Who Is Winning the War in Gaza?

As the war in Gaza goes on, we keep hearing stories about civilian casualties. As part of the anti-Israeli propaganda effort, the world’s media has been playing up the number of civilians that the IDF has supposedly killed. Of course, the statistics come to us from Hamas, but Western media outlets continue to report them as though they are fact. 

Daniel Greenfield offers some welcome perspective, especially for those media outlets that have been saying that the current conflict is the worst:

In 2016, the Washington Post described the Syrian Civil War, with a possible 250,000 deaths, as “the most destructive conflict in the region”. In 2020, the UN had called the Yemeni Civil War, with 150,000 deaths, “the most destructive conflict since the end of the Cold War”.

And then there’s the current phase of the war in Sudan (which the media is currently uninterested in) in which 15,000 people have been killed over the course of last year, as part of a larger conflict that may have claimed as many as 2 million lives.

The Tigray War in Ethiopia over the last three years (which you may have missed because the media chose not to hysterically cover every single bomb dropped and protesters stayed home knitting instead of blocking traffic) may have cost the lives of between 80,000 to 600,000 people.

So, the diplomatic war and the propaganda war in Gaza continue apace. For our edification Edward Luttwack takes the measure of these two and concludes that Israel is winning. It is not quite the message that cowardly Antony Blinken is purveying around the world, but it seems to be true.

And in spite of all the anti-Israel demonstrations around the world, Israel is definitely winning the political war — the real one, waged not in the streets but in the foreign ministries of adversaries, neutrals and allies.

First, Luttwack explains that Israel’s allies did not try to stop the IDF from attacking Hamas in Gaza:

The US, UK and European Union did not try to stop the Israeli counter-offensive against Hamas. The US found itself unimpeded in sending military supplies, while the Italian government came out in full support of Israel.

The situation with Russia and China is more complicated:

On the other side, in UN venues highly suited for empty words, Russia and China both ceremonially declared their support for the Palestinians. Yet Moscow has continued to co-operate smoothly with Israel’s air force as it operates over Syria to attack Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, while not one Chinese partner has withdrawn from any joint venture in Israel. Nor did the rising calls to reduce the bombardment of Gaza, led by Belgium of all countries and eventually backed by the White House, have any actual consequence — Israel’s bombing was reduced in any case by the diminishing supply of worthwhile targets.

As for the Arab world and the alliances that Israel forged under the Abraham Accords, the story is the same. These countries are supporting the Palestinian cause in public, but behind-the-scenes they support Israel.

Likewise, not one of the Arab countries with whom Israel has diplomatic relations has interrupted them in any way, while relations with Egypt have blossomed into a veritable security partnership over Gaza and Sinai. Even more important are the statements of Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, who has made it clear that normalising ties with Israel will not long be delayed once the fighting ends. Even though intelligence exchanges and multiple technology joint-venture negotiations have been underway for some years without any need for official relations, such assurances cannot be overestimated: they are, after all, definitive evidence that Hamas’s assault on October 7 has failed.

Of course, Saudi Arabia is the lynch pin here, given that the Hamas October 7 attack was designed to sabotage the chances of an alliance between Israel and the Saudi kingdom:

For now, though, Saudi Arabia’s declared goals are more prosaic. Just like the world’s venture capitalists, the Saudis believe that joint investments in Israeli tech will be profitable. But far more important is Israel’s proximity, which can greatly facilitate the training of Saudi engineers, technicians and skilled workers — thus achieving progress towards the central aim of putting Saudis to work and ending its reliance on expatriate labour. For Israel, it scarcely matters that the Saudis want a quiet Gaza ruled by reliably corruptible Palestinians, just as in the West Bank, before they start investing their billions; after all, the Israelis themselves obviously need some sort of political arrangement to retreat from Gaza without more rockets being launched the day after.

Of course, as I have often noted, in the Middle East Israel is the solution, not the problem. Led by the UAE and Saudi Arabia, Muslim countries are fast modernizing, building new economies and preparing for the future.

On that score Israel has much to offer. The Palestinian cause has nothing to offer:

Israel’s diplomatic success is not just due to its changed economics however: its high-tech military equipment has arguably been more influential. It is the reason, for instance, why India has emerged as a steadfast ally, as it relies on Israeli tactical missiles for both its air and naval forces, along with much else. It is also the reason why the Pentagon does not begrudge military aid to Israel — it benefits from a constant backflow of valuable technology, including the all-purpose F-35 fighters that now equip the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

To be fair and balanced we can offer the Biden administration perspective, via its unofficial spokesman, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. By his lights the fault for October 7 lay in the fact that the Trump administration, with its Abraham Accords, and the Netanyahu government sidelined the Palestinian question. He theorized that repression produced rebellion, or some such.

In Friedman’s words:

This was a reckless goal — Netanyahu should have offered the Palestinians at least some pathway for greater self-rule, if only to make it all easier for Saudi Arabia to sell at home — and Israel is now paying the price. Saudi Arabia says it is still open to normalizing with Israel, but only if Israel gives a firm commitment now for an eventual two-state solution.

As everyone but Friedman and Blinken know, Hamas leaders have already rejected the idea of a two state solution. Clearly, they have a higher purpose in mind.

They want to assure that the October 7 massacre ends up on the account of anyone but Joe Biden. It might have happened on his watch. It might have happened while he and his team were touting their great success in bringing peace to the region. Still, the Biden team is wildly incapable of accepting responsibility for what happened. They will do anything; they will twist any facts and contort any theories to make it seem that the fault lay with Trump and Netanyahu.

Dare we say, this is anything but constructive. Thus, for a more realistic appraisal, we are happy to offer Luttwack’s view.