The Paradox of Israel’s Post-Gaza Election Polls

 

Isreality

The Paradox of Israel‘s Post-Gaza Election Polls

Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig

Schusterman Visiting Israeli Scholar, Brown University

As far as the Israeli public was concerned, the IDF’s latest war campaign in Gaza was a resounding success. A huge majority of  (Jewish) Israelis supported the war in principle from the start, a similar majority still feels that the war was conducted in a professional manner (unlike the Second Lebanon War in 2006), and all three leaders – Defense Minister Barak, Foreign Minister Livni and PM Olmert – have seen their personal popularity ratings increasing significantly. The number of Israeli soldiers killed (10) was amazingly low, considering the nature of urban warfare, so even in this most vulnerable area of Israeli sensitivity, the campaign ended with very minimal harm to Israeli society.

           As a result, one would have expected the election survey data taken immediately after the cessation of hostilities to show the electoral strengthening of the governing parties. Instead, the party that has increased its strength is the Likud! Such a counter-intuitive development demands explanation.

           It seems to me that there are two different but complementary reasons for this “paradoxical” outcome. First, the “I told you so” factor. Benjamin Netanyahu, the head of the Likud party, has been arguing for several years that we will have to move into Gaza with military force to stop the missile attacks. The present Kadima-led government, especially, had been loath to do so, in large part due to the lack of army preparedness as exhibited in the Lebanon 2 campaign. This is not to say that the government was wrong to wait and try to exhaust all diplomatic channels before the incursion; it is to say that Netanyahu warned that diplomacy was not going to succeed when faced with an implacable enemy such as Hamas. So in a sense, to paraphrase the Bible: “the hand is the hand of Olmert (et al); the voice is the voice of Netanyahu”.

           The second factor – and to my mind even more important – is the “conclusion” of the campaign. Israel has (hopefully) achieved all of its explicitly stated goals: stopping the smuggling of arms and cessation of rocket attacks for at least a year and perhaps more (a la Southern Lebanon, which has been quiet for 30 months, notwithstanding a couple of token missiles shot over the northern border during the Gaza campaign). However, precisely because Israel is facing an implacable enemy that in principle will not recognize the right of Israel to exist, the most recent polls also show that an overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews feel that no matter how many Israeli soldiers died the war should not have been stopped at this stage but rather taken to its “logical” conclusion: the elimination and annihilation of the entire Hamas leadership. Given that with Hamas continuing at the helm, the missile attacks will sooner or later commence once again, the Israeli public wanted to see a strategic end to the Gaza problem and not merely a temporary, tactical one. However, as it is only the latter that the Olmert government achieved, Israelis are now turning to Netanyahu who will not make the same mistake if and when the IDF will once again have to fight in Gaza in the coming years.

           Many pundits have suggested that the current Israeli government wanted to end the war before Obama’s inauguration as a sort of good will gesture to the new administration. I think that Israelachieved the opposite. Had the war continued another week or two and the Hamas leadership decimated, the Barack/Hillary team would have had a far easier time of it bringing some semblance of a genuine peace process to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. With Hamas remaining in power, they might well find themselves talking to a wall – a true Middle Eastern “Wailing Wall”. In such a situation, the Israeli public has more confidence in Netanyahu/Likud than in Livni/Kadima.

Jan. 28, 2009 

Who is an Innocent Civilian?

Isreality

Who is an Innocent Civilian?

Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig

Schusterman Visiting Israeli Scholar, Brown University

Does this story seem familiar to you?

The society is on the brink of economic and social collapse. Democratic elections are held and the public decides to vote for an extreme, ideologically-based party that views Jews as its mortal enemy. The party is not satisfied with its election victory and within a short time frame carries out a putsch in which all opposition is violently banished from the political system.  With no internal opposition left to block it, the extremist party goes on a militaristic binge, and among other things it fires hundreds of lethal rockets into populated areas of what it considers to be its enemy. Ultimately, the people fired upon decide to fight back and eventually invade the attackers’ land, causing massive destruction of army and civilians alike – far more of the latter than died in the initial rocket attacks.

I’m sure you are asking why I am repeating what every one is quite familiar with – the recent and contemporary history of Hamas in Gaza and its actions against Israel. In fact, however, I am actually writing about quite a different scene: the rise of Nazi Germany, its attacks on Britain, and the subsequent allied invasion of Germany with the ensuing total destruction of its infrastructure, not to mention the deaths of millions of German civilians.

My point is not to draw a direct parallel between Hamas and the Nazis, although one could make a good argument of (too) many parallels and similarities. Rather, I wish to raise another question: “who is an innocent civilian?”

Israelis are scolded for attacking Hamas which came to power in democratic elections. Precisely! This is an extremist party that did  not take power against the wishes of the local population, but rather was elected by the Gazan populace, due (in part) to its implacable hatred of Israel and everything Jewish. The policy of rocket fire into Israel these past few years was not opposed by Gazans but rather was tacitly – and occasionally actively – supported by Gaza’s civilians.

Does this mean that Israel can indiscriminately fire at anything and everything in Gaza? To judge by the precedent of World War II (Dresden anyone? How about Hiroshima?) – and numerous other wars (Vietnam etc.) in which the West did precisely that – the answer would seem to be a resounding “yes”. However, from a “just [moral] war” perspective that Israel tries hard to adhere to, the answer is obviously “no”. Nevertheless, given that civilians elected and supported Hamas’s casus belli policy from the start, it is also clear that the principles of “just war” have to be modified when dealing with a population that was not held ransom by its own political outlaws but rather consistently supported and condoned the policy of indiscriminate rocket attack against Israeli civilian targets.

Gazan civilians are being shot in the crossfire of war? Perhaps if they would have acted from the start a little more civilian and had tried to dissuade their duly elected leaders from pursuing an immoral policy of shooting at Israeli non-combatant citizens (i.e. “just warfare” morality), they would not find themselves in the present bind. As to the rest of the world looking on in “horror”, bewailing the Gazans’ plight, they would do well to consider whether these “innocent civilians” are indeed not at least partly to blame themselves for the present carnage.

Jan. 13, 2009