TT Epaper
The Telegraph
 
IN TODAY'S PAPER
WEEKLY FEATURES
CITIES AND REGIONS
ARCHIVES
Since 1st March, 1999
 
THE TELEGRAPH
 
 
CIMA Gallary

ANOTHER BLUNDER

Let’s be fair: there is some sort of pattern here, but it is not very consistent. Five times in Israel since 1980 a right-wing government has called an election without launching a complementary military operation. The right lost two of those elections outright, more or less tied two others, and won only one of them decisively.

On the other hand, critics of Israel point out, three times since 1980 right-wing Israeli governments have combined an election campaign with a major military operation against some Arab or Palestinian target. This, it has been argued, yields decisive electoral success for the right. Menachem Begin’s government won the 1981 election three weeks after carrying out a dramatic attack on the Osirak research nuclear reactor that France had sold to Iraq. Most said the reactor, which was closely supervised both by the French and by the International Atomic Energy Agency, was not suited to the large-scale production of enriched uranium and posed no threat to Israel, but the attack was popular in Israel.

Ehud Olmert’s coalition launched the “Cast Lead” onslaught against the Gaza Strip in December 2008-January 2009. The three-week campaign left 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead. The election was held a month later; Binyamin Netanyahu emerged as the leader of a new right-wing coalition.

So here we go again, perhaps? Netanyahu is still the prime minister, and the next elections are due in January. What better way to ensure success than to go and bash the Palestinians again? Almost two weeks later, with more than 100 Palestinians and three Israelis dead, his reelection is assured: Israelis overwhelmingly support the current military operation. That’s the case that is made against Israel. Does it hold water? No, it doesn’t.

No need

Begin’s attack on the Osirak reactor may well have been an electoral stunt. But Olmert, though a man of the right, was not leading a right-wing government in 2008. He was the leader of a new centrist party, Kadima, that had been formed by defectors from both the right-wing Likud Party and left-wing Labour. Moreover, Olmert had already resigned in mid-2008 and was merely acting as interim prime minister by the time the “Cast Lead” operation was launched. If it was an electoral ploy despite all that, it didn’t work. It was the right that actually won the election in early 2009, and formed a government led by the Likud Party’s Netanyahu.

It is equally hard to believe that Netanyahu is seeking electoral gain by attacking Gaza this month. Every opinion poll in Israel for months has been saying that he is going to win in January hands down. So why is this happening now? Historians traditionally split into two camps: those who see purpose, planning and plots behind every event, and those who think most events are just the random interaction of conflicting strategies, imperfect information and human frailty. This latter approach is known in the historical trade as the “cock-up theory of history”. It is very attractive as an explanation for the current situation.

Netanyahu, cruising home to an easy electoral victory in January, had no need for a little war with the Palestinians. Indeed, his strategy of continuously shouting “wolf” about Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons programme has distracted international attention from the Palestinians, leaving him free to expand Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank unhindered. Similarly, the Hamas leaders in Gaza had no interest in triggering a military conflict with Israel. They had every reason to believe that the sweeping political changes in the Arab world were strengthening their position internationally, and they had no need to remind Arabs of their plight. So how did this idiocy happen? Another cock-up, of course. But since the mini-war doesn’t really benefit any major player, it will probably be shut down again fairly soon.