John J. Mearsheimer: Another War, Another Defeat

Another War, Another Defeat

The Gaza offensive has succeeded in punishing the Palestinians but not in making Israel more secure.

By John J. Mearsheimer

Israelis and their American supporters claim that Israel learned its lessons well from the disastrous 2006 Lebanon war and has devised a winning strategy for the present war against Hamas. Of course, when a ceasefire comes, Israel will declare victory. Don’t believe it. Israel has foolishly started another war it cannot win.

The campaign in Gaza is said to have two objectives: 1) to put an end to the rockets and mortars that Palestinians have been firing into southern Israel since it withdrew from Gaza in August 2005; 2) to restore Israel’s deterrent, which was said to be diminished by the Lebanon fiasco, by Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, and by its inability to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

But these are not the real goals of Operation Cast Lead. The actual purpose is connected to Israel’s long-term vision of how it intends to live with millions of Palestinians in its midst. It is part of a broader strategic goal: the creation of a “Greater Israel.” Specifically, Israel’s leaders remain determined to control all of what used to be known as Mandate Palestine, which includes Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians would have limited autonomy in a handful of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves, one of which is Gaza. Israel would control the borders around them, movement between them, the air above and the water below them.

The key to achieving this is to inflict massive pain on the Palestinians so that they come to accept the fact that they are a defeated people and that Israel will be largely responsible for controlling their future. This strategy, which was first articulated by Ze’ev Jabotinsky in the 1920s and has heavily influenced Israeli policy since 1948, is commonly referred to as the “Iron Wall.”

<snip>

There is also little chance that people around the world who follow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will soon forget the appalling punishment that Israel is meting out in Gaza. The destruction is just too obvious to miss, and too many people—especially in the Arab and Islamic world—care about the Palestinians’ fate. Moreover, discourse about this longstanding conflict has undergone a sea change in the West in recent years, and many of us who were once wholly sympathetic to Israel now see that the Israelis are the victimizers and the Palestinians are the victims. What is happening in Gaza will accelerate that changing picture of the conflict and long be seen as a dark stain on Israel’s reputation.

<more>

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00006/
*

Note: John J. Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and coauthor of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

I do appreciate the honesty even though it makes me sick.....


<snip>

Arnon Soffer, a prominent Israeli demographer who also advised Sharon, elaborated on what that pressure would look like. “When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.”

the world has an unfortunate ability to forget many bad things once it is no longer on the TV - Darfur immediately comes to mind.

That's Pat Buchanan's RW publication.

As for Israel "losing" as they did in 2006, where are the rockets from Hezbollah since then - and why is Hezbollah crapping in their pants saying they're not at all responsible for the few rockets that were fired from S.Lebanon in the past week?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/396049_sharanskyonline15.html

The above article refutes Smearsheimer's latest.

Also favors protectionism on the home front.

(Like Thom Hartmann, btw.)

He's not 'beloved' by me but when people make sense I'll listen.

The list of writers his magazine has published is impressive.

One standout is Andrew J. Bacevich. His histories of American foreign policy can be read with profit by anyone, at anyplace on the political spectrum.

To the extent that PJB is an anti-imperialist he's a 'friend' of mine. No further than that.

But, if in your world it's Bibi:Yes! Buchanan: No! , I'm wasting my time writing this.

For the open-minded a warning: Commentary is a far more dangerous magazine than American Conservative.

I wonder if we'll ever see Podhoretz on the Rachel Maddow Show. I'm guessing not.

It's a little strange that a publication called "The American Conservative" would be cited (and agreed with) here.

Also, you have to admit that it's a little strange that an otherwise odious person such as Pat Buchanan can find support on this issue here as well.

In my world, I find both Netanyahu and Buchanan to be right-wing extremists whose opinions come primarily from places of prejudice and xenophobia.

As to which is more dangerous, Commentary or American Conservative - my answer is whichever one has a wider readership is more dangerous. In any case, 'dangerous' may not be the point here. The point is whether either paper is suitable for quoting on a left-wing board - and I would say no (unless it's to show what our enemies are saying).

Buchanan isn't just against neocon intervention or imperialism; he is against all intervention, because he hates any involvement with foreigners. He would have opposed entering the war against Hitler. He has written approvingly of contemporary Europaean fascist types, such as LePen.

All that is right-wing is evil.

There is probably much more similarity between Bibi and Buchanan than you recognize. Both are suspicious of foreigners, and take an attitude of 'I'll support what benefits my country in the short term, and the fucking hell with everyone else'.

