The War Comes to Stanford

“In response to criticism from Israel and American Jews, Baker banned Israel’s then deputy foreign minister — Bibi Netanyahu — from entering the US State Department.”

That story I didn’t know about.

Also shows how long some of these people have been around, in various different jobs.

Parliamentary systems seem to permit longer national political careers and to reward talent, ambition, family name, and connections more than American and other decentralized federal systems. Winston Churchill, for example, had a political career that lasted more than half a century from his first term as a member of Parliament to his retirement.

Yet for every such bright elite figure like Churchill or Netanyahu in a parliamentary system, there are many marginal and negative or sheer rotten ones who hang on for decades because they are at the center of a political clique or minor party or because they have wealth. For example, read about the careers of and Churchill's exchanges with and quips about Lady Astor and Stafford Cripps.

Even more than Britain, Israel's parliamentary political system is often consumed by petty spite and opaque feuds. That is why Netanyahu is being prosecuted on absurd corruption charges and his seat as prime minister is so insecure and subject to the vagaries of a fragile coalition. For reasons good and bad, I expect Netanyahu to be out soon after the current war, taking the blame individually for errors and failures in intelligence that were mostly collective in nature.

I think that is right and a proportional representation system can further extend political careers decades longer than they should last.

I have to say I always saw Bibi as smart, tough, ruthless and decisive, but we are not really seeing that in the past week.

I thought the Trump story on Bibi and the Soliemani hit was interesting, and maybe insightful for some of what we are seeing now.

Years ago, during a war in Lebanon, Netanyahu also vetoed killing Soleimani, apparently on the reasoning that it was better to confront an enemy you know than one you do not. American thinking tends to be different, based in part on the greater scale of US resources and the belief that those who replace dead terrorist leaders will not be as skilled.

Choosing not to do the hit is one thing.

Agreeing to it, and backing out at the last minute in a way that makes the operation difficult or impossible. That’s something else.

Then afterwards trying to take the credit... well that speaks for itself.

Well ingrained behavior and decision patterns often re-assert themselves, especially under stress.

Netanyahu has been making tough sounding threats for a week now. If anything were going to happen on the ground in Gaza it would be under massive bombardment right now. And it is almost nothing.

Look at the preparation for Aleppo or Grozny before the attack began. We see nothing of the kind.

I don’t think anything militarily significant is going to happen. I think we are going to have some big bombs in daylight for the cameras. And declare victory.

Netanyahu may be relieved that Biden and the EU “won’t allow” him to do a full scale attack.

My surmise is that Netanyahu, his war cabinet, and unity government are intent on a definitive resolution of the Hamas threat and much more.

Israeli offensive action in Gaza is inhibited by the risk of harm to the hostages and casualty aversion, so they must move slowly and with care, leveraging Israel's advantages of better equipment and personnel and as much time as they need. Fundamentally, Israel's attack on and subduing of Gaza cannot be anything but slow because it is a form of urban siege warfare, a type of military operation that is difficult and costly but definitive if successful.

What ultimate resolution does Israel hope for? As to Gaza, beginning in the north, I expect Israel to kill or capture all armed opponents and intern all civilians, demolish the Hamas fortifications and tunnel system, and clear much of the wreckage left by urban warfare. With most of the populace crammed into south Gaza, their misery will be intense.

Israel can then more forcefully demand the return of all hostages and the surrender of all Hamas in return for allowing even carefully screened Palestinians back into Gaza. Maybe Israel will annex Gaza and bar most Palestinian Muslims from residence there. I expect that Egypt will tacitly support what Israel does. They hate Hamas and the Palestinians.

Then Israel will move against Hezbollah, Iran, and Turkey -- assuming that they do not engage Israel first. In any event, Iran is likely to get hit hard with at least conventional weapons. Who knows, but Israel may even use nuclear weapons on Iran.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.