Al-Jazeerah History
Archives
Mission & Name
Conflict Terminology
Editorials
Gaza Holocaust
Gulf War
Isdood
Islam
News
News Photos
Opinion
Editorials
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
www.aljazeerah.info
|
|
Israel's 'Nice Little War':
Gaza, Egypt in the Range of Fire
By Ramzy Baroud
Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, August 29, 2011
Israeli writer Uri Avnery recently wrote an article entitled
‘How Godly Are Thy Tents?’, which began with the words, “First of all, a
warning.” The reference was made to the tent cities that have
sprung up across the country by middle class Israelis demanding change and
reforms. The organizational style of these demands was not entirely
different from Arab uprisings. To everyone’s surprise, the limited Israeli
mobilization, which extended from concerns about sky-rocketing real estate
prices to calls for ‘social justice’, was seen as Israel’s Tahrir Square
moment. The movement was yet to articulate a political agenda, although
such enunciation would have been a natural progression. So what
was Avnery’s warning about? The “social protest movement is
gathering momentum,” wrote Avnery. “At that point, there will be a
temptation – perhaps an irresistible temptation – to ‘warm up the
borders’. To start a nice little war. Call on the youth of Israel, the
same young people now manning…the tents, to go and defend the fatherland.”
It was an unnerving warning, not only because it came from Avnery,
a veteran well-versed in his understanding of the Israel ruling class, but
also because it actualized in its entirety a few days later. The
‘war’ had indeed commenced, starting on August 18. The ‘provocation’ had
supposedly demonstrated without doubt that Israel’s security was greatly
compromised and that the small state with ‘indefensible borders’ was
paying a high price for Gaza’s armed intransigence and Egypt’s
post-revolutionary chaos. Israeli sources reported that a large number of
militants had crossed Sinai into Israel’s Red Sea resort of Eilat on
Thursday (August 18), opening fire on two buses carrying Israeli soldiers.
The passage was implacably coordinated, thus the ability of these bold
attackers to kill and wound soldiers and other Israelis. According to the
Israeli version of events, some of the attackers were killed, but others
managed to flee back to Egypt. This forced the Israeli military to pursue
them in an extraordinary chase, which mistakenly killed three Egyptian
military personal. Israeli sources, seemingly clueless to
the armed men’s infiltration of a high security area, immediately provided
precise information about the attackers. Instant consensus was also
reached about the attackers’ link to Gaza. Per the massive strikes on many
Gaza targets, it seemed as though the entire Strip was being blamed and
punished. The outcome was most predictable, albeit tragic.
Israeli warplanes flew back over the Gaza sky, drones roamed uncontested,
and the Palestinian death toll augmented. The whole miserable scene of
killed civilians, mutilated children and burnt buildings was once more
upon us. The chorus of support for Israel and condemnation of Palestinians
from Washington was reminiscent of a history that never stops repeating
itself. But before delving into counter-arguments, one is tempted
to question the conveniently situated Israeli wars of ‘self defense.’ How
different is this latest ‘nice little war’ from the horrifying Israeli
invasion of Lebanon in 1982? When Ariel Sharon requested an American green
light to attack Lebanon, Alexander Haig, US Secretary of State under
President Ronald Reagan, insisted Israel must possess a ‘credible
provocation’ before leading such a mission. Moreover, the case made to
justify the war on Gaza in 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead also had its own
‘credible provocation’. In fact, all of Israel’s wars are sold to the
public within this neat package which actually holds little credibility.
This time the provocation had to be convincing enough to justify
multiple Israeli strikes on all of Gaza’s factions, as well as politically
vulnerable Egypt. Why is Israel bent on discrediting Egypt,
exploiting the most sensitive period of its modern history, and
destabilizing the border area so as to show Egypt’s failure to ensure
Israel’s border security, as stipulated in the Camp David treaty?
Reportedly, all of Gaza’s prominent factions denied any responsibility for
the Eilat attacks, including the Popular Resistance Committees (not
affiliated with Hamas), which was accused by Israeli of being behind the
attacks. Responding to Israel’s killing of Egyptian officers, and
under pressure by thousands of porters, Egypt pulled its ambassador out of
Israel on August 20. In Israel, the discussion is now shifting to security
and the need to complete construction of its 200km barrier at the border
with Egypt, ostensibly aimed at blocking African immigrants from sneaking
into Israel. Strangely, Egypt, which stands accused of allowing hundreds
of militants into Israel from Sinai, had kept an eye on the border despite
the effects of the revolution on security throughout the country. On July
7, for example, and on August 11, Egyptian security reportedly killed an
Eritrean man and a Sudan migrant respectively for trying to cross the
border. Many others have been apprehended during past months as well.
The army’s ability to strike down lone migrants, while supposed
laxity allowed for the infiltration of hundreds in one instance raises
more questions than it provides answers. Some hidden hands seem
to be orchestrating chaos in the city of Arish and the rest of the Sinai
area. This includes the peculiar daytime attack by hundreds of armed met
at police stations in Arish on July 29, which killed several Egyptian
officers. While deliberate chaos was being engendered in Sinai,
fear was returning to Gaza as it was promised another Israeli military
assault. On August 9, residents of the impoverished Gaza Strip
feared attack by Israel. The fears were not only based on repeated threats
by Israeli officials, but also on a mysterious telecommunication blackout
that day which cut off all Internet, mobile phones and international
landlines for hours, according to Ma’an news agency. “Meanwhile, residents
of Gaza near the border with Israel said army bulldozers were seen
operating shortly before communications went offline,” Ma’an reported.
Why did Israel cut Gaza’s communication off? Was the ‘credible
provocation’ being concocted then? Why did Israel fail to provide a
reasonable explanation for the blackout? More, why the attempt at
embarrassing, provoking and perhaps dragging Egypt into a border
confrontation at a time when Egypt is attempting a transition towards
democracy? It ought to be said that “new Egypt’ was also credited
for facilitating Palestinian unity, a first step towards taking Hamas out
of its international isolation. Is it not then possible that
Israel’s ‘nice little war’ was a response to such a dangerous shift in
Egyptian policy towards Hamas - and Palestine in general? -
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net)
is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of
PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom
Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on
Amazon.com.
|
|
|