There's no rational discussion possible once the word , the concept of 'evil' is introduced. Unless it's being said ironically.

It's just too damned 'medieval'.

Governance, policy has got to be rational. That's our way out.

I have no insight into anyone's mind or motivations; I just know what they say.

PJB edits a magazine that sometimes publishes articles that I sometimes agree with. All other guilts-by-association have nothing to do with it.

And 'evil'? , I mean really...that's just not very helpful.

But OK. Shall we say instead 'dangerous' (a term you used yourself) or 'harmful'?

Which word we use for it, is less important than the basic point that all that is right wing is fundamentally pretty similar: it is based on allowing the strong to crush the weak, and 'my side' to have unlimited right to use whatever tactics are available to defeat 'your side'. Xenophobia is usually a key part.

Therefore we should be opposing BOTH the Netanyahus AND the Buchanans; and for basically the same reasons.

a whole lotta terrorists are not going to be killing any Jews again. Loss my butt.

The Gaza offensive has succeeded in punishing the Palestinians but not in making Israel more secure.

By John J. Mearsheimer



Israelis and their American supporters claim that Israel learned its lessons well from the disastrous 2006 Lebanon war and has devised a winning strategy for the present war against Hamas. Of course, when a ceasefire comes, Israel will declare victory. Don’t believe it. Israel has foolishly started another war it cannot win.

The campaign in Gaza is said to have two objectives: 1) to put an end to the rockets and mortars that Palestinians have been firing into southern Israel since it withdrew from Gaza in August 2005; 2) to restore Israel’s deterrent, which was said to be diminished by the Lebanon fiasco, by Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, and by its inability to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

But these are not the real goals of Operation Cast Lead. The actual purpose is connected to Israel’s long-term vision of how it intends to live with millions of Palestinians in its midst. It is part of a broader strategic goal: the creation of a “Greater Israel.” Specifically, Israel’s leaders remain determined to control all of what used to be known as Mandate Palestine, which includes Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians would have limited autonomy in a handful of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves, one of which is Gaza. Israel would control the borders around them, movement between them, the air above and the water below them.

The key to achieving this is to inflict massive pain on the Palestinians so that they come to accept the fact that they are a defeated people and that Israel will be largely responsible for controlling their future. This strategy, which was first articulated by Ze’ev Jabotinsky in the 1920s and has heavily influenced Israeli policy since 1948, is commonly referred to as the “Iron Wall.”

What has been happening in Gaza is fully consistent with this strategy.
read on...
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00006/

It emboldened Hamas, because now they have hundreds of homeless folks who will now pledge their loyalty

It emboldened Iran, who now feels like they have to enter

It emboldened OBL, who can chalk this up as another recruiting device

Just another clusterfuck in a string of grand strategic clusterfucks going back to the 82 invasion of Lebanon.

What the hell?

when it fits their agenda.

They don't mind Pat Buchanan, David Duke or the World Socialist news either, as long as they can demonize Israel.

Not terribly "progressive" of supposed "progressives".

Jpost is linked daily. What's the prob?

It's a website for American Conservatives.

It is a site that was founded by Pat Buchanan and has a definitive mission statement embracing a Conservative ideology.

issues of I/P, Amcon is hardly NEOcon.

Articles from all of the above sources are linked to here even though many of them have conservative values because they provide insights as to how the press in the region is covering the events - what is actual being reported to the people who live in those countries.

The American Conservative is an American Conservative magazine founded by Patrick Buchanan whose missions is to promote Conservative values and ideals.

the looney-tune America First, flaghugging neocon imperialist mix that seems to identify with mainstream conservative thought these days. The magazine has printed articles critical of Bush and other conservatives that would make "The Nation" blush.

a looney-tune America First flaghugging xenophobic isolationist view. There isn't really that much difference between the fundamental ideologies, though lots between the details.

The BNP and the extreme right of the Tory Party in Britain would correspond quite closely to the Pat Buchanan types. And Avigdor Lieberman could be called their Israeli counterpart.

(from a conservative standpoint) articles. I remember last year their lead article in one issue was a tribute to the life and work of George McGovern pointing out how Sen. McGovern's career was that of an old fashioned prairie populist who actually stood up for old fashioned small town values. So yes American Conservative is conservative, but in an unconventional kind of way.

This particular article posted above is written of course by John J. Mearsheimer who obviously some people do not like very much. Still Dr. Mearsheimer was and remains a leading, establishment academic authority in international studies, someone who has long been sited and referenced as a mainstream expert on Middle Eastern issues.