profi | Пиррово перемирие, или Британский ответ Якир

Чтобы читатели моего блога не подумали, что, в своем нагоне волны на сокрушительную победу наших замечательных партий и правительства в последней войнушке, я одинок и безнадежно провинциален, хочу ознакомить упомянутых читателей с мнением известного английского политолога и колумниста Дугласа Мюррея, опубликованном позавчера в "Уолл Стрит Джоурнал".

Привожу текст статьи целиком. Каким-то чудом мне удалось прорваться через предложения WSJ заплатить деньги за прочтение полного варианта статьи, и ... статья вдруг открылась! Может и закрыться. Простите меня, уважаемые WSJ, но я выложу текст целиком.

A Pyrrhic Cease-Fire
agreement guarantees that Hamas will attack Israel again.

By Douglas Murray

The rest of the world called for a cease-fire. The rest of the world has now got a cease-fire. But when it comes to assisting peace in the Middle East, the rest of the world has once again shown itself to be part of the problem. What we have just witnessed in the Middle East is an exact replay of what happened in 2008-09. It should not be necessary to point out that this is not good.

As with this latest flare-up, Operation Cast Lead was initiated in December 2008 because of the sustained firing of rockets from Hamas-run Gaza into Israel. Then as now, after a long period in which the Israeli government accepted a million of their citizens being under constant threat of rocket fire, Israel finally responded with air power and a ground incursion to rid Hamas of its arsenal.

As in 2006, massive international pressure was immediately exerted in 2008 to demand a cease-fire. But rocket fire from Gaza resumed almost immediately after the Jan. 18, 2009, cease-fire and continued to grow in volume over the following years. Last week, after yet another upsurge in rocket attacks—with 116 rockets and 55 mortar shells launched against Israel in October alone—the Israel Defense Forces again responded, this time solely from the air.

On all such occasions most international press and politicians labor, or pretend to labor, under the impression that the violence has started not with the firing of rockets into Israel but with Israel's response to this. From this elementary error a whole school of journalism is born.

"There has been no let-up of Israel's bombardment of Gaza" was what the BBC went with as its lead line for the morning radio bulletin. "The war on Gaza goes on" announced Channel 4 news in its trademark voice of somber arousal.

Unsurprisingly, the international community soon had its way. Thanks to the mediating powers of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, peace broke out and everyone was filled with such delight. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon commended the President of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, for his "exceptional leadership." The U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, thanked Morsi for his "personal leadership" and proclaimed that "Egypt's new government is assuming the responsibility and leadership that has long made this country a cornerstone of regional stability and peace."

Within an hour of the cease-fire beginning, only 12 rockets had been fired on Israel from Gaza.

So we are indeed back to the status quo ante. As in 2009 and 2006, anybody still under any illusion about what a cease-fire means should now understand: It means Israel must stop its aggression so Hamas can resume its rocket-firing in safety.

Here is a prediction. During this latest operation—"Pillar of Defense"—the IDF claims to have hit 1,500 terror sites, including 30 senior Hamas and Islamic Jihad commanders, 980 underground rocket launchers and 140 smuggling tunnels. Within a short time all 1,500 of these sites, and many more besides, will be up and running again. If you don't believe me, here is Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal speaking in Cairo at the time of the cease-fire announcement: "Israel has failed in all its goals," he told reporters, adding, "We will continue to arm ourselves."

Undeterred, the international NGO brigades are seizing this moment to push their vision for a solution to the conflict. Oxfam issued a statement declaring, "Only by lifting the blockade, do we have any chance of ending the incessant cycle of violence." In this parallel world the problem is not the smuggling of weapons into Gaza but the blockade designed to keep such arming to a minimum.

Others are again insisting that the cause of this conflict—as of all others—is the absence of a "Palestinian state." Various campaign groups used the opportunity to "demand a two-state solution," with one claiming that "Each and every one of us—Israelis, Palestinians and internationals—have a critical role to play."

In truth—and despite this conjoining of narcissism with nihilism—they and "we" do not have any such role. Such talk is in fact part of the problem, not any solution, because it blithely ignores the fact that the underlying problem remains exactly the same one that it has been for six decades: Israel's neighbors do not believe that it should exist within the 1948 borders, let alone the 1967 cease-fire lines.

The cause of this latest conflict is not that the Palestinians do not have a state. They already have several. The problem is that one of them is called "Gaza" and is run by a terrorist group that keeps firing rockets into Israel—not into disputed territory, but Israel proper.

In one sense then, the spokesman for Oxfam is right. The cycle of violence could indeed be ended if there were no blockade on Gaza. It would mean that Israel's enemies could arm Gazans with even larger munitions than they have to date, and when the next round flares up the annihilationist war against Israel could be completed.

The only winners of this latest round have been the now considerably legitimized Muslim Brotherhood. The losers are all those who believe that in a war between a nation-state and a terror group, the nation-state should be allowed, even once, to do what it needs to win. (С) Wall Street Journal

Для не владеющих бусурманским могу предложить весьма скудный пересказ статьи по-русски. Зато в русском заголовке статьи есть чудная аллитерация, которой нет и не может быть в английском первоисточнике: Пирррово перрремирррие! Звучит грозно и обвинительно.