The IDF has been warning Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of a new phase in their operation and telling them to stay away from Hamas-run sites. Speculation is that the IDF will go into the urban areas in Gaza, which will likely lead to an increase in casualties on both sides. So far 13 Israelis and an estimated 800 Palestinians have been killed in the fighting. On Friday both sides rejected a UN resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire: Israel because the resolution did not guarantee Hamas would not rearm and Hamas because the resolution didn't demand Israel lift its blockade of Gaza.
There have been developments in the PR portion of the war as well. In an analysis piece this morning the BBC is asking what are the ultimate goals of Israel's Gaza offensive, since the Israelis themselves have been pretty vague on what will mark 'victory' in Gaza. The BBC reports that there is apparently a split between the two architects of the Gaza campaign, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on how far the offensive should go - Barak is pushing for an operation that “increases Israel's security”, while Livni is said to have “grander designs” that could include getting rid of Hamas entirely. One analyst cited in the BBC piece said that the confusion is an indication the Gaza operation was not well thought out, and that removing Hamas and creating a power vacuum in Gaza could lead to even more extreme groups taking over.
Meanwhile Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, is accusing Israel of possible war crimes and is calling for an independent investigation. His call stems from an incident where Israeli shelling killed 30 members of one extended Palestinian family. Pillay slammed the Israelis for not doing enough to prevent civilian casualties and for (reportedly) blocking medical personnel from reaching wounded Palestinians. Pillay's comments were echoed in, of all places, the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. In "Israel is Committing War Crimes", author George Bisharat lays out the case that Israel's current actions cannot be justified by the claim of self-defense under international law.
Bisharat argues that Israel's military response has been disproportionate and has not taken the welfare of the citizens of Gaza into account (which under international law you're required to do). He makes the case that Israel's entire claim of self-defense is faulty. Israel has repeatedly said that it launched Operation Cast Lead in response to a barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza. Bisharat points out though that the large-scale rocket attacks didn't begin until after Israel launched a major incursion into Gaza on November 4, meaning that (according to his analysis) Israel provoked the attack that they are now using to justify their actions as self-defense (a nice bit of circular logic that Bisharat points out won't fly under international law).
Finally the National Post of Canada says that Israel may even be losing the PR war among the Jewish Diaspora , citing the split in opinion among older and younger Jews over the war and even over attitudes towards Israel itself. The Post points out that John Stewart, along with a host of young, influential bloggers, have all been publicly critical (some quite harshly critical) of Israel since the invasion. I liked this quote from Dana Goldstein, who says: "Asking young Jews to fight and die in a ground war, one whose perpetration inflames anti-Semitic sentiments, is not the best way to make Israel, or the world at large, safe for the Jewish people." That's along the lines of the point I was trying to make in an earlier post, that while Israel can carry out effective military operations, actions like the one in Gaza are ultimately self-defeating because they don't make Israel any more secure in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment