Comments on: Scenario 3 It Is

By: Brett

Brett — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:22:12 +0000

In any case, Hamas has apparently offered a Seven Day Ceasefire. We'll see if it actually sticks for seven days.

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:41:26 +0000

In my neck of the woods we have another name for "unilateral cease-fire". We call it "surrender". Call it what you will, not only does it result from Israeli domestic political considerations, but US political factors loom large as well. Israel is well aware that once President-Elect Barak Obama is sworn in as President, tremendous pressure will be exerted on Israel to make "painful sacrifices". The unilateral ceasefire is an inauguration present to Obama in the hope that he will go easier on Israel in the coming days.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:18:27 +0000

I don't think it was just misdirection. While it might not been the explicit intent I think one of the implicit effects of attacking Gaza was to strengthen Kadima relative to Likud for the upcoming elections. It's another of the cases of doing what you think is the right thing to do dovetailing neatly with political advantage. We've seen a number of instances of that with our own domestic politics. However, now Olmert apparently thinks he's accomplished as much along those lines as is possible using these means at this point. Since as I read the tealeaves there's little appetite in Israel for a lengthy reoccupation of Gaza it will be interesting to see how Olmert removes IDF forces from Gaza before the February elections (which would strengthen Kadima) without encouraging Hamas (which would weaken it).

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:52:16 +0000

I think your "domestic political considerations" explanation is by far the most plausible. As with our financial crisis, Israel's leaders have enormous pressure to "do something" and no viable options at their disposal. So, a big "something" is done to create enough smoke to distract.

By: Triumph

Triumph — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:47:39 +0000

# Regime change in Gaza.
# A long-term negotiated ceasefire.
# Major hostilities end without a formal resolution

How could it have been anything OTHER than the last? It is impossible to displace Hamas, absent killing every last Gazan [which Israel probably would like to do, but its an impossible task].

There is no way that a negotiated solution would have occurred since Israel would never talk to Hamas.

If you could help me out with what strategic objectives the Israelis have achieved, I’d appreciate that, too.

None. It was an idiotic move.

By: steve

steve — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:12:43 +0000

I can think of only a few things. One, they have probably decimated much of northern Gaza, forcing Gazans and Hamas south. Two, they may have shut down the tunnels or have enough info to do so. Three, this may be part of a long term effort to get Egypt to take over Gaza. It certainly looks as though Egypt was cooperating, in their own way.

All of these are a reach, if things end as they currently stand. I still think Israeli internal politics was a major factor.

Steve