Sunday, January 11, 2009

"Cheney argued that the US should veto 1860, & Bush adopted Hadley's compromise to abstain.."

..ah, I forgot: Condi wanted to vote 'for' UNSC res. 1860 ... not that it mattered ... Laura Rosen, here
"UPDATE: The Weekly Standard claims that Condoleezza Rice strongly advocated that the U.S. vote in favor of the U.N. Resolution which the Security Council approved on Thursday by a 14-0 vote and which urges a cease-fire in Gaza; Dick Cheney argued that the U.S. should veto the Resolution, and Bush ultimately adopted Stephen Hadley's compromise suggestion to abstain, thereby allowing the Resolution to pass. Hamas and Israel competed with one another to see who could refuse most quickly to abide by the Resolution, and now -- as Haaretz reports this morning -- this is Israel's response."

A Washington Israel expert adds:

On the Ha'aretz website there is now a report that the assault will continue for 20 (yes twenty) days. I find that hard to believe, but if it's true then they are hoping with this for the same thing the US hoped for in Iraq, i.e. a transformation. Perhaps instead of avoiding Obama they are trying to force his hand into a more hawkish policy.

Another interpretation, which I have generally subscribed to, is that they have a tiger by the tail; they can't get out without showing results and if they do it now, Hamas will fire rockets tomorrow. Then where will Barak and co. be?

Alternatively, and this is what they now say, they want Mubarak, who is their best Arab ally, to do what he's always refused, i.e., station an int'l force at Rafah to stop the smuggling. That may be too far even for him; it seems to me that would humiliate him more than he will accept.

So far Barak has been very successful at making this the counter-Lebanon. But the endgame is the hardest, and that's where they're approaching.

I really have no idea of what they have in mind; it's not clear at all if they do; more likely there are 3 different strategies.

No comments: