Behind closed doors, U.S. seeks Israel exit strategy
Washington is worried that a prolonged campaign in the Gaza Strip could bolster the Palestinian Hamas movement. It wants Israel to set a timetable.
By Paul Richter, December 31, 2008
Reporting from Washington — While publicly declaring strong support for Israel, the Bush administration is increasingly nervous about the 4-day-old campaign in the Gaza Strip and is urging its ally to settle on a timetable and exit strategy, say foreign diplomats and Middle East experts close to the discussions.
U.S. officials are concerned that the campaign could drag on without destroying Hamas, and might even bolster support for the militant group — just as the 2006 Israeli campaign in Lebanon strengthened Hezbollah, they say.
“You’re not hearing that same confidence you did in 2006 that the Israeli military can impose a new strategic reality and should go full force,” said one Arab diplomat in Washington. “There’s a real contrast between their words then and now.”
U.S. officials were talking intensively Tuesday to Arab and European powers about the possibility of a two- or three-day cease-fire, diplomats said. U.S. diplomacy is complicated by differences between the White House and the State Department, these sources said.
President Bush has been a steadfast supporter of Israel’s right to take whatever steps it considers necessary for its defense, and U.S. officials are not pressuring Israel to stop fighting before it believes it can safely do so.
But the State Department must deal with the growing international pressure for a halt in the campaign. U.S. officials are calling for a “durable” cease-fire — meaning the Israelis need to stop fighting only after Hamas has done enough to convince them that rocket attacks will not resume within hours.
Yet U.S. officials have keen memories of what happened in Lebanon. The administration gave broad support to that campaign, which Israeli officials said could “eviscerate” Hezbollah. The war, which lasted 34 days and involved intense ground and air attacks, strengthened America’s enemies and weakened its friends in the region, most observers agree.
“The United States put itself in a vulnerable position internationally with that commitment,” said Daniel Senor, a former administration official now affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. “Just like Israel, the Bush administration is thinking now about the lessons of the Lebanon war.”
U.S. officials have also been warning Israel to take care to avoid any single strike that, by inflicting devastating civilian casualties, could further swing international opinion against it.
That happened in July 2006, when Israeli warplanes hit a building in the Lebanese village of Qana, inflicting dozens of casualties.
The Qana attack “was a big turning point in that war,” Senor said. “The administration wants Israel to execute this operation in ways that avoid the mistakes, setbacks and blemishes of 2006.”
Of the almost 400 Palestinian deaths in the latest violence, the United Nations estimates that 62 were civilians. Four Israeli civilians have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza.
Senor said the Americans’ desire for clarity about the end game and exit strategy may put them in conflict with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who wants to preserve his options and keep his enemies guessing.
Though Bush is in his last three weeks on the job, he and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have an enormous stake in the outcome of the battle.
They have been claiming that their peace efforts have been yielding results, but the war has weakened their foremost Palestinian ally, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, while raising the prospect that it will give his Hamas rivals both greater public support and political power.
The fighting also has resulted in criticism of U.S. allies Egypt and Jordan, both of which have diplomatic relations with Israel and are regarded by some Arabs as unable to halt the current conflict. That could enhance the status of Iran and its hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been under tremendous pressure because of his country’s slumping economy.
The Arab diplomat, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the diplomacy, said that until the offensive, “Hamas was in a bind — their popularity was declining. . . . Now they could be the winner.”
White House and State Department officials declined to comment on what they are telling the Israelis. A State Department spokesman, Gordon Duguid, said U.S. diplomats were “working as hard as we can to help reestablish a cease-fire that can be fully respected, one that’s sustainable, one that’s durable.”
Foreign diplomats who have been talking to U.S. officials say they see a difference in emphasis between the White House and State Department.
On Saturday, when the Israeli campaign began, Rice issued a statement calling for restoration of the cease-fire, which had been mediated by Egypt and which Hamas often violated.
Now, however, both State Department and White House officials are referring to a “durable cease-fire,” entailing new and stricter terms.
A diplomat from another Middle Eastern country said there appeared to be a “back and forth” between the State Department and White House, leaving the U.S. position in flux.
Senor said the White House was emphasizing support for Israel while Rice was conveying that the State Department could not indefinitely hold off international pressure for an end to the campaign.
Ziad Asali, president of the American Task Force on Palestine, which lobbies for the Palestinian cause in Washington, said he thought U.S. concerns had been heightened by the possibility of Israel sending in infantry.
Such a move would probably mean higher civilian casualties and more provocative media coverage that could inflame Arab public opinion and “have real consequences for the stability of several of the regimes in the region,” he said.
Steven J. Rosen, a former senior official with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said U.S. concerns were being heightened by fears that Israel probably cannot destroy Hamas, a view shared by many Israelis. Washington and moderate Arab governments in the neighborhood would have more patience if they thought there was a realistic chance Hamas could be overthrown, he said.
Rosen said the Americans, like the Israelis, wonder whether Hamas will emerge politically stronger, even if its military arsenal is badly depleted.
In these circumstances, he said, the U.S. message is: “I know why you’re getting in — but how are you going to get out? How does this end?”
Those who invaded a sovereign country killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of Arabs and went in without an exist strategy should not be preaching to others, especially us. Fuck Bush. Not one Israeli should have to pay the price for Bushes legacy or even his IOU’s to the Saudis or anyone else. I guess nobody told that dumb Bozo that it’s the economy stupid. That is what Bush we be remembered for, What an idiot. America is very deserving as we of the leaders we choose.
Happy Sylvester.
Comment by yamit82 — December 31, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
Israel has no reason to ever leave Gaza. Why? To make life easier for a departing U.S Administration? I don’t think so and after Israeli boys die to secure it, most Israelis won’t want to have to do it all over again. Let’s call the Disengagement experiment for what it was - and I’m sure Yamit82 will concur here - a game of Russian roulette with the lives of Israel’s citizens. A normal country should never subject them to that again!
Comment by NormanF — December 31, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
If it is to the terrorists’ advantage to have a respite so they can regroup and recover, Israel should escalate its campaign to even greater levels of violence.
The only time in the past century in which I would have agreed with a blanket cease fire during time of total war was during the First World War, when British and German soldiers suddenly stopped fighting on Christmas Eve and held impromptu (and totally unauthorized) soccer matches in No Man’s Land. The governments involved should have recognized this as a golden opportunity to reconsider and end a war that should never have started. On the other hand, does any sane person think that General Patton would have agreed to a truce when he was kicking the Nazis’ backsides across Europe? A truce only gives a beaten enemy time to recover and regroup, so only an incompetent or a traitor would even consider making one.
Comment by Bill Levinson — December 31, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
yamit: I agree with your comments regarding the US preaching - they certainly should not be talking about exit strategies a few days into an important operation that will determine the future of Israel and the future of the real war on terrorism. After 6 years and close to 4000 of their own and perhaps10-20 times that amount in civilian casualties the Iraqis seem even more fundamentalist in their Islamist outlook and on the precipice of the abyss - with the many ME terror groups lining up to set up their shingles when the US exits the region.
It was the lack of US backing that led to a draw with Hezbollah after a mere few weeks of war (when Hezbollah snatched border guards in Israel and conducted multiple other terrorist acts to promote conflict).
The time for words and cease-fires and peace talks are now over - this is the defining moment. Can Israel stop the terrorists from bombing Israel and, just as important, will Israel be prepared to refuse to stop until the rotten core of Islamist beliefs in hate and annihilation of others is over for good?
I think that talk of targets being exhausted are false - there is an entire border with Egypt that needs to be bombed open for those who need to get out. There are supplies of rockets that need to be blown up.
The hearts of Arab countries must be tested to see if they have the will to really help their own through proper education, employment, and to get them away from the teats of the UN, Europe and Israel. When the media speaks of the Palestinians they refer to them as people refer to juveniles and children who have no control over their bowel movements and not enough sense to stop the bad behavior which has them firing dad’s rifle off willy-nilly at the neighbors, other children and at their siblings in the same lodging.
Lets hold them responsible, take them at their word and respond in kind until they bow to change their actions - and - most importantly, action talks, bullshit walks.
Comment by Gary — December 31, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
Deja vu all over again, just like during the war against hezbollah.
To set a timetable and an exit strategy will make a hamas victory a self-fulfilling prophesy. The goal should be total victory, the annihilation of hamas no matter how long it takes. Bush rejected the very notion of a timetable when it came to Iraq. He insisted America will stay the course until victory. So why can’t this be the same for Israel?
Again, this happened because the war was ended prematurely. Israel was pressured into a ceasefire in which the US itself had a major role in brokering. So why are US officials complaining about an outcome in which they themselves facilitated? We have been in Iraq for more than 5 1/2 years, Afghanistan for 7 years. Why does the US government demand Israel win its wars in a matter of days or else cease? This is absurd.
Why does the US government place such an impossible standard on Israel to avoid civilian casualities, a standard which we ourselves have not come close to upholding in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I’m so sick of this notion that Israel fighting its enemies actually strengthens its enemies. The problem isn’t that Israel goes to war, but that it doesn’t FINISH THE JOB. A victorious and strengthened hamas cannot happen if the terror group ceases to exist. There are those who don’t want an Israeli victory, so they seek to make it a self-fulfilling prophesy by putting pressure on Israel to end it prematurely on the grounds that victory is not possible and the war is only strengthening said enemy. And by Israel acting on this “advice”, victory for the enemy is precisely what happens. This is what was done in Lebanon and now it is taking place with regard to hamas.
Comment by Laura — December 31, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Ridiculous. Only two nations have any leverage with Hamas — Syria and Iran — and neither has any interest in seeing Hamas agree to a “durable” cease-fire, i.e., a permanent cessation of hostilities and a commitment to end weapons smuggling. And that is the only outcome which should be acceptable to Israel.
If IDF Generals do not believe it possible to completely eradicate Hamas in this campaign, they should move to the attrition strategy I have proposed. For every projectile launched by Hamas, the IDF should launch five of significantly larger caliber and destructive capacity.
End the sensational light show and move into Phase II of the war — a long, grinding, boring battle to deplete and demoralize the Palestinians. Hand off all aid and power responsibilities for Gaza to the Egyptians and terminate all negotiations with Abbas on the two-state solution.
Let the news agencies and UN refocus their hysteria on the 200 people massacred in the Congo this week, the 40,000 killed in the ongoing war between Turkey and the Kurds, and the 300,000 civilians murdered in Sudan.
Comment by Charles Martel — December 31, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/topten/
Concentrating on Arabs and Israel in view of what is being ignored is plain and simple antisemitism and for those relativists and advocates of proportionality , I can only advise where to stick it!
Comment by yamit82 — December 31, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Yamit just got there before me… There are two acid tests that flush out the REAL racists in this world:
1. No demonstrations or concerns about the thousands of rockets hitting Israel over the past year or so.
2. (Morally concerned, anti-war, and highly anti-racist) people who are not in the least concerned about what’s contained in Charles Martel’s quote re Darfur, the Kurds, and the Congo?
Blacks being killed (Darfur and the Congo)? Not a problem. Where’s that Irish singer chappie (Live Aid?) when you need him?
Hypocrites.
Comment by keelie — December 31, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Yes, hypocrites. The U.S is not looking for an “exit strategy” from Iraq. Who the hell is the expiring Bush Administration to tell Israel to get out of Gaza? Its none of their concern!
Comment by NormanF — December 31, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
The day that war with Hamas broke out, I was thrilled by the fact that Hamas would be totally destroyed. Today, after only 6 days, I feeling that I have been raped by by the Olmert government and being held by the US and EU governments. It just feels to me that for Olmert, Livni and Ehud, this is just election engineering because they started the bombing of Hamas to pacify the Patriots on the right who wish peace only after Hamas is dead and out of Gaza and then plan to stop in order to pacify the liberal left cowards. Nothing is really accomplished. After Hamas and Hezbollah rearms, it deja vu all over again.
Comment by Ed D — January 1, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Ed describes it precisely.
Comment by Max — January 3, 2009 @ 12:21 am