Israel Palestine Infos
January 7, 2012
The Stolen War
IS THERE no limit to the villainy of Hamas? Seems there isn’t.
This week, they did something quite unforgivable.
They stole a war.
FOR SOME weeks now, our
almost new Chief of Staff, Benny Gantz, has been announcing at every possible
opportunity that a new war against the
One of these comforted us. True, Hamas can now hit Tel Aviv with their rockets, but that will not be so terrible, because it will be a short war. Just three or four days. As one of the generals said, it will be much more “hard and painful” (for the Arabs) than Cast Lead I, so it will not last for three weeks, as that did. We shall all stay in our shelters – those of us who have shelters, anyway – for just a few days.
Why is the war inevitable? Because of the terrorism, stupid. Hamas is a terrorist organization, isn’t it?
But along comes the supreme Hamas leader, Khaled Mash’al, and declares that Hamas has given up all violent action. From now on it will concentrate on non-violent mass demonstrations, in the spirit of the Arab Spring.
When Hamas forswears
terrorism, there is no pretext for an attack on
But is a pretext needed?
Our army will not let itself be thwarted by the likes of Mash’al. When the army
wants a war, it will have a war. This was proved in 1982, when Ariel
WHY DOES the Chief of Staff want to attack?
A cynic might say that every new Chief of Staff needs a war to call his own. But we are not cynics, are we?
Every few days, a
solitary rocket is launched from the
The usual sequence is like this: our air force carries out a “targeted liquidation” of Palestinian militants in the strip. The army claims invariably that these specific “terrorists” had intended to attack Israelis. How did the army know of their intentions? Well, our army is a master thought reader.
After the persons have been killed, their organization considers it its duty to avenge their blood by launching a rocket or a mortar shell, or even two or three. This “cannot be tolerated” by the army, and so it goes on.
After every such episode, the talk about a war starts again. As American politicians put it in their speeches at AIPAC conferences: “No country can tolerate its citizens being exposed to rockets!”
But of course, the
reasons for Cast Lead II are more serious. Hamas is being accepted by the
international community. Their Prime Minister, Isma’il Haniyeh, is now traveling
around the Arab and Muslim world, after being shut in
Even worse, Hamas is
about to join the PLO and take part in the Palestinian government. High time to
do something about it. Attack
NOT CONTENT with stealing our war, Mash’al is carrying out a series of more sinister actions.
By joining the PLO, he is
committing Hamas to the
All this would put the present Israeli government in a difficult position.
Mash’al has some
experience in causing trouble for
King Hussein, Israel’s
longstanding friend and ally, was hopping mad. He presented Netanyahu with a
choice: either the agents would be tried in
Another curious outcome
of this misadventure: the king demanded that the Hamas founder and leader, the
paralyzed Sheik Ahmad Yassin, be released from Israeli prison. Netanyahu
obliged, Yassin was released and assassinated by
And instead of showing his gratitude, he now confronts us with a dire challenge: non-violent action, indirect peace overtures, the two-state solution.
A QUESTION: why does our
Chief of Staff long for a little war in
Well, he knows that he cannot have it.
Some time ago I did
something no experienced commentator ever does. I promised that there would be
no Israeli military attack on
An experienced journalist or politician never makes such a prediction without leaving a loophole for himself. He puts in an inconspicuous “unless”. If his forecast goes awry, he points to that loophole.
I do have some experience
– some 60 or so years of it – but I did not leave any loophole. I said No War,
and now General Gantz says the same in so many words. No
Why? Because of that one word: Hormuz.
Not the ancient Persian god Hormuzd, but the narrow strait that is the entrance and exit of the Persian Gulf, through which 20% of the world’s oil (and 35% of the sea-borne oil) flows. My contention was that no sane (or even mildly insane) leader would risk the closing of the strait, because the economic consequences would be catastrophic, even apocalyptic.
IT SEEMS that the leaders
How, pray? The mightiest multi-billion aircraft carrier can be easily sunk by a battery of cheap land-to-sea missiles, as well as by small missile-boats.
What next? There will be
no alternative to “boots on the ground”. The
Such a war would go far
beyond the dimensions of the American invasions of
Is the bankrupt US up to it? Economically, politically and in terms of morale?
The closing of the strait is the ultimate weapon. I don’t believe that the Iranians will use it against the imposition of sanctions, severe as they may be, as they have threatened. Only a military attack would warrant such a response.
That’s where we are now.
No war in
And along comes this evil Mash’al and tries to spoil the chances of that, too.