Monday, March 25, 2024
Elder of Ziyon
David Brooks in the New York Times looks at the real military situation in Gaza, asking, "What Would You Have Israel Do to Defend Itself?"
He calls out what every military expert knows: Israel is doing the best job possible.
Brooks writes basic truths that are rarely seen in the media: "Hamas’s goal is to maximize the number of Palestinians who die and in that way build international pressure until Israel is forced to end the war before Hamas is wiped out. Hamas’s survival depends on support in the court of international opinion and on making this war as bloody as possible for civilians, until Israel relents."
He doesn't say this, but this is part of Hamas' strategy of lying - claiming that Israel is sexually abusing patients in Shifa Hospital, for example. Since so few reporters call them out on their lies, they can make up more lurid ones.
So what alternatives does Israel have to an invasion of Rafah? Brooks lists several, and none of them can work. Limiting engagement is more likely to leave power vacuums; assassinations of Hamas leaders are difficult and when done on foreign territory like Turkey they have serious political risks, a counterinsurgency strategy only works then there is an alternative government and infrastructure Israel can work with, and the fourth is absurd:
A fourth alternative is that Israel should just stop. It should settle for what it has achieved and not finish the job by invading Rafah and the southern areas of Gaza, or it should send in just small strike teams.This is now the official Biden position. The national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, has argued that Israel can destroy Hamas in Gaza without a large invasion but “by other means” (which he did not elaborate on). ...The I.D.F. estimates that there are 5,000 to 8,000 Hamas fighters in Rafah. Defeating an army that size would take thousands of airstrikes and raids. If you try to shrink the incursion, the math just doesn’t add up. As an Israeli war cabinet member, Benny Gantz, reportedly told U.S. officials, “Finishing the war without demilitarizing Rafah is like sending in firefighters to put out 80 percent of a fire.”
Hamas' defeat is not negotiable, and Brooks goes into detail why. Hamas' survival would be a worldwide disaster.
Brooks does discuss the humanitarian side of the equation:
Israel is failing to lay the groundwork for some sort of better Palestinian future — to its own detriment. The security experts I spoke with acknowledge that providing humanitarian aid will be hard. As Cohen told me: “If the Israeli military takes over distributing humanitarian aid to Gaza, they will likely lose soldiers in the process. And so Israelis are asking why should their boys die providing aid to someone who wants to kill them. "
This is true. Whatever Israel proposes, though, will be regarded as a step in a new "occupation" of Gaza or as putting Palestinians in detention camps.
Brooks' article, as good as it is, does not mention two important options.
One is that Egypt needs to be a partner in allowing Gazans to go there temporarily while Israel cleans out Rafah. Egypt's response to this humanitarian crisis by building higher walls is fully accepted by the international community and this is hypocrisy of the highest order. Aid can get to the Sinai easily. Countless lives can be saved.
And the other point is my plan to turn Gaza into a new emirate of the UAE. Professor Andrew Pessin recently summarized my plan. It solves every problem Brooks and others postulate. It would also mean that any potential future Palestinian state would only be on the West Bank, but that is a feature, not a bug: any alternative cuts Israel in half. Gazans can decide whether they prefer to live under corrupt Palestinian rule or as full citizens of the UAE.
Would the UAE sign on? They are the only Arab nation showing genuine concern for Gaza civilians. They can gain a great deal by having a presence on the Mediterranean and access to gas fields there. And they can really turn Gaza into the Singapore people rhapsodized about in the 2000s.
This way there is no "occupation" - Arabs live under Arab rule, as they did under Jordanian and Egyptian rule without much complaint between 1948-1967. And in this case their rulers would actually care about them.
It would be difficult, but less difficult than any alternative day-after scenario anyone has come up with. So isn't it worth putting effort in now, rather than waiting for further disasters?
