"What Happens Then?"
James Fallows asks a good question about the Gaza war:
The one relevant thing I do know concerns a repeated source of tragedy in foreign-policy decision making. That is the reluctance to ask, before irrevocable decisions, “And what happens then?” For instance: so we depose Saddam Hussein. What happens then? This question is all the harder to ask when the step in question feels so good. Crushing Saddam. Or, punishing Hamas.
I predicted that Israel would be back in Gaza with ground troops before the withdrawal. And I supported the withdrawal anyway, because while separation from the Palestinians is a necessary condition to achieving peace and security, I was under no illusions that it was sufficient. There were three arguments for having settlements in Gaza: that they were a bargaining chip to be negotiated away for peace; that they were necessary to justify an Israeli military presence that was independently necessary for security reasons; and that they were a concrete manifestation of Israel’s claim to the entire Land of Israel, a claim Israel should press because (so the argument goes) the claim is just and right. I found none of these reasons persuasive before the withdrawal, and I find none of them persuasive now. The withdrawal was, in retrospect, still the right policy.
But I knew Israeli troops would be back, and I knew they would fail to achieve anything concrete and lasting by returning. I regard my own prescience in this regard with something more like fatigue than pride.
This war has reminded others of the 2006 Lebanon War. It reminds me more of Operation Grapes of Wrath, the 1996 Israeli offensive in Lebanon launched by Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Both wars were launched without much consideration for “what happens then” because both were launched for political reasons: in both cases, a left-leaning government felt it would lose all credibility if it did not respond forcefully to provocation. Indeed, in both cases, that left-wing government feared that such a loss of credibility would bring Binyamin Netanyahu to power in the next election and, in both cases, the government won support from across the spectrum in the United States precisely because the leadership of America’s Democratic Party shared those fears, and wished to prevent their becoming a reality. (And that should answer the questions of those who wonder why, if Democratic voters tend to oppose Israel’s retaliatory invasion of Gaza, the Democratic leadership has been pretty lock-step in support.)
So what does happen then? If I had to predict, I’d say the invasion will be a mixed success in tactical terms, with Israel successfully liquidating a number of Hamas leaders and much physical infrastructure. Whether the Qassams stop falling entirely or not, Hamas will be operationally weakened for some time. I would not bet on Hamas losing control of the territory – and Israel had better hope Hamas does not lose control, lest she find Somalia on her doorstep. Nor would I bet on Kadima’s political gambit working; it didn’t work for Labor in 1996, after all. As for the more extravagant rationales being floated – this will strengthen Fatah in the West Bank? Or will strike a blow against Iranian prestige? Or is actually a dry run for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities – the less said the better. The tangible achievements from this war, and the great loss of life among the Palestinians may, at best, be a short respite from Qassam fire.
Was there an alternative course of action? I suppose there must have been, but I don’t see a plausible one. The Israeli government could not simply ignore the continued rocket attacks. Nor would a tit-for-tat response accomplish anything – indeed, it would make the government look even weaker than ignoring the problem entirely. While on its own terms, the war seems rather pointless, it fits into the larger Israeli strategy of the past fifteen years. It’s just that the strategy in question is neither inspiring nor particularly complicated.
Since 1993, Israel has been staging a fighting retreat from the bulk of the territories won in 1967. Rabin understood that the effort he led to crush the first Intifadeh had failed, strategically; that there was no plausible military path to retaining the territories; and that the territories had become a strategic liability for Israel. He didn’t trust Arafat for an instant, but he still embraced Oslo, as the fig-leaf for a retreat to more defensible lines. The retreat stalled out with Rabin’s assassination and Netanyahu’s election, but Netanyahu could not actually escape the logic that Rabin followed. Indeed, he tried to force a conclusive division of the territories by daring Arafat to declare a state unilaterally (something Arafat and his successors have pointedly declined to do), and so he grudgingly signed the Wye accords. With Barak in office came a new effort to force a conclusive division of the territories, this time by diplomatic means. After the failure at Taba came the Second Intifadeh, to which Sharon responded with Operation Defensive Shield, which was his cover for a decisive retreat from Gaza. The current violence is intended to provide cover for the reelection of a center-left coalition that will stage a unilateral withdrawal from much of the West Bank.
That’s what the war is about, strategically: providing Israel’s government with domestic and international cover for the next phase of unilateral retreat from its post-1967 positions to more defensible ones.
Not terribly inspiring, nor terribly complicated, is it?
Are there alternatives to this depressing spectacle? Well, Israel can’t defeat Hamas militarily. Israel could obliterate the Palestinian people of Gaza physically – they have that power – but (thankfully) they will not do that. Israel could absorb the people of Gaza into its body politic at the price of becoming a bi-national state or a unitary Arab-dominated state, a price I find it very hard imagining the Israelis being willing to pay. Short of either of these solutions, there is no way for Israel to impose its will on the territories; contra Max Boot, Israel does not have the ability to impose a peace at gunpoint, impeded only by interfering outsiders (and, by the way, regardless of what one might think of taking Putin’s Russia as a model, who says the Second Chechen War is over?).
By the same token, Hamas cannot defeat Israel. The fundamental asymmetry between Israel/Palestine and France/Algeria is that while Algeria was a _département of France (or, rather, four départements) Algeria was not France, while Israel and Palestine are the same place by two names, and the Israelis have no intention of leaving their home. (It may be objected that the Boers had no intention of leaving their home either, and have not. The fundamental asymmetry between Israel/Palestine and the Boer Republic/Bantustans is that it was not plausible to envision a Boer Republic living alongside and on equal terms with a black South African Republic but, while that is not the reality, I believe it is entirely plausible to imagine Israel living on such terms with a neighboring Arab state, whether that state was a Palestinian national state or not.)
It would be nice, given these facts, to think that an outside party – such as ourselves – could convince the parties to the dispute to see reason and agree to a plausible political settlement – particularly since we all know what such a settlement would have to look like (a Palestinian state including the Arab parts of east Jerusalem and a presence in the Old City, and a grant of Israeli territory near Gaza plus monetary compensation in exchange for those settlement blocs that would be annexed to Israel). It would be nice, but I don’t think it is correct. Trust between the two sides is at an absolute zero. The Palestinian side is in no position to enforce any agreement it might agree to, having no functional institutions of any kind, and the only plausible route to the development of such institutions is in the context of violent struggle against Israel and against rival Palestinian factions (which, indeed, is how Hamas came to power in Gaza). Besides, America has absolutely no credibility with the Palestinians at this point, and the purchase price for such credibility would be exhorbitant in terms of our credibility with other allies (and not just Israel). Israel, meanwhile, is fully aware of the incapacities of the Palestinian leadership; even those who expect nothing of this war – and that’s a broad swathe of the Israeli political spectrum – expect even less from dialogue. (Note that even Meretz supported the war in its first few days.) And while America could certainly punish Israel in various ways, I don’t see how we would plausibly convince Israel to do something she feels is genuinely threatening to her national interest, nor how we would overcome the substantial domestic obstacles in Israel to achieving peace, given that these obstacles arise in large part from the structure of their political system.
Indeed, the last time America was truly in a position to try to wrestle the various parties into a final peace settlement was in Bush Sr.‘s term, at the Madrid talks, and that was a unique moment in history: right after America’s victory in the Gulf War, right after the collapse of the Soviet Union, before the rise of resistence to American unipolarity, to say nothing of al Qaeda, a period of unprecedented American diplomatic clout. Even Giant Obama is unlikely to restore us to such a position in the near term.
Happy New Year everyone.
Israelis have no intention of leaving their homes? Ha. Half of the Israeli elite leaves its claustrophobic country every year to live elsewhere.
Noah, it’s upsetting to me the way you have become a detached strategic analyst talking about the black and white chesspieces on the board, with no words in support of Israel and its cause. The only moral judgments you seem to make are against Israel doing anything too violent. You keep talking about the Palestinians and the credibility different parties have in their eyes as if they weren’t themselves collectively feckless and half-crazed and utterly without any credibility on any level.
— steven k · Jan 7, 02:39 AM · #
Steven K is right, Noah. Your post is far too thoughtful, analytical, and sober. More indignant ranting, please.
— Damon Linker · Jan 7, 02:50 AM · #
I think it was Ben Franklin who said, “To repeat the same behavior and expect different results is a definition of insanity.” Or something to that effect. Israel has been in a reactive position for decades, and the results are always the same, despite overwhelming military power. In fact the overwhelming power makes the international outrage and the results totally predictable. Somehow Israel must become proactive and provide Hamas and the Palestinians with a way out. Otherwise the Palestinians will always win and the Israel’s will be the insane one in this dance. Of course in takes two to tango, but nevertheless Israel’s peace can only come from their initiatives.
— mennenster · Jan 7, 03:05 AM · #
That’s a cheap snark shop, Damon Linker (is that a real name?). I like the analysis as much as anybody, and I didn’t ask for indignant ranting. But detachment can be taken too far. For example, it won’t do to talk about America having no credibility with the Palestinians—as though there were any way for America to reasonably earn credibility with the Palestinians without pressuring Israel to make dangerous concessions. The Israelis are generally reasonable and movable and as the stronger party have made countless concessionary moves for peace with their Arab neighbors. But the Palestinians are so obstinate and so unreasonable that to consider earning credibility with them—as opposed to recalibrating their wishes away from destroying Israel—is problematic.
— steven k · Jan 7, 03:19 AM · #
It’s not ok to be passionate in defense of a beleaguered democracy that is often unfairly maligned, but it’s ok to be passionate in sounding the alarm about some kind of religious takeover of America. It’s also honorable to work as an editor and take a salary from an ideological magazine while profoundly disagreeing with it and cooking up a book about your colleagues. I see you’ve moved on to be a sarcastic hall monitor on blog comments. Onward and upward.
— steven k · Jan 7, 03:34 AM · #
Israel certainly can defeat Hamas militarily, if they are willing to kill many thousands and impose a harsh military control over the area. We just think that Israel won’t do it because either they don’t have the stomach for it or the rest of the world won’t allow it.
But the rest of the world is allowing Israel so far— there’s been nothing but some tut-tut pronouncements. No real action against Israel has been taken. Why is that? Iran.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Fatah are on Israel’s side in this conflict. And they don’t care about stopping missiles into Sderot. They care about destroying Iran’s front-line drive to control the Middle East. Thus, they will continue to support Israel as long as Israel shows it’s willing to go all out. Which it appears they are doing.
— Andrew B · Jan 7, 05:50 AM · #
Is there a bigger picture here? Could Israel become the fist of a most unlikely alliance of every jew-hating regime over there that hates Iran more? Slapping Iran around now and then might be more rewarding and certainly more fun than what it’s doing now.
— chuck · Jan 7, 04:29 PM · #
This is by far the best thing I’ve read on the crisis. Thanks Noah. As for whether or not Noah supports Israel, I think that’s a pretty silly question. I don’t think Noah is doing Israel any favors by adding a paragraph or two of cheerleading given that Israel faces a complicated set of threats.
— Reihan · Jan 7, 06:45 PM · #
Let’s get right down to it. There are Palestinians and Israelis, then there is the leadership of both. In the case of this situation it’s Hamas in Gaza and the Likud government of Israel. Those two actors are the parties to which we can blame. Not the Palestinian people, nor the Israeli people. They are the citizens. The leaders on both sides have done a grave disservice to the people they represent. Until both of these governments can sit down together, there will be no resolution to this problem. Both, the governments of Israel and the Gaza strip are complicit in this affair. May a pox fall upon both houses.
— Case · Jan 7, 10:13 PM · #
Have there ever been any modern nation-states that simultaneously claimed, occupied, and peaceably governed a singular geogrpahic territory—and in which every occupant must be either a citizen of one state or the other? In other words, one land, two governments, separate schools, separate businesses, separate police, separate fire departments, two separate everything?
I can’t think of any, but I don’t see why it’s not possible in theory. Who says a nation state has to be the sole claimant of a piece of land? What if, say, the land of Brittish Columbia were physically shared by both the US and Canada, and every resident would need to select citizenship or get approval for entry of one government or the other? Couldn’t both an Israel and Palestine co-exist on a map together, occupying the same land. Perhaps it would take a very minor and weak third governmental body, simply tasked with Immigration Enforcement?
I’m well educated but not particularly knowledgeable about foreign affairs, so this question may be incredibly stupid. Still, I’d appreciate hearing others’ thoughts.
— A Questioner · Jan 7, 10:48 PM · #
Isn’t Hamas a democratically elected government as well? The problem here seems to be that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip seem to have no friends outside the middle east. Hence they get more and more isolated.
But its quite amazing to read pretty analyses made from warm comfortable rooms of a brutal show of overwhelming force made with horrible, terrible quality technology (unless you can find a weapon which can literally kill ONLY the intended target without inflicting any collateral damage, you can’t realistically call it “precision”).
Now we are to believe, from the writers of history (like Milman and others) that this is all good… this is actually the price in blood for withdrawing from the 1967 borders!
As for Hamas, it is in their interest that they remain isolated. Hence, it ought to be obvious that they should not be allowed to remain isolated – that the world should engage them – after all, the notion that the State of Israel should not exist is a ridiculous one, and as such must also be a fairly brittle one.
— ThirdParty · Jan 7, 10:56 PM · #
Steven K, meet ThirdParty. ThirdParty, Steven K. You two work it out between yourselves and let us know what to do.
— Justin · Jan 7, 11:18 PM · #
The next phase of unilateral retreat: Noah, how do you square this with the fact that settlements on the West Bank have been steadily increasing over the last fifteen years? [Sincere question, not snark.]
Doug M.
— Doug M. · Jan 7, 11:33 PM · #
Geez, Reihan, I never said Noah doesn’t support Israel. My only point is to warn against the natural tendency to direct all exhortations to Israel—the only party in this conflict that is exhortable. This tendency has been responsible for a lot of trouble. This is a serious point, and I really wish people like Linker and Justin wouldn’t smugly dismiss it as unsophisticated.
— steven k · Jan 8, 03:13 AM · #
Jewish separation is the basis of Zionism. It is exactly the wrong prescription. You are right that Israel and Palestine are one by different names. But having its existence “guaranteed” by absentee Great Powers, while the “Jewish State” becomes a “rampart” against Asia and its uncivilized barbarians (another of Theodor Herzl’s Zionist gems),the Palestinians are just the native fodder whose sovereignty is to be supplanted according to script. So we have a century-old civil war and you think that separation will bring peace. Forget about it. Separation is the heart of the problem. When you need a bridge you get a wall.
— The Other Alan · Jan 8, 04:12 AM · #
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that even though these guys portray themselves to be religious, both groups are an embarrassment to their creator.
There are Palestinians who have only know despair, destitution and war. They only know conflict and it has become their ‘reison d’etre’, if there was no war, they would not know what to do. They have allowed themselves to be consumed by hatred. Seems they have forgotten the entire second Surra and the third surra, third verse.
Jews apparently have learned nothing from their exxodus and attempted extinction at the hands of the Social Nationalists and are now subjecting the Palestinian people to the same type of oppression that was visited upon them. If they were forced to live in ghettos with checkpoints every few miles I’m sure they would eventually respond with indiscriminate rocketry as well.
Eventually they must do that which their creator teaches, Peace at any cost!!! Sometimes the appropriate solution is counterintuitive. War only begets more war, in case folks have forgotten the words of their prophets. I tend to think if the Israelis, who happen to be holding the advantage, did everything possible to help the Palestinian people, regardless of what the ‘dogs of war’ on both sides want to perpetuate, peace can be achieved. One merely has to realize that death and destruction amongst ourselves is exactly what our true enemy wants.
Peace
— Jed Clampett · Jan 8, 04:15 AM · #
I like your reasoning, Millman. Everything about a decision (e.g. “disengagement) goes wrong, proves disastrous in fact, and you knew all along it would too, but somehow it was “still the right policy.” Well, what can I say about that except I make bad choices too. I landed on your strange planet by following a link in Mrs. Sullivan’s blog. Two mistakes I swear I’ll never make again.
— Dan Friedman · Jan 8, 04:59 AM · #
The whole thing has become beyond ludicrous. Has anyone ever asked him/herself why Germany wasn’t partitioned to create a homeland for the survivors of the Holocaust?
Well, Germany was partitioned, East and West, with the spoils going to the “saviors” – and nothing to the victims.
People who had been European for centuries were suddenly asked to adapt to a Middle-Eastern lifestyle, surrounded by hostile neighbors who had their own stake in this strip of land.
Stupid and ill-begotten decisions have caused this problem. The Palestinians had no part in the Holocaust. They might well be justified in their failure to welcome a United Nations-created “state.”
What would one expect from this? And they all lived happily ever after?
For godsake! Sixty years into this experiment and we wonder why things have gone awry?
Sallie
— Sallie Planty · Jan 8, 07:57 AM · #
“Peace with Honor” is a narrative (informatic) problem. The tragedy is, none of the sufficient narratives for the Palestinians can be reconciled with any of the sufficient narratives for the Israelis. [A ∩ B] is an empty set.
— JA · Jan 8, 05:35 PM · #
Noah, if you’re still reading, I’d love to hear your thoughts about the Dahiyeh Doctrine, especially given the success of the concept “a Fallujah” in local Iraqi politics.
— JA · Jan 8, 07:12 PM · #
Doug M.: sorry for being so long to respond to what is a genuinely good question.
First, let me clarify that while I believe that both Kadima and Labor would continue the process of unilateral withdrawal, that doesn’t mean they’d withdraw from 100% of the West Bank. They would not withdraw from any part of Jerusalem (a formal Palestinian presence in Jerusalem would presumably have to be part of any peace settlement, but I wouldn’t expect unilateral Israeli withdrawal there), and I’d be surprised if they withdrew entirely from the Jordan Valley. Whether the next phase is a major withdrawal or something far less impressive boils down to whether the center-left parties are prepared to face the prospect of public resistance to a withdrawal from a place like Hevron, someplace with enormous religious and historical resonance but with no conceivable way of being incorporated into Israel in the context of a two-state solution. My contention is that this is what they have in mind.
So: your question. I can think of three possible explanations consistent with my view of what is going on for why Israeli settlement activity has expanded massively since 1993 (most of the Jewish population in the territories dates since the Oslo Accords). One, this is a matter of internal Israeli politics. Even a left-wing government (such as Barak’s) could not forcibly remove unauthorized settlements, or formally refuse permission to new settlers to move in, or eliminate subsidies to settlers, for fear of its coalition collapsing. This is clearly part of the truth. Two, the settlements are viewed as a bargaining chip in negotiations, and you don’t unilaterally give up on a claim in a negotiation. Israel might unilaterally withdraw, for its own reasons, but it won’t unilaterally renounce its right to settle the territories. I don’t think much of this argument, but I think it’s also part of the reason in the minds of many Israeli policymakers. Third, Israel’s trying to establish “facts on the ground” in areas it would prefer to retain, such as Ma’ale Adumim, the Sharon region, Ariel. I think this is clearly part of the reason for continued settlement building during the last 15 years; certainly this is what the other side believes is the primary reason.
— Noah Millman · Jan 8, 09:05 PM · #
JA: re: narrative: good way of putting it.
Re: “Dahiyeh Doctrine”: I admit, I wasn’t familiar with the phrase, so I Googled it. So: if Hezbollah attacks, Israel will not confine its response to the front line positions. Is that about right?
Not sure what your question is about that, exactly, but I’ll say this. Hezbollah is an interesting test case of the theory that the Palestinians need to have “something to lose” before a real peace can be negotiated. Hezbollah, basically, beat Israel, driving it out of Lebanon; and it survived (stronger politically if weaker militarily) the Israeli attack in 2006. Apart from an ideological commitment to war against the Zionist entity, they have no real remaining grievances against Israel; if they are going to expand their power, they are going to do so by taking on a greater role in Lebanon and, potentially, Syria. And they do currently have something to lose; namely: significant military assets, control of southern Lebanon and a de-facto veto over the actions of the Lebanese government.
So we’ll see whether, over time, this makes them a more risk-averse organization. Their behavior during the current conflict in Gaza suggests the answer is: maybe.
— Noah Millman · Jan 8, 10:38 PM · #
Perhaps a meteor along the lines of the Tungushka event is what this problem needs as a solution, just imagine if a 3 kilometer wide stone exploded about ten miles above Jerusalem laying waste to the whole area between El Quirawn Lake and the Negev. Perhaps it would lay waste to the entire region, yet I’m afraid the survivors would still be fighting each other over the right to call the wasteland their own, sadly, neither “Religious” side would recognize it as a divine sign.
— Jed Clampett · Jan 8, 11:06 PM · #
Noah, thanks.
I hadn’t heard of the Dahiyeh Doctrine either, until I read this post about the recent rocket attacks in the north.
From the link provided by that site, I came across this:
I may be wrong, but that seems like a big deal. And I can’t help but think this has something to do with Hezbollah’s behavior over the last week or two.
Finally, I agree with you about risk-aversion. Hezbollah will not initiate hostilities unless they can find a new set of grievances. (Speaking of finding new grievances, it will be interesting over the next several weeks to see if Hezbollah has given up “vicarious outrage” as a stand-alone trigger for action.)
— JA · Jan 9, 01:16 AM · #
Of the people in this World 0.02% are Jews and 23% are followers of Islam, so how can this World support the Jewish Poster Child “Israel” killing followers of Islam at will as in Gaza ?
But this brutal destruction and killing by Israel is totally supported and funded by the USA. Yes folks Israel a tiny country without borders affording the 4th strongest Military in the World that has for years been been provoking a backlash from Islam , 23% of the Worlds population , has cleverly maneuvered the USA into joining into an undeclared War on Islam and calling it a “Worldwide War on Terror”.
Most Americans are only recently realizing that the Invasion and killing in Iraq is/was all a huge mistake.Some even realize that neocons , the Bush Administration and the American main stream media blatantly sold America the idea with lies and misinformation and yet the same “warmongers” are alive and well and intent on selling the US a further war on Iran.
Why do I think America is like “a sleeping giant caught in the headlights” ???
Like before , the bias in the media is almost blatant, lies go unchallenged and contra opinions are professionally interrupted by practiced TV presenters so that “Jo the Plumber” only gets the intended one sided message. For example the “Hamas started it by firing rockets” constantly repeated message. Americans are not told that Israel left Gaza in Nov 2006 exactly at the end of yet another Israeli 6 day search and destroy operation which left 56 Palestinian dead as “another warning” to natives resisting occupation.Israel then continued to retain total control of air sea and land and all entrances and exits to Gaza. Israel maintained a “siege” in its full fury, allowing only barely enough food and fuel to enter to stave off mass famine and disease with Palestinian children reduced to eating grass to survive. Such a policy of collective punishment, initiated by Israel to punish Gaza for political developments within the Gaza strip, constitutes a continuing flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
But Americans are never told any of that , no , since 2006 Israel has carried out regular terror campaigns in Gaza giving the inmates a 24/7 life of terror , assassinating and imprisoning elected Palestinian Politicians, with Israeli drones and jets at any time day or night threatening to drop bombs onto homes and killing whole Palestinian families.
When the Palestinians freely elected Hamas as their Government Israel and the US immediately referred to the Hamas Government as terrorists because Hamas refused to recognizes Israel’s right to exist. “Jo the Plumber” again is/was not told that Hamas doesn’t know like everyone else what or which Israel is being referred to. An Israel with no defined borders , an Israel which like it or not is an apartheid State or an Israel that does not have equal rights for all its citizens etc. etc.
The chutzpa of Israel calling its killing and destruction in Gaza a “War” !
When Israel uses sophisticated attack jets and naval vessels to bomb densely crowded refugee camps and slums, to attack a population in Gaza that has no air force, no air defense, no navy, no heavy weapons, no artillery units, no mechanized armor, no command and control, no army it is not a war, no , it is murder and Israel, with the unconditional approval and support of the United States, has made it dramatically clear to the entire world over and over and over again, repeating in action after action that it will accept NO viable Palestinian state .
Again can anyone explain how it is acceptable for Jews 0.02% of the World’s population ,through their poster child Israel ,to attack and kill Muslims 23% of the World’s population, as in Gaza ??? This “War on Islam” will surely result in a huge long lasting wave of anti semitism and anti Americanism which will be bad for World peace but good for World terror.—————-But don’t “they” know this ????
What will it take for the rest of us to hear?
Americans are not only supporting this stupidity but we are paying for all of it !!!!!
Gaza is compared to the “Warsaw Ghetto” of WWII with the Jews taking the place of the Nazis.
Gaza is an absolute shame on Jews , Israel , America and and the World.
— Harvey · Jan 9, 04:47 AM · #