PDA

View Full Version : Hamas in Gaza (merged thread)



Pages : [1] 2

SWJED
06-13-2006, 09:32 PM
Reported in multiple news outlets and dsicussed on various blogs...

Here is the 14 June article from the Australian - Hamas 'Mined Gaza Beach' (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19465042-2703,00.html).


An Israeli army investigation into the explosion on a Gaza beach last Friday that killed seven members of a Palestinian family has concluded it was almost certainly caused by a Palestinian mine, not an Israeli shell, according to the Israeli media yesterday.

The military wing of Hamas had seized on the deaths to declare an end to its ceasefire with Israel, and a resumption of large-scale hostilities between Palestinian militants and Israel seemed possible.

However, it was unclear whether the Israeli findings on the beach blast would be credible to the Palestinians.

Israel, which expressed regret for the deaths, was initially inclined to accept an artillery shell was responsible, because Israeli warships fired six shells in the area. The impact of five was observed hundreds of metres from the beach, but the sixth shell was unaccounted for.

However, suspicions of a possible other cause were aroused when it was learned Hamas operatives had scoured the area and taken away pieces of shrapnel. Shrapnel was also removed from the bodies of the wounded brought to Israeli hospitals.

Israel's Channel Two television said shrapnel was found in a wounded child brought to Israel, and it was not the metal used in artillery shells.

The Haaretz daily reported that photographs of the crater on the beach suggested it was caused by an explosion from below, not a hit from above...

Steve Blair
06-13-2006, 09:41 PM
The BBC story is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5074792.stm).

They included a comment from Human Rights Watch that is interesting:

An expert working for the Human Rights Watch said the Palestinians' injuries were not consistent with a blast taking place beneath them.

"It has been suggested by some that the family was killed by a land mine, and this is patently not the case," Mark Garlasco said.

"All of the evidence is pointing to a 155mm shell as having killed and injured the Palestinians here on the beach," he said.

"My assessment [is] that it's likely that this was incoming artillery fire that landed on the beach and was fired by the Israelis from the north of Gaza."

If this is a Hamas IO, it's already turning out brilliantly.

SWJED
06-13-2006, 10:04 PM
IDF Says it's Not Responsible for Gaza Beach Blast (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150035838991&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).


"The IDF is innocent," was the bottom line that came out of a press conference Tuesday night, during which Defense Minister Amir Peretz, Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz and other top officers presented the findings of an internal military investigation into Friday's explosion that killed seven Palestinians as they picnicked on a Gaza beach.

In a press conference at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, Peretz told reporters that following an extensive three-day investigation the IDF had collected sufficient evidence to prove that Friday's explosion was not caused by Israel. The evidence was being presented first and foremost to the Israeli people, Peretz emphasized, saying, "We owe it to ourselves to know that we did not cause these deaths."

"We have sufficient evidence which confirms our suspicion that the attempts to portray this incident as caused by Israel were wrong," Peretz said. "I know it is difficult to explain this, but the facts that have accumulated prove that Israel was not behind the incident."

In contrast to daily Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel, Peretz added, the IDF made great efforts to avoid harming innocent Palestinians. "In all IDF operations one of the issues that is taken into consideration and sometimes adds risk to ourselves is the need to not cause harm to innocent civilians," the defense minister said...

SWJED
07-15-2006, 12:09 PM
MERMI - TV (H/T Little Green Footballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21542_JihadTV_Among_the_Terrorists&only)) - Hamas 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades - Training and Ideology (http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1188#) (video) and transcript (http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1188).


Here’s a look at the war preparations of Hamas that aired on Al Jazeera on July 4th, 2006, boasting about the capabilities of Hamas’s hardcore terrorist unit, the Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades. JihadTV shows us the terrorists building tunnels, making grenades, launching Qassam rockets, mixing explosives, and manufacturing RPGs, and there are interviews with various soldiers and commanders including Muhammad Al-Deif (recently injured in an IAF airstrike), “General Commander” and Ahmad Al-Ja’bari, “Most Prominent Al-Qassam Brigades commander.” (Courtesy of MEMRI TV.)

Strickland
07-15-2006, 01:59 PM
I would also recommend researching one of their former commanders and head bomber maker - Yehiya Ayyash for further insights.

tequila
02-02-2007, 11:08 AM
al-Jazeera interviews both Fatah and Hamas fighters (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66AB9B01-80BA-4291-A632-BD70FB63F320.htm). Interesting look at the motivations behind the growing civil war in Palestine (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians;_ylt=Ao9orjQ4Si.ekJhuq4nT_ECs0 NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)between the factions. I see wine glasses clinking in Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C., especially in the light of this (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/world/middleeast/28cnd-mideast.html?ei=5088&en=06112b97f1b79993&ex=1324962000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print), though I think in the end this will come back to bite us all in the end. Have we forgotten the origins of Hizbullah?

Jedburgh
02-14-2007, 06:54 PM
The Economist, 3 Feb 07: The Gazafication of the West Bank (http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8633476)

...As the PA crumbles under fratricidal conflict and the pressure of foreign economic sanctions, the lawlessness has prompted the powerful Palestinian clans (which are not generally loyal to any one party) to see to their own security. Nablus's Dweikat clan recently posted flyers warning that it will retaliate for any attacks on members of the extended family, and has drawn up a list of young armed men that it can call on.

That is a recipe for something nasty. A clan like the Dweikats, with 30,000 members, can be a militia in itself. Clan feuds now drive a lot of the seemingly political fighting in Gaza, and they seem to be intensifying in the West Bank too. Aid workers in Hebron, the main town in the southern bit of the West Bank, say that political clashes there are still rare but arms prices have rocketed, as people buy more guns to protect themselves. In December the police shooting of a teenager prompted his relatives to burn down the police station and kidnap several officers, whose own families then sent in reinforcements, leading to a stand-off that took a week and the intervention of presidential troops to end....

tequila
04-30-2007, 01:02 PM
Mystery Islamists attacking (http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=17436)Palestinian businesses. A symptom of Hamas' inability to control its factions?

SWJED
05-31-2007, 09:03 AM
31 May NY Times - Jihadist Groups Fill a Palestinian Power Vacuum (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/world/middleeast/31palestinians.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin) by Steven Erlanger and Hassan Fattah.


... A standoff between the Lebanese Army and Islamists at a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon has focused attention on a jihadist element taking root there as well as a radicalization in the Palestinian areas themselves.

With the fragmentation of authority in Gaza, and its isolation, said a Gazan analyst, Taysir Mhaisin, “there is an increase of fundamentalism and the birth of groups believing in violence and practicing violence as a model created by bin Ladenism.”

Mouin Rabbani, a Jordan-based analyst of Palestinian politics for the International Crisis Group, said, “There is a security vacuum that creates space for all kinds of new grouplets and forces.”...

AdmiralAdama
06-13-2007, 12:28 AM
Interesting take on this from Richard Fernandez at the Belmont Club. Claims that the "peace process" -- as well as a "Palestinian proto-state" is in the balance.

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/06/gaza-again.html


Gaza again
Hamas and Fatah were hard at it again today with Hamas attempting a big, decisive push that will leave them in de facto control of all the major military facilities on the strip. Hospitals have now become battlegrounds.

In the European Hospital in the town of Khan Yunis, Hamas-affiliated security guards used the hospital's roof as a staging ground for an assault on a nearby Fatah position on Tuesday, head of nursing Atta al-Jaabari said.

The assault caused a "state of panic" among the medical staff and threatened children at a kindergarten for employees' children on the grounds, he said. Doctors treated three of the wounded as the battle continued.

... Meanwhile in other news, "the European Union resumed aid to the Palestinian finance ministry yesterday, for the first time since the West launched an economic boycott of the Islamist Hamas government more than a year ago," according to Agence Presse France.

Only a few months ago, Hamas and Fatah factions met in Riyadh and swore by all that was holy to bury the hatchet to form a unity government. No one bothered to inquire where the hatchet would be buried. Two things are at issue in the Hamas-Fatah war. The first is the future of the "peace process". The second is the future of Palestine. The viability of the "peace process" descended from the Oslo Agreement is hanging by the most slender of fictions. A Hamas victory or fight to a draw would to all intents and purposes not only smash the "peace process" but all the diplomatic schemes which view the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian process as the heart of a solution. With the prospect of a peace with Israel taken off the table the risk of resort to war increases. What is worse is that "Palestine", if it ever existed as a viable proto-state, risks becoming fragmented among terrorist groups, each with its own external patrons. It is being divided into spheres of influence presided over by terror organizations acting as proxies for rogue states.

Of course the facts may make no difference at all. As the recent EU funds transfer underscores, the Left is already in a zombie-like trance with respect to this issue. Lips will continue to move, checks will continue to be written and limbs appear to move as if controlled by volition, but it's all on automatic. Any acknowledgement of reality will precipitate its complete collapse in certain ideologues, if that makes any sense.

SWJED
06-13-2007, 08:07 AM
13 June NY Times - Attacks Escalate as Palestinians Fight for Power (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/world/middleeast/13mideast.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin) by Steven Erlanger and Isabel Kershner.


Gunmen of rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah sharply escalated their fight for supremacy on Tuesday, with Hamas taking over much of the northern Gaza Strip in what is beginning to look increasingly like a civil war.

Five days of revenge attacks on individuals — including executions, kneecappings and even tossing handcuffed prisoners off tall apartment towers — on Tuesday turned into something larger and more organized: attacks on symbols of power and the deployment of military units. About 25 Palestinians were killed and more than 100 wounded, Palestinian medics said...

SoiCowboy
06-13-2007, 11:56 AM
Gaza's been a dump since at least the 1980s.

First Intifada showed them that violence as a way of life is A-OK.

And they've been doing it ever since, because to do anything else means you're just another unemployed bum in a failed statelet rather than a holy warrior of God / military muscleman.

Everyone should stop funding the Palestinians, and let Hamas bankrupt itself trying to fix the strip and the PLO/Fatah disintergrate from lack of patronage.

Jedburgh
06-13-2007, 06:29 PM
The Economist, 13 Jun 07: The Road to Hamastan (http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9332932&top_story=1)

By the end of this week, the Islamists of Hamas will have either destroyed the secular-minded Fatah in the Gaza Strip, or at least shown that they can. The relative quiet after a deadly burst of violence between the rival Palestinian parties in May was broken by a series of ###-for-tat killings that quickly got out of hand. After troops from the presidential guard of Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, fired rockets at the house of Hamas’s Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister, the Islamist party launched a full-scale attack. Hamas troops have taken control of most of the Gaza Strip and have chased Fatah forces out of their bases, while several top Fatah commanders have either fled Gaza or been killed....

tequila
06-13-2007, 08:57 PM
Conflict Blotter (http://www.conflictblotter.com/) reports directly from Gaza, including a scene worth reading full as a Palestinian peace march (http://conflictblotter.com/2007/06/13/peace-march-turns-deadly/)by civilians is raked with gunfire.



We were ducking for cover in an alleyway, and all of a sudden peace marchers, including young girls and old women draped in Palestinian flags marched into the crossfire. With the .50 cal machine gun pickup truck behind them, a hailstorm of Kalashnikov bullets raining down from in front of them, they started dancing and shouting amid the firefight. Another group of protesters swarmed a Fatah gunman who was returning fire and physically forced him to lower his rifle. And then the impossible happened, both sides stopped firing to allow the marchers to pass. It was all quite touching, but things soon took a more sinister turn.


The march turned north, bound for the Al Bakry compound, home to a family of Fatah loyalists that Hamas had under siege in the Beach Camp, a refugee camp home to Ismail Haniya and solid Hamas country. The protesters turned up a dusty alley way close to the besieged compound and Hamas (we assume anyway) opened fire. Protesters scattered and a boy of about 20 was shot down in the street and whisked off by an old silver mercedes.

A group of perhaps two dozen marchers regrouped and ran right back down the alley straight into the oncoming machine gun fire. It was a chilling spectacle that called to mind Tiananmen Square. Six more protesters, including a middle aged woman, were gunned down and dragged off by screaming fellow demonstrators. People were devastated. Our fixer was in tears. It was profoundly moving display.They are of the opinion that Hamas is going to win control of Gaza decisively. Fatah is on the run.

SWJED
06-14-2007, 09:15 AM
14 June Washington Post - Hamas Bolsters Its Hold In Gaza (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061300408.html) by Scott Wilson.


Hamas gunmen consolidated their hold over large swaths of the Gaza Strip on Wednesday after attacking military posts controlled by the rival Fatah movement, whose own fighters responded with a daylight raid in the West Bank, broadening the civil strife.

At least 21 Palestinians were killed Wednesday across Gaza, driving up the four-day death toll to at least 63 in factional violence that both Palestinian parties described as civil war.

The Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the Hamas military wing that has begun referring to Fatah as the "Jew American Army," gave the Fatah-dominated Palestinian National Forces across northern Gaza until Friday evening to surrender their weapons and turn over their posts. The Hamas tactic, which has included broadcasting inaccurate claims from minarets that Fatah posts have fallen, has proved highly effective in prompting outgunned Fatah fighters to flee.

At least one battalion of the Palestinian National Forces was reported to have run out of ammunition and others may be approaching the end of supplies. Israeli officials have warned for months that Hamas has been stockpiling ammunition, small arms and explosives...

SWJED
06-14-2007, 09:17 AM
14 June NY Times - Hamas Seizes Broad Control in Gaza Strip (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html?ref=world) by Steven Erlanger.


Hamas forces consolidated control over much of Gaza on Wednesday, taking command of the main north-south road and blowing up a Fatah headquarters in Khan Yunis, in the south.

In northern Gaza and Gaza City, Hamas military men, many of them in black masks, moved unchallenged through the streets as Fatah fighters ran short of arms and ammunition and abandoned their posts. Hamas controlled all of Gaza City except for the presidential compound of Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and the Suraya headquarters of the National Security Forces, the Palestinian army. Hamas has surrounded Al Suraya, calling on the occupants to surrender.

The powerful Hamas move to exert authority in Gaza, and the poor performance and motivation of the larger security forces supposedly loyal to Fatah, raised troubling questions for Mr. Abbas and Israel, and left the White House with a dwindling menu of policy options...

goesh
06-14-2007, 11:29 AM
From MSNBC/6/14/07:

"The moderate President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, for the first time in five days of fierce fighting, ordered his elite presidential guard to strike back. But his forces were crumbling fast under the onslaught by the better-armed and better-disciplined Islamic fighters."

AdmiralAdama
06-14-2007, 04:07 PM
Israeli intelligence official warns of "Hamasstan"
“We are moving toward a situation in which Gaza will be a formal terror state,” he said.


“In the short term, Israel will face an organized system of guerilla warfare similar to what is going on in Lebanon. This system will grow stronger and stronger with each passing day. In the long term this entity will have long-range missiles and other capabilities, which will affect not only Sderot, but Kiryat Gat and Ashdod as well. Eventually these missiles will reach Haifa.”


The former intelligence officer continued to say that Israel must prevent Hamas from reaching Hizbullah-like capabilities.


To this end, Amidror said, Israel “must be prepared to remain in the area (Gaza) for years”.


“Those who make the decisions have a difficult one to make, because the meaning of this is a harsh war - and then staying in the area for years,” he said. “If we are not ready for these two outcomes – then it’s best not to enter in the first place.


“If we do not act, Hamas will inevitably grow in strength and turn into Hizbullah.”

goesh
06-14-2007, 06:05 PM
- with hizbullah to the north, secure Gaza then destabalize Jordan......

From MSNBC.COM 6/14/07:

"We are telling our people that the past era has ended and will not return,” Islam Shahawan, a spokesman for Hamas’ militia, told Hamas radio. “The era of justice and Islamic rule have arrived.”

AdmiralAdama
06-14-2007, 10:48 PM
When tracing back the roots of the terrible Jihadist violence and anarchy swamping Gaza, this is a timely article -- about Arafat's vile leadership.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200509/samuels


Arafat's failure to conquer Jerusalem did not shatter his conviction that history was moving in his favor: under pressure from within and without, isolated in the world, the State of Israel would eventually crack apart and dissolve, to be replaced by Arab Palestine. "We will continue our struggle until a Palestinian boy or a Palestinian girl waves our flag on the walls, mosques, and churches of Jerusalem, the capital of our independent state, whether some people are happy about it or not," he promised. "He who doesn't like it may drink the water of the Dead Sea." Arafat understood his actions as part of an unfolding within the long duration of historical time rather than as disembodied headlines on CNN. The inability of his diplomatic interlocutors to understand what he was driving at exposed the fatal limits of the Western conception of politics as a way to find a happy medium between competing interests.

...

Nofal tells me that Arafat's strategic use of violence after Oslo began with permitting Hamas and Islamic Jihad to launch terror attacks. Arafat would then crack down on those same organizations to show that he was in control. Nofal first heard Arafat give orders that led directly to violence, he says, before the riots that erupted over the excavation of the Hasmonean tunnel, near the Haram al-Sharif, in 1996. Nofal says that the impetus for the violence was the statement by the newly elected Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that he would not speak to Arafat directly. Arafat was furious at the slight.

"I was with him in his office," Nofal recalls. "He got up and walked around the desk. He was very, very angry. Finally he calmed down a bit and he pointed to the phone on his desk. He said, 'I will make Netanyahu call me on this phone.'"

Arafat ordered demonstrators into the streets, and told them to provoke the Israelis. When violence erupted, the Israelis were blamed. ...

Tacitus
06-14-2007, 11:03 PM
Gentlemen,
When I was driving in to work today, I heard a stoy on NPR about these events. Apparently Hamas has pretty much taken control of the Gaza Strip, but Fatah is still in charge of the West Bank. They were interviewing a Palestinian on the West Bank, and he said sarcastically, "Well, they've been talking about a two state solution for a few years now. But this isn't what people had in mind." Or words to that effect.

I wonder if people will be allowed to vote with their feet, assuming any Palestinians want to flee Gaza. If Hamas maintains sovereignty in Gaza, it seems inevitable there will soon precipitate fighting between them and Israel. I'd expect some people would want to get the hell out of there. I know I would.

AdmiralAdama
06-14-2007, 11:07 PM
Israel would be unwise to allow free flow of people between Gaza and the West Bank, since Gaza is flooded with Jihadists of all different types. The situation in the West Bank is more under control, and Israel will not want to risk contagion. Israel will probably choose a policy of "seperation" between the two entities, creating a Hamastan and a Fatahstan

SWJED
06-15-2007, 12:16 AM
14 June (late breaking) Washington Post - Abbas Dissolves Palestinian Government (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061400145.html?hpid=topnews) by Scott Wilson.


Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dissolved the Palestinian unity government Thursday and declared a state of emergency as the surging Islamic forces of the rival Hamas movement nearly completed their military conquest of the Gaza Strip.

In a presidential decree, Abbas fired Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas and suggested he would "return to the people" with new national elections in the future. His decision ends the four-month power-sharing arrangement between his Fatah movement and Hamas, the two largest Palestinian political parties. Sami Abu Zouhri, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said, "In practical terms these decisions are worthless."...

Steve Blair
06-15-2007, 01:52 AM
What the Arafat story points out is the danger that is inherent when an insurgent group crosses that line into terrorism. Terrorist groups spin out of control with their own addiction to violence. They also become prisoners of their own dreams and ideals. It's an interesting, and frightening, psychological transition that effects both the leaders and (especially) the rank and file. Newer recruits tend to be more radicalized, pressuring leaders to either change their tactics or see their support ebb away.

AdmiralAdama
06-15-2007, 02:10 AM
Indeed. However, it is not clear that the Palestinians have any true "insurgent" history -- they basically began the current trend of Arab terrorism towards civilians. But Arafat also played a double game -- allowing the formation and growth of Hamas and Islamic Jihad as a way of putting pressure on the Israelis by carrying out terror attacks while preserving plausible deniability on his part and the hope that he would "crack down" on terrorism. Which is like Bill Clinton "cracking down" on adultery


What the Arafat story points out is the danger that is inherent when an insurgent group crosses that line into terrorism. Terrorist groups spin out of control with their own addiction to violence. They also become prisoners of their own dreams and ideals. It's an interesting, and frightening, psychological transition that effects both the leaders and (especially) the rank and file. Newer recruits tend to be more radicalized, pressuring leaders to either change their tactics or see their support ebb away.

goesh
06-15-2007, 12:07 PM
From MSNBC: 6/15/07:

-and the headline reads:

"Hamas takeover shows failure of Bush's vision"

Gotta' luv that take on it (as if Bush ever thought there would be a nation called Palestine). Here's hamas in control of Gaza with the sea to their back, Egypt to the South that certainly does not want hamas' influence and ideology coming into Egypt and all around them are Jews and the watchdog IDF/Shin Bet and on the other side through all them Jews is the West Bank, new home of the legitimate Palestinian authority. Sort of a reverse Masada, isn't it? So now that hamas has their Masada, let their supporters revel in the quality of life they are now going to have. A spokesman for the hamas militia was recently quoted as saying that a new era of justice and Islamic rule had just started. Enjoy the fruits of your labor, baby, the real fun is just starting.

Jedburgh
06-15-2007, 01:19 PM
HRW, 13 Jun 07: Gaza: Armed Palestinian Groups Commit Grave Crimes (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/06/13/isrlpa16156.htm)

...In internal Palestinian fighting over the last three days, both Fatah and Hamas military forces have summarily executed captives, killed people not involved in hostilities, and engaged in gun battles with one another inside and near Palestinian hospitals. On Saturday, armed Palestinians from Islamic Jihad and the Fatah-affiliated Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade used a vehicle with a “TV” insignia to attack an Israeli military position on the border with Gaza.

“These attacks by both Hamas and Fatah constitute brutal assaults on the most fundamental humanitarian principles,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director for Human Rights Watch. “The murder of civilians not engaged in hostilities and the willful killing of captives are war crimes, pure and simple.”...

AdmiralAdama
06-17-2007, 01:28 AM
Israel doesn't want to allow Hamas to build up the kind of strength Hezbollah did in So Leb

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1942918.ece


ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there.

According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days.

The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks against Israel or a resumption of suicide bombings.

Barak, who is expected to become defence minister tomorrow, has already demanded detailed plans to deploy two armoured divisions and an infantry division, accompanied by assault drones and F-16 jets, against Hamas.

Culpeper
06-17-2007, 05:56 AM
I sort of got the feeling that Israel would look at the recent downfall of Fatah on the Strip as a blessing in disguise.

Abu Buckwheat
06-17-2007, 12:57 PM
I sort of got the feeling that Israel would look at the recent downfall of Fatah on the Strip as a blessing in disguise.

How in Gods name is the loss of Gaza to HAMAS a good thing for Israel? I will say this again (now that I am stateside and have a goooooddd coffee) Israel screwed up with Arafat - Isolating him and removing his tools for stabilizing the Palestnians gave the entire kitandkaboodle to the Islamic Extremists ... when faced with moderates who were terrorists to suicidal exremists for whom all future generations are enourgaed to become terrorists, you choose the moderates.

This things is a disaster for Israel, the USA and the ME region as a whole. We have let the extremists set the agenda and do it democratically through legitimate elections!

All we can do now is hope someone in Israel has the guts to make thr tough call ... assist FATAH in the West Bank establish, rapidly and with UN assistance a new independent Palestine including a right to return for Palestinians in Lebanon and overseas, the rich, smart ones - to the west bank. That way, HAMAS will end as an entitiy, people moving back to the WB can isolate Gaza and it becomes a pan-Arab/international problem.

Israel won't invade again.

Will the Israelis take this historic chance to stop a radicalized, Iranian inspired terrorist group from doing same to 9 million Palestinians? Doubtful but its an option to be explored.

SteveMetz
06-17-2007, 01:03 PM
How in Gods name is the loss of Gaza to HAMAS a good thing for Israel?

Many Israelis see Fatah as a trojan horse. They didn't want to deal with it but it was just legitimate enough in the world's eyes that they were pressured to do so. There will be no pressure to politically deal with Hamas.

Steve Blair
06-17-2007, 01:04 PM
How in Gods name is the loss of Gaza to HAMAS a good thing for Israel? I will say this again (now that I am stateside and have a goooooddd coffee) Israel screwed up with Arafat - Isolating him and removing his tools for stabilizing the Palestnians gave the entire kitandkaboodle to the Islamic Extremists ... when faced with moderates who were terrorists to suicidal exremists for whom all future generations are enourgaed to become terrorists, you choose the moderates.

This things is a disaster for Israel, the USA and the ME region as a whole. We have let the extremists set the agenda and do it democratically through legitimate elections!

All we can do now is hope someone in Israel has the guts to make thr tough call ... assist FATAH in the West Bank establish, rapidly and with UN assistance a new independent Palestine including a right to return for Palestinians in Lebanon and overseas, the rich, smart ones - to the west bank. That way, HAMAS will end as an entitiy, people moving back to the WB can isolate Gaza and it becomes a pan-Arab/international problem.

Israel won't invade again.

Will the Israelis take this historic chance to stop a radicalized, Iranian inspired terrorist group from doing same to 9 million Palestinians? Doubtful but its an option to be explored.

I would hope that they do, but somehow I think that they won't. Certain attitudes are too deeply ingrained for them to see the opportunity that this gives them.

SteveMetz
06-17-2007, 03:05 PM
As I've watched the conflict in Gaza over the past week it occurs two me that the schism within the Palestinians--we can't really say it's between moderates and extremists, but let's say between extremists and hyper extremists--provides a workable solution. What the world needs is not one but two Palestinian states. Let Fatah run the West Bank; let Hamas run Gaza. The Saudis and Iranians, if they are so inclined, can support the Gaza state. The United States and Europe can work with the West Bank state. Then the hyper extremists in Gaza can continue to blame Israel and the world rather than themselves for their poverty and misery, but Israel can seal it off much easier than it could the West Bank, thus helping with its security problematique. If the West Bank state continues to move toward moderation and democracy, it can gradually be integrated into the community of nations.

Merv Benson
06-17-2007, 03:57 PM
One of the benefits to Israel from the fighting is that the two sides have been too busy to fire rockets into the Negev. I suspect that the rockets may have been an attempt to provoke Israel into taking action in Gaza that would have benefited Fatah. With Fatah's defeat, for now the rockets are silent.

I still think that none of the Palestinian factions have anything of value to offer Israel.

Culpeper
06-17-2007, 05:15 PM
The great government of Hamas ordered it's terrorists to remove their masks except when attacking Israel. Abbas has set up an emergency government and outlawed Hamas. Some morons are firing rockets into Israel from Lebanon. Israel is in the middle.

Like Steve suggested. Which side do you think Israel is going to get aggressive with? Is the world really going to do anything to Israel if they put the squeeze on Hamas? Either militarily or diplomatically? Already the Strip is isolated. Hamas won the battle. Now it time to go hungry. People on the street in the Strip are stating things like, "I only have God and a bag of flour", and "We just went back 100 years". So much for radical Islmasist ideas and the general Muslim public.

I'm surprised nobody has started a thread entitled, "Is Hamas and the Gaza Strip another Iraq". Let the moral relativist officer corps begin.

Jedburgh
06-17-2007, 09:17 PM
CEIP, 14 Jun 07: The Decay of the Palestinian Authority and the International Response (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/BrownCommentaryjune072.pdf)

One month before the most vicious round of intra-Palestinian fighting in Gaza, Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, the American security coordinator in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, testified before Congress (http://internationalrelations.house.gov/110/day052307.htm), seeking to justify American intervention on the side of Fatah using the terms that have grown familiar over years of Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy. He explained that the United States sought to back the legal presidential security forces—who were working to meet Palestinian obligations under the Road Map—against the forces of disorder. The statement may have made sense according to some logic followed in the U.S. capital, but it was utterly disconnected from realities in the region.

Fatah—as much if not more than Hamas—bears deep responsibility for the deepening chaos in Palestinian society. And American policy has deepened that chaos in some fundamental and absolutely deliberate ways. There is no peace process for Hamas and Fatah to fight over. The Road Map was already anachronistic when it was announced in 2003 and is not pursued seriously now by any of the concerned parties. Even General Dayton’s description of the legal situation was simply wrong: the Palestinian constitution was amended in 2003 at American insistence to make internal security a cabinet responsibility and not a presidential one. While officials spoke of peace and order, American policy in effect—and sometimes by design—supported the political disintegration of Palestinian society and the slide toward civil war.

Jedburgh
06-17-2007, 09:41 PM
USIP, Jun 07

Public Opinion in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: From Geneva to Disengagement to Kadima and Hamas (http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks60.pdf)

Israeli analysts and pundits enjoy quoting Henry Kissinger’s assertion that “Israel has no foreign policy, only domestic policy.” Kissinger’s comment, while stressed too strongly, captures well the common understanding among political scientists and international relations specialists that domestic considerations have a significant effect on foreign policy. This monograph focuses on one particular domestic imperative of utmost importance in periods of conflict and its resolution: public opinion.

Intercommunal and international conflicts affect the most basic elements holding societies together: beliefs, value systems, collective memories, and identity perceptions. The disruption of these same elements—due to conflict—can heighten emotions and increase stress, a situation that often takes a costly toll on society. These situations are made worse when leaders make bad policy decisions. In such times, then, leaders must be attuned to public sentiment, as public-opinion
support becomes critical.

How does public opinion act as a domestic imperative on policymaking? This monograph addresses this question, using extensive research on both Israeli and Palestinian public opinion collected during the second intifada, which began in 2000....

Tom Odom
06-17-2007, 09:53 PM
[QUOTE=Abu Buckwheat;18651]How in Gods name is the loss of Gaza to HAMAS a good thing for Israel? I will say this again (now that I am stateside and have a goooooddd coffee) Israel screwed up with Arafat - Isolating him and removing his tools for stabilizing the Palestnians gave the entire kitandkaboodle to the Islamic Extremists ... when faced with moderates who were terrorists to suicidal exremists for whom all future generations are enourgaed to become terrorists, you choose the moderates.

This things is a disaster for Israel, the USA and the ME region as a whole. We have let the extremists set the agenda and do it democratically through legitimate elections!
QUOTE]


Thank you. This case goes with the they deserve each other theory i turn to when either side does something remarkably dumb; in case you don't get what AW is speaking of, think of training dogs. If all you do is beat 'em, you just make 'em meaner. We now a meaner breed has dominance in Gaza.

I don't know that Israel has the will to go it again after last year in southern Lebanon. It would be a remarkable step forward if they were to do it jointly with Fatah. The only bright side of this is Gaza is not southern Lebanon and can be relatively isolated.

Tom

AdmiralAdama
06-17-2007, 10:18 PM
Hamas is now trained and funded by Iran. The Iranian-Hezbollah-Hamas-Syria axis is in ascendance. To compare this axis with Israel and say "they deserve each other" is hard to understand. Our democratic allies may make mistakes in wartime -- certainly we do. That doesn't mean that we say "they deserve each other". Certainly Britain and France did not "deserve" the Nazis even though their hard line at Versailles may have helped create them. A sense of proportion and moral perspective is needed.

Abu Buckwheat
06-17-2007, 11:52 PM
Hamas is now trained and funded by Iran. The Iranian-Hezbollah-Hamas-Syria axis is in ascendance.


There is no Axis ... politlcal rethoric claiming similarities to real alliances, understandings and direct links is not a substitute for proper intelligence and political analysis. These groups are disparate entities who have been inspired by some and supported by others... some have cooperative links such as Iran-Hizballah-Syria but to call this an axis is a far stretch. Syria and HAMAS have very different ideas about who directs their future, as does Hizballah. This group of entitites are less in ascendence as a group than our failed, miserablly myopic foreign policy has given them immense short term opportunites (Iran aside). Were there the slightest bit of soft power left we would have a say in the matter, but they know, shy of using a nuclear weapon that we have even used all the capitol of our hard power.

If Israel views FATAH as a Trojan Horse (who would do what? Bring in terrorism to Palestine?) then welcome HAMAS ... REAL terrorists, with demonstrated capability to do terrorism that FATAH could not do (and I don't mean two or three Qassam rockets). Did Israel make a concious preference that they preferred suicide bombers from HAMAS as opposed to the occassional bottle rocket from a FATAH splinter group... who were being hunted by FATAH loyalists? Let me speak from the deckplates on this one ... this is a SNAFU of immense proportions.

Mindboggling... Milo Minderbinder must have a role in this! :D

AdmiralAdama
06-18-2007, 12:09 AM
There is no Axis ... politlcal rethoric claiming similarities to real alliances, understandings and direct links is not a substitute for proper intelligence and political analysis. These groups are disparate entities who have been inspired by some and supported by others... some have cooperative links such as Iran-Hizballah-Syria but to call this an axis is a far stretch.

Iran and Syria have a defense agreement. Hezbollah is an Iranian creation and there are many reports of Iran's funding of Hamas. To not call this an "axis" is fine -- what would you like to call it? An "alliance"? A hodgepodge of coincidences?

Abu Buckwheat
06-18-2007, 12:26 AM
Iran and Syria have a defense agreement. Hezbollah is an Iranian creation and there are many reports of Iran's funding of Hamas. To not call this an "axis" is fine -- what would you like to call it? An "alliance"? A hodgepodge of coincidences?

No ...hodgepodge is not one of my favorite words, but it is simply an example of what happens when there is no superpower ... or at least a respected one with a shred of influence. I hate to winge but we have facilitated the opportunities that each of these entities is taking advantage of. They see the opportunities but our own political blindness gives America a horribly naive, onesided, undiplomatic and cultural tone-deafness not seen since 1860. I fear for the results when each of these players really gains advantage over both us and Israel. We aren't haggling over one camel here, but several different camels, tied together, that are standing next to each other and have to survive on one gulp of water at the oasis. Believe me, Camels can be quite ornery!

AdmiralAdama
06-18-2007, 03:44 AM
I hate to winge but we have facilitated the opportunities that each of these entities is taking advantage of. They see the opportunities but our own political blindness gives America a horribly naive, onesided, undiplomatic and cultural tone-deafness not seen since 1860.

Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979. I believe that the "everything bad in the world can be traced back to US blunders" theory is simply not respectful of our opponents -- their ideology, their goals, and their strategies to carry them out. Blaming the US for expansion of Islamofascists is like blaming the UK for Nazism or blaming Roosevelt for the spread of communism. Some ideologies have great power to spread evil, and these have to burn themselves out or be destroyed by assault, subversion, containment, etc.

Ken White
06-18-2007, 04:10 AM
Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979. I believe that the "everything bad in the world can be traced back to US blunders" theory is simply not respectful of our opponents -- their ideology, their goals, and their strategies to carry them out.

Which opponents? Which ideology, Which goals? Seems to me there are buckets full of all those. They do have one strategy factor in common; beating us in the info and world opinion games -- which they're doing quite handily.

I'd agree with you that that US blunders are minor and all could have been or even can be ameliorated. All the blunders of commission, that is. As for the blunders of omission (Specifically and to wit: ignoring the problem and trying to play fairly in the western way with people who have different rules); I submit they pretty much led to the amorphous fusion of many disparate ideologies and goals being able to have the traction they have.

Jones_RE
06-18-2007, 05:05 AM
The world opinion games are rigged against western powers. People view the United States, the EU and even Israel as being so powerful that anything we do or do not do must be intentional - there's no room for error.

That makes the insurgent's job simple - blame whichever world power is handy for your troubles. Also, try to take care of the local people's material problems. Make certain that your story fits some preexisting cultural narrative. Don't forget to murder anyone who gets in your way.

The danger to Hamas in Gaza is that when they become the governing authority they stop being guerillas and start becoming a state. They are one of the most powerful terrorist movements in the world - and they are about to become its poorest, weakest and least effectual nation. Frankly, this makes Israel's job one hell of a lot easier. Israel can exercise almost total dominance over the state of Gaza, even if it has none over the Hamas movement.

For now, I'd counsel Israel and the United States to do nothing. There's no need to respond to even daily attacks right now. Once Hamas has consolidated power in Gaza they'll have the apparatus of a state and all of its weaknesses: "fantastical cosmic power . . . itty, bitty living space."

SWJED
06-18-2007, 07:41 AM
18 June NY Times - Abbas Swears In Emergency Government (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/world/middleeast/18mideast.html?ref=world) by Isabel Kershner and Taghreed El-Khodary.


The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, swore in an emergency government at his headquarters here on Sunday, reasserting his authority over the West Bank days after Fatah’s rival, Hamas, routed his forces in Gaza and seized power there.

Adding to the turbulence, two Katyusha rockets fired from Lebanon landed in the Israeli northern border town of Kiryat Shmona on Sunday evening, an Israeli Army spokesman said. They caused some damage but no casualties, he said.

The rockets were the first fired over Israel’s northern border since a cease-fire ended last summer’s war against Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia. Hezbollah denied having any connection with the rocket attacks on Sunday...

goesh
06-18-2007, 11:55 AM
I've said it before, hamas is essentially surrounded by Israel with the sea to their back and their only tactical ingress is Egypt. The pressure will be on Egypt to limit the amount of munitions coming in for hamas and Egypt certainly doesn't want hamas exporting any of its ideology and agents South. The legitimate government of the palestinians is now in the West Bank and the enemy of an enemy is a temporary friend.

AdmiralAdama
06-18-2007, 04:51 PM
Christians Flee Gaza

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813061916&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Christians living in Gaza City on Monday appealed to the international community to protect them against increased attacks by Muslim extremists. Many Christians said they were prepared to leave the Gaza Strip as soon as the border crossings are reopened.

The appeal came following a series of attacks on a Christian school and church in Gaza City over the past few days.

Father Manuel Musalam, leader of the small Latin community in the Gaza Strip, said masked gunmen torched and looted the Rosary Sisters School and the Latin Church.

"The masked gunmen used rocket-propelled grenades to storm the main entrances of the school and church," he said. "Then they destroyed almost everything inside, including the Cross, the Holy Book, computers and other equipment."

SWJED
06-19-2007, 09:14 AM
19 June NY Times commentary - Brothers to the Bitter End (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/opinion/19ajami.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) by Fouad Ajami.


So the masked men of Fatah have the run of the West Bank while the masked men of Hamas have their dominion in Gaza. Some see this as a tolerable situation, maybe even an improvement, envisioning a secularist Fatah-run state living peacefully alongside Israel and a small, radical Gaza hemmed in by Israeli troops. It’s always tempting to look for salvation in disaster, but in this case it’s sheer fantasy.

The Palestinian ruin was a long time in coming. No other national movement has had the indulgence granted the Palestinians over the last half-century, and the results can be seen in the bravado and the senseless violence, in the inability of a people to come to terms with their condition and their needs.

The life of a Palestinian is one of squalor and misery, yet his leaders play the international game as though they were powers. An accommodation with Israel is imperative — if only out of economic self-interest and political necessity — but the Palestinians, in a democratic experiment some 18 months ago, tipped power to a Hamas movement whose very charter is pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state and the imposition of Islamist rule...

SWJED
06-19-2007, 09:17 AM
18 June The New Republic commentary - Frame Work (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070618&s=ross061807) by Dennis Ross.


In January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proclaimed her seriousness about trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. She declared that she had heard the calls of many of her colleagues internationally for the United States to become active again and push for Middle East peace. Since then, she has taken four trips to the region and met with her Quartet partners numerous times to promote agreement on a political horizon for the Israelis and Palestinians--an agreement on the contours of a permanent status settlement.

With the collapse of Fatah forces in Gaza, however, that horizon seems more distant than ever. Hamastan appears to describe the reality there now, making questions about permanent status or concessions to refugees largely irrelevant for the time being. We should not yet give up on the idea of brokering a comprehensive ceasefire between the Israelis and Palestinians, but the focus now must shift to the competition between Fatah and Hamas...

SWJED
06-19-2007, 09:21 AM
19 June Washington Post commentary - 'West Bank First': It Won't Work (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061801365.html) by Robert Malley and Aaron David Miller.


Having embraced one illusion -- that it could help isolate and defeat Hamas -- the Bush administration is dangerously close to embracing another: Gaza is dead, long live the West Bank. This approach appears compelling. Flood the West Bank with money, boost Fatah security forces and create a meaningful negotiating process. The Palestinian people, drawn to a recovering West Bank and repelled by the nightmare of an impoverished Gaza, will rally around the more pragmatic of the Palestinians.

The theory is a few years late and several steps removed from reality. If the United States wanted to help President Mahmoud Abbas, the time to do so was in 2005, when he won office in a landslide, emerged as the Palestinians' uncontested leader and was in a position to sell difficult compromises to his people. Today, Abbas is challenged by far more Palestinians and is far less capable of securing a consensus on any important decision.

But the more fundamental problem with this theory is its lack of grounding. It is premised on the notion that Fatah controls the West Bank. Yet the West Bank is not Gaza in reverse. Unlike in Gaza, Israel's West Bank presence is overwhelming and, unlike Hamas, Fatah has ceased to exist as an ideologically or organizationally coherent movement. Behind the brand name lie a multitude of offshoots, fiefdoms and personal interests...

Jedburgh
06-19-2007, 12:31 PM
The Economist, 18 Jun 07: After the Showdown (http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9354433&top_story=1)

....there are some signs that the split between Hamas and Fatah could prove less devastating than pessimists fear. One reason is that the clashes in Gaza may have been, in part, Hamas settling scores against an individual, Mohammed Dahlan, a reviled Fatah strongman, rather than a Hamas attempt to destroy Fatah as a whole. Hamas members always hated Mr Dahlan, who was Yasser Arafat’s security chief in Gaza in the 1990s. The forces under his command were responsible for arresting and torturing many Hamas militants. In last week’s fighting Mr Dahlan’s house and offices were looted and destroyed and many of his henchmen fled (he had left Gaza two months before for an operation). Now that they have gone, the tension may yet ease a little.

Mr Dahlan may have been a big part of the problem. Other Fatah leaders, such as Ahmed Hallis, the group’s secretary-general in Gaza and a man who harboured a thinly disguised contempt for Mr Dahlan, managed to stay behind when many top Fatah folk fled in fear for their lives. He is now reportedly in talks with Hamas. In addition, Hamas's leaders are trying to achieve the release of a kidnapped BBC journalist, Alan Johnston, who has been held for months. If they succeed they would hope to demonstrate they have genuine control of Gaza, after the chaos of the past few months.

Hamas is not entirely united. Ismail Haniyeh, who was prime minister until last week, has angrily rejected Mr Abbas’s authority to fire him. But Khaled Meshal, a Hamas leader based in Damascus, appears keener on reconciliation with Fatah, saying late last week that “what is needed now is to deal with the Palestinian schism”. Mr Meshal opposes any attempt to hive off the Gaza Strip from the West Bank. It seems Hamas is not yet ready to strike out on its own. Mr Abbas too will be reluctant to acquiesce in cutting off Gaza altogether. Some kind of rapprochement may yet be in the offing.

goesh
06-19-2007, 04:16 PM
It's a prime time for Fatah to ID and otherwise rat-out Hamas commanders, cell leaders, bomb makers and organizers - nothing quite like having the Israelis do the heavy lifting. The 'Arab street' is rather quiet over all this, as if not knowing which side to fully back. Iran will align with hamas no doubt.

goesh
06-20-2007, 11:35 AM
From MSNBC: 6/20/07:

"Israeli aircraft, meanwhile, fired missiles at two rocket launchers in northern Gaza, in the first aerial attack since Islamic Hamas militants took over the coastal strip late last week. No injuries were reported. Earlier in the day, Israeli tanks entered southern Gaza, and four people, including at least two militants, were killed in an exchange of fire, Palestinian hospital officials said."

AdmiralAdama
06-22-2007, 08:30 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/last_chance_for_abbas.html


Israel now has the opportunity to establish deterrence against unremitting rocket attacks from Gaza into Israeli villages. Israel failed to do that after it evacuated Gaza in 2005, permitting the development of an unprecedented parasitism by willingly supplying food, water, electricity and gasoline to a territory that was actively waging hostilities against it.

With Hamas now clearly in charge, Israel should declare that it will tolerate no more rocket fire -- that the next Qassam will be answered with a cutoff of gasoline shipments. This should bring road traffic in Gaza to a halt within days and make it increasingly difficult to ferry around missiles and launchers.

If that fails to concentrate the mind, the next step should be to cut off electricity. When the world wails, Israel should ask, what other country on Earth is expected to supply the very means for a declared enemy to attack it?

JeffC
06-24-2007, 06:32 AM
DEBKAfile Exclusive: (http://www.debka.com/) Hamas to release files on Palestinian intelligence collaboration with the US CIA, UK’s MI5 and Shin Bet

June 23, 2007, 10:32 PM (GMT+02:00)


The centerpiece is evidence of the Palestinian Authority Preventive Security service’s disclosure that Hamas’ elite undercover Unit 102, only 25 strong, underwent lengthy training in Iran in advanced combat tactics modeled on those of the US Seals and the Israel Navy’s Shayetet 13.

DEBKAfile’s military sources add: Unit 102 operated under such deep cover that even the commanders of Hamas’ military wing and its Executive Force did not know it existed. Hamas is making good on its threat to use the huge archive of Palestinian Authority intelligence documents it captured in Gaza to compromise Mahmoud Abbas and members of his regime and show them up as minions of foreign powers and traitors to Palestinian national interests.

I have a few other sources for this story at my blog (http://www.intelfusion.net/), as well.

Jedburgh
06-24-2007, 11:26 AM
The Economist, 21 Jun 07: June Amazed Them (http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9366102)

June amazed us on its fortieth anniversary: if we do not find someone to defeat us again, we defeat ourselves with our own hands so as not to forget!

....a lot of Palestinians wonder if this is the death-knell of their dream of statehood. The foreigners' optimistic scenario—that Hamas will cave in and give up control of Gaza—is far from guaranteed. Permanent separation between a chaotic, violent Gaza Strip and a more prosperous West Bank seems a real possibility. The title of Mr Darwish's poem sounds an almost biblical warning: “From now on you are not yourself!”

goesh
06-25-2007, 11:35 AM
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > WORLD

Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri Calls on Hamas to Implement Islamic Sharai Rule in Gaza

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286520,00.html

Jedburgh
07-02-2007, 03:42 PM
HRW, Jul 07: Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel and Israeli Artillery Shelling in the Gaza Strip (http://hrw.org/reports/2007/iopt0707/iopt0707webwcover.pdf)

...Both sides have shown disregard for civilian loss of life in violation of international humanitarian law: Palestinian armed groups have directed their rockets at Israeli towns; Israeli artillery shelling near populated areas has caused considerable civilian casualties for uncertain military gain as well as at least one serious incident of indiscriminate shelling.

There is an opportunity today to put an end to this needless loss of civilian life: in November 2006, after an artillery attack that killed 23 civilians, the IDF placed a moratorium on use of artillery to respond to rocket attacks in Gaza, and a five-month ceasefire on the part of Hamas the same month led to a decrease in Palestinian rocket attacks in 2007, meaning that for a time rocket attacks were largely limited to the Islamic Jihad organization. Hamas ended its ceasefire on April 24, 2007, firing rockets once again into Israeli territory. Israel has not resumed its use of artillery, responding instead with more precise air-fired missiles to hit targets, but it is unclear how firm this change of practice is. The conduct of Palestinian armed groups and the IDF that led to the spike in civilian casualties in mid-2006 is likely to resume unless the parties learn the lessons of 2006...

FascistLibertarian
07-02-2007, 04:45 PM
Support Fatah and you risk making them look like traitors and Hamas like heros.
Fatah is corrupt. Sure they are secular, like Syria, but they are corrupt.

Sarajevo071
07-03-2007, 01:30 AM
Hamas arrested two members of Jaish al-Islam (group responsible for kidnapping BBC correspondent Alan Johnston)...


Hamas security forces snatched two members of Jaish al-Islam on their way from dawn prayers on Tuesday and held them at the former Fatah military intelligence HQ. According to a Jaish member, one of the arrested men was given a mobile phone to call his comrades as a start of negotiations to swap them for Johnston, but instead the man told them not to bargain for their freedom.

The militant who said he took that call said: 'The brother told me to refuse all talks with Hamas and to kill Alan if Hamas kills him. This has ended any chance of negotiations.'

Hamas police commander Abu Khalid said: 'There was an operation...to arrest two members of Jaish al-Islam to put pressure on the Dogmosh family. The response to this was that Mumtaz threatened all foreigners and journalists in Gaza.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2115933,00.html




Hamas detains leader of BBC reporter's abductors amid fighting


Clashes have erupted for the first time between two Palestinian Islamic movements, Hamas and its former ally the Army of Islam, reportedly holding hostage a BBC reporter, the conflicting sides said.

Hamas, which promised to secure the release of Alan Johnston, arrested a leader of the Army of Islam, Khattab al-Makdusi, early Monday in Gaza after his supporters opened fire at the local "police," the Palestinian Maan news agency said. In response, the Army of Islam took 10 Hamas students hostage.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070702/68176800.html

Sarajevo071
07-03-2007, 01:31 AM
The War of Words between Hamas and al-Qaeda


On June 14, Hamas evicted Fatah security forces from the Gaza Strip, establishing full control over the territory. Eleven days later, al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri issued a statement calling on Muslims to support Hamas fighters -- the latest in an ongoing, public dialogue in which al-Qaeda and Hamas leaders have alternatively decried and praised each other's organizations. An analysis of this public exchange reveals that al-Qaeda is uncomfortable with Hamas leaders even as it fully supports the movement's militants.

For al-Qaeda, any semblance of cooperation with moderate Muslims or "those trying to liberate the land of Islam through elections" is anathema. Consequently, despite initial support for Hamas's electoral gains, al-Qaeda has supported the organization's leaders only to the extent that they reject Fatah and the political process. Likewise, the more Hamas is willing to resort to armed force to accomplish its goals, the more vocal support it can expect from al-Qaeda. In light of these factors, the public debate between the two organizations -- carried out via numerous media outlets, official organizational releases, and other public statements -- has unfolded in four stages since March 2006.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2630

goesh
07-03-2007, 12:18 PM
Hamas has their Massada now, surrounded by Israelis, the sea and Egyptians that don't want their ideology spreading south. Their pathetic attempt at legitimacy visa-via arresting a couple of token jaish al-Islam gunmen is just that, a PR gambit that has no traction. Meanwhile, Fatah loyalists and agents embedded in Gaza will continue to ID hamas leaders and C&C sites for IDF missles. It reminds me in a way of the US giving Stinger missles to the mujahadin in Afghanistan to use against the Soviet Hind choppers. An enemy of an enemy is a temporary friend as they say. Can't you just imagine some Shin Bet and Mossad men sitting down to tea with some of the good ol' boys from Fatah? I would say Christmas comes early for some folks, except Jews and Muslims who don't much believe in Christmas.

SWJED
07-05-2007, 05:45 PM
SWJ Blog post - Preparing for the Next Battle of Gaza (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/07/preparing-for-the-next-battle/) by Gary Anderson.


The current situation in Gaza is a laboratory for the kind of conflicts that we are likely to see in the immediate future throughout the world. The best case solution would be to broker an agreement where the Hamas radicals and the more moderate Fatah faction can agree to accept that the existence of Israel is a fact and for Hamas to stop shooting rockets at the Israelis and threatening to annihilate them, which Hamas is not in a position to do in any case. If that fails, the big question for America and her allies is whether or not to support a Fattah military attempt to retake Gaza.

Fatah is now like "“Sarge”" in the Beetle Bailey cartoon. It has gone over the brink and is holding onto a tree on the side of the cliff. The Americans and Israelis have offered Fattah a rope. The question is both whether the Fatah leadership will grab it and whether the Americans and Israelis will know how to handle the lifeline. None of this is a given. This is, at best, a tenuous situation. It might lead to a happy ending, or it might be a debacle. Everything depends on how Fatah handles Israeli and American support, and how they handle Hamas...

goesh
07-05-2007, 06:03 PM
IDF is doing some 'heavy lifting' for Fatah, no doubt of that:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1183459200078&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

JPost.com » Israel » Article

Jul. 5, 2007 6:45 | Updated Jul. 5, 2007 20:05
IDF kills eleven gunmen in Gaza Strip

tequila
07-06-2007, 08:26 AM
... From an American and Israeli perspective, we must keep our fingerprints off the direct planning for the Gaza counteroffensive, which will take at least a year to prepare. We should finance the Jordanians, Egyptians, and Sunni Gulf states to provide training, advisors, and equipment to the abysmal Fatah security forces. All of those nations have a vested interest in eliminating the unholy alliance between Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian Quds organization. However, direct American or Israeli involvement in the conflict would likely be the kiss of death for Fatah.

It will likely take at least a year for Fatah to be ready to launch a counter-attack in Gaza. The Fatah security forces must be instilled with pride, training and discipline to match Hamas. They need to gain confidence in their reformed political leadership; if Fatah can reform, and that is a big if, the Israelis have to accept the fact that, to win in a stand up fight, Fatah will need a reasonable amount of tanks and some attack helicopters. The quantity of such weapons needed to retake Gaza would never pose even a minimal threat to Israel, but the thought of such weapons in the hands of any Palestinians in any amount has long been anathema to the Israelis ...

I'm sorry, but this sounds like the exact same failed strategy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20070704/wl_mcclatchy/20070704bcmideastgaza_attn_national_foreign_editor s_ytop;_ylt=AkpEYpZZ5DulNdpt27.iIWfMWM0F)that was just pursued, just with tanks and attack helicopters.

tequila
07-30-2007, 05:36 PM
Hamas to show an Improved Hand (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118575064310581669.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Pop ular)- Wall Street Journal, 30 July.



When the Islamist group Hamas conquered the Gaza Strip in June it seized an intelligence-and-military infrastructure created with U.S. help by the security chiefs of the Palestinian territory's former ruler.

According to current and former Israeli intelligence officials, former U.S. intelligence personnel and Palestinian officials, Hamas has increased its inventory of arms since the takeover of Gaza and picked up technical expertise -- such as espionage techniques -- that could assist the group in its fight against Israel or Washington's Palestinian allies, the Fatah movement founded by Yasser Arafat.

Hamas leaders say they acquired thousands of paper files, computer records, videos, photographs and audio recordings containing valuable and potentially embarrassing intelligence information gathered by Fatah. For more than a decade, Fatah operated a vast intelligence network in Gaza established under the tutelage of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Hamas leaders are expected as early as tomorrow to go public with some of the documents and the secrets they hold.

The exact nature of the threat posed by the intelligence grab in Gaza -- including any damage to U.S. intelligence operations in the Palestinian territories and the broader Middle East -- is difficult to ascertain. U.S. and Israeli officials generally tried to play down any losses, saying any intelligence damage is likely minimal.

But a number of former U.S. intelligence officials, including some who have worked closely with the Palestinians, said there was ample reason to worry that Hamas has acquired access to important spying technology as well as intelligence information that could be helpful to Hamas in countering Israeli and U.S. efforts against the group.

"People are worried, and reasonably so, about what kind of intelligence losses we may have suffered," said one former U.S. intelligence official with extensive experience in Gaza ...

Jedburgh
08-03-2007, 03:37 PM
ICG, 2 Aug 07: After Gaza (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/arab_israeli_conflict/68_after_gaza.pdf)

...The new government is taking steps to reform the security situation, international support soon will flow into the West Bank and, with a new spirit of cooperation, Israel is expected to ease the situation and, perhaps, agree to political talks – all of which could put Hamas in a bind. It needs help to keep Gaza afloat and if there are palpable improvements in the West Bank coupled with a credible political process, it will not be easy to condemn Abbas as a collaborator. Instead, Hamas might be accused of holding Gazans hostage while other Palestinians moved toward greater prosperity and freedom.

But, like others before it, this elegant scenario is flawed. It ignores Hamas’s political weight and assumes it will either surrender or retreat. Nothing in its history or worldview suggests this is even remotely possible. Hamas is confident the strategy cannot work, and banks on Israeli obstructionism, U.S. bias and EU fecklessness, together with Fatah internal rivalries, corruption and fragmentation.296 West Bankers are desperate for improvements in their lives but some argue that, in a familiar pattern, whatever support Abbas receives will be enough to tag him as a collaborator, not enough to gain him popular support. There is also the usual clumsiness associated with such strategies: loud Israeli proclamations that the goal is to help Palestinian “moderates” – a certain way to discredit Abbas – coupled with pro-Fatah favouritism in prisoner releases, a guarantee to provoke charges of selling out other Palestinians.

Even success would have drawbacks. The more successful the strategy of choking off Gaza and rewarding the West Bank, the greater will be Hamas’s motivation to sabotage it. With no Palestinian consensus, progress will create its own threats....

Stan
08-08-2007, 06:49 AM
St. Petersburg Times (http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=22572) Opinion by Carnegie Moscow Center's resident scholar
Alexei Malashenko:


Why did President Mahmoud Abbas come to Moscow? The visit — his fifth, or by some accounts, sixth — had originally been planned for an earlier date, but Abbas postponed the trip due to turbulent events at home.

Abbas can only win from the Moscow visit. Russian authorities had no plans to saddle the president of the Palestinian Authority with new projects and proposals. The Kremlin also made Abbas’ life easier by avoiding any discussion that the Palestinians should behave more diplomatically toward Israel.

To be sure, Russia is in no position to offer its own original plan for settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This “stagnation” in Middle East initiatives began during the Soviet era, when it became clear that there were no viable alternatives to the Camp David summits.

So Abbas did not come to Moscow so much to listen to Russia’s ideas and plans. His real interest, as always, was to receive military, technical and financial assistance. Moscow promised all three. President Vladimir Putin even promised Abbas 50 armored personnel carriers, but only on the condition that he not use them in the internal Palestinian conflict.

Why should this be a surprise? It is well known that this is not the first time Moscow has attempted to position itself as an intermediary between followers of radical Islam and everybody else — that is to say, Europe and the United States.

More at the link

JJackson
09-19-2007, 02:58 PM
The people of Gaza held a free and fair election (or as close to that goal as you are likely to get in that part of the world) and elected to dump the corrupt Fatah government and give Hamas a go. Naively they may have hoped that this would have improved their lot but it has only made matters worse as Israel has withheld the taxes collected from the Gazans which they should have paid to the duly elected government to provide essential services. To add insult to injury Israel, the US and EU have all attempted to subvert the peoples choice and constitution by dealing with Fatah as if they were a legitimate representative of the Gazan people. The Gazans are unhappy with their plight but not fooled by who is responsible they blame Israel and the west not Hamas. Gaza is a giant refugee camp whose people are prevented from working, trading or administering its self and it is to our collective fault.
Now “Israelis declare Gaza 'hostile' “
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7002576.stm
I would be too!

goesh
09-20-2007, 02:40 PM
The free and fair elections are open to considerable debate and inquiry IMO and I'm all for self-assertion on the palestinians part. Destroying perfectly good buildings simply because Jews had used them then abandoned them is I think an example of self assertion on the part of the palestinians.

Tom Odom
09-20-2007, 05:22 PM
The free and fair elections are open to considerable debate and inquiry IMO and I'm all for self-assertion on the palestinians part. Destroying perfectly good buildings simply because Jews had used them then abandoned them is I think an example of self assertion on the part of the palestinians.

Sorry but get it right. The Israelis have destroyed, stripped, and even flattened every building they pulled out of going back to trheir withdrawal from Sinai under Camp David. They did in on the West Bank and they did it in Gaza--the cxommon theme was that they did not want "Arabs" to get the buildings.

Tom

Rex Brynen
09-20-2007, 05:29 PM
The free and fair elections are open to considerable debate and inquiry IMO and I'm all for self-assertion on the palestinians part. Destroying perfectly good buildings simply because Jews had used them then abandoned them is I think an example of self assertion on the part of the palestinians.

The 2006 elections were certainly free and fair--Fateh lost them because of corruption, poor governance, a weak economy, and its failure to deliver in the peace process. It also ran a very poor campaign (running more candidates than there were seats in most districts, for example).

As for destroying buildings in the Gaza settlements after Israeli disengagement, this is a rather more complex issue. It was generally recognized that the settler housing was inappropriate in size, shape, and layout for Palestinian families, and that in many cases its recurrent costs (maintenance and previous subsidies) were beyond the abilities of the much poorer Gaza population. Selling the houses to wealthier Palestinians was looked at, but had a number of potential negaitive consequences too. The result was the decision to destroy the houses to use the land more efficiently--it wasn't my recommendation, but it was far from irrational.

In any case, Israel wanted them destroyed too, and tore most of them down (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+demolition+of+Gaza+settlement+homes+16-Aug-2005.htm), in part to avoid pictures of "victorious" Palestinians raising Hamas flag over abandoned settler buildings.

The productive parts of the settlements (the greenhouses) were kept intact for a while, but poor PA policing led to looting, and Israeli border closures prevented the PA from exporting the produce (despite agreement to facilitate this). They finally fell into disuse and destruction.

(I was a team leader for the initial World Bank study on Gaza disengagement (http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/mna/mena.nsf/Attachments/Disengagement+Paper/$File/Disengagement+Paper.pdf), and participated in some of the early discussion with the Israeli government on this issue.)

Incidentally, the World Bank has just released its latest update on conditions in the Palestinian territories (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWESTBANKGAZA/Resources/AHLCMainReportfinalSept17&cover.pdf).

goesh
09-20-2007, 06:30 PM
I would expect IDF to destroy what was theirs to destroy and leave no bunker, no outpost, no C&C sites, nothing they occupied to those who in turn could use said buildings in their fight against Israel. IDF certainly wasn't in retreat and forced to provide for their enemies, that's for sure.

Rex's comments on the vineyards and settler's homes pretty much sums up where I'm coming from. That perfectly good, well built homes would be torn down to better utilize land pushes the limits of credibility to the maximum and leaves an old country boy like me scratching his head, and frankly, laughing. It must have been darn hard, labor intensive work digging up those foundations and cement floors in order to grow some vegetables. I find it astounding to be asked to assume that wealthier Palestinians might find the shape, size and layout of Jewish homes to be suitable but not so for poor palestinians. One could conclude that Palestinians had adequate housing to begin with then, knowing as I do from real-world experience that well built homes are warmer and provide better shelter than tents and poorly built homes, often referred to as shacks where I come from.

If goods from greenhouses couldn't be exported, they could be consumed but the fact of the matter is the greenhouses were destroyed very, very quickly because they were owned by Jews. That is xenophobic, plain and simple and runs contrary to the popular myth that palestinians are complete and total victims of the evil Israelis.

Rex Brynen
09-20-2007, 07:05 PM
I would expect IDF to destroy what was theirs to destroy and leave no bunker, no outpost, no C&C sites, nothing they occupied to those who in turn could use said buildings in their fight against Israel.

No, they destroyed most everything (excepting the greenhouses). Senior Israeli officials indicated that this was, in large part, for reasons of political symbolism.


Rex's comments on the vineyards and settler's homes pretty much sums up where I'm coming from. That perfectly good, well built homes would be torn down to better utilize land pushes the limits of credibility to the maximum and leaves an old country boy like me scratching his head, and frankly, laughing.

Israeli housing in Gaza was heavily subsidized, and its maintenance costs were designed around smaller families with much, MUCH higher incomes, not larger families with much smaller incomes. The average Palestinian family couldn't have afforded to maintain the houses (there was no real disagreement on this among any of the local or international housing experts), nor would it have been a very efficient use of high-value land.


If goods from greenhouses couldn't be exported, they could be consumed but the fact of the matter is the greenhouses were destroyed very, very quickly because they were owned by Jews.

Actually, there was a pretty good harvest from the greenhouses the first year--while some were looted immediately, most of them weren't destroyed until later. Many of the greenhouses were configured for cut flower production (no market for that in Gaza!), or the high-end vegetable export market. What can't be exported often can't be sold domestically, since it spoils as the Israelis hold it at the border. What could be sold domestically was, but the lack of access to export markets nonetheless had serious implications for profitability (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/10/31/greenhouse_project_endangered_in_gaza/). (Again, one has to recognize that settler industry and agriculture in Gaza wasn't always very economic to begin with, since it was based on a number of implicit Israeli subsidies.)

I'm not suggesting the PA handled the settlements well--actually, I think they did a very poor job. Ineffective site security and consequent looting was particularly problematic, reflecting the weak state of the PA security services.

I am suggesting that it was all rather more complicated than your comments would indicate.

Tom Odom
09-21-2007, 12:14 AM
I would expect IDF to destroy what was theirs to destroy and leave no bunker, no outpost, no C&C sites, nothing they occupied to those who in turn could use said buildings in their fight against Israel. IDF certainly wasn't in retreat and forced to provide for their enemies, that's for sure....

I find it astounding to be asked to assume that wealthier Palestinians might find the shape, size and layout of Jewish homes to be suitable but not so for poor palestinians. One could conclude that Palestinians had adequate housing to begin with then, knowing as I do from real-world experience that well built homes are warmer and provide better shelter than tents and poorly built homes, often referred to as shacks where I come from.



Goesh,

The "country boy" wisdom does not apply. The Israeli settler movement organized, nurtured, and financed by large scale manipulation of tourism monies under Ariel Sharon as Minister of Tourism recieved government subsidized housing and then destroyed it when the Israeli govenment pulled backj from Sinai, and later areas of the West Bank and then Gaza. The Israeli government was supposed to under the Camp David accords turn over non-military facilties in Sinai like the resorts at Sharm. Much was destroyed purely for the very same reasons you attribue purely to the Palestinians. When it comes to acts of stupidity that only further crystalize extremes, the right wing in Israel--especially as represented in the settler movement is every bit as radical as Hamas.

Tom
UN White Card 9192 OGL 1987 OGE 1988

sgmgrumpy
09-21-2007, 01:47 PM
Tom,

I don't know about resorts, but when 1-505 "first in to Sinai in 1982, I will never forget being stationed up on SCC-6 which was the North Control Station and the day the IDF was to pull out of sector they brought D-9 bulldozers to the top and down the mountain all the buildings went:rolleyes:

Unfortunetely they did not take out the many mine fields in the area before they left:confused:

Thank God they did not demo the beach resort, that's where all the R&R action was:)

Tom Odom
09-22-2007, 05:31 PM
2-505 1978-1980

That was a consistent pattern and I understood it when it came to military facilities. Where I did not understand it and grew tired of it was when agreements were reached to preclude further destruction, one or both sides just could not resist--and then would bill the US for the aftermath. Again it the cycle of violence here is very much a self-licking ice cream cone; if it has to happen, it need not be funded with US dollars to any party.

I loved Sinai and the Red Sea of Sharm was spectacular snorkeling--it was like skydiving without a plane or a parachute when you swam over the lip of the reef and lo9oked down.

Best

Tom

marct
11-30-2007, 03:52 PM
From CBC.ca


PETER ARMSTRONG: MIDEAST DISPATCH
Gaza's homemade rockets (http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/armstrong/20071126.html)
A visit with Islamic Jihad militants at their makeshift rocket factory
November 26, 2007

Comes with both text and video.

Jedburgh
12-21-2007, 01:48 PM
ICG, 20 Dec 07: Inside Gaza: The Challenge of Clans and Families (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/arab_israeli_conflict/71_inside_gaza___the_challenge_of_clans_and_famili es.pdf)

Throughout Gaza’s history, its powerful clans and families have played a part whose importance has fluctuated with the nature of central authority but never disappeared. As the Palestinian Authority (PA) gradually collapsed under the weight of almost a decade of renewed confrontation with Israel, they, along with political movements and militias, filled the void. Today they are one of the most significant obstacles Hamas faces in trying to consolidate its authority and reinstate stability in the territory it seized control of in June 2007. Although they probably lack the unity or motivation to become a consistent and effective opposition, either on their own or in alliance with Fatah, they could become more effective should popular dissatisfaction with the situation in Gaza grow. There are some, as yet inconclusive, indications that Hamas understands this and is moderating its approach in an attempt to reach an accommodation.

It has been six months since Hamas took control of Gaza, and, despite recent suggestions of possible reconciliation talks with Fatah, the geographic split of Palestinian territories risks enduring. Israel’s tightening siege and continued conflict between Hamas and the Ramallah based government have imposed exceptional hardship on Gazans, seriously crippling the Islamists’ ability to govern and fostering popular dissatisfaction. As a result, Hamas is focused on more achievable priorities, including restoring law and order after a period of tremendous chaos.

The role of clans and families is central to this task. Over recent years, their growing influence has been a double edged sword. By providing a social safety net to numerous needy Gazans in a time of uncertainty, they helped prevent a total collapse, yet they simultaneously contributed to the mounting disorder. Although they have filled the void resulting from the judiciary’s breakdown, they have done more than most to promote lawlessness.....
Complete 32 page paper at the link.

Edit to add: I just recalled this older (Sep 04) paper from ICG - Who Governs the West Bank? (http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2004/icg-opt-28sep.pdf) - that also speaks to some of these same clan and family influences. Discussion of "Informal Networks" begins on page 18 of the 43 page pdf.

Jedburgh
12-22-2007, 01:47 PM
WINEP, 21 Dec 07: The Palestinians: Between State Failure and Civil War (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/download.php?file=PolicyFocus78ForWeb.pdf)

The Palestinian Authority (PA), though lacking certain key attributes of sovereignty, has largely functioned as a de facto state since its creation in 1994. Almost from the outset, however, the process of Palestinian state formation was accompanied by a parallel process of economic decline and institutional, territorial, and political fragmentation. The latter process was greatly accelerated by the second intifada (2000–2004), the formation of a Hamas government following January 2006 legislative elections (leading to international sanctions on the PA) and then a short-lived national-unity government, and the June 2007 Hamas takeover of Gaza. Today, the PA—hovering between survival and collapse—displays many of the traits of a failed state.....
Complete 56 page paper at the link.

Rex Brynen
12-22-2007, 03:35 PM
Both the ICG and WINEP reports are excellent pieces.

The World Bank's recent report on Investing in Palestinian Economic Reform and Development, prepared for the December 17 international donor pledging conference in Paris, can be found here (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWESTBANKGAZA/Resources/294264-1166525851073/ParisconferencepaperDec17.pdf), or via the World Bank WBG website (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/MENAEXT/WESTBANKGAZAEXTN/0,,menuPK:294370~pagePK:141159~piPK:141110~theSite PK:294365,00.html).



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The course of the Palestinian economy since the Second Intifadah has
left per capita GDP in 2006 ($1,130) at 40% less than in 1999, and has altered an already-fragile economy from one driven by investment and private sector productivity, to one sustained by government and private consumption, and donor aid.

Reversing this downward cycle requires parallel actions by the
Palestinian Authority (PA), Israel and the donors. Reform and development of the Palestinian economy and its institutions must proceed immediately. To succeed, these reforms must be implemented with determination by the PA, underwritten by donors and supported by Israeli actions. In the same vein, Israeli policies that impact the Palestinian economy and Palestinian actions on security to reinforce these policies must proceed in parallel.

...

An economic scenario analysis shows that the successful implementation of
Palestinian commitments alone, with partial donor funding and continued
movement and trade restrictions, will fall well short of the intended targets. Achieving 5% growth rates will depend critically on the commitment of the international community to fill the total fiscal gap over the next three years, as well as on the revival in the private sector as a result of concrete steps by Israel on settlement growth, and movement and access restrictions. Even with full funding but no relaxation in the closure regime, growth will be slightly negative, at around -2% per year.

...

Under every foreseeable scenario, the short-term viability of the Palestinian economy will be driven by aid. Even under the most optimistic scenarios significant aid will continue to be required for the medium-term. Clearly, the ability of the private sector to resume its place as a driver for growth will have a major bearing on the sustained health of the Palestinian economy and thus its aid requirements, which will therefore be even larger in the absence of improvements in movements and access restrictions.

The actual French MFA pledging conference website is here (http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files_156/israel-palestinian-terr=
itories_290/palestinian-territories_2156/international-donors-conference-for-the-palestinian-state-17.12.07_10439.html).

Jedburgh
02-16-2008, 12:59 PM
CEIP, 15 Feb 08: The Road out of Gaza (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/brown_gaza_final.pdf)

On January 18, 2008, Israel imposed a total blockade on movement in and out of the Gaza Strip in retaliation for rockets that Hamas had fired on the Israeli town of Sderot. In explaining the move, an Israeli defense ministry spokesman stated frankly: “It’s unacceptable that people in Sderot are living in fear every day and people in the Gaza Strip are living life as usual.” What he failed to note is that what has emerged as “life as usual” in Gaza is stunningly bleak. And indeed, what is most remarkable about the current Palestinian situation at all levels—economic, social, humanitarian, diplomatic, and political—is what now passes for normal.

The blockade clearly backfired, leading Hamas not to end rocket fire but instead to destroy portions of the wall dividing Gaza from Egypt. The move—expected by almost nobody but retrospectively an obvious step—led all major actors scrambling to understand the implications. The Israeli leadership ultimately reacted by threatening military action, hinting at the possibilities of assassinating Hamas’s leaders or invading Gaza. While sympathy is in short supply in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, it is easy to understand how Israel’s desperate measures, while almost certainly counterproductive, come largely because of the feebleness of the alternatives.....
Complete 18 page paper at the link.

Rex Brynen
02-18-2008, 02:49 AM
Oh, this could be a disaster:


Israel is considering a large-scale incursion into the Gaza Strip during which it would present an ultimatum to the international community for the deployment of a multinational force as the only condition under which it would withdraw, defense officials have told The Jerusalem Post.

Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203283464049&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull), 18 February 2008.

As I see it, the most probable outcomes would be:


1a) IDF invades, no forth is forthcoming, they get stuck there for a while, Palestinian casualties mount, killing Israeli-PA peace negotiations in the process.

1b) IDF invades, no force forthcoming, they start they leave, Hamas claims victory.

2a) IDF invades, multinational force deploys, rockets get fired over their heads, UN/multinational force gets blamed, IDF fires back over their heads. Think UNIFIL 1979-81.

2b) IDF invades, multinational force deploys, rockets get fired over their head, UN/multinational force goes after armed groups, and either takes serious casualties from irate locals, and/or comes to be seen in Palestinian and Arab eyes as willing auxiliary participants in occupation of Palestinian territory. Major setback in GWoT.

What is by far the least likely is what I presume to be the intention of all this, namely:


3) IDF invades, fatally wounds Hamas, multinational force deploys, Fateh regains control, rockets stop.

JJackson
02-26-2008, 05:12 PM
The linked article looks at the agreements governing the Rafah crossing and how they are being interpreted and implemented.

How the EU helps Israel to strangle Gaza (http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4659/8/)

JJackson
02-26-2008, 06:43 PM
With reference to Rex's post, is it just me or is this now becoming the norm.

Lebanon, Somalia, Gaza etc. As seen in Iraq and elsewhere the kinetic phase - when you are a well equipped modern arm and they are not your equal - is the relatively easy bit. It is the staying on when your are not popular with the locals that is the problem. No problem invade, displace Hezbollah/UIC/Hamas and then hope a friend on the security council can get someone else, AU/UN, to come in and enforce your newly created status quo for you. Nice plan - if you ignore the suffering you cause for the civilians in your AO.

Rex Brynen
03-10-2008, 02:01 AM
State orders IDF to curb strikes against Hamas (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/962403.html), Haaretz, 10 March 2008.


The government recently ordered the Israel Defense Forces to exercise restraint in operations in the Gaza Strip, pursuant to what a senior government official termed new rules of the game forged in the aftermath of last week's military operation in Gaza.

...

The senior government official said that in effect, the unofficial ground rules covered three possible scenarios:

* If the rocket fire stops completely, so will IDF operations in Gaza.

* If Palestinians fire only at Sderot and other communities near Gaza, Israel will respond primarily with aerial assaults.

* If rockets hit Ashkelon, Israel will respond with ground operations like last week's, which killed over 100 Palestinians.

However, the official warned, "beyond the temporary lull, the new tacit arrangement does not advance Israel toward its goals." This arrangement, he added, "completely contradicts the cabinet's decision [of last week], without proper procedure or cabinet approval."

That having been said, one has to be a bit careful about the accuracy of such leaks, especially in Israel where they are an especially well-honed tool of policy struggles within the government.

Jedburgh
03-20-2008, 02:44 AM
ICG, 19 Mar 08: Ruling Palestine I: Gaza Under HAMAS (http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/getfile.cfm?id=3350&tid=5341&type=pdf&l=1)

....The recent tragic and dangerous escalation in violence demonstrates once more that Gaza’s future remains locked in several competing and to date irreconcilable hands – those of Hamas, Fatah, Israel and the international community. If current trends continue, the worst is imaginable: increased firing of rockets against Israeli towns and cities, which risks killing civilians and jeopardising the safety of tens of thousands, as well as the resumption of bombings and attacks inside Israel, such as was seen in the 6 March 2008 murder of eight students at a Jerusalem religious seminary; intensified Israeli military incursions, targeted assassinations and attacks on key installations that, along with militants, inevitably kill many Palestinian civilians; the collapse of the peace process, discrediting of more pragmatic leaders and, as the vicious cycle continues, potentially the conflict’s spread to other arenas, including the West Bank and Lebanon.

Meanwhile, as this report shows, the purported goal of weakening Hamas’s hold on Gaza is nowhere near fulfilment. To the contrary: as is often the case with sanctions, the population’s suffering increases its dependence on its rulers. An official in Fayyad’s government acknowledged: “Sanctions never achieved their political objective. Hamas gets what it wants through the tunnels and is not hurt politically or materially”.

The most catastrophic scenarios may not yet be likely, but they are becoming increasingly imaginable. Avoiding them ultimately will depend on whether Fatah and Hamas can find a path to reconciliation that reunites Gaza and the West Bank; whether Hamas and Israel can agree on a ceasefire that lifts the siege on Gaza and allows Gazans and Israelis near the border to pursue normal lives; and whether the international community at long last plays a constructive part in encouraging the parties to achieve these goals.....
Complete 45 page report at the link.

cobot
04-27-2008, 01:52 AM
How does Israel stop Hamas rocket attacks? A massive ground invasion into the strip to flatten Hamas? Target Hamas leadership? Economic strangulation of the strip? Would any of these work? Any creative ideas?

Ron Humphrey
04-27-2008, 04:13 AM
How does Israel stop Hamas rocket attacks? A massive ground invasion into the strip to flatten Hamas? Target Hamas leadership? Economic strangulation of the strip? Would any of these work? Any creative ideas?

How about Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, heck just about any of the Middle East power broker countries actually lead and rather than obfuscating about everything instead Tell Hamas to stop or else. And mean it. Got news for those guys, If you don't want the Palestinians in your countries then put your money where your mouth is and get the circumstances right for some kind of real agreements. You won't get any major change whichever changes your looking for as long as folks are still shooting.

Almost everyone involved in that region wants Israel to be the bad guy so no matter what they do thats not changing.

Kenyatta
05-07-2008, 06:54 PM
Best way?

Probably invade the whole place and occupy it. and destroy the Hamas, political military infrastructure in Gaza.

So far they're not going to stop by killing the leaders because they just get replaced faster than you can say hamas.

The other countries aound Israel will not stop it since its not to their best interest(they want to portray the Israelis as bad guys to distract their populations, the Gaza strip is an open sore wound in Israel, name your pick).

Unfortunately if you invade you will:

1. Be involved in one of the worse street to street fighting since Beirut 1982, heavy casualties for Israel(worse for the Palestenians)

2. Israel will get the usual round of condemnations(as usual from the UN etc.)

3. You will not completely crush Hamas(though it will be badly mauled) since they will probably continue to exist in other countries(namely Lebanon, Iran, Syria etc.).

Jedburgh
08-05-2008, 11:49 PM
Physicians for Human Rights - Israel, 4 Aug 08:

Holding Health to Ransom: GSS Interrogation and Extortion of Palestinian Patients at Erez Crossing (http://www.phr.org.il/phr/files/articlefile_1217865604015.pdf)

The increasing restrictions imposed by the State of Israel on entry and exit of money, goods, services and persons via Gaza crossings and the closure of Rafah Crossing into Egypt since June 2007 have led to a sharp decline in the ability of Gaza’s healthcare system to provide services to patients.

The results have been a sharp increase in the number of patients referred to external medical centers (in Israel, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Jordan) via Israeli-controlled Erez Crossing, and a much sharper increase in the proportion of patients denied exit permits: from 10% in the first half of 2007 to 35% in the first half of 2008.

Whereas this process raises urgent questions regarding the responsibility of the State of Israel, as Occupying Power, to ensure the health and welfare of the civilian population of Gaza, the present report focuses rather on the mechanisms of denial of access to medical care, on the increasingly central role played by the Israeli General Security Service within this mechanism, and on the coercion of patients in the course of this process.

The report first provides a detailed description of the permits mechanism instituted by Israel at Erez Crossing and of the growing restrictions placed by this mechanism on the access of patients to medical care unavailable in Gaza. Statistical data is provided, based on Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-Israel (http://www.phr.org.il/phr/))’s casework with Gaza patients between January 2007 and April 2008.

The central part of the report describes the policy employed over the past year by the GSS, whereby patients are detained for interrogation at Erez Crossing, and requested either to provide information or to act as collaborators on a regular basis as a condition for permission to exit Gaza for medical treatment. Over the past year, more than 30 patients’ testimonies have been received by PHR-Israel, demonstrating this procedure. The methods of coercion employed by the GSS are examined in detail and a description of the growing formalization of the interrogation process is provided, including an attempt by the GSS to coerce PHR-Israel into cooperation with the mechanism described.....
Complete 85-page report at the link.

Rex Brynen
09-11-2008, 11:48 AM
INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP - NEW BRIEFING

Round Two in Gaza (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/arab_israeli_conflict/b24_round_two_in_gaza.pdf)


Gaza City/Ramallah/Brussels, 11 September 2008: The most recent confrontation in the Gaza Strip has left Hamas in firmer control than ever and prospects for inter-Palestinian reconciliation and a sustainable peace process increasingly elusive, as the West Bank and Gaza go separate ways.

Round Two in Gaza,* the latest briefing from the International Crisis Group, describes the events that saw Hamas battle and bring to heel one of Gaza’s most potent families. It also shows how the Islamist movement has been turning the territory into a model of internal security and bureaucratic consolidation.

“Hamas’s takeover of Gaza is increasingly complete, and both it and Fatah seem intent on consolidating their gains. The crisis of the Palestinian national movement is only worsening”, says Robert Blecher, Crisis Group’s Senior Analyst for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. “Palestinians are fed up with the feuding and many are looking for a way out. But they find none”.

After an explosion on 25 July that killed five of its military leaders and a young girl, Hamas launched a broad campaign against the Hillis family, one of Gaza’s most powerful. It also carried out hundreds of arrests and raids on organisations. This has intimidated families and smaller factions and crippled Fatah’s capacity to mobilise.

The downside for Hamas is that it has alienated other Palestinian factions, deepened the chasm with Egypt and reinforced perceptions that it would be an inflexible negotiating partner. But the Islamist movement is wagering that greater internal security and improved governance eventually will bolster domestic popularity; that the peace process with Israel on which its rivals’ fortunes depend will flounder; and that, in light of new realities, international isolation ultimately will peter out.

“A divided Palestinian movement is unlikely to be in a position to make bold decisions”, warns Robert Malley, Crisis Group’s Middle East and North Africa Program Director. “A weak Palestinian counterpart is unlikely to gain Israel’s trust or encourage it to compromise. A segregated Palestinian entity is unlikely to become a viable state. Prospects for a genuine and sustainable peace process are bad and getting worse”.

sullygoarmy
09-11-2008, 01:16 PM
One of the bigger mistakes I think we made in past dealing with Hamas was not recognizing them when they won their election. To me, it is a case of "be careful what you wish for". They wanted to be the leaders of an "elected" government and got it. We immediately reacted by refusing to recognize the legitimacy of their election because of their terrorist ties.

I wonder what would have happened if we had recognized the results and gave Hamas enough rope to try and run a legitimate government? The way I see it one of two things would have happened: 1) they would have been successful and possibly made the Palestinian state into a more efficient entity or 2) fallen flat on their faces and voted out of power by the people, creating more long-term damage against Hamas then we could have ever hoped for.

William F. Owen
09-11-2008, 02:30 PM
We immediately reacted by refusing to recognize the legitimacy of their election because of their terrorist ties.

...and why is that a problem? Hitler died the democratically elected, by IIRC some 19 million Germans. If a National Socialist Party was elected in Austria, with deeply racist views, should the US recognise it, just because of the will of the Austrian people?

IMO, internationally acceptable behaviour and norms should not be subservient to the democratic process. If Hamas can accept the norms of the international community, then they should be recognised. If not, no dice.

Entropy
09-11-2008, 03:46 PM
...and why is that a problem? Hitler died the democratically elected, by IIRC some 19 million Germans. If a National Socialist Party was elected in Austria, with deeply racist views, should the US recognise it, just because of the will of the Austrian people?

IMO, internationally acceptable behaviour and norms should not be subservient to the democratic process. If Hamas can accept the norms of the international community, then they should be recognised. If not, no dice.

Of course, we recognize and deal with many governments who do not accept our view of international norms.

In my view the US tendency to delegitimize enemies has pretty much failed. While I agree with you from a strictly moral point of view, as a practical matter, I don't think our policy has served US interests. The simple reality is that Hamas, Hezbollah and others will have to be dealt with sooner or later - US & Israeli efforts to marginalize them having pretty much backfired across the board. They have morphed to become more than terrorists now and, like it or not, they represent real constituencies. Any political solution will therefore have to include them on some level.

William F. Owen
09-11-2008, 04:43 PM
@ Of course, we recognize and deal with many governments who do not accept our view of international norms.

@ The simple reality is that Hamas, Hezbollah and others will have to be dealt with sooner or later - US & Israeli efforts to marginalize them having pretty much backfired across the board. They have morphed to become more than terrorists now and, like it or not, they represent real constituencies. Any political solution will therefore have to include them on some level.

@ Of course you do and that recognition is based on selective self interest and pragmatism - not the supposed moral imperative that being popularly elected gets you recognised. Israel's democratically elected government is not recognised by many regimes - nor even it's right to exist.

@ I have no doubt they will have to be dealt with. In the real world Israel deals/talks to both of them on an almost daily basis, both directly and indirectly out of practical necessity.

What never seems to be ventured into the discussion is how is it reasonable to suggest Israel should "recognise" entities - in terms of negotiation - that believe Israel should cease to exist as the result of an armed struggle.

Even if Israel withdrew from 100% of the Trans-Jordan, ceded Jerusalem, to the 67 line and gave back to Golan heights, Hezbollah and Hamas would not cease to exist, or choose to pursue peaceful means. They would merely continue with violent means. They will do so, until forced to give up. Who forces them to give up is of no interest to me.

What people with no physical or cultural stake in the game don't seem to realise is that a fight to the death of your enemy is an acceptable outcome to many of the people, with stake in the game, and on both sides.

Life in the middle east is about no rapid movements of big changes. Un-rewarded and unilateral recognition of Hamas does not conform to that model.

Hacksaw
09-11-2008, 04:56 PM
(homage to Fred Stanford)

Amen brother Wilf

As a caveat, I'm neither a jew or an apologist, but I've never been able to understand how the US political left came to convince themselves that israel was the anchovey on this political pizza pie.

Plenty of unsavory actors on both sides, and true suffering and sadness for the majority of Palestinians...

but walk a mile in their shoes and you might find a real change of heart

Rex Brynen
09-11-2008, 05:12 PM
Even if Israel withdrew from 100% of the Trans-Jordan, ceded Jerusalem, to the 67 line and gave back to Golan heights, Hezbollah and Hamas would not cease to exist, or choose to pursue peaceful means.

Certainly, many Hamas armed cadres would continue "the struggle."

Hamas, would, however, wither significantly, and no longer pose the degree of threat that it poses at the moment. Only a relatively small percentage of Hamas supporters/voters are really dedicated to "liberating Palestine from the river to the sea." Indeed, it didn't even campaign on that issue in 2006.

I think the policy of undermining earlier efforts at a Hamas-Fateh national unity government were a complete disaster, and left Hamas stronger (and Fateh as a weaker) as a consequence. This isn't to say that it should have been business-as-usual after the 2006 elections—personally, I don't believe Hamas can be engaged in any conceivable peace deal at any point in the near future.

William F. Owen
09-11-2008, 06:13 PM
@ Certainly, many Hamas armed cadres would continue "the struggle."

@ Hamas, would, however, wither significantly, and no longer pose the degree of threat that it poses at the moment.

@ Not only Hamas, but also any Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian or Egyptian element reduced in standing or relevance as the result a peace deal.

@ Concur, but I'm not that worried about Hamas. It's all the other clowns that concern me. The Government in power on the day the Palestinian State is created, will probably not be there a year later. Whatever they agreed to on day one, will not be what they want on day two. I guess someone just has to have the courage to trust them.

William F. Owen
09-11-2008, 06:34 PM
...true suffering and sadness for the majority of Palestinians...

but walk a mile in their shoes and you might find a real change of heart

Well suffering is a way of life for all concerned. It just depends what snapshot of history you choose.

What change of heart would I have for walking in their shoes? I have no beef with the Palestinian people. I just want an Israel which is a safe home for the Jews and history shows that, that can only be a reality in a Jewish State. All things come second to that, because without that there is no existence, other than that of assimilation, or as a minority subject to the extremism of the worlds two major religions.

....and while you may not be a Jew, why would your being Jewish have any bearing on this issue? :D

Hacksaw
09-11-2008, 06:48 PM
Too fast of typing and too much shorthand...

Despite the misery of so many involved...

I think you have to walk a mile in an Israeli's shoes, with enemies who deny your right to exist as a nation, to appreaciate their situation.

Comment was directed at west coast left nut cases who think Israel is the villian since the 1940's.

It's nuts we agree, in fact we agree so completely in this case that I thought I was going to have a heart attack, ergo... my homage to Fred Stanford (probably lost on a Brit) that I was going to have a heart attack.

Good to be on the right side

By the way I hate anchovies

Tom Odom
09-11-2008, 07:03 PM
Too fast of typing and too much shorthand...

Despite the misery of so many involved...

I think you have to walk a mile in an Israeli's shoes, with enemies who deny your right to exist as a nation, to appreaciate their situation.

Comment was directed at west coast left nut cases who think Israel is the villian since the 1940's.

It's nuts we agree, in fact we agree so completely in this case that I thought I was going to have a heart attack, ergo... my homage to Fred Stanford (probably lost on a Brit) that I was going to have a heart attack.

Good to be on the right side

By the way I hate anchovies

I would agree on the shoes business but only when you walk a mile in both parties' shoes.

Dismissing those who have a different opinion on the region as west coast nut cases is merely an ad hominum attack sans guidance. You can do better, Hack.

Tom

Hacksaw
09-11-2008, 07:24 PM
I thought I was fairly specific when I added nut cases at the end of west coast liberal... You know the apologists who excuse any and all excesses against the nation of Israel because a group of opportunists during WWI really used all sides. I also acknowledged plenty of bad actors on both sides, but I think it is fair and totally accurate to characterize as a nut case - an individual who while sitting in the relative comfort, safety and luxury of the US categorically judges the actions of the israeli nation as illegimate and crimes against humanity

As for the mile in their shoes... the post you reference was a clarification for Wilf, in the previous post I noted the extreme misery of a majority of Palastinians - which I thought was an acknowledgement of their plight.

Tom Odom
09-11-2008, 07:46 PM
but I think it is fair and totally accurate to characterize as a nut case - an individual who while sitting in the relative comfort, safety and luxury of the US categorically judges the actions of the israeli nation as illegimate and crimes against humanity

OK then let's apply it to those who sit in the same circumstances and categorically judge actions from the Palestinians in a similar vein. Are they nut jobs also? Does it matter whether they are liberal or conservative?

What I am getting at is quite simple: neither characterization adds to the discussion, it merely labels folks rather than address their ideas. If your point is that they have never been to the region, have never studied the region seriously, and then make assertions based on naive and many cases near willful ignorance, then you have something. But I would caveat that with point that that behavior applies to most Americans when it comes to the Arab-Israeli issue.

Tom

Hacksaw
09-11-2008, 07:55 PM
I'll say it 100 times....

I will not make sloppy analogies for the sake of my personal amusement.
I will not make sloppy analogies for the sake of my personal amusement.
I will not make sloppy analogies for the sake of my personal amusement.
I will not make sloppy analogies for the sake of my personal amusement.
I will not make sloppy analogies for the sake of my personal amusement.
I will not make sloppy analogies for the sake of my personal amusement.
...

Yes, those who do much the same from the opposite side of the fence (forgive Israel for all actions) are also nut cases... wait I mean...

...they are individuals who have never been to the region, have never studied the region seriously, and then make assertions based on naive and many cases near willful ignorance.

I think my newly revised sleep habits - wife gave birth to my third child a month ago (17, 15, and 1 month) - have made me cranky

my apologies to all whom I have offended and time I have wasted :p

Tom Odom
09-11-2008, 07:59 PM
I'll say it 100 times....

I will not make sloppy analogies for the sake of my personal amusement.
I will not make sloppy analogies for the sake of my personal amusement.
I will not make sloppy analogies for the sake of my personal amusement.
I will not make sloppy analogies for the sake of my personal amusement.
I will not make sloppy analogies for the sake of my personal amusement.
I will not make sloppy analogies for the sake of my personal amusement.
...

Yes, those who do much the same from the opposite side of the fence (forgive Israel for all actions) are also nut cases... wait I mean...

...they are individuals who have never been to the region, have never studied the region seriously, and then make assertions based on naive and many cases near willful ignorance.

I think my newly revised sleep habits - wife gave birth to my third child a month ago (17, 15, and 1 month) - have made me cranky

my apologies to all whom I have offended and time I have wasted :p

no offense. no time wasted. I cannot count to 100 so good luck. :D

and by the way congrats on the newborn :wry:


Tom

William F. Owen
09-12-2008, 04:42 AM
If your point is that they have never been to the region, have never studied the region seriously, and then make assertions based on naive and many cases near willful ignorance, then you have something. But I would caveat that with point that that behavior applies to most Americans when it comes to the Arab-Israeli issue.

Harsh, but true, and not just Americans. I can testify from first hand experience that most "educated" Englishmen are woefully ignorant of Israelis-Arab history. Opinion is that the best educated are usually the Spanish and ... the Germans.

Entropy
09-12-2008, 01:51 PM
Wilf,

I'm not talking about overt political recognition - I'm talking about recognizing the simple fact that Hamas is more than simply "terrorists." IMO it seems that many policymakers alternately believe that Hamas and Hezbollah are garden-variety terrorist groups on one hand and the next Nassar on the other. The 2006 elections are a case-in-point and only succeeded in demonstrating our own hipocrisy; not to mention it actually strengthened and legitimized Hamas in the eyes of Palestinians.

And that is really my point. The US and Israel have acted stupidly by relying on an inflexible dogmatic approach which, in the end, has done little but strengthened Israel's enemies. I would argue the elections were a bad idea to begin with, but our abrogation of the result after we talked them up so much proved worse than some marginal or grudging acceptance of the result. The Hamas victory was an opportunity to set them up for failure and thereby erode their support. That opportunity was thrown away and instead, their support and legitimacy were increased.

The complete resistance to virtually any kind of accommodation or alternative is myopically inflexible IMO. Not only does it limit Israel's options (such as using tactical retreats to open opportunities to secure bigger objectives, as in the Hamas election), but it also makes the humiliation for Israel that much greater when Israel is forced to do what it says it will never do, which is negotiate with "terrorists."

Yes, Israel is in an existential struggle but that's no excuse for it's (IMO) stupid dogmatic approach to dealing with it's enemies. The history of of the last 10-20 years demonstrates, to me at least, that the absolutist policies in place have not only failed to make Israel secure, they've actually been counterproductive in that regard.


Concur, but I'm not that worried about Hamas. It's all the other clowns that concern me. The Government in power on the day the Palestinian State is created, will probably not be there a year later. Whatever they agreed to on day one, will not be what they want on day two. I guess someone just has to have the courage to trust them.

Why should Israel fear an agreement that the other side abrogates in a year? That is an opportunity for Israel, not a vulnerability. GIVE them some rope. Israeli policy still seems to be living in 1967 and 1973. Israel still acts as if it is on the verge of being driven into the sea. That was true 35 years ago, but it is not true today. Israel is more than sufficiently powerful to guarantee its existence from comparative weaklings like Hamas (or whoever comes to rule the Palestinians), Hezbollah and even Syria in the face of virtually any potential broken agreement.

franksforum
09-16-2008, 07:24 PM
This article appeared in the September 2008 issue of Strategic Insights, a bi-monthly electronic journal produced by the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA.

Editor’s Note: In recognition of the important (and largely unanticipated) role Iraqi tribes played during the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the USG brought a number of country experts to Washington in July 2008 to comment on the significance of tribes, clans and other extended familial units in the Middle East. The following is the paper presented at that conference by Glenn E. Robinson on Palestinian case.

Introduction:

Palestinian society in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is characterized by three types of clan-like familial structures: tribes, clans, and notable families. While all three share similar extended familial attributes, behavioral obligations (especially on males), informal networks, and honor-shame cultural systems, they are also quite distinct in their origins and continuing importance.

Here is the PDF link:

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2008/Sep/robinsonSep08.pdf

Tom Odom
09-16-2008, 08:09 PM
Interesting piece and the cautions at the end are especially valuable:


Clans are a double-edged sword.

The power and identity of tribes/clans are in inverse proportion to those of the state.

Do not romanticize tribes and clans.

Clans benefit from a weak state, notables from a coherent state.

Clans are not ideologically committed, will play off outsiders.

Jedburgh
09-17-2008, 01:24 PM
...in the context of clashes between clans and the ruling authority:

ArabNews, 17 Sep 08: Eleven Die in Gaza Gunbattle (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=114415&d=17&m=9&y=2008)

Eleven people, including a police officer and an infant, were killed yesterday in a fresh outbreak of internecine Palestinian clashes (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/clans-fight-to-keep-it-all-in-the-family/2008/08/07/1217702251237.html?page=fullpage) in the Gaza Strip, the worst in more than a month. At least 40 people were wounded.

The fierce gunbattle took place in Al-Sabara neighborhood of Gaza City between the Hamas-run police and members of the powerful Dughmush clan....
The conflict between Hamas and the Dughmush clan was also discussed in the ICG report (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/arab_israeli_conflict/71_inside_gaza___the_challenge_of_clans_and_famili es.pdf), as well as the SI article (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2008/Sep/robinsonSep08.pdf) linked in earlier posts in this thread.

Rex Brynen
12-17-2008, 04:31 PM
INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP - NEW BRIEFING

Palestine Divided (http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/getfile.cfm?id=3707&tid=5823&l=1)

Ramallah/Gaza/Brussels, 17 December 2008: The division between the West Bank and Gaza is set to endure despite the growing number of international actors who acknowledge that without Palestinian unity, a genuine peace process with Israel is unattainable.


Palestine Divided the latest briefing from the International Crisis Group, argues that the current reconciliation process between the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Palestinian National Liberation Movement (Fatah) is a continuation of their struggle through other means. Prioritising partisan concerns over the national interest, both see greater cost than reward in compromise. Without regional and international incentives to shift this calculus, Palestine’s political-territorial division will only deepen.

“Both Fatah and Hamas want reconciliation, but only on their own terms”, says Robert Blecher, Crisis Group Senior Middle East Analyst. “They see time as an ally in consolidating their positions”.

Hamas’s seizure of Gaza and bloody tactics have hardened Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s stance. His cost-benefit analysis is clear: reconciliation could cost his Fatah movement an administrative and security monopoly in the West Bank and de facto hegemony over the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO); partnership with Hamas might jeopardise negotiations with Israel and international financial support, all for little more than shared control over Gaza.

Hamas sees reconciliation as a ploy to deprive it of control over Gaza without commensurate gain. With Gaza firmly in hand, Hamas’s price for inclusion in the political system has risen. Gazans are suffering an acute economic and social crisis, but the Islamic movement is internally secure. Further, as they see it, President Abbas’s domestic legitimacy will be crucially undermined when his presidential term expires on 9 January 2009.

Changing the dynamics that have convinced both Fatah and Hamas that time is on their side will be daunting. At a minimum, it will require both a change in the regional landscape (through U.S. engagement with Syria and Iran) and a clear signal from the international community that this time they would not oppose a Fatah-Hamas partnership; would judge the government not by composition but by its conduct; and would assess the Islamist movement on a more pragmatic basis.

“The bottom line is that the kind of unity that seemed possible two years ago has become an appreciably more complicated endeavour”, states Robert Malley, Director of Crisis Group’s Middle East and North Africa Program. “It will take a significant shift in the international and regional landscape to achieve it”.

Rex Brynen
12-27-2008, 04:29 PM
ANALYSIS / IAF strike on Gaza is Israel's version of 'shock and awe' (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050405.html)

Ha'aretz - 17:33 27/12/2008

By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent


The events along the southern front which commenced at 11:30 on Saturday morning are the closest thing there is to a war between Israel and Hamas. It is difficult to ascertain (geographically) where and for how long the violence will reach before international intervention forces a halt to the hostilities. However the Israeli opening salvo is not merely another "surgical" operation or pinpoint strike. This is the harshest IDF assault on Gaza since the territory was captured during the Six-Day War in 1967.

Bob's World
12-27-2008, 05:44 PM
It is worth remembering, or at least mentioning, our original deal with the Arab Community made between FDR and King Abdul Aziz on the USS Quincy in Egyptian waters in 1945.

"The king's view was that if the suffering of the Jews had been caused by the Germans, Germans should pay the price for it; let the Jews build their homeland on the best lands in Germany, not on the territory of Arabs who had nothing to do with what happened to them. The most he could get from Roosevelt was a promise that the president would "do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs and would make no move hostile to the Arab people." The king taking this as a commitment from the United States and not just from Roosevelt personally, was furious to discover three years later that Harry Truman did not consider himself bound by it."

It is hard to argue with the King's logic. We made an ally absorb the cost of forming a Jewish homeland instead of taking it out of German soil.

As to Hamas, as a big proponent for the concepts of self determination and popular sovereignty, I believe strongly that we need to respect the will of those populaces who are able to achieve a degree of democratic process sufficient to chose the form of government they desire, and the leadership they want to run it. To believe otherwise would be hypocritical to our own Declaration of Independence.

Besides, a solid COIN practice developed by the Brits is to give insurgent leaders significant, but relatively harmless positions in the government they oppose. Deny them the ability to simply criticize, but make them part of the solution and have to perform. We missed an opportunity to make Hamas have to step up and perform and came across as completely hypocritcal to our own core ideology. Not a shining day for America on either count.

We don't have to agree with the form of governance a populace selects, but give them time, if we support their efforts to self-determine, ultimately they will work it out. Look at our own history. The Pilgrims were very much more like the Taliban of today, and look how liberal Massachusetts is now. These things take time, and we have not patience for allowing others the same opportunities we had ourselves.

Surferbeetle
12-27-2008, 08:01 PM
It is hard to argue with the King's logic. We made an ally absorb the cost of forming a Jewish homeland instead of taking it out of German soil.

Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin) didn't seem to have the same cachet as did Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) for those doing the choosing.


The city has a history that goes back to the 4th millennium BCE, making it one of the oldest cities in the world.[5] Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual center of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE,[6] contains a number of significant ancient Christian sites, and is considered the third-holiest city in Islam.


As to Hamas, as a big proponent for the concepts of self determination and popular sovereignty, I believe strongly that we need to respect the will of those populaces who are able to achieve a degree of democratic process sufficient to chose the form of government they desire, and the leadership they want to run it. To believe otherwise would be hypocritical to our own Declaration of Independence.

Mr. Carter (http://cartercenter.org/peace/democracy/palestine.html) presents points to ponder on this debate.


The international community responded by channeling funds and support to Fatah's emergency government in the West Bank, while hardening its no-contact policy toward Hamas-controlled Gaza. While intended as means to bolