Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| No freedom for Gaza without serious rockets (and Egypt) |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2012-11-23
As I write, there is a Gaza-Israel cease-fire, based on a document promising an end to cross-border violence by both sides and (in unspecified vagueries) an end to Israel’s all but unimaginably cruel blockade of Gaza. To what is this peace due? Well, at first blush, it seems to be due at least in part to the intervention of Egypt. Might it also be due to expressions of (non-Egyptian) international outrage toward Israel? If there was an outpouring of international outrage at inter-governmental levels, it was not obvious to readers of the USA’s MSM. If the governments are acting—finally—on I/P problems, then it appears that they are doing so very circumspectly. And if they have that much power when merely acting “diplomatically”, think how much power would they have if acting openly? Would their people join these governments, or were the people leading the governments? A lot of speculation about a possibly non-existent event! Though open American political grovelling to AIPAC persists as a near universal political practice, President Obama may well have quietly (and, of course, deniably) encouraged this cease-fire even though it achieved much for Gaza and Egypt, but little for Israel and less for Benyameen Netanyahu. The quick peace may also be due, I would argue, to Gaza’s having been armed (a bit) with long-range rockets. This is the first time that Israel’s principal cities of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were hit (at all) by rockets shot from Gaza. And a few of them got through despite the general success claimed for Iron Dome. In short, what was intended by Israel to be a safe exercise of “shooting fish in a barrel” (like the “Cast Lead” exercise of 1008-2009) may have surprised Israel and seemed sufficiently unsafe to make early termination seem reasonable on—to Israel—bad terms. Ha’aretz has its own description of events reprinted in full, here. What did this peace achieve? • This peace achieved a very early stop to Israel’s latest unprovoked, aggressive, and therefore illegal, fierceness-proving-fish-in-a-barrel turkey-shoot against whipping-boy Gaza. Fortunately for all concerned (except the misguided warlords of Israel), this atrocity was much shorter and much less destructive than the 2008-2009 “Cast Lead” Israeli-produced jollity. • This peace achieved an agreement between the for the most part merely so-called “terrorists” (Hamas) and the abundantly demonstrated state-terrorists (Israel). This is the second such Israeli/Hamas agreement, the first having been for the release of one Israeli soldier held by Hamas and perhaps 1000 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. However, it must be said that an agreement is no more than a “piece of paper” unless both sides comply with it. Israel has already murdered one Gazan and wounded several others in apparent violation of the agreement. • This peace achieved a proof of Egypt’s new respectability and responsibility (which Mubarak’s Egypt lacked) in peace-making. I hope it is prelude to much more of the same. What did the violence achieve? • The violence proved that Israel’s new Iron Dome missile defense often works, but not always, and—I suppose—not necessarily when a large number of missiles are shot at a single target at about the same time. Testing Iron Dome may have been a major Israeli purpose of the exercise. • The violence seems to have shown that an essentially unarmed Gaza is subject to major violence (as in 2008-2009) whereas a Gaza armed with a few modern-ish weapons which can and do (despite Iron Dome) strike near Tel Aviv and Jerusalem quickly invites Israel to back down (at least when Israel had no real reason for the attack in the first place besides its usual bloody-mindedness). What is the “take away”? When Gaza had no weapons but home-made rockets, in 2008, it was trounced (and worse) by Israel in the war-crimes-rife operation “Cast Lead” memorialized by the (still largely ignored) Goldstone Report. Perhaps, now, that report will be re-visited. Today, 2012, armed with somewhat more serious rockets (which reached Jerusalem and Tel Aviv), Gaza has achieved peace relatively quickly. Therefore, Gaza had best re-arm and arm with bigger and better weapons ASAP, whatever the terms of the cease-fire. (Of course, Israel has never ceased improving its armed forces.) If Gaza has these arms and knows how to use them (and can hide them from Israel’s drones and other espionage), then it may save itself from further attacks—at least from senseless attacks like this on in November 2012. What about the USA? As far as I can see, the USA (Obama) is pleased with the cease-fire and can be deemed to have (secretly, of course, so as not to incense AIPAC) supported Egypt and Hamas in the negotiations. Obama has a problem acting as a decent and ethical man (or leader), and that problem is the horrible pro-Israel bias (largely directed by AIPAC’s money) in the Congress and media. He has the same problem acting against “man-made climate change”, where the money is much larger (I call those who spend this pro-fossil-fuel political money BIG-OIL, BIG-COAL, and BIG-GAS, major players—with AIPAC/BIG-ZION—in the non-democratic American oligarchic political system). So an ethical or responsible or even merely decent Obama must be stealthy (at least until the media change their tune) on Israel/Palestine or Global/Warming. My guess is that he was stealthy here. I’ve not yet heard White House condemnation of the cease-fire. We’ll have to see how the business of defining the lifting of some or all of the blockade turns out, and how the USA intervenes (if at all visibly) in this business. |
Comments:
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |