- Apr 17, 2009
- 112,950
- 38,428
Complicated isn’t it? Particularly given it seems to be a no-man’s land.
That is a bit of a misrepresentation of the situation, but I’ll bite.
First Point: Israel is wanting international backing for its offensive, even demanding it. That gives it greater legitimacy in the international community and more resources to fight with (intelligence sharing, weaponry, funds). This isn’t unique by any means. Look at the Ukraine conflict. There has been an outpouring of international support and resources, Zelenski has toured the world begging for support AND Ukraine has been very careful in how it is using these weapons. It has been careful to an avoid civilian targets and high civilian casualties and it has also been very careful in regards to targeting anything inside Russia itself. Not doing so risks escalating the conflict and also losing the international support and legitimacy.
2nd Point: having a plan for restructuring, replacing etc. That again is not unique and it is not unreasonable for Israel’s allies, who are providing material support to the war, to ask about what is the plan for the “day after”. It is also not unreasonable for other countries in the region who’s own security interests are directly effected, to pressure Israel to have some sort of framework in order to prevent a power vacuum or an even worse humanitarian catastrophe which in turn could lead to an increase in terrorism world wide.
It is on Israel in part, because Israel is in control of the territory and thus the outcome now. It stated that pretty clearly. That leads to the next point: reconstruction. There are so many variables here. I doubt anyone expects Israel to completely fund it, if at all. It must be an international effort. But Israel is the key player and the only who has veto power on any plan.
But…if Israel holds on to it, in any fashion - then what? What sort of framework can be worked out with the international community, which is already fracturing under the civilian casualty numbers and sheer destruction now seen in Gaza, to convince them to fund reconstruction without some form of recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people?
Again, Israel is not unique…there are parallels to the US and Afghanistan and Iraq. The US had tremendous international support after 911, and we built quite a coalition to support the effort. Israel also had tremendous support after 10/7 and a strong coalition. We squandered that when we went into Iraq (but that is a mess for another topic).
Israel is at risk, if it hasn’t already, of squandering the good will and support it had gained by the way it is conducting it’s war. We lost support over Guantanamo, allegations of torture, etc. etc. We called to task over abuses by private contractors. All rightfully so. That’s just off the top of my head.
The other way Israel is not unique…reconstruction. The international coalition who took part in the war supported a reconstruction plan, but the US took the lead. If I remember correctly, there was pressure on us to come up with a plan because NO ONE, including the US wanted to leave Afghanistan with a power vacuum and also because we took the lead in the war. They attacked us, but that did not absolve us of a moral (imo) responsibility to have plan in place for when the conflict ended. I suppose there are also parallels with WW2 and the Marshall Plan.
Now…the charge of occupation…also not unique. We faced that in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In order to avoid it you need a plan that includes setting the conditions to leave and then actually leaving.
All good questions, but again…the “attacked state” took the lead in forming a coalition and developing a strategy in Afghanistan, so no need to cough.
The short answer is it must involve the international community but that support is at great risk now because of the way the war has been conducted and the humanitarian disaster that has been created.
