Political Cynic grows weary of Political/Ethical Mendacity. Think of political crime of David Brooks’ ‘The Collapse of the Dream Palaces’ as the possible/aguable political beach-head?
The war in Gaza has reached a predictable and deadly impasse.
In response to the Hamas terrorist attack on Oct. 7, 2023, the Israeli government has publicly pursued two primary war aims. First, Israel wanted to secure the return of every hostage Hamas seized. Second, Israel wanted to destroy Hamas.
At the same time, however, Israel also indicated that it did not want to reoccupy Gaza. There are good reasons for this. The international community is opposed to occupation, Israeli society is deeply divided by the idea, and the previous occupation ended poorly — with Hamas coming to power after Israel withdrew from the strip in 2005.
But the brutal military fact is that rejecting occupation not only rendered Israel’s vow to destroy Hamas incalculably more difficult, it made the war far more inhumane and deadly.
Editor : Mr. French in the following sentences seeks to cover his ass with his readership!
I want to emphasize that this newsletter primarily offers a military analysis. It is not focused on politics. That’s not because the politics of the situation are unimportant, but rather because we often pay too little attention to military realities, and the success or failure of military operations can completely transform the politics of an international crisis.
Editor: What follows is a 1701 word diatribe, framed as somehow a valid rationale of Israel’s Genocide? Mr. French provodes a provisional cast of chacacters, for the Reader to consider as actors in his Political Melodrama, aided by his inept phrase-making!
Hamas, lesson the United States learned, “commuting to war,”. Even if a military follows the law of war (and that is a matter of debate in Gaza), emphasizing destruction can lead to a mentality that treats body counts as an independent objective, Israel has inflicted significant losses on Hamas, the Iraq war surge, the Israeli security cabinet has approved a plan to enter Gaza and stay — at least temporarily — to end Hamas’s control, President Trump floated in February, This is the approach of the worst hard-liners in the Israeli government, and it’s not just illegal. It’s a recipe for endless war. , …Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, is fond of calling military lawyers “jagoffs” — see the obligations of the laws of war as inhibiting war fighters and diminishing their effectiveness….
Editor: Reader there are but 1064 words remaining to this ‘essay’: yet for all the politically maicured chatter, these paragraphs signal the point of arrival has been reached ?
Also, it’s important to remember that the long and deadly history of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has rendered the Gazan population far more hostile to the I.D.F. than most Iraqis were to American forces. Israel has a more difficult challenge than we faced in Gaza — though the emergence of (unimaginably courageous) demonstrators against Hamas in Gaza indicates that there is an appetite for change.
Israel is facing a terrible choice. If it wants to remove Hamas from power, it almost certainly has to pursue an occupation that would divide the nation and further enrage the international community. If it wants to secure the release of the hostages, it will almost certainly have to agree to a cease-fire that leaves Hamas in place and sets the stage for future conflicts.
It remains to be seen whether Israel’s new approach is anything more than bluster. Perhaps Israel’s threats are little more than negotiation tactics. Perhaps Israel will ultimately prioritize releasing the remaining hostages over ending Hamas’s despotic rule. But one thing is crystal clear.
Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer.
'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary