Many key phrases have been presented to explain Israel’s latest military onslaught against Gaza, which has left scores dead and wounded. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is flexing his muscles in preparation for the Israeli general elections in January, suggested some.
It is Israel’s way of testing the administration of Egyptian President Mahmoud Morsi, commented others. It was a stern message to Iran, instructed few. Or that Israel is simply assessing its ‘deterrence’ capabilities. And so on.
But there is more than those ready-to-serve analyses. It has been four years since Israel mixed up the cards through an unhindered show of force. Last time it did so was in 2008-09, in a 22-day-long war, it termed ‘Operation Cast Lead’. Then, it killed over 1,400 Palestinians and wounded over 5,000 others. Excluding Israel’s diehard supporters, the general consensus was, including that of many UN and international rights organizations: Israel committed war crimes and crimes against humanity deserving of international tribunals and due retribution.
Of course, none took place. The US government and media stood as an impenetrable shield between Israel’s accused war criminals and those daring to level accusations. Four years later, little has changed. Then, as it is now, Israel was embarking on national elections, and since ‘security’ is Israel’s enduring strategy, Gaza was suddenly seen as more of a ‘security threat’ than Tel Aviv usually perceives it to be, and thus had to be suppressed or at least taught a lesson. Never mind that a truce was in effect and was mostly holding up, that it was Israel that tried to provoke Palestinian factions to retaliate – before the retaliation was itself considered the original act of aggression as willfully validated by mainstream western media.
In 2008, Barack Obama was elected president, and the outgoing George W. Bush administration remained largely ‘uninvolved,’ save for the reiteration of Israel’s ‘right to defend itself’ against, what it claimed to be, hordes of Palestinian fighters and such. Some then suggested that Cast Lead was an Israeli trial balloon to test Obama, whom Israel viewed with much suspicion despite all the groveling he has done at Israeli lobby meetings to assure Israel that a president with a middle name such as ‘Hussein’ will not dare demand accountability from Israel. Obama eventually lived up to Israel’s expectations, and despite few hiccups in their relations, the new administration was hardly different from its predecessors. Under Obama’s, Israel remained a top priority for American diplomacy, politics, military and financial aid, and more. However, Israel was still dissatisfied.
Political analysts cite few incidents that allegedly made Netanyahu look unfavorably at Obama from the onset. The latter ushered in his foreign policy with the appointment of a Middle East peace envoy, and expected Israel to work towards the resumption of the so-called peace process. More dangerously however, Obama spoke bluntly for the need to freeze settlement construction as a necessary first step before the return to the ‘negotiations table.’ Even Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who understands well the importance of Israeli support for any ambitious US politician, was clear regarding the settlements: President Obama, she said, “wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions.”
Gradually that position weakened, if not entirely reversed. Over the following months and years, the Obama administration retreated to the US foreign policy comfort zone regarding Israel: Give generously (even in times of economic recession), expect nothing in return, and, in the meantime, ask no question. But it takes more to placate an ever-demanding government as that of Netanyahu’s.
The Israeli prime minister is himself troubled by fears that his palpable support for the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, his trademark arrogance and lecturing of Obama regarding Iran could prove costly during Obama’s new term. Not that Obama is likely to be any less enthusiastic about supporting Israel, but the Israeli government is concerned that the US administration might not adopt Israeli foreign policy priorities as if it is an American doctrine, which has been the case for years.
Hours after the election results declared Obama a winner, the Israeli media began censuring the injudiciousness of their prime minister. Articles with such titles as, “So Sorry, President Obama, Please Forgive Netanyahu,” (Haaretz) and “Bibi Gambled, We’ll Pay,” (Yedioth Ahronoth) became commonplace. Romney’s defeat was particularly sobering for Israel since it is the first time that the power of the Zionist lobby and the endless millions of their patrons, such as the multibillionaire gambling magnate, Sheldon Adelson, did not prove as influential as before in determining election results of this scale.
Truth to be told, Obama is not only unpopular among Israeli political elites, by the Israeli public as well. “In global polls, Israel is the only” party “in the world that would have elected Romney over Obama,” said the ABC, and with a huge margin too.
It was early morning time on Wednesday Nov. 7 in the Occupied Palestinian Territories when the US election results were declared. The Israeli cabinet swung into action, and the Israel Army was quickly deployed to seek provocations at the Gaza border. An earlier incident on Nov. 5, where Ahmad al-Nabaheen, an apparently mentally-unfit man, was shot dead by Israeli forces, heightened tension, although, a truce remained in effect. On Nov. 8, Israel sought its casus belli as it moved in Gaza with tanks and attack helicopters. An early victim was a 12-year-old boy, who was gunned down while playing soccer. Palestinians retaliated, although, their projectiles caused no damage. One Israeli soldier was injured near the border with Gaza and more firing was reported by Palestinian fighters aimed at an Israeli military jeep, injuring four. Two more children were killed in an open soccer field on Nov. 10, prompting more, although, still guarded Palestinian retaliation. And another civilian in Gaza was killed the following day when Israel bombed the funeral tent set up to mourn the victims of past days.
On Nov. 12, Egypt was concluding yet another truce between Israel and resistance factions. But that turned out to be a diplomatic embarrassment for Egypt as the man, who agreed to the text of the truce on the Palestinian side, the leader of Hamas’ armed resistance in Gaza, Ahmed Jabari was himself assassinated by an Israeli missile on Nov. 14. No other meaning can be extracted from Jabari’s murder, but the fact that Israel had decided to pull the Palestinians into an all-out war. Scores of Palestinians, many of whom civilians, were killed in the subsequent days. Palestinians extended the range of their projectiles into areas near Tel Aviv and as far as Jerusalem. Three Israelis were reportedly killed.
Israel’s obsession with ‘security’ often, if not always, leads it to create the very conditions that compromise its own security, so that its leaders may demonstrate the authenticity of their original claim. It is a strange logic. But the timing of the latest war on Gaza as in the previous one partly meant to push the subject of Israel’s ‘security’ on the top of the new administration’s agenda, rife with crises and challenges. No US administration risks initiating its term in office with an open confrontation with Israel. The conventional wisdom in Washington is that in times of war, Israel is right even if it is wrong as it often is. Not even Barack Hussein Obama is strong enough to change that reasoning.
“We strongly condemn the barrage of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney.
Now that Israel is once more pushing its agenda as an American priority, the time is ripe for further escalation and for more saber-rattling against Iran, Hezbollah, and whomever else Israel perceives as an enemy. Israeli causalities will be used to demonstrate Israel’s supposed vulnerability, and Palestinian deaths will buttress Netanyahy’s rightwing government as Israel’s unbending guardian against those who continue to pose ‘an existential threat.’ The truth, of course, remains the least relevant.