You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Middle East’ tag.

A good video showing what the real obstacle to peace in the Middle East is.


It never seems to fail that at some point history gets reworked into something other than what happened. It happens with current events — like the recent war in Gaza — but also with more distant events. Take the Arab-Israel war of 1967 — the Six Day War in which Israel roundly defeated the armies of Jordan, Egypt and Syria and captured the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. In his most recent commentary in the British paper, The Independent, Bruce Andeson gets things completely wrong. In this piece, “Israel is trapped, and the chance of peace is ever more remote” he essentially blames Israel for the failure of the peace process and revises history to fit that blame.

With regards to the recent war in Gaza, Anderson states

It is easy to understand why the Israelis reacted as they did. Once you have suffered a Holocaust at the hands of the race which produced Beethoven, Goethe and Mozart, you lose trust in mankind’s benevolence: lose faith in everything except your own soldiers and weaponry.

(Anderson, Bruce, “Israel is trapped, and the chance of peace is ever more remote“, The Independent, February 16, 2009)

He portrays Israelis as losing faith in “everything except [their] own soldiers and weaponry.” Really, then what was the Oslo Accords and the Oslo II processes about? Or the Wye River Memorandum? Or the 2000 Camp David Summit? Or the Road map for Peace? Or the Annapolis Conference? He never considers the possibility that Israelis are right to lose their faith in the process when the other side does not keep its obligations or when the other side continues to send homicide bombers into and rains rockets onto its cities. No that doesn’t enter into Mr. Anderson’s analysis at all.

He continues in his tirade against Israel’s quest for peace and security by saying

Because of the circumstances in which their Jewish state was created, most Israelis believe that they have two existential necessities, and entitlements. They want to enjoy security and they insist that their neighbours recognise their rights to do so. That does not seem unreasonable. But it is. It fails the highest test of political rationality. It is not realistic.

(Anderson, Bruce, “Israel is trapped, and the chance of peace is ever more remote“, The Independent, February 16, 2009)

Why is it not realistic (not just reasonable) for Israel to expect to live in secure borders and for her right to exist be recognized? Israel is the return of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland (something that appears to be happening more and more these days among everyone else — why are the Jews to be singled out and denied this right?). The ties of the Jewish people to that land run uninterrupted for thousands of years and yet in today’s world Mr. Anderson argues that we should not expect to have these ties and our rights recognized by our Arab neighbors. Other countries, other peoples are seeing their rights recognized…why not the Jews? Why not the Israelis?

Then Mr. Anderson makes the most eggregious error in his commentary. He rewrites history and turns the 1967 Six Day War from a war of survival (where Israel is attacked first) to a war in which Israel sought out territorial gains

The first act of the current tragedy began in 1967, after the Six-Day War. Plucky little Israel was master of the battlefield. She had overrun a vast acreage of Arab territory. Almost immediately, even by those who had never been enthusiastic about the State of Israel, distinctions began to be drawn between the pre-’67 boundaries and the 1967 conquests. Israel had a tremendous hand of cards, strategic and moral. There was never a better moment for “in victory, magnanimity”.

Israel should have announced that unlike almost every previous military victor, she did not seek territorial gains; her sole war aims were peace and justice. [emphasis added] To secure them, she was prepared to trade her conquests, with the obvious exception of the Holy Places in old Jerusalem. On such a basis, and with huge international support, a deal would have been possible. But there were problems. At its narrowest point, pre-’67 Israel was only 12 miles wide. A tank thrust from the West Bank could have cut the country in two. Although the generals cannot be blamed for failing to predict the era of asymmetric warfare in which tank thrusts would only occur in war movies, their insistence on a demilitarised West Bank complicated matters. Then a temptation emerged, like the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

(Anderson, Bruce, “Israel is trapped, and the chance of peace is ever more remote“, The Independent, February 16, 2009)

And here he is completely wrong and exposes his ignorance and naivete. Apparently Mr. Anderson did not read the aftermath of the Six Day War. According to former Israeli President Chaim Herzog,

On June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government [of Israel] voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Golans would have to be demilitarized and special arrangement would be negotiated for the Straits of Tiran. The government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border.

(Herzon, Chaim, Heroes of Israel: Profiles of Jewish Courage, Little Brown and Co., Boston, 1989, p. 253)

Israel offered to return the territories in return for peace with her Arab neighbors. The response from the Arabs was the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 which incorporated the, now famous, three “No”s:

  • No peace with Israel
  • No recognition of Israel
  • No negotiation with Isreal

Even when Israel has acted to further peace she is met with an Arab response that demands more. Israel gave Egypt the Sinai peninsula in return for peace — a cold peace but at least peace. Israel made peace with Jordan in 1994 — perhaps the most amicable peace to date between former enemies in that area. And it has attempted, time and time again, to make peace with the Palestinians to no avail. It is not for lack of trying. Even when Israel unilaterally relinquishes territory as it did with Gaza the response from the other side is more terror. To be sure, Israel has made missteps in its pursuit of peace with the Palestinians — some considerably large missteps, others smaller. But Israelis have longed for peace since the beginning. They have longed to be allowed to live in peace in their ancestral homeland. And it is that longing that drives them to continue to pursue peace with their neighbors and the Palestinians.

