How far will Netanyahu’s war spread?
Sobering headlines from Spain’s El País on the first anniversary of the October 7 attack1:
(Translation:) Year of War in the Near East: How an almost forgotten local conflict into a regional conflict with global consequences.
The front-page headline on the print edition was even more dramatic: The War In The Near East Is Projecting Itself Onto the Whole World.
The article by Andrea Rizzi declares, “The attack by Hamas that sought to reverse the marginalization of the Palestinian question has led to a spiral that, in addition to immense human suffering, is causing spillovers in the price of oil, elections in the United States, and the war in Ukraine.” (quoted in the sub-head above)
It has led to a spiral that, besides adding to immense human suffering, is causing spillovers in the price of oil, elections in the United States, and the war in Ukraine.
When what we still call the world community neglects what everyone knows is a conflict that could produce far-reaching implications – which is largely what happened for the American government from 2017 (Trump) to 2024 (Biden), it can actually wind up producing, uh, far-reaching implications.
Gideon Levy, the Israeli journalist who has been very critical of Israel’s occupation and war policies, On the October 7 anniversary wearily warned about the policy of an endless spiral of violence, which is what Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is doing2:
There are a few axioms in Israel that cannot be challenged. One of the worst has now come to the fore: We must respond to the Iranian missile attack. Why "must" we?
Because we must, that's all. Because they started it. Because now it's our turn. Because if we don't respond, they'll attack again. Because deterrence. Because national honor. Because security. Because any country would retaliate. Because what do you want us to do? Should we do nothing? All of this is true, but how about a slightly more rational consideration, such as cost versus benefit?
It's irrelevant. They hit us, and we must – we absolutely must – hit them back. And what if this could drag us into a war more terrible than its predecessors? It doesn't matter, we must respond. These are the playground rules that govern the state and jeopardize its future. …
Once, and only once, Israel violated this axiom, against its will. And it benefited as a result. It was orchestrated by the toughest prime minister it has ever known, Yitzhak Shamir, who acceded to the American request not to respond to the Scud missile attacks from Iraq that inflicted destruction, terror and death on Israel [in 1991 at the start of the First Gulf War.3 The rest is history. That was the last time Israel restrained itself in this manner. It lost nothing and saved many lives, first and foremost in Iraq but also among its own soldiers and civilians. [my emphasis]
Anatol Lieven puts Joe Biden’s Israel policy into a larger picture:
In the case of U.S. administrations, and the elites that advise them, moral and political courage is a particular requirement because choosing between different foreign policy goals inevitably means infuriating one or more powerful domestic lobbies. [I think here he may mean should be a particular requirement.]
The failure of the Biden administration — and all the U.S. establishments of the past 30 years — to pass this test means that the U.S. has found itself committed to a whole set of mutually contradictory goals: To maintain peaceful relations with Russia and destroy Russian influence among its immediate neighbors; to support complete Ukrainian victory and to avoid the risk of nuclear war with Russia; to combat ISIS and al-Qaida Sunni Islamist extremism and to overthrow the Libyan and Syrian states with the help of those same extremists; to advocate (however feebly) a two state solution for Palestine and give unconditional support to Israel; to base America’s moral claim to global primacy on the defense of democracy and human rights, and to support Israel’s mass murder of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians; to address climate change as an existential threat and to pursue policies that require spending sums on the military vastly greater than those devoted to alternative energy or climate mitigation; to cooperate with China on climate change and to cripple China’s economic growth. [my emphasis in bold]4
https://elpais.com/internacional/2024-10-07/un-ano-de-guerra-en-oriente-proximo-como-un-conflicto-local-casi-olvidado-devino-en-contienda-regional-con-consecuencias-globales.html (Accessed: 2024-07-10). My translation from Spanish.
Levy, Daniel (2024): Why Is It That We 'Must' Respond to the Iranian Attack? Haaretz 10/07/2024. https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-10-10/ty-article/.premium/why-is-it-that-we-must-respond-to-the-iranian-attack/00000192-7214-daea-a5bb-7677726f0000 2024-11-10).
Walker, Martin Fairhall, David (2024): Iraqi missiles strike Israel. The Guardian 01/18/ 1991. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/1991/jan/18/iraq.davidfairhall> (Accessed: 2024-11-10).
Lieven, Anatol (2024): Blinken's sad attempt to whitewash Biden's record Responsible Statecraft 10/10/2024. <https://responsiblestatecraft.org/blinken-defends-biden/> (Accessed: 2024-11-10).
That's a brilliant quote by Anatol Lieven. The contradictory aspects of US foreign policy, under both Trump and then continued under Biden (the two actually have much more in common and contiguous than not) is lost on most people, often clouded by the party affilations of the conmentariate.