Israel, Gaza, and Arab regional divisions

Israel's assault on Gaza, now in its second day with ground forces reportedly massing on the border, continues to dominate Arab politics and media.   It's not hard to find the usual zillions of commentators  consumed with the details of the Israeli-Palestinian issues (of those, I thought Dan Levy had a smart take on that today), so as usual I will focus on the regional political dimensions that interest me the most.

Almost every Arab media outlet, even those bitterly hostile to Hamas, is running bloody images from Gaza.  But as with the 2006 Hezbollah war, Arab responses are enmeshed within deeply entrenched inter-Arab conflicts, dividing sharply between pro-U.S. regimes and the vast majority of expressed public opinion.  One key divide revolves around the portrayal of the Arab regimes, with one side blasting Arab governments for what they are calling complicity with the Israeli attack and the other trying to create the impression that Arab leaders are working to formulate a collective response.   As protests escalate, this dividing line will likely intensify.  

 

Not quite 2006:  even Saudi-owned al-Hayat leads with caption "Gaza Massacre"

This doesn't mean that the Arab response has been unified.   In general, the responses have mirrored the faultlines which have dominated Arab politics for the least few years -- seen most vividly in the sharp Arab media divide during the early days of the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.   As in the summer of 2006, many U.S.-aligned regimes and their media are attacking Hamas and tacitly approving of the Israeli action (and, particularly in the case of Egypt, have been themselves actively working against Hamas for years). Al-Sharq al-Awsat editor Tareq al-Homayed, a reliable conduit for the views of the Saudi leadership, explicitly equates Hamas 2008 with Hezbollah 2006.  Just as in the earlier conflict, where the war was initially blamed on Hezbollah's recklessness, Homayed suggests that Hamas should pay the price for its manifold sins.  This equation between Hezbollah and the very Sunni Hamas, by the way, should reinforce my long-standing point that the "Sunni Axis" attacks on Hezbollah were always more about the regime/popular divide than about sectarianism, no matter how much they worked to inflame sectarianism in order to undermine support for Hezbollah and Iran.   

One significant difference in the regional camps surrounding Hezbollah 2006 and Hamas 2008 is Jordan, which was firmly in the Saudi-Egyptian camp against Hezbollah in 2006 but is walking a more careful line today because of the unique issues posed by the Hamas-Jordan relationship. More on that later.  The Iraqi government, for its part,  has condemned Israel's attack, and Foreign Minister Zebari told al-Jazeera that Iraq would support any Arab initiative to help Gaza.

Meanwhile, most popular movements are lambasting the Israelis, Arab leaders, and the U.S., and -- even more than in the Lebanon war -- public opinion seems to be firmly on the side of Gaza rather than Riyadh and Cairo.  Al-Jazeera is in full crisis mode, and angry protests are roiling the streets from Amman to Cairo.  The protests are directed firmly at Arab governments as well as Israel and the U.S., with the Egyptian opposition daily al-Dustour trumpeting the Egyptian 'green light' for the attack and calling for a popular response commensurate with the magnitude of events and popular fury.  The Muslim Brotherhood is taking the lead in Cairo, with Supreme Guide Mohammed Mehdi Akef personally leading a large demonstration yesterday and another announced for tomorrow.  Angry arguments between Muslim Brotherhood and NDP Parliamentarians have roiled the Parliament.   Jordanian Parliamentarians are calling to sever relations with Israel, and even mainstream commentators are demanding the expulsion of the Israeli Ambassador and labeling the attack "nothing but a massacre" (in the words of the liberal Jamil al-Nimri).  Iran is seeking to capitalize on the outrage, as well, while Hezbollah is playing up the comparisons to 2006 with Hassan Nasrallah calling for "millions" of Egyptians to take to the streets.

There are already some cracks in the anti-Hamas front -- three years of the Hamas- Fatah conflict dividing Arab attitudes towards and Arab media coverage of Palestinian politics do not seem to have dulled the intensity of the response to the images of Israel's bombardment of Gaza.  Here, it's instructive to compare Homayed's leader for al-Sharq al-Awsat (blaming Hamas and equating it with Hezbollah) with the leader by the editor of the Saudi-owned al-Hayat Ghassan Cherbel focused on stopping "the massacre" -- bemoaning the "monstrous attacks" and declaiming that there is no time to resolve deep inter-Arab conflicts before ending the killing in Gaza.

However this round of violence ends -- and it's hard to see any scenario in which it produces remotely positive results for anyone involved -- the outcome at the regional level will likely be to further exacerbate these conflicts and to undermine the chances for the incoming Obama administration to make early progress.  While Arab regimes will almost certainly survive the latest round of popular outrage, the regional atmosphere may prove less resilient.  Syria has reportedly broken off its indirect peace talks with Israel, for instance.  A bloody Hamas retaliation against Israelis seems highly likely, and if Abbas is seen as supporting the Israeli offensive against his political rivals then Hamas may well emerge from this even stronger within Palestinian politics.  The offensive is highly unlikely to get rid of Hamas, but it will likely leave an even more poisoned, polarized and toxic regional environment for a new President who had pledged to re-engage with the peace process. Obama has scrupuously (and wisely) adhered to the "one President at a time" formula in foreign policy up to this point... but you have to wonder how long he can sit by and watch the prospects for meaningful change in the region battered while the Bush administration sits by and cheers.

Comments

[Helena Cobban]

On Obama, he is quite right to maintain the 'One president at a time" position in all his public utterances. One could wish he'd done it a bit more with regard to the economy. But you have no idea what he is urging the current administration to do in his private communications with them.

They, of course, do not have to listen to him, but would be wise to.

[Zathras]

I agree with Lynch with respect to Levy's comments, but would add to them that it is unlikely Israel acted when it did solely for reasons of domestic politics. It must have known that the Bush White House would have responded to the crisis by directing criticism primarily toward Hamas, and could not be certain than an Obama White House would react in the same way after Jan. 20 -- still three weeks before Israel's own elections.

Hamas is naturally less sophisticated in its reading of American politics than the Israelis are, and probably did not anticipate the violence of Israel's response to its increased rocket fire. The Israeli leadership's reading of how its assault is likely to impact Palestinian politics (and Arab attitudes outside the immediate area) is probably wrong, as it has been so often in the past, but within the context of Israeli reasoning it makes sense that a calculated response of great violence to Hamas' harassment would be made now, while Israel could still count on relatively uncritical support from Washington no matter what it did.

[Kyle S.]

Though I agree that in the broad scheme there will be no winners, this certainly seems to be driven more than anything by Israel's domestic politics than considerations of regional implications. A number of reports seem to point to the Israelis just wanting a tactical/operational success within a limited campaign to restore fear of the Israeli military back into potential Arab enemies following the IDF's humiliation at the hands of Hezbollah. Do you think this is possible?

It seems probable that Israel could decimate Hamas operationally, but does the political survival (and perhaps strengthening of Hamas) make for Pyrrhic victory regardless of Israel's ability to stop rocket attacks or make its public believe that the threat from Gaza has subsided?

[Solomon2]

"The legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace." - William Tecumseh Sherman

Israel's campaign in 2006 de-powered Hezbollah but allowed it to keep repressing its captive population and re-arm for external aggression. Let's hope the Gaza effort will see a better outcome for both Israelis and the Arabs of Gaza.

[jonst]

Zathras wrote: "It must have known that the Bush White House would have responded to the crisis by directing criticism primarily toward Hamas, and could not be certain than an Obama White House would react in the same way after Jan. 20 -- still three weeks before Israel's own elections".

Of course the Israelis can "be certain" how Obama will react. The same way Bush reacted. There is not a dime's worth of difference between the Dems and Republicans in their policy towards Israel.

[Pococurante]

Gazans elected Hamas to first oust Fatah, then provoke war with Israel. Hamas delivered on the first almost immediately, and now working with Hizbollah is delivering on the second. Everything seems to be going as intended.

Chanting "rockets rockets rockets" misses the entire stated goal of Hamas - never truly negotiate, just posture. They're not freedom fighters - they are organized crime that terrorizes Palestinians while wrapped in the flag of nationalism.

Despite the snark above I have tremendous sympathy for average Gazans. The Israeli settlers are war criminals who en masse should be uprooted and tried as such. But enabling Hamas' grip on Palestinian citizens is not the answer. As corrupt and useless as the PA/Fatah have been historically they are preferable players.

[Solomon2]

The Israeli settlers are war criminals who en masse should be uprooted and tried as such.

In case you haven't noticed, it is very tough to pin the "war criminal" charge on Israel. Lebanon, for example, has been trying since the 2006 war. The reason seems to be that there is no substance to it under international law, so at the moment no one will bring the charge to court, since the advantage of an official charge would be momentary compared to the lasting exoneration that Israel would ultimately receive.

[Helen McElroy]

Okay everyone, it is easy to play aideline politics unless you are in the line of fire in which case politics can go to hell. US policy will not change no matter what the lofty idealist Obama proclaims. As long as we have powerful Jewish lobbby and now it seems quite a few American Jews in Israel US policy will not change. Obama spoke out on the Mumbai attacks with no hesitation.The BS in DC will go on forever. CHANGE MY BUTT!!!!!!!!!