Mr. Anderson ends his tirade by claiming

The country [Isreal] emerged out of tragedy. It would be heart-rending if its heroic journey ended in tragedy. Yet that is the likeliest outcome, and it would be Israel’s fault.

(Anderson, Bruce, “Israel is trapped, and the chance of peace is ever more remote“, The Independent, February 16, 2009)

No Mr. Anderson…that is not the likeliest outcome…and whatever happens it will not be Israel’s fault.

Now that the fighting has ended the posturing begins to claim total victory in the latest round of fighting in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. What were Hamas’ objectives in starting this fight? In an interview to Hamas’ magazine, Al-Risala, Mousa Abu Marzouq, Hamas’ second in command in Damascus discusses the Tahdiah [calm] and argues that “The [Tahdiah] had become ‘a ceasefire [in exchange for another] ceasefire,’ with no connection either to the crossings and [the goods] transported through them, or to the siege. Terminating it was [thus] a logical move.” (Marzouq, Mousa Abu, Al-Risala, December 12, 2008, excerpt found at MEMRI Special Dispatch – No. 2177). After the beginning of Operation Cast Lead Hamas then claimed a second objective: inflicting significant military casualties on the Israelis (Kramer, Martin, “Dig Hamas really win in Gaza?”, found at, January 28, 2009). Hamas claimed that “Israel was falling into ‘the trap that our fighters had prepared for its soldiers and tanks.'” and that “the Zionist enemy will see surprises and will regret carrying out such an operation and will be a heavy price. Our militants are waiting with patience to confront the soldiers face to face.” (“Hamas: Gaza will become graveyard for Israeli troops“,Haaretz, January 4, 2009).

As noted elsewhere, Hamas basically collapsed, their fighters quickly shed their uniforms, donned civilian clothes and melted into the civilian population (even going so far as to fight from inside civilian enclaves to ensure that Israel would be accused of targeting civilians) (Kramer, Martin, “Did Hamas really win in Gaza?“,, January 28, 2009). As one Israeli soldier put it “We set a date with Hamas, and they didn’t come. They were afraid to come and face us, and they ran away,” (Friedman, Matti, “Despite its threats, Hamas put up light resistance,” Yahoo News, January 19, 2009). Most of Israel’s military casualties came from friendly fire.

The question now turns to whether Hamas or Israel won the fight. Both sides immediately claimed victory in the fight — Israel claiming that they had achieved their primary objective of limiting the number of rockets being fired on a daily basis into southern Israel (from a pre-war high of 70 down to 20 on the last day of the war) and Hamas, according to Rashid Khalidi, can claim victory since “all it has to do in order to proclaim victory is remain standing” (Khalidi, Rashid, “LRB Contributors React to Events in Gaza“, London Review of Books, January 15, 2009) — a rather low standard a victory. While Hamas may have emerged politically stronger in Gaza based on the premise that they survived the war they, as Hezballah in Lebanon discovered in 2006, are now the target of public resentment given the level of damage caused to homes and infrastructure in Gaza. Unlike Hezbollah who was able to dispatch teams to assess the damage of the 2006 war and to hand out money to rebuild homes and rebuild its militia Hamas has neither the finances nor the efficiency of Hezbollah and must overcome the obstacle that Gaza remains a closed area for all intents and purposes. (Ferziger, Jonathan, and Daniel Williams, “Israel, Hamas Both Claim Victory After Cease-Fire in Gaza Strip“,, January 19, 2009).

Based on traditional concepts of warfare it would is clear that Israel won a substantial victory on the battlefield as well as maintained firm control on the Gaza crossings (a key objective of Hamas at the outset of the fighting being that the crossings would be opened completely). Hamas proved that their “military” wing was anything but capable and relied solely on firing rockets into southern Israeli cities as their only means of resistance. In the end Israel achieved many of its initial, stated objectives for the operation and Hamas achieved nothing other than the scorn of the outside world for starting the fight and then using their own people as human shields.

April 2019
« Jan    

Feedburner RSS


This blog is covered by a Creative Commons - Attribution, Non-Commercial, No Derivative Works 3.0 US License


Blog Stats

  • 53,994 hits


%d bloggers like this: