Guancha Reports on Netanyahu's Dilemma

Chinese news website Guancha on 27 October published a short article headlined: “Netanyahu was revealed to have refused to sign the approval of the Israeli army's ground attack on the Gaza Strip for fear of the failure of the operation.” The article’s an example of the reach Outlaw US Empire’s BigLie Media Complex has in the world as much is cited from the <i>NY Times</i>. However, additional information from other non-cited sources is also there. The result for readers is a good example of how the Chinese public’s views are influenced by Western media. So, here’s a report with a Chinese and Western slant:

The IDF has carried out "targeted attacks" in the Gaza Strip for two consecutive nights, after which will it launch a formal ground offensive?

On October 10, local time, the New York Times quoted as many as seven senior Israeli military officers and three Israeli officials as saying that the Israeli army was assembled on the Gaza border and was said to be ready for action, but Israel's political and military leaders were divided on how, when, and even whether to attack.

According to the report, on the one hand, the delay of the attack was due to negotiations and the rescue of the hostages, but on the other hand, sources revealed that when the military top level had finalized the attack plan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to sign the approval, fearing that if the operation failed, he would be blamed for his already "stormy" support rating.

In addition, Israel's "wartime cabinet" is also worried that after launching a full-scale attack, the Israeli army may be plunged into a formidable urban war in the Gaza Strip, and at the same time will face thousands of Hamas militants under Gaza City, thus falling into a deeper "war quagmire".

The sources reportedly said that the postponement of the attack was in part to buy more time for negotiators to release some of the more than 200 hostages currently held in the hands of Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups.

Israel has vowed to retaliate against Hamas, while the Israeli military says it could act as early as October 10 local time. However, Israel's leaders have yet to agree on how to retaliate against Hamas.

Some of those leaders fear that an offensive could draw the Israeli army into a thorny urban street fighting. Others fear the move could spark a broader conflict, such as the possibility of the Lebanese Allah Party firing long-range missiles at Israeli cities.

In addition, there is controversy as to whether the attack will be carried out through a large-scale operation or a series of small-scale operations. There is also the question - if Israel occupies the Gaza Strip, who will govern?

The New York Times pointed out that the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, especially after Hamas launched an attack on Israel, has completely shaken the "sense of invincibility" that Israelis consider themselves and triggered a debate on how Israel should effectively respond to this situation. Since then, the Israeli government has immediately summoned some 360,000 reservists and deployed many of them near the Gaza Strip, as well as senior officials talking about driving Hamas out of there, raising Israeli expectations of an imminent ground operation in Gaza.

But nearly three weeks have passed, and although the military says it has conducted several brief offensives along the border and more in the coming days, Netanyahu's government has yet to officially authorize the start of ground offensive operations. In addition, the United States has urged Israel not to rush into a ground offensive.

The New York Times said that Israel's military leadership had in fact finalized the plan for the attack, but Netanyahu, the prime minister, refused to sign the plan, which angered the country's senior military officers. According to two anonymous people who attended the cabinet meeting, Netanyahu refused to sign in part because he wanted unanimous approval from members of the "wartime cabinet" formed after October 10.

Analysts also believe Netanyahu is wary of unilaterally approving a ground offensive operation because public confidence in his leadership is already waning, and he fears blame if the operation fails.

Netanyahu's office declined to comment on the news, instead referring to a reporter from The New York Times to review his speech on the evening of October 10, local time. In his speech, Netanyahu promised to destroy Hamas, but did not specify how or when to act.

According to the New York Times, this "ambiguity" seems to reflect differences within the "war cabinet" over whether to allow a full-scale attack on Gaza. An all-out assault on Gaza could plunge Israeli ground forces into a formidable urban battle against thousands of Hamas militants hiding beneath the city.

On October 10, local time, the Israel Defense Forces said in a statement that the Israeli army carried out "targeted attacks" in the Gaza Strip for the second consecutive night. According to video released by the Israeli army, tanks and armored vehicles drove on a road near a farmland and launched attacks on buildings and open areas.

According to the Times of Israel, the day before, from the evening of October 10 to the early morning of October 25, local time, the Israel Defense Forces also launched a "targeted" ground offensive against the northern Gaza Strip. Israeli Army Radio said it was the largest offensive since the outbreak of a new round of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on October 26.

[The concluding paragraph contains casualty numbers that are skewed and thus incorrect due to the translation software, and those are constantly changing.]

The repetitious nature of the report is curious, but that’s how it’s published. China’s position at the UNSC must also be noted. The following information was provided by commentator Surferket and displays a more determined and balanced position than that articulated by Russia:

◾️China is by no means indifferent to the sufferings of the people in Gaza. What China opposes is that the draft resolution selectively avoids referring to the root causes of the current humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and fails to urge Israel to lift its full siege on Gaza and to rescind the evacuation order for northern Gaza. Such an evasive and ineffectual approach will only accelerate Gaza’s falling into an even greater humanitarian catastrophe.

◾️China is by no means denying Israel's security concerns. On the contrary, China has always strongly advocated that equal attention should be paid to the security concerns and legitimate rights of both Israel and Palestine. What China opposes is that the draft resolution attempts to establish a new narrative on the Palestinian question, ignoring the fact that the Palestinian territory has been occupied for a long time and evading the fundamental issue of independent statehood for the Palestinian people. It is worth being vigilant that the draft departs from the spirit of previous UN resolutions and embeds the dangerous logic of the clash of civilizations and the justification of war and use of force.

◾️China is by no means indifferent to acts that harm civilians. What China opposes is that the draft resolution does not call on the parties concerned to stop the indiscriminate and asymmetrical use of force, nor does it call for a thorough investigation into the heinous attacks such as the one on the Al-Ahli Hospital. Such selective application of international law and double standards will only push more innocent civilians to the brink of death.

In terms of the content, the draft is seriously out of balance and confuses right and wrong.

◾️China is by no means opposing the Council taking action. What China opposes is that the draft resolution is evasive on the most urgent issue of ending the hostility. It has never been able to call for an immediate ceasefire in clear and unambiguous terms. If a Council resolution is ambiguous on the question of war and peace and of life and death, it is not only irresponsible but also extremely dangerous.

In terms of the approach, the draft was introduced in haste and lacked the consensus it deserved.

In terms of the effect, the draft does not reflect the world’s strongest calls for a ceasefire and an end to the fighting, and it does not help resolve the issue. 

That's why China vetoed it!

Unlike in previous crises such as Ukraine, China is showing/playing a far more proactive role by sending some of its warships to the region. It’s also clear from other reports that there’s coordination with and between the Civilization States and the frontline states. There’s also lots of interaction happening in Moscow between regional ambassadors and Kremlin/MFA people, including BRICS+ states. The old adage, If you want peace prepare for war, is certainly being invoked as escalation seems very likely.

*
*
*

Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!