Alan Hart : A defeat for Israel…?

Alan Hart November 23, 2012 3
Alan Hart : A defeat for Israel…?

My own speculation is that Netanyahu finally decided that it would be too costly for Israel in diplomatic and political terms to say “No” to Obama and many other leaders who insisted that Israel had to agree to a ceasefire on more or less Egypt and Hamas’s terms in order to prevent further de-stabilization in the region.

 

By Alan Hart

 

It’s too soon to know whether the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas will be more than a sticking plaster to be ripped off by more violence whether provoked by Israel or not, but while we wait for events to give us the answer, there is a good case for saying that under Netanyahu’s leadership the Zionist (not Jewish) state has suffered a significant defeat.

One small clue that Netanyahu and his leadership colleagues know this was a statement to the BBC this morning by Mark Regev, the prime minister’s Goebbels-like spin doctor. He said, “We didn’t want this escalation.” Even by Regev’s own standards that was a big, fat propaganda lie. It was to trigger the escalation that Netanyahu ordered the assassination of Hamas’s military chief. (It now seems more than reasonably clear that he was within an hour or so of signing an Egyptian-sponsored agreement for a prolonged truce when he was murdered).

The three main reasons for believing that Israel has suffered a significant defeat are these:

 

  • Israel did not get what it wanted and was demanding – an unconditional and unilateral ceasefire by Hamas.

 

  • Hamas’s isolation is over, ended. The Obama administration and European governments may still refuse to recognise Hamas and talk directly and openly to it, but they are as good as doing so when they engage with Egypt’s President Morsi.

 

  • President Obama had the good sense to realise that he can do business with the pragmatic Morsi.

In today’s Ha-aretz there is a fascinating and revealing account by Barak Ravid of what happened behind Netanyahu’s closed doors. The essence of it was that Defense Minister Barak “wanted it” (the truce on more or less Egypt’s terms); Foreign Minister Lieberman (who subsequently changed his mind) started out “demanding a ground invasion”; and Netanyahu “vacillated”.

My own speculation is that Netanyahu finally decided that it would be too costly for Israel in diplomatic and political terms to say “No” to Obama and many other leaders who insisted that Israel had to agree to a ceasefire on more or less Egypt and Hamas’s terms in order to prevent further de-stabilization in the region. (The extent to which Netanyahu was worried about the possible consequences for Israel of saying “No” was indicated by the fact that a few rockets were fired into Israel after the ceasefire came into effect, and Netanyahu did not allow himself to be provoked into responding with more bombs and missiles).

That said it is also the case that Netanyahu’s negotiators did create some wriggle room for their master. How so? The ceasefire document is not a binding agreement. It is a list of undertakings which are still to be worked out in detail and agreed. (It has to be acknowledged that Zionism is without equal in the business of finding ways not to honor commitments it makes in agreements).

There are three main and related questions arising.

The first is to what extent will Israel actually lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip?

The second is to what extent will Egypt succeed in preventing Hamas being re-armed by smuggling even if President Morsi has the will to succeed on this front where Mubarak failed? (The nuclear-armed Zionist state insists that it must be allowed to go on expanding its arsenal with the latest weapons, actually for offensive purposes, but Hamas must not have any weapons for defensive purposes).

The third is does Hamas have the ability to prevent violent Islamic fringe groups firing rockets into Israel? (It has to be said that its ability to do so has not been helped by the assassination of its military chief).

Another interesting question is this: What impact if any will Netanyahu’s acceptance of a ceasefire on more or less Egypt and Hamas’s terms have on his chances of emerging from Israel’s January election with a stronger than ever and unchallengeable coalition majority?

According to a snap poll taken very soon after the ceasefire announcement, 70 per cent of Israel’s Jews said they were opposed to the deal, meaning, presumably, that Netanyahu was wrong to agree to it. If that is and remains the view of a majority, we can expect to see Netanyahu aligning himself even more closely with the forces of the truly fascist right between now and the election.

Editor's note; Palestinians celebrate "truce for Peace," despite their heavy losses in terms of human life. They are obviously not genocidal.

In a best case scenario the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas will last and life for the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip will improve, but the fundamental problem will remain – Israel’s on-going colonization and ethnic cleansing by stealth of the occupied West Bank, the proof that Zionism is not remotely interested in peace on terms the Palestinians could accept.

Editor’s Note: One thing to do is get this Gaza ad in every newspaper in the US!

 

Source: http://ifamericansknew.org/images/GazaAd-lr.jpg

Please contact them to place this ad in publications of your choice (they will customize it to the necessary size and specifications), or donate so they can put it in publications they select.

You can also download a PDF of the image to print on fliers at home. For more information Go to : If Americans Knew

 

3 Comments »

  1. John November 23, 2012 at 3:46 am - Reply

      Though Hart put the following as speculation and technically it is at the moment for the public, I do not believe it is speculation in London, Washington or Paris.  I think Paris, London and perhaps Washington forced Netanyahu to stop his assault:

     

    Netanyahu finally decided that it would be too costly for Israel in diplomatic and political terms to say “No” to Obama and many other leaders who insisted that Israel had to agree to a ceasefire on more or less Egypt and Hamas’s terms in order to prevent further de-stabilization in the region.  

     

    Cameron and Hollande were openly against a ground invasion (Obama less so publicly).  One note: Clinton looked angry at Netanyahu in the photos I have seen of their first appearance together.  Though the videos of the event may indicate differently,  it was enough for Scott Pelley, anchor for CBS news to say that she looked frosty towards Netanyahu.  When an anchor is given the green light to say that, the Jewish billionaires and millionaires in America are seeing a PR disaster for Israel and are saying Enough is Enough.

  2. Kapoore November 24, 2012 at 2:45 pm - Reply

    I am afraid that Zionism is so closely linked with Judaism that the two are inseparable.  I have never met an ethnic Jew who was not a Zionist as well, even if that person said he was  not.  When push comes to shove Jews link the  survival of Israel with  jewish survival.   And are they wrong?  

     

    This may seem remote but at one time the Nestorians were a thriving religious sect that became aligned with the powerful Mongolian empire by marrying into royalty.  When the Mongolian empire went down the Nestorians disappeared as well.  

     

    Is Israel going down?  Something is going on.

     

    The internet seems flooded with anti-Israel pieces directed at an internet readership.  One can only conclude that more people are ignoring the mainstream media and getting news online.  This cannot be good for the Jews or Israel.   I like what you write and I agree with your pro-Palestinian positiion.

     

    But I don't believe you when you dissociate Judaism from Israel–the two are one so to speak.  It's all bound up together in one wet knot.  And for those extremely rare individuals who are above the fray, being Jewish and objective about Israel's treatment of Palistinians; their numbers are so miniscule  they almost don't count.  

  3. Solon November 26, 2012 at 11:00 am - Reply

    Kapoore, Important point that you made:  separating zionism from Judaism/Jewishness is extremely difficult.
    In my opinion, Jews/Zionists are reaping what they have sown over the past 100 years:  when any and every criticism of political Jewishness, i.e. zionism, is not only verboten but in some places criminalized, and even in the US subject to monitoring by a State Department office, the broader public are not sufficiently informed to make the distinction.  Rather, the broad public has been systematically misinformed as to the relationships among Israel, Judaism, zionism, and, as Gilad Atzom defines, Jewishness.
     

Leave A Response »

Copy this code

and paste it here *