IDF Air Operations Continue Successfully. 
Best open source from Jerusalem is that the IDF earlier today signed onto a proposal to offer the Hamas gangsters a forty-eight hour ceasefire to test the credibility of Hamas to stop the rockets and to guarantee no more rockets. This was a unilateral offer, though the Haaretz account made mention of a telephone negotiation initiative by French Foreign Minister and peace-activist Bernard Kouchner. The forty-eight hours did not have a start date. The information right now is that the proposal to Hamas has been rejected. No ceasefire.
Massive Air Strikes Going Out.
The information now is that the IDF believes it will have room to continue its target list until at least Monday January 5. The United Nations Security Council and the Arab League are dithering to some purpose, because the longer these two august and noisy microphone posses can avoid demanding or imposing a ceasefire on Israel the longer the IDF has to work. Best information from Jerusalem government source is that the Arab League is dominated by states that want Hamas degraded and sidelined in favor of the recognizably corrupt and foolish PA President M. Abbas of the Fatah. The important sum is that the Arab League will not get in front of the IDF assaults. The UN will not act out on TV until at least next week. The Quartet is strikingly quiet. Kouchner of Paris, joined by his hyper active boss President N. Sarkozy, is the agreed upon only game for Hamas to try. The IDF offer was predicated on the threat that if the ceasefire is not accepted, if the ceasefire idea fails, then ground action is next. The IDF operation has been planned for more than a year. It will not look like the tank battle of Kursk. Raids in force and cutting Gaza into pieces is more likely. With the Hamas rejection, ground action is very credible.
Why was the Ceasefire offered?
The IDF has specific confirmation, according to my best and absolutely accurate source Aaron Klein, WND, that Hamas has Chinese/Iran made rockets that can reach Tel Aviv. Those rockets are a major strategic threat. The IDF must move before they can be fired. It is imaginable, though not confirmed, that the IDF was offering the ceasefire because it has information that Hamas is moving to deploy and use the long-range rockets. Also, Hamas is badly damaged. There is reason to believe Hamas is in a panic. The best information twelve hours ago was that the Israeli Cabinet has made the decision that the IDF is to destroy Hamas's military capabilities. Every building, every weapons cache, every bunker and tunnel are on the target list. Also, military leaders are on the target list. The IDF is said to be going for the kill. To this end, Egypt is now openly cooperating with the IDF plans. Egypt President H. Mubarak has now announced that Egypt will not reopen the Gaza border crossings until and if the PA (Fatah) take control of the checkpoints. This is impossible in the present regime in GAza. It means that Hamas would have been destroyed. It is a warning to Hamas that the Egyptian Army may soon get involved on the border. Repeat, the Egyptian Army may soon get involved. No mobilization yet, but Aaron Klein reports that all Egyptian Army leaves are cancelled. On standby. Hamas can see the hammer and forge, the IDF and the Egyptian Army. Hamas flight is not possible if the Egyptians close and defend the border. And standing and fighting IDF ground action is not rational, especially since the air strikes are now decapitating the Hamas military structure.
Strategy Corner:
There is one wild card. Tehran. Too quiet. Watching Tehran. Does Tehran surrogate Hizballah try rocketing from the north. Does Tehran surrogate Damascus try provocations along the Golan? Both unlikley. Does Tehran sit on its hands and watch Hamas and billions of dollars of equipment, and not a few IRGC agents in Gaza, destroyed and removed from the field and Gaza returned to the pro-Saudi hands of Abbas and Fatah? Take Gaza and Hamas from the gameboard, Tehran's plan to surround, isolate and remove Israel falls back about three years. Phone calls flying in all directions now. And if those long-range rockets fly, the IDF moves swiftly. What do you think?
Report is that there's an Iranian vessel carrying humanitarian aid sailing it's way to Gaza. Also, planes said to be landing in Egypt with aid.
Is this the setting for a confrontation at sea of the kind that sends IAF into sovereign air spaces?
Where are these children's parents/ grandparents? You know, the children seen in all the videos and from the protests. They need a good spanking and humiliation. Then give them lots of chores to do around the neighborhoods.
Why can't they be productive instead of destructive?
If Tehran continues to sit on its hands, it means it feels that it is not yet ready. By sacrificing its Gaza pawn, it signals that it can afford to wait. Perhaps, it might have received some back channel assurances from the incoming administration that the game board will change in its favor once Obama takes office. Had McCain been elected, Tehran's assessment of the situation might be altogether different. By electing Obama, the American people (in their infinite wisdom) might have bought some time and delayed the inevitable.
Couldn't agree more- instead the parents are shoveling their children into the furnaces of the war machine right now. It's the parents that need a good spanking.
Israeli version of shock and awe, driving home the points by speaking the truth of the cowards use of human shields, and justly making martyr wishes come true for the cult of death.
COCK and DRAW!!!
It's far from over. Think about this: Most of us have come to referring to death as a kind of “passing”. We pretend there is a heaven or purgatory. Even hell is seen as preferable to eternal yawning void. For those thrust into battle and approaching the knife’s edge of (intensely personal) decision, death often boils down to the notion of sacrifice. They must calculate whether or not the cause is worthy enough to give up one’s life. The direct consequence of such a choice can constitute either the makings of a hero or, on the other hand, the (often shameful) desertion of one’s previously sworn obligations, thereby allowing for the luxury of continued breathing either in the brig or in exile. Hamas would not hesitate to shoot deserters on the spot while Israel would not. When facing the prospect of certain death, one is be more likely to choose death by the enemy than by the hand of one’s own. It is an undeniable advantage of the ruthless.
Hard to say, but I think Tehran will sacrifice Hamas rather than move now and risk its other pieces on the board -- notably Hizbollah -- prematurely. Consider, if the IDF destroys Hamas what will the Iranians really lose? In addition to some significant face, their encircle-Israel plan will admittedly suffer a severe, perhaps even fatal, setback. Then, there are the IRGC agents and the dedicated and trained Hamas fighters, thugs, and operatives that will also be lost, as JB has already noted.
That said, from Tehran's viewpoint, new plans can always be made, especially once that game-changer known as nuclear weapons capability is up and running; replacement agents, fighters, and thugs can be easily recruited from the Muslim world's apparently inexhaustible supply of fanatics and killers; the loss of billions of dollars is hardly a show-stopper for the oil-rich mullahs; finally, how could the Iranians realistically hope to continue their semi-secret resupply of Hamas in Gaza in a protracted, fire-intensive conflict with the whole world -- especially the US Navy, Air Force, and various satellites -- on the watch?
No, Tehran will not move now. Of course, I can offer no direct empirical evidence for this line of reasoning; it's just that my gut tells me that Tehran will readily sacrifice Hamas to its larger purposes if necessary. Indeed, that may have been the "Plan B" all along. After all, Hamas is Sunni; plus, especially with the resupply issues, Gaza may always have been considered by Tehran a useful, calculated, but potentially bridge-too-far risk that could be kicked to the curb as needed bu cutting acceptable losses.
In addition, there is the imminent Obama Administration to consider -- would Tehran really forego a possible chance for an easier relationship with its chief nemesis just to prevent a pathetic, ineffectual fool like Abbas from returning to power in that little Sinai sand pile called Gaza? I doubt it very much! Also, the mullahs might well regard the opportunity to drop some of their Chinese-inspired missiles into Tel Aviv too good to miss, even just for the propaganda value, making the sacrifice of their Gaza-Hamas-Sunni pawns that much more acceptable and useful.
The upshot is that the IDF must now "cry havoc," put the pedal to the metal, and reap what they can while the sun shines. (God save us from untimely cease-fires!) Destroying Hamas root-and-branch in Gaza would allow Israel to eliminate an annoying and potentially very serious national security threat; save the lives of its innocent civilians from Hamas rockets; restore the luster of its military reputation so badly tarnished in Lebanon in the summer of 2006; strengthen mutual security relations with the so-called "moderate" Sunni Arab states that fear and oppose Iran, notably militarily significant Egypt and the oil-rich Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, even though it all would have to be done on the DL, of course; and givne the upcoming elections, allow the politically challenged Kadima Party to prove that Tsipi Livni is tough enough -- one hopes! -- to do the job as PM. So, for now, do not fear the Iranian bogeyman even while keeping your eyes peeled and your powder dry on the Lebanon-Hizbollah-Syrian front, and just go give 'em hell in Gaza, IDF!
Tom - You’ve pretty much nailed it; covered all the bases. This is what we know so far. I can't help but wondering if there might (not) be something we're still missing. Look at it like a chess board (as you have). You generally sacrifice a pawn in only to gain some strategic advantage. What does Tehran hope to gain by sacrificing Hamas?
Every one of the Middle Eastern governments is sitting on a virtual powder keg. Never mind London forced to submit to sharia (law) in ten, fifteen years or so. The countries of the Middle East are there now! Look at Egypt (arguably the most vulnerable of the lot). Mubarak is old, and exhausted from holding back the hoards for so many years. He has groomed no obvious successor. I've even read he's sick. Maybe the long knives are out for him as well. He's dancing a dangerous and precise ballet, trying to keep his nation all in one piece (as they all are). A crushing defeat of Hamas’ heroes could inflame the already volatile "Arab street" to the point of calling for revenge. This would not just be directed at Israel, but also at those who were perceived as having withheld vital support. A tsunami-like outpouring of this kind could topple governments. Don’t smirk. It toppled ours for far less cause.
Then, look at Russia. Why is Russia insisting on backing Iran? Do you think if Iran were to slug it out with the West and in the process destroys western influence in the region, including itself, it will then be taken into the Russian fold and nurtured back to health? No; it would be summarily swept out with the rest of the debris before Putin majestically enters the void. I can’t wait to see the expressions on the faces of Hamas, Hezbollah, Fattah and the rest of the misfits when they come to discover that the 72 virgins they all crave so passionately sport the faces of bears, boars and Siberian tigers.
Interesting rejoinder, Peter. Instead of asking what Tehran might lose if Hamas is wrecked by the IDF as I did, you insightfully ask what the mullahs might gain by that eventuality. I certainly see your argument that Israeli destruction of Hamas will likely inflame the permanently inflammable "Arab street;" heck, I'll even raise you enhanced pro-Hamas propaganda opportunities in the West delivered through the usual biased, anti-Israel MSM "reporting."
You are similarly astute in pointing to players lurking behind Tehran, specifically Russia and Vladimir "Soul Man" Putin. Neither Israel nor the US can afford to ignore this dimension fo the conflict.
However, I don't think Tehran would ever knowingly allow itself to be destroyed in order to eject US and Western influence from the ME. They've been at this terrorism-and-low-level-warfare-and-propaganda game since 1979 -- and with considerable success -- so that the mullahs must surely believe that time is on their side in their struggle against the Great and Little Satans, no matter what the Twelfth Imam impatiently crouched in his well might be thinking. In addition, there are those Iranian nukes slated to come on line in a matter of months ...
Still, you bring into play an important set of squares on the ME chessboard when you point to Russia and its relationship with Tehran. Which in turn leads me to raise some related questions.
First, considering China's very important relationship with Tehran, will Peking simply stand aside and allow Moscow to arrange ME matters to its own satisfaction? Unless Russia and China have and maintain a significant condominium of interest, I think not. In which case, the current unnatural alliance between China and Russia might at some point blow up in their ugly ex-Commie faces, and probably to Tehran's advantage.
Second, leaving the Chinese aside, isn't Russia's chronic double-dealing on Islamo-fascist terrorism and aggression a very risky game in itself? How many schoolhouses and theaters do Islamic terrorists, Chechen or otherwise, have to destroy before Soul Man Putin realizes that he can neither control nor intimidate them? By then, it may be too late to stave off major disaster, especially for a Potemkin-superpower Russia unable to sustain its ruling kleptocracy in the face of depressed world energy prices.
Third, you properly point with alarm to the West's continuing dependency on weak-reed "moderate" Arab regimes like that of the aging Mubarak in Egypt. By the same token, wasn't poor stupid Dubya quite the visionary in his attempt -- admittedly thoroughly bungled in practice -- to build a new, alternative type of pro-Western Arab ally with our invasion of Iraq? If so, let's give him due credit, but the Iraq business may not be enough to keep a viable American presence in the ME, especially given Eurabia at our back. Nevertheless, the IDF destroying Hamas would still be a step in the right direction and simply must be done.
Tom - Very lucid observations, and intriguing questions. Allow me to add a couple of points to what has already been said. What novanglus (in “Hamas Idol”) says is true. Henceforth, it is meaningless to talk deterrent (in the sense of saving lives) when dealing with the Palestinians. I may be wrong, but suspect that a similar philosophy extends into Tehran. It is an ideology that has taken over the entire Muslim world in fact. Every nation (and then some) from Pakistan to Turkey is equally infected. Tehran may simply be more sophisticated in playing its cards with an eye toward the implementation of the final holocaust, giving us just enough signals to throw us off track.
Russia is definitely manipulating the conflict to weaken the West. Russia's goal is not suicidal; it is egotistical; it wants to dominate. Once this has been accomplished, all the Muslims will be rounded up and shot simply for the crazy, irrational threat they have chosen to represent. We here in America will be allowed to live - but under Soviet domination.
China is a more cautious and enigmatic player. Its mission stems mostly from need. It has a huge population which they’ve skewed with their “one child” policy. In order to survive, they need to expand. Already you can find them all over Africa, making inroads, where they feel a vacuum was created when whites were driven out. After the next war, more such vacuums will likely develop. China feels it can afford to stand by in the shadows (but not too long), unobtrusively flicking matches onto the campfire while awaiting its opportunity.
There is yet one aspect pertaining to ultimate alliances which I am yet unsure about. Maybe someone can help me out. The proposition goes as follows: Whereas, in the West the idea of socialism/communism has taken on aspects of religious (hence irrational) fervor, I note that Russia and China share in essence the same "religion" (communism). And insofar as religious orders seem to band together, particularly in difficult times, I cannot yet tell if Russia and China will not at some point join forces on the basis of ideology alone.