Comment: I don’t think that Anonymous has the means to seriously hurt Israel, but the real effect of this operation is a PR disaster for Israel: Israel is denounced as a villain (which, of course, it is) while the world public opinion is shown as disgusted by Israel (which, of course, it is). And that, in itself, is fantastic. Anonymous simply ignores the fact that most of the planet is run by US puppets and Anonymous ignores the corporate media. It claims to speak for “the people” as opposed to the Establishment, and the message is clear: “Israel, the people see you for what you are, and we will fight you with all we have”.
Symbols are very important, and this action, even if primarily symbolic, is very timely, needed and just.
The Saker
What Anonymous has done is indeed a PR disaster for Israel – in every country on Earth except the United States.
As I have said in the past, the U.S. will always support Israel, no matter what it does. Walter Russell Mead explains why, here:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/11/18/america-israel-gaza-the-world/
As Mead points out, Americans have always considered genocide to be completely just, righteous and moral. This dates back to colonial times, with the Indian wars. Therefore, I think it is a big mistake to attribute American attitudes to propaganda or brainwashing. What Israel is doing in Gaza is exactly the same thing the Americans did to the Sioux and the Apaches in the West.
If anything, indeed, I think most Americans wish that Israelis would simply wipe out all Arabs, like they did with the Indians, and get it over with.
Therefore, there is no “Gandhian” solution to this. Moral suasion will not work, when you are dealing with two nations who think that genocide is not only just, moral and proper, but even commanded by the Bible. Only economic collapse or military defeat will stop this.
Michael, thanks for the link.
I would add that Americans, by nature of being strong themselves, identify with the strong. They identify with the ‘underdog’ when it is a strong underdog. No one has patience for an underdog that looses.
That is why the 2006 war with HA is so dangerous for Israel. The minute Israel actually looses, I suspect a lot of that support evaporates.
And there are limits to what Americans will buy. I recall in 2006, neocon pundits (Bill Crystol, et al) were on the airways arguing for sending US troops to Lebanon. That idea was overwhelmingly unpopular and was shot down fast.
@Lysander: this conflict is not yet over, but I already wanted to tell you that if I am critical of Hamas, I would say that so far Hamas is winning. Why? Because I see all the signs that the IDF is afraid of entering Gaza and, if that is so, then this clearly a Hamas victory as it would prove that they can deter the IDF whereas the IDF is unable to deter them. Furthermore, should, God forbid, the Israelis enter Gaza, I would still give the advantage to Hamas unless the Israelis dare fight them in street-to-street battles and show that they are not deterred by Hamas can can taken them on anyplace & anytime. I might be mistaken here, but I do not see any signs of that happening.
Anyway, the logic of your previous post is proven out by events so far and your reading of Hamas seems excellent.
Good job, my friend :-)
The Saker
http://resistance-episteme.tumblr.com/post/36138474788/understanding-nasrallahs-response-to-khalid-mishaal
First time I’ve seen this blog but even if you take into account her rationalisation it’s hard to his comments as anything but shameful.
@Anonymous Lurker:it’s hard to his comments as anything but shameful
Whose comments do you find shameful? Meshaal’s or Nasrallah’s? If the former’s, then we agree, if the latter’s, than we disagree. IMHO Hamas basically “jumped horses” and backstabbed Syria, Iran and Hezbollah and now has all its bets placed on the Muslim Brotherhood, which is just about the dumbest move imaginable. Sadly, but it appears to me that the Palestinians are their own worst enemies.
The Saker
Hello ,
I asked this before, but not sure if you received my question in the comments section a few weeks ago.
As you have posted a cyber-war related article, could you write an analysis piece of how a cyber-war would actually pan out as this is unknown territory? I ask because you used to write your own analysis on events, which was far more interesting, rather than the news articles you now post on the blog.
I have been a reader of your blog for the past couple of years and understand that you have some insight into geo-politics, hence the question regarding cyber warfare.
Many Thanks and Kind Regards,
Anon
@Anon:I asked this before, but not sure if you received my question in the comments section a few weeks ago.
My bad, I apologize. I have had some very rough few weeks and I might well have missed your post. Thanks for repeating your question!
As you have posted a cyber-war related article, could you write an analysis piece of how a cyber-war would actually pan out as this is unknown territory?
Wow, that is a very broad question and it depends largely on who the parties to the conflict are. So far we have seen only two examples of cyber-attacks: the Israeli worms to attack Iranian computers, and various attempts to deface websites. Neither of these would qualify as “cyber-war” in my opinion. Frankly, I am not quite sure myself of what a real cyber-war would look like.
you used to write your own analysis on events, which was far more interesting, rather than the news articles you now post on the blog.
I have always posted a mix of original contents written by me and articles taken elsewhere which I hope will foster interesting exchanges in the comment section. Over the past month my personal contributions have included:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2012/11/russian-experts-predict-extension-of-us.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2012/11/hamas-launches-completely-irresponsible.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-stupid-charade-is-finally-over.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2012/11/palestinians-are-now-reaping-bitter.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2012/11/marital-infidelities-and-military.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2012/11/what-kind-of-honey-pots-are-these.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2012/11/maliki-bout-and-petraeus-all-translated.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-real-progress-in-usa.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2012/11/russian-defense-minister-serdiukov.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2012/11/and-now-in-my-own-words.html
That is not so little, don’t you think?
Cheers!
>> Whose comments do you find shameful? Meshaal’s or Nasrallah’s?
Apologies I should have been clearer!
First time I’m reading that blog – haven’t seen reports of those comments elsewhere
(been reading your site for a while)
I meant Meshaal’s comments are shameful. Nasrallah is being generous in his response.
What I don’t get is that the chances of Turkey/Egypt/Qatar betraying Hamas are pretty much guaranteed and so obvious that I fail to see why they would make such a move. Maybe the sectarian element pains them so much that they are blinded to reality, other than that nothing springs to mind.