The latest round of fighting between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist
organizations from Gaza this week followed a predictable pattern – up to a
certain point.
The blueprint is well known: One side starts, the other
side responds, and the fighting continues until the Palestinians have had enough
– i.e., stop shooting – and quiet returns. Usually numerous countries of the
world – after urging Israeli “restraint” – harshly condemn Israel for a
“disproportionate” response to missiles and rockets raining down on its
civilians.
And indeed, this time Israel carried out a targeted
assassination of someone it considered an arch-terrorist – Zuhair Qaisi, the
commander of the Popular Resistance Committees – the Palestinians pounded
civilian targets with rockets and missiles, Israel responded by targeting
terrorist sites, and then the Palestinians – after a few days of fighting – had
enough, and quiet was restored. Until the next time.
But unlike previous
rounds of fighting, this time the world, for the most part, did not issue its
usual condemnations and generally showed little interest or outrage at what was
taking place. Sure, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the 2010
recipient of former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s “International Prize for
Human Rights,” accused Israel of genocide, but his predictable voice was one of
only a few. Erdogan was in good company – Syria’s President Bashar Assad,
Erdogan’s erstwhile ally until just a few months ago, also articulated his
indignation.
Generally, in times of military conflict, the job of the
country’s various spokespersons – the hasbara apparatus – is to provide the
world with arguments and counter-arguments to give the military enough time to
accomplish the goals it has set for itself. And indeed, this time meetings were
held, talking points drawn up, and a media strategy planned. But for the most
part, the various spokespeople remained under-employed during the crisis, as the
world watched relatively quietly from the sidelines.
For a variety of
reasons, the recent round of fighting was not high up on the international media
agenda. For instance, on Sunday the fighting did not make it to the home page of
The New York Times web edition, and on the BBC on Monday it did not lead the
news, coming after reports of a US soldier’s shooting 16 Afghanistan civilians,
the rising death toll in Syria, and events in Somalia and China. In short, the
world’s media showed little interest in the story, and as a result, there was
little pressure in capitals around the world to sound off on the
issue.
As one diplomatic official put it, paraphrasing a rather cynical
journalistic aphorism, “if it bleeds it leads, but there was not that much blood
in this story.”
That, however, was not entirely accurate, because there
were casualties – some 26 Palestinians killed in Gaza. But with the exception of
between one and three civilians, depending on whom you believe, those killed
were Palestinian terrorists launching attacks on Israel. Had an Israeli missile
gone off target and hit an apartment building, things would have been
different.
But this time the Israeli strikes were surgical and on
target.
The lack of an international response also shows the degree to
which Islamic Jihad, which suffered the most deaths, and the Popular Resistance
Committees firing off rockets into Israeli population centers do not generate
much sympathy in the West.
Even the targeted assassination of Qaisi, the
action that triggered the violence, did not generate a great deal of
condemnation.
One likely reason is that targeted assassinations have now
been adopted by other countries, first and foremost the US, and there is more
understanding of its legitimacy because if US President Barack Obama can
authorize a targeted hit against a terrorist leader hell-bent on trying to kill
Americans, why can’t Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu do the same against those
trying to kill Israelis? The horrific death toll in Syria (by 4
p.m.
Wednesday, nearly 50 people had been killed that day alone), and the
hundreds of people killed elsewhere in the region since the onset of the Arab
Spring also had an impact on the relative lack of international interest, likely
putting into proportion for many the deaths of two dozen terrorists aiming for
civilian population centers.
The death of one to three innocents is a
horrible tragedy, but that this failed to spark an international outcry may also
indicate the degree to which some around the world understand that in war there
will be collateral damage, and that – in comparison with the number of civilians
killed in other war theaters around the world – that number is not particularly
egregious.
And finally, Israel helped itself by keeping the corridors to
Gaza open for humanitarian aid throughout the crisis. For instance, Israel kept
the Kerem Shalom Crossing open Monday even after the Palestinians fired mortars
at it. On Sunday and Monday, as the rockets blasted the South, over 180 trucks
carrying basic medical and food supplies went into Gaza. What this did, in
addition to providing Gazans with humanitarian supplies, was rob anyone of the
ability to say that Israel was choking Gaza and causing a humanitarian
crisis.
The relative lack of international involvement this time,
however, should not be seen as a herald of things to come during future
flare-ups. This week Israel was lucky that its bombardments were on target. It
also benefited from a world whose attention was diverted elsewhere and that – to
a certain degree – is suffering from Mideast conflict fatigue. While there is
definitely no guarantee that those same elements will be at work the next time
around, this time the lack of international interest and involvement was felt,
and – from an Israeli perspective – made it a lot easier to operate.