TW: As we collectively stare at our own navels with the stimulus kerfuffle and on-going economic crisis, the rest of the world also lives. Next Tuesday Israel holds its national election. The right-wing Likud led by Netanyahu is currently favored but even if he wins a plurality he will need coalition partners. One of his potential partners is even further right-wing. Here is to hoping Kadima and Labor fare better than forecast or at least Netanyahu does not head down the path of joining up with Yisreal Beitanu.
Note the reference to our treatment of the Japanese during WWII, we are frequently the moral standard, a lesson we should always keep in mind.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...The New Republic warn[s] about the apparent strength of Avi Lieberman's demi-racist anti-Arab Yisrael Beitanu ("Israel is our Home") party in the coming elections:
Lieberman has focused much of his campaign inciting public anger against Israel's Arab minority. He accuses Israeli-Arab lawmakers of harboring Hamas sympathies, and has called for the parties to be banned from running in the election. His campaign ads show Israeli-Arab students demonstrating against the Gaza war as a narrator ominously intones, "We won't forget that, during the Gaza conflict, there were those among us who stood with Hamas." As for the Gaza operation itself, Lieberman has denounced the cease-fire as a sell-out of the military. His preferred strategy is total war against the Gazan population: "We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II."
If, as seems likely, Binyamin Netanyahu and the Likud Party wins the election next Tuesday, this will be a real test. Netanyahu will have to build a coalition to govern--does he include Yisrael Beitanu? Or does he take a more centrist, and traditional path, by including Kadima (Ariel Sharon's old party, led by Tzipi Livni) and Labor (led by Ehud Barak, who should remain as Defense Minister). If Netanyahu goes the radical route, it has to be seen as an extremely provocative, xenophobic (and perhaps racist) move. The U.S. should express deep concern and disapproval. In fact, the U.S. should be sending a clear message that no matter the makeup of the new government, the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has to end immediately. With no exceptions."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/05/an-israeli-electoral-embarrassment/
Showing posts with label Gaza War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gaza War. Show all posts
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Spiraling Away From a Two State Solution
TW: Friedman nicely frames the emerging train wreck in Israel/Palestine. Palestinians are developing the capability through longer and longer range rockets to truly harm Israel. If the Palestinians continue to grow this capability then Israel will inevitably and understandably respond with strong force. Meanwhile Jewish settlements inside the West Bank continue to grow and develop tentacles which will become increasingly difficult to reverse. Palestinians lobbing deadly and highly disruptive rockets into Israel and Israelis growing their footprint inside Palestine are two cars headed towards a very bad collision
From Friedman at NYT:
"...We’re getting perilously close to closing the window on a two-state solution, because the two chief window-closers — Hamas in Gaza and the fanatical Jewish settlers in the West Bank — have been in the driver’s seats. Hamas is busy making a two-state solution inconceivable, while the settlers have steadily worked to make it impossible.
If Hamas continues to obtain and use longer- and longer-range rockets, there is no way any Israeli government can or will tolerate independent Palestinian control of the West Bank, because a rocket from there can easily close the Tel Aviv airport and shut down Israel’s economy.
And if the Jewish settlers continue with their “natural growth” to devour the West Bank, it will also be effectively off the table. No Israeli government has mustered the will to take down even the “illegal,” unauthorized settlements, despite promises to the U.S. to do so, so it’s getting hard to see how the “legal” settlements will ever be removed. What is needed from Israel’s Feb. 10 elections is a centrist, national unity government that can resist the blackmail of the settlers, and the rightist parties that protect them, to still implement a two-state solution.
...What makes it so challenging for the new Obama team is that Mideast diplomacy has been transformed as a result of the regional disintegration since Oslo — in three key ways.
First, in the old days, Henry Kissinger could fly to three capitals, meet three kings, presidents or prime ministers and strike a deal that could hold. No more. Today a peacemaker has to be both a nation-builder and a negotiator.
The Palestinians are so fragmented politically and geographically that half of U.S. diplomacy is going to be about how to make peace between Palestinians, and build their institutions, so there is a coherent, legitimate decision-making body there — before we can make peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Second, Hamas now has a veto over any Palestinian peace deal. It’s true that Hamas just provoked a reckless war that has devastated the people of Gaza. But Hamas is not going away. It is well armed and, despite its suicidal behavior of late, deeply rooted.
The Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank will not make any compromise deal with Israel as long as it fears that Hamas, from outside the tent, would denounce it as traitorous. Therefore, Job 2 for the U.S., Israel and the Arab states is to find a way to bring Hamas into a Palestinian national unity government.
As the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen says, “It is not enough for Israel that the world recognize that Hamas criminally mismanaged its responsibility to its people. Israel’s longer-term interest is to be sure that it has a Palestinian partner for negotiations, which will have sufficient legitimacy among its own people to be able to sign agreements and fulfill them. Without Hamas as part of a Palestinian decision, any Israeli-Palestinian peace will be meaningless.”
But bringing Hamas into a Palestinian unity government, without undermining the West Bank moderates now leading the Palestinian Authority, will be tricky. We’ll need Saudi Arabia and Egypt to buy, cajole and pressure Hamas into keeping the cease-fire, supporting peace talks and to give up rockets — while Iran and Syria will be tugging Hamas the other way.
And that leads to the third new factor — Iran as a key player in Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy. The Clinton team tried to woo Syria while isolating Iran. President Bush tried to isolate both Iran and Syria. The Obama team, as Martin Indyk argues in “Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East,” “needs to try both to bring in Syria, which would weaken Hamas and Hezbollah, while also engaging Iran.”
So, just to recap: It’s five to midnight and before the clock strikes 12 all we need to do is rebuild Fatah, merge it with Hamas, elect an Israeli government that can freeze settlements, court Syria and engage Iran — while preventing it from going nuclear — just so we can get the parties to start talking. Whoever lines up all the pieces of this diplomatic Rubik’s Cube deserves two Nobel Prizes. "
http://tinyurl.com/am4s5j
From Friedman at NYT:
"...We’re getting perilously close to closing the window on a two-state solution, because the two chief window-closers — Hamas in Gaza and the fanatical Jewish settlers in the West Bank — have been in the driver’s seats. Hamas is busy making a two-state solution inconceivable, while the settlers have steadily worked to make it impossible.
If Hamas continues to obtain and use longer- and longer-range rockets, there is no way any Israeli government can or will tolerate independent Palestinian control of the West Bank, because a rocket from there can easily close the Tel Aviv airport and shut down Israel’s economy.
And if the Jewish settlers continue with their “natural growth” to devour the West Bank, it will also be effectively off the table. No Israeli government has mustered the will to take down even the “illegal,” unauthorized settlements, despite promises to the U.S. to do so, so it’s getting hard to see how the “legal” settlements will ever be removed. What is needed from Israel’s Feb. 10 elections is a centrist, national unity government that can resist the blackmail of the settlers, and the rightist parties that protect them, to still implement a two-state solution.
...What makes it so challenging for the new Obama team is that Mideast diplomacy has been transformed as a result of the regional disintegration since Oslo — in three key ways.
First, in the old days, Henry Kissinger could fly to three capitals, meet three kings, presidents or prime ministers and strike a deal that could hold. No more. Today a peacemaker has to be both a nation-builder and a negotiator.
The Palestinians are so fragmented politically and geographically that half of U.S. diplomacy is going to be about how to make peace between Palestinians, and build their institutions, so there is a coherent, legitimate decision-making body there — before we can make peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Second, Hamas now has a veto over any Palestinian peace deal. It’s true that Hamas just provoked a reckless war that has devastated the people of Gaza. But Hamas is not going away. It is well armed and, despite its suicidal behavior of late, deeply rooted.
The Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank will not make any compromise deal with Israel as long as it fears that Hamas, from outside the tent, would denounce it as traitorous. Therefore, Job 2 for the U.S., Israel and the Arab states is to find a way to bring Hamas into a Palestinian national unity government.
As the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen says, “It is not enough for Israel that the world recognize that Hamas criminally mismanaged its responsibility to its people. Israel’s longer-term interest is to be sure that it has a Palestinian partner for negotiations, which will have sufficient legitimacy among its own people to be able to sign agreements and fulfill them. Without Hamas as part of a Palestinian decision, any Israeli-Palestinian peace will be meaningless.”
But bringing Hamas into a Palestinian unity government, without undermining the West Bank moderates now leading the Palestinian Authority, will be tricky. We’ll need Saudi Arabia and Egypt to buy, cajole and pressure Hamas into keeping the cease-fire, supporting peace talks and to give up rockets — while Iran and Syria will be tugging Hamas the other way.
And that leads to the third new factor — Iran as a key player in Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy. The Clinton team tried to woo Syria while isolating Iran. President Bush tried to isolate both Iran and Syria. The Obama team, as Martin Indyk argues in “Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East,” “needs to try both to bring in Syria, which would weaken Hamas and Hezbollah, while also engaging Iran.”
So, just to recap: It’s five to midnight and before the clock strikes 12 all we need to do is rebuild Fatah, merge it with Hamas, elect an Israeli government that can freeze settlements, court Syria and engage Iran — while preventing it from going nuclear — just so we can get the parties to start talking. Whoever lines up all the pieces of this diplomatic Rubik’s Cube deserves two Nobel Prizes. "
http://tinyurl.com/am4s5j
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Reading List
1) Pete Souza was recently named the new official White House photographer. His site has some very cool shots from election night in Grant Park as well as other work from Wrigley etc.
http://www.petesouza.com/index.html
2) A different view of the Gaza war. From Al-jazeera, an alternative view on how the war is covered in the U.S.
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/20091585448204690.html
3) An update on the status of a manned space program. For a space advocate like myself, still frustrating to read the convoluted process by which we spend billions yet achieve seemingly little. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30spac.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1230786000&en=92a4970e15389382&ei=5087%0A
4) An optimistic case for the economy from a confirmed pessimist. Hopefully he is right. From Conde Nast Portfolio
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/economics/2009/01/07/Spotting-Signs-of-Economic-Recovery#page1
5) Continued proof that our society at the end of the day does not allocate capital particularly well. College football assistant coach salaries are skyrocketing, the rest of the economy may be in the crapper but not college football spending.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/28539969?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS
http://www.petesouza.com/index.html
2) A different view of the Gaza war. From Al-jazeera, an alternative view on how the war is covered in the U.S.
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/20091585448204690.html
3) An update on the status of a manned space program. For a space advocate like myself, still frustrating to read the convoluted process by which we spend billions yet achieve seemingly little. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30spac.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1230786000&en=92a4970e15389382&ei=5087%0A
4) An optimistic case for the economy from a confirmed pessimist. Hopefully he is right. From Conde Nast Portfolio
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/economics/2009/01/07/Spotting-Signs-of-Economic-Recovery#page1
5) Continued proof that our society at the end of the day does not allocate capital particularly well. College football assistant coach salaries are skyrocketing, the rest of the economy may be in the crapper but not college football spending.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/28539969?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Gaza Blogging
TW: I empathize in a way with McArdle's post regarding blogging on Gaza. It is a very sensitive topic which makes one pause when contemplating baring one's thoughts on the topic. This blog being more or less a friends and family audience does not really have to worry about crazy commenters but still...
From Megan McArdle from Atlantic:
"Everyone engaged in it is interested in proving that one side is righter than the other. Since no action in the region has occurred without plausible provocation for 4,000 years or so, this requires constantly shifting the metrics by which you measure whichever side you happen to favor.
Point out that Israel is killing a lot of civilians and you are told that they had to do something in response to the Hamas rockets. Point out that practically, the response they chose has absolutely no strategic or tactical benefit, and a huge potential downside, and you are castigated for your lack of moral outrage about Hamas's attacks on civilians.
Either Israel is doing this because it hopes to gain something, in which case the whole thing is hopelessly ass-backwards--they are strengthening Hamas and worsening their international political position--or it thinks that it's okay to kill boatloads of civilians purely for revenge against Hamas; revenge for attacks that have so far killed and injured almost no one. This rather undercuts the argument of moral superiority, because guess what? That's what Hamas thinks it's doing.
On the other side, there's a tendency to forget, or forget to mention, that whatever the provocation, a plurality-to-majority of Palestinians constantly and actively wish to kill large numbers of Israelis purely for revenge. Gaza wants to be at war with Israel, and then hide behind the protections of not-quite-war, because they haven't the foggiest hope of winning anything like a real war.
I'm of Northern Irish descent, and I grew up in New York City in a mostly Jewish high school, and so as you can imagine, I've heard all the arguments about who's really to blame about a zillion times. And all I get out of it in the end is that the whole thing makes me sick and sad. I don't see any untainted victims. I see a bunch of people who have been stomped on by history beating up each other in revenge for past wrongs that can't be righted, lashing out whenever they think they can get away with it without losing the foreign funding that allows them to continue the fun. And I don't ever blog about it because one is not allowed to have an opinion on the matter--no matter what I say, I'll be excusing terrorism or, irrelevantly, the holocaust, or shilling for western imperialism. The saddest, truest thing that I've ever heard about the conflict is a friend who said that it seems to him like a stable equilibrium..."
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/the_problem_with_israelpalesti.php
From Megan McArdle from Atlantic:
"Everyone engaged in it is interested in proving that one side is righter than the other. Since no action in the region has occurred without plausible provocation for 4,000 years or so, this requires constantly shifting the metrics by which you measure whichever side you happen to favor.
Point out that Israel is killing a lot of civilians and you are told that they had to do something in response to the Hamas rockets. Point out that practically, the response they chose has absolutely no strategic or tactical benefit, and a huge potential downside, and you are castigated for your lack of moral outrage about Hamas's attacks on civilians.
Either Israel is doing this because it hopes to gain something, in which case the whole thing is hopelessly ass-backwards--they are strengthening Hamas and worsening their international political position--or it thinks that it's okay to kill boatloads of civilians purely for revenge against Hamas; revenge for attacks that have so far killed and injured almost no one. This rather undercuts the argument of moral superiority, because guess what? That's what Hamas thinks it's doing.
On the other side, there's a tendency to forget, or forget to mention, that whatever the provocation, a plurality-to-majority of Palestinians constantly and actively wish to kill large numbers of Israelis purely for revenge. Gaza wants to be at war with Israel, and then hide behind the protections of not-quite-war, because they haven't the foggiest hope of winning anything like a real war.
I'm of Northern Irish descent, and I grew up in New York City in a mostly Jewish high school, and so as you can imagine, I've heard all the arguments about who's really to blame about a zillion times. And all I get out of it in the end is that the whole thing makes me sick and sad. I don't see any untainted victims. I see a bunch of people who have been stomped on by history beating up each other in revenge for past wrongs that can't be righted, lashing out whenever they think they can get away with it without losing the foreign funding that allows them to continue the fun. And I don't ever blog about it because one is not allowed to have an opinion on the matter--no matter what I say, I'll be excusing terrorism or, irrelevantly, the holocaust, or shilling for western imperialism. The saddest, truest thing that I've ever heard about the conflict is a friend who said that it seems to him like a stable equilibrium..."
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/the_problem_with_israelpalesti.php
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Gaza: How Does It End?
TW: Klein wrote this piece a couple of days ago, obviously the suggestion outlined was not abided, which is unfortunate. When one tries to analyze Israel and the Palestinians, unless one tends towards moral absolutes like a Charles Krauthammer and other neo-cons, there are no clear solutions. I wish the Israeli troops well, the Gaza private citizens more peace but expect more unambiguous carnage.
From Joe Klein at Time:
"The brilliant Israeli writer David Grossman call[s] for a unilateral cease fire by the Israelis in Gaza. I agree with him.
It is significant that Grossman, who tends toward the peaceable and writes with the authority of a father who lost his son in the 2006 Lebanon fiasco, does not oppose the initial assault against Hamas. I agree with that, too. Hamas was asking for it. The constant missile strikes into Israel were intolerable, with the promise of worse to come. Hamas had taken the opportunity to build a considerable arsenal during the cease fire (a pause that Hamas, not the Israelis, abandoned). So, of course, Israel was justified in its targeted attacks on the Hamas weapons caches, military training facilities and military leadership in the first days of its offensive--and it is justified in its campaign to eliminate the tunnels from Gaza to Egypt that are the source of much of the weapons and contraband.
But the longer this offensive continues, the more it begins to seem that Israel is aiming for a "decisive blow" against Hamas--an impossibility, a fantasy promulgated by decisive blowhards, that raises the stakes in this operation and makes it more likely that Israel will emerge from this the perceived loser. Beyond the public relations consequences, there is also the likelihood that with the best targets taken out, lesser targets will yield increased civilian casualties and foolish over-targeting, which is what happened in Beirut in 2006. If Hamas survives a continued aerial onslaught and ground war, which it surely will, it wins.
If the offensive ends now--with a flood of humanitarian aid from Israel and its allies--a significant message will have been sent to Hamas: if you persist in lobbing rockets at our civilians, we will reserve the right to punish you severely, peremptorily, at a time of our choosing. (The current offensive has also sent Hamas a significant message from the neighboring moderate Arab countries, especially Egypt: don't expect any sympathy from us.)
Ultimately, the only solution to the situation in Gaza--if there is one--is intense, patient, long-term negotiations mediated by the United States and, perhaps, by Israel's neighbors. The Bush Administration, egged on by Jewish neoconservatives and Christian evangelicals, sided too often and without question with Israeli military overreactions and foolish strategies--such as the 2006 Lebanon war and the unilateral abandonment of Gaza (without fully negotiating the future relationship between Israel and Gaza). It thereby relinquished what should be the U.S. government's natural role, as an interlocutor trusted by both sides.
In the end, there are no decisive blows in Gaza. There are occasional military actions to limit the military threat of Hamas. And there are negotiations. If the negotiations--which should include direct talks with Hamas--work, ultimately there may no longer be a need for military actions. But that will require a more balanced U.S. foreign policy and a saner Hamas, chastened perhaps by this week's necessary Israeli kinetics."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/31/the-myth-of-the-decisive-blow/
From Joe Klein at Time:
"The brilliant Israeli writer David Grossman call[s] for a unilateral cease fire by the Israelis in Gaza. I agree with him.
It is significant that Grossman, who tends toward the peaceable and writes with the authority of a father who lost his son in the 2006 Lebanon fiasco, does not oppose the initial assault against Hamas. I agree with that, too. Hamas was asking for it. The constant missile strikes into Israel were intolerable, with the promise of worse to come. Hamas had taken the opportunity to build a considerable arsenal during the cease fire (a pause that Hamas, not the Israelis, abandoned). So, of course, Israel was justified in its targeted attacks on the Hamas weapons caches, military training facilities and military leadership in the first days of its offensive--and it is justified in its campaign to eliminate the tunnels from Gaza to Egypt that are the source of much of the weapons and contraband.
But the longer this offensive continues, the more it begins to seem that Israel is aiming for a "decisive blow" against Hamas--an impossibility, a fantasy promulgated by decisive blowhards, that raises the stakes in this operation and makes it more likely that Israel will emerge from this the perceived loser. Beyond the public relations consequences, there is also the likelihood that with the best targets taken out, lesser targets will yield increased civilian casualties and foolish over-targeting, which is what happened in Beirut in 2006. If Hamas survives a continued aerial onslaught and ground war, which it surely will, it wins.
If the offensive ends now--with a flood of humanitarian aid from Israel and its allies--a significant message will have been sent to Hamas: if you persist in lobbing rockets at our civilians, we will reserve the right to punish you severely, peremptorily, at a time of our choosing. (The current offensive has also sent Hamas a significant message from the neighboring moderate Arab countries, especially Egypt: don't expect any sympathy from us.)
Ultimately, the only solution to the situation in Gaza--if there is one--is intense, patient, long-term negotiations mediated by the United States and, perhaps, by Israel's neighbors. The Bush Administration, egged on by Jewish neoconservatives and Christian evangelicals, sided too often and without question with Israeli military overreactions and foolish strategies--such as the 2006 Lebanon war and the unilateral abandonment of Gaza (without fully negotiating the future relationship between Israel and Gaza). It thereby relinquished what should be the U.S. government's natural role, as an interlocutor trusted by both sides.
In the end, there are no decisive blows in Gaza. There are occasional military actions to limit the military threat of Hamas. And there are negotiations. If the negotiations--which should include direct talks with Hamas--work, ultimately there may no longer be a need for military actions. But that will require a more balanced U.S. foreign policy and a saner Hamas, chastened perhaps by this week's necessary Israeli kinetics."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/31/the-myth-of-the-decisive-blow/
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Hamas' Goals An Alternative View
TW: Rami Khouri is an Palestianian-American commentator, who write and opines for various media outlets. I like his stuff, he is level-headed but provides a relatively fresh perspective as so much of what we hear in the US is either Israeli focused or Americans writing about the Arab world.
This piece was written a week before the latest Gaza conflict. The piece outlines Khouri's view on what motivates Hamas. I read frequently that Hamas is either "not like us" whatever that would mean or merely a vicious terrorist organization with only illegitimate policy goals. I agree they are vicious but perhaps at the end of the day they are rational politicians as well.
From Khouri at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...Hamas has stated that it will extend the cease-fire - and indeed for many years has offered Israel a long-term truce - if the Israelis in turn meet their side of the deal, which is to stop killing and arresting Palestinians, colonizing their land and strangling them economically.
The fact that Hamas would consider letting the cease-fire lapse speaks much about its mind-set and the options that it is willing to pursue. This moment allows us to accurately gauge what Hamas is all about, rather than see it through the lens of exaggerated misperceptions.
Reasonable people would expect that Israelis and Palestinians alike prefer a cease-fire to warfare, especially since mutual attacks have never resolved the core conflict. Hamas' decision to extend the cease-fire is not going to be made on the basis of what makes its people more or less comfortable, or what entices Israelis into opening the gates a little bit wider to allow more consumer goods to enter Gaza.
The basis on which Hamas makes such decisions reflects its wider worldview of the character and aims of Israel, and the nature of its confrontation with Israel.
Like other Islamist groups, Hamas calculates on the basis of a longer time frame rather than the next election, shifting public opinion or whether or not it will get invited to tea in the White House. The most important factor in the mind of Islamist leaders who decide such things is whether the agreement to renew the cease-fire reflects mutual respect and an acceptance of the principle of equal rights for Israel and Hamas.
If the deal proposed is seen to have forced Israel to change its position and respect the terms of the agreement, Hamas will extend. If it merely comprises vague Israeli promises in return for Hamas and other militant groups stopping their rocket attacks against Israel, the deal will collapse. Hamas' view is that mutual needs, rather than Israeli security, must be assured for a cease-fire to happen.
The driving force for such a posture is the Islamist sense that the battle to defend and reclaim the land will be a long one, and it will require a heavy price in lives and suffering before Israel negotiates sincerely and sees the Palestinians as humans worthy of the same rights as Israelis.
Hamas showed its strength a few days ago, when some 200,000 supporters rallied in Gaza to mark the group's 21st anniversary. It has generated strong support as well as deep opposition among Palestinians and other Arabs, but more important for it is whether or not it has generated respect in Israel. If the Israelis feel Hamas can fight a long-term battle, then Hamas will feel it has achieved an important goal: the respect of its enemy.
Hamas is well entrenched in Gaza and is prepared for an Israeli military attack, if such an attack takes place. These Palestinian Islamists clearly have learned from their colleagues in Hezbollah and other such groups, who have shown themselves to be the most adept Arabs at fighting Israel militarily. They have obviously used the past year to prepare for an Israeli attack on their little statelet - making the cost to Israel likely to be similar to the price Israel paid when it went into south Lebanon years ago.
Israeli leaders have warned that they will have to take drastic measures if the rockets from Gaza do not stop falling on southern Israel. Hamas ignores such threats because it knows that Israel has reached the limit of what it can do with conventional military force. Israel directly occupied Gaza for decades and used brutal force in trying to pacify it, which only succeeded in giving birth to Hamas. More Israeli tanks in the streets of Gaza would only reflect Israeli renewed perplexity about how to deal with the group, rather than a coherent plan to resolve the conflict.
The main criteria for a renewal of the Hamas-Israel cease-fire are not fear of the other or the ability to inflict military pain, but respect for the other and the willingness to deal as equals."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/18/opinion/edkhouri.php
This piece was written a week before the latest Gaza conflict. The piece outlines Khouri's view on what motivates Hamas. I read frequently that Hamas is either "not like us" whatever that would mean or merely a vicious terrorist organization with only illegitimate policy goals. I agree they are vicious but perhaps at the end of the day they are rational politicians as well.
From Khouri at Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...Hamas has stated that it will extend the cease-fire - and indeed for many years has offered Israel a long-term truce - if the Israelis in turn meet their side of the deal, which is to stop killing and arresting Palestinians, colonizing their land and strangling them economically.
The fact that Hamas would consider letting the cease-fire lapse speaks much about its mind-set and the options that it is willing to pursue. This moment allows us to accurately gauge what Hamas is all about, rather than see it through the lens of exaggerated misperceptions.
Reasonable people would expect that Israelis and Palestinians alike prefer a cease-fire to warfare, especially since mutual attacks have never resolved the core conflict. Hamas' decision to extend the cease-fire is not going to be made on the basis of what makes its people more or less comfortable, or what entices Israelis into opening the gates a little bit wider to allow more consumer goods to enter Gaza.
The basis on which Hamas makes such decisions reflects its wider worldview of the character and aims of Israel, and the nature of its confrontation with Israel.
Like other Islamist groups, Hamas calculates on the basis of a longer time frame rather than the next election, shifting public opinion or whether or not it will get invited to tea in the White House. The most important factor in the mind of Islamist leaders who decide such things is whether the agreement to renew the cease-fire reflects mutual respect and an acceptance of the principle of equal rights for Israel and Hamas.
If the deal proposed is seen to have forced Israel to change its position and respect the terms of the agreement, Hamas will extend. If it merely comprises vague Israeli promises in return for Hamas and other militant groups stopping their rocket attacks against Israel, the deal will collapse. Hamas' view is that mutual needs, rather than Israeli security, must be assured for a cease-fire to happen.
The driving force for such a posture is the Islamist sense that the battle to defend and reclaim the land will be a long one, and it will require a heavy price in lives and suffering before Israel negotiates sincerely and sees the Palestinians as humans worthy of the same rights as Israelis.
Hamas showed its strength a few days ago, when some 200,000 supporters rallied in Gaza to mark the group's 21st anniversary. It has generated strong support as well as deep opposition among Palestinians and other Arabs, but more important for it is whether or not it has generated respect in Israel. If the Israelis feel Hamas can fight a long-term battle, then Hamas will feel it has achieved an important goal: the respect of its enemy.
Hamas is well entrenched in Gaza and is prepared for an Israeli military attack, if such an attack takes place. These Palestinian Islamists clearly have learned from their colleagues in Hezbollah and other such groups, who have shown themselves to be the most adept Arabs at fighting Israel militarily. They have obviously used the past year to prepare for an Israeli attack on their little statelet - making the cost to Israel likely to be similar to the price Israel paid when it went into south Lebanon years ago.
Israeli leaders have warned that they will have to take drastic measures if the rockets from Gaza do not stop falling on southern Israel. Hamas ignores such threats because it knows that Israel has reached the limit of what it can do with conventional military force. Israel directly occupied Gaza for decades and used brutal force in trying to pacify it, which only succeeded in giving birth to Hamas. More Israeli tanks in the streets of Gaza would only reflect Israeli renewed perplexity about how to deal with the group, rather than a coherent plan to resolve the conflict.
The main criteria for a renewal of the Hamas-Israel cease-fire are not fear of the other or the ability to inflict military pain, but respect for the other and the willingness to deal as equals."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/18/opinion/edkhouri.php
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The War in Gaza
TW: Yet another chapter of the war between Israel and the Palestinians has commenced. This one could expand to include Lebanese Hizbullah amongst others. Time will tell. Haaretz (moderate Israeli newspaper, as opposed to the rabidly right-wing Fox equivalent Jerusalem Post) promises to run a two part series identifying and responding to the common refrains of the left (too harsh) and right (not harsh enough) against Israeli military actions. They start with the leftist arguments (I will keep an eye out for the rightist arguments).
From Haaretz:
"It is, abruptly and again, wartime. Across the globe, the selective pacifists of the left and the recliner Rambos of the right are spoiling for their next battle, the war in Gaza. They will fight one another in letters to Congress, in cable news sound bites, in raucous talk-radio phone-ins, in the virtual mega-heroics of the online battlefield of the talkback...
Leftist 1: Israel's true motive in bombing Gaza, is genocide against the Palestinian people and extermination of their right to statehood.
Rebuttal- Israel's genuine interest in this campaign is strikingly similar to Hamas' interest in firing scores of rockets into Israeli population centers: Forcing a cease-fire on better terms than the one just ended. For Hamas, this largely means easing Israeli economic sanctions against Gazans. For Israel, this centers on ending shelling by Qassam and Grad missiles and mortar shells. For both sides, this means a prisoner exchange, centering on Gilad Shalit and hundreds of jailed Hamas members.
Leftist 2: The Palestinians have no recourse but to defend themselves, and the makeshift rockets they fire are nothing compared to the world's most advanced warplanes and munitions, which the IDF is using against them.
Rebuttal- The Human Rights Watch organization has been unequivocal in condemning the use of Qassam rockets as a direct violation of international humanitarian law and the laws of war. The firing of Qassams and mortars against civilian populations also constitutes collective punishment against hundreds of thousands of innocent Israeli men, women and children...
Leftist 3: All that Hamas is asking, is recognition as the democratically elected government of Gaza, and an end to the Israeli economic embargo. Were they to attain these goals, there would be calm on both sides of the border.
Rebuttal- It is both unrealistic and dangerous to believe that Hamas has abandoned its clearly stated and often reiterated goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in all of the Holy Land, including all land claimed, annexed by, or in any way occupied by Israel. Beyond that, Hamas has strong alliances with the Egyptian opposition Muslim brotherhood, as well as working partnerships with the Iran-dominated Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Israeli restraint, when practiced, has been met with contempt and additional Hamas and Hamas-tolerated strikes against civilian populations.
Leftist 4: The Israeli blockade against Hamas is state terrorism and any means to fight it are legitimate.
Rebuttal There is every reason to believe that Israel's economic siege against Gaza is misguided, but not for an essential cruelty, rather because Hamas taxes collected on the influx of goods imported through tunnels from Egyptian territory have subsidized and cemented Hamas rule.
Leftist 5: The world overwhelmingly sympathizes with the Palestinians against Israel, and unreservedly backs their struggle for independence.
Rebuttal- In an era of global revulsion against radical Islamic terror, Hamas' protracted program of suicide bombings, drive-by murders and shelling of civilian populations, coupled with its refusal to renounce violence, recognize Israel, or accept past peace agreements, coupled with its ideology of militant jihad, have drained the Palestinians of international sympathy and have, in fact, legitimized Israeli arguments of military self-defense. Nothing has been more instrumental in harming the cause of Palestinian independence than Hamas, with its brutal take-over of Gaza in a war with brother Palestinians, and its frank efforts to build a large-scale regular army force in the Strip.
In Part Two, in the coming week: The second five will be newer claims, the Alpha-male displays of the Israel-bashing right, the group which constantly berates the government and the IDF for not bombing Gaza into a parking lot, for not shooting and starving and freezing innocent civilians to death."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050421.html
From Haaretz:
"It is, abruptly and again, wartime. Across the globe, the selective pacifists of the left and the recliner Rambos of the right are spoiling for their next battle, the war in Gaza. They will fight one another in letters to Congress, in cable news sound bites, in raucous talk-radio phone-ins, in the virtual mega-heroics of the online battlefield of the talkback...
Leftist 1: Israel's true motive in bombing Gaza, is genocide against the Palestinian people and extermination of their right to statehood.
Rebuttal- Israel's genuine interest in this campaign is strikingly similar to Hamas' interest in firing scores of rockets into Israeli population centers: Forcing a cease-fire on better terms than the one just ended. For Hamas, this largely means easing Israeli economic sanctions against Gazans. For Israel, this centers on ending shelling by Qassam and Grad missiles and mortar shells. For both sides, this means a prisoner exchange, centering on Gilad Shalit and hundreds of jailed Hamas members.
Leftist 2: The Palestinians have no recourse but to defend themselves, and the makeshift rockets they fire are nothing compared to the world's most advanced warplanes and munitions, which the IDF is using against them.
Rebuttal- The Human Rights Watch organization has been unequivocal in condemning the use of Qassam rockets as a direct violation of international humanitarian law and the laws of war. The firing of Qassams and mortars against civilian populations also constitutes collective punishment against hundreds of thousands of innocent Israeli men, women and children...
Leftist 3: All that Hamas is asking, is recognition as the democratically elected government of Gaza, and an end to the Israeli economic embargo. Were they to attain these goals, there would be calm on both sides of the border.
Rebuttal- It is both unrealistic and dangerous to believe that Hamas has abandoned its clearly stated and often reiterated goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in all of the Holy Land, including all land claimed, annexed by, or in any way occupied by Israel. Beyond that, Hamas has strong alliances with the Egyptian opposition Muslim brotherhood, as well as working partnerships with the Iran-dominated Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Israeli restraint, when practiced, has been met with contempt and additional Hamas and Hamas-tolerated strikes against civilian populations.
Leftist 4: The Israeli blockade against Hamas is state terrorism and any means to fight it are legitimate.
Rebuttal There is every reason to believe that Israel's economic siege against Gaza is misguided, but not for an essential cruelty, rather because Hamas taxes collected on the influx of goods imported through tunnels from Egyptian territory have subsidized and cemented Hamas rule.
Leftist 5: The world overwhelmingly sympathizes with the Palestinians against Israel, and unreservedly backs their struggle for independence.
Rebuttal- In an era of global revulsion against radical Islamic terror, Hamas' protracted program of suicide bombings, drive-by murders and shelling of civilian populations, coupled with its refusal to renounce violence, recognize Israel, or accept past peace agreements, coupled with its ideology of militant jihad, have drained the Palestinians of international sympathy and have, in fact, legitimized Israeli arguments of military self-defense. Nothing has been more instrumental in harming the cause of Palestinian independence than Hamas, with its brutal take-over of Gaza in a war with brother Palestinians, and its frank efforts to build a large-scale regular army force in the Strip.
In Part Two, in the coming week: The second five will be newer claims, the Alpha-male displays of the Israel-bashing right, the group which constantly berates the government and the IDF for not bombing Gaza into a parking lot, for not shooting and starving and freezing innocent civilians to death."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050421.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)