlier this year, on the third anniversary of the Gaza assault,  Israeli army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told Army Radio that Israel will need to attack Gaza again soon,  to restore what he called its power of “deterrence.” He said the assault must be “swift and painful,” concluding, “we will act when the conditions are right."  Perhaps this was his chosen moment.

It is an interesting historical parallel that this escalation – which almost certainly portends a longer-term and even more lethal Israeli assault – takes place almost exactly four years after Operation Cast Lead, the last major Israeli war on Gaza that left 1,400 Gazans dead in 2008-09.  Then, as now, the attack came shortly after U.S. elections, ending just before President Obama’s January 2009 inauguration.

But the timing for this escalation is almost certainly shaped more by Israel’s domestic politics than by the U.S. election cycle.  The most likely timeline is grounded in Netanyahu’s political calendar – he faces reelection in January, and having thoroughly antagonized many Israelis by his deliberate dissing of President Obama, needs to shore up the far right contingent of his base. With regional pressures escalating, particularly regarding the expanding Syrian crisis, Netanyahu needs to reassure his far-right supporters (an increasing cohort) that even if he doesn’t send bombers to attack Damascus, he still can attack, bomb, assassinate Arabs with impunity.

There is a U.S. connection, of course – however much domestic politics motivated Tel Aviv’s attack, Israel’s backers in Congress (lame-duck and newly-elected) will still demand public U.S. support for the Israeli offensive.  Netanyahu will get that backing – there is no reason to think the Obama White House is prepared yet to challenge that assumption.  But it’s unlikely that even Netanyanu believes it will somehow recalibrate his tense relationship with Israel by forcing Washington’s hand to defend Israel’s so-called “right of self-defense.”  They will do that – but Obama will still be pretty pissed off at Netanyahu.

As is always the case, history is shaped by when you start the clock. In the last several days U.S. media accounts have reported increasing violence on the Gaza-Israel border, most of them beginning with a Palestinian attack on Israeli soldiers on Thursday, November 8th.  What happened before that Palestinian attack?

For starters, the soldiers, part of an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) squad that included four tanks and a bulldozer, were inside the Gaza Strip.  According to the IDF spokeswoman, Palestinians fired at “soldiers while they were performing routine activity adjacent to the security fence.”  Really.   What kind of activities inside the supposedly not-occupied Gaza Strip, by a group of armed soldiers, tanks and a bulldozer (almost certainly an armored Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer manufactured in the U.S. and paid for with U.S. taxpayer military aid to Israel), could possibly be defined as anything close to “routine”?  Unlike the illegal Palestinian rockets fired against civilian targets inside Israel, using force to resist an illegal military force in the context of a belligerent military occupation is lawful under international law.

Later that day, an 11-year-old child was killed. Israel was “investigating the boy’s death.”  Not many U.S. media outlets reported that within the next 72 hours the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights documented five more Palestinians killed, including three children, and 52 other civilians, including 6 women and 12 children, wounded in Israeli airstrikes.  Four of the deaths and 38 injuries resulted from a single Israeli attack on a football playground in a neighborhood east of Gaza city. Twelve Israelis, four of them soldiers, were injured by Palestinian rockets fired into Israel.

The cross-border clashes continued, until Egypt was able to negotiate a ceasefire on Wednesday.  Today, that fragile ceasefire was violently breached as Israel sent warplanes to assassinate a Hamas leader and destroy key parts of Gaza’s barely-functional infrastructure.

This is primarily about Netanyanu shoring up the right-wing of his base. And once again it is Palestinians, this time Gazans, who will pay the price.  The question that remains is whether the U.S.-assured impunity that Israel’s leadership has so long counted on will continue, or whether there will be enough pressure on the Obama administration and Congress so that this time, the U.S. will finally be forced to allow the international community to hold Israel accountable for this latest round of violations of international law.

Cross-posted from Mondoweiss.

Israeli P.M. Netanyahu, after a standoff with Foreign Minister Lieberman over the controversial NGO funding bill, is now moving to revive the legislation. Lieberman, as chairman of Likud coalition partner Yisrael Beitenu, has long been determined to pass the legislation, which Netanyahu distanced himself from last month.

Arutz 7 speculates that Lieberman's intransigence has finally gotten the better of Netanyahu. In a sign of coalition reconciliation, the new bill is being sponsored by a member of Likud and a member of Yisrael Beitenu. The Israeli left has reacted strongly against the bill, as have the NGOs that the bill targets (especially those that provided data for the UN fact-finding mission to Gaza that produced the Goldstone Report).

According to Arutz 7, there will be three government categories for NGOs:

1. NGOs "that reject Israel's right to exist, incite racism, support violence against Israel, support trying Israeli soldiers or officials in international courts, call for boycotts of Israel, or issue calls for IDF personnel to disobey orders" will be ineligible to receive funds from foreign donors. Arutz 7 asserts that Adalah (The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel) and Yesh Gvul, an association of Israeli refuseniks, fall under this rubric.

2. "Political organizations that do not fall in the prohibited category" will be allowed to receive foreign funds, but these donations will incur a 45% tax rate. Arutz 7 singles out Peace Now, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights as organizations that would fall into this category.

3. "Non-political organizations that receive [Israeli] state funding will be tax exempt and may receive unlimited donations from foreign governments." Arutz 7 asserts that this includes "purely welfare and educational organizations."

The Israeli government will establish the criteria for "political" and "non-political" designations. According to Haaretz, the bill's sponsors have not yet settled on what criteria will define "a political organization."

For "political organizations that do not fall in the prohibited category," i.e., Peace Now, it is possible that they can appeal against the 45% tax rate by going before the Knesset Finance Committee to argue for a waiver. They will have a tough time if they do so with this government, however. The Knesset Finance Committee is chaired by United Torah Judaism KM Moshe Gafni. United Torah Judaism is a pro-settlement, ultra-Orthodox coalition.
 
According to the pro-Israel watchdog NGO Monitor, significant amounts of foreign funding for these groups comes from EU governments and charities like Oxfam. Haaretz is less specific on the matter, but notes that between 1/4 and 1/2 of certain leftist groups' funding comes from overseas donors.

Paul Mutter is a graduate student at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at NYU and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. 

Apparently, if Israel should mount an airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran would not only retaliate against it for attacking, but for another reason. To wipe out the Jewish state? Uh, no. Haaretz reports.

Speaking to the semi-official Mehr news agency, [Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad] Vahidi commented on the possibility of an Israeli strike, saying that if Israel tried to carry out its threats Iranian forces would "take revenge on this regime" for what Mehr called "years of atrocities" against "oppressed nations."

The Iranian defense minister added that the "Zionist regime has not yet paid the price" for actions committed in the Gaza Strip, adding that the Islamic Republic would avenge Israel for its policies.

It's nice to know that with Iran at loggerheads with Saudi Arabia and most of the Arab world, it still reserves a soft spot for Palestinians.

Following the 8/18 terrorist attacks near Eilat, the IDF launched air strikes at Rafah, Gaza, killing at least six Palestinians (including members of the Popular Resistance Committees, who Israel alleges are behind the attacks). Further IDF action in Gaza, apparently directed at Hamas targets, began in the early morning hours of August 19.

The Commander-in-Chief of Israel's Southern Command has stated that "terrorists carrying explosive devices, weapons, and grenades entered Israel from Sinai." Mortar fire was also reported as being directed at Israeli targets from the Sinai, and the IDF claims that the attackers infiltrated and exfiltrated Israel through the Sinai Peninsula. Egyptian leaders deny that any armed group could have accomplished this.

Israel also says it already knows the ultimate point of origin of the attacks: Tahrir Square, Cairo!

Tahrir Square?

Yes, Tahrir Square. "It is clear that the Egyptian revolution that began in Tahrir Square and spread through other Arab states has now made its way into Israel," according to a Haaretz analysis of the attacks. Ynet states that "Sinai turns into terror hotbed – and Israel is first to pay [the] price." The official Israeli response clearly intimates the unreliability of the "new" Egypt in maintaining Israel's security (militarily, though, the official response is focused on Gaza for now). Defense Minister Ehud Barak told reporters that "the incident shows the weakening Egyptian grip on Sinai and the widening operation of terrorists there," though he concluded that "the source of these terror acts is in Gaza and we will act against them with full force." CNN opines that the Egyptians now "have something else to worry about: the use of Egyptian soil by Islamist extremists to recruit, train, acquire arms, and take the fight to Israel." U.S. officials have stated that "the attacks reinforce concerns about the ability and willingness of the Egyptian government to safeguard its borders against the passage of militants and weapons" (Egypt, as a major U.S.-aid recipient, ought to be worried over these Beltway rumblings, especially since popular demonstrations are still going on Egypt ).

While all of these individuals have a point - the Sinai has become a greater security issue in 2011, for both Israel and Egypt - the Israeli government (and American neoconservatives) has been questioning Egyptian "reliability" for months, and not just over the Sinai. Egypt's reliability is being questioned because Israel's long-time ally, Mubarak, is now on trial after being deposed by the army and demonstrations. The new situation in the region (unrest in Syria is increasing as well) unnverves the government: better the devils you know - Mubarak and Assad - than the ones you don't.

Assertions that the "Arab Spring" is undermining Israeli security (FM Lieberman concluded in May that the "Arab Spring" will end in an "Iranian Winter," a view echoed in the U.S. as well) are exactly what the attackers, whether Palestinian, Egyptian or even members of al Qaeda, want to hear: Israel condemning the "Arab Spring" because it poses a threat to Israeli security (never mind what Egypt's army does to Egyptians; just keep the borders sealed).

Haaretz's military analyst Amir Oren had this to say:

"Israel has lost a cold but tough partner. Mubarak also had difficulty imposing authority on Sinai, but his deposers and heirs aren't even trying."

[Snip]

"Israel does not border on the Suez Canal or the Nile. Egypt is a hostile state that enables Israel's enemies [the popular resistance committees and Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Iran] to attack it."

Oren evinced the growing sense of siege that the Israeli security establishment feels today:

"Without Mubarak, and with Hamas in Gaza, with a Jordanian king fearing for his throne and an American administration that doesn't believe in Israel's judgment, what comes next could be even worse."

This is very much in line with statements made by the Netanyahu government, particurally Foreign Minister Lieberman. Lieberman is to be taken seriously (not only is the Foreign Minister, but he is also the leader of the small but influential right-wing Yisrael Beitenu party in Netanyahu's government): he, among others, regards the seizure of power by pro-Iranian Islamists in Egypt, Tunisia, and other Arab countries such as Syria and Libya as very real possibilities (though with Bahrain, Israel probably has little to worry about; the U.S. and the Saudis are doing a job of keeping things quiet down in the Gulf).

Yet Oren and I do agree on one thing in our analysis: that the real damage of this attack will be felt between Tel Aviv and Cairo. Except my understanding of the damage is different from his. The timing of the attacks coincides with ongoing Egyptian military operations against Islamist groups in the Sinai Peninsula (a move Israel endorsed). Since the fall of Mubarak, anti-government fighters in the Sinai have been attacking Egyptian military outposts, infiltrating into towns and blowing up gas pipelines between Egypt and Israel. Meanwhile, Israel, which occupied the Sinai between 1967 and 1982, asserts that Hamas smuggles fighters, supplies and weapons into Gaza through an extensive tunnel system. After Mubarak fell, the Israeli government argued that Hamas had redoubled its efforts to ship weapons into Gaza through these tunnels (indeed, the Egyptian Army's control of the region slackened during the anti-regime protests; the resulting campaign is an effort to reassert control over the strategic peninsula). 

In choosing to attack Eilat, the attackers may have sought to influence Egypt's position towards Israel by stoking the fires of anti-Israeli sentiment in the region (and not just merely take advantage of the chaos in the Sinai for tactical purposes). One of the first things the transitional government that replaced Israel's long-time ally Mubarak promised to do was uphold the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, a treaty which at the time was regarded as an act of craven capitulation by then-Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. The transitional government had absolutely no desire to test Israeli will or American largess by repudiating that treaty, or agreements that followed it. By attacking targets on the Israeli-Egyptian border, the insurgents may hope to win accolades for so brazenly "sticking it" to the two main regional powers. Like a judo master, the attackers are compensating for their small frame by using their opponent's own power and momentum against him.

Israel, though refuses to consider this, responding reflexively by attacking the alleged perpetrators. Netanyahu, judo-like, is turning the attacks into a political victory for his government. For the Israeli government, the latest attacks present an oppotunity to have the country "rally 'round the flag." With the Palestinian statehood initiative at the UN pending and a series of social protests among Israelis of all political colors, this event takes some of the pressure off the latter and allows a refocusing of the debate on the former (Israel opposses the UN initiative). No one wants to be derided as weak on the attackers. The Knesset is already closing ranks behind the PM (how long this lasts is anyone's guess), and the J14 demonstrators will be giving their weekend protests over to solidarity rallies with the Israeli victims of the attack.

Israeli security concerns are valid: terrorists, possibly working to destabilize both Egypt and Israel, have invaded Israeli territory and killed Israeli civilians. But Israeli denunciations of the "Arab Spring" are counterproductive because they only reinforce the perception that Israel supports dictatorial rule in the region. No one's security is being served by Netanyahu's response - including Israel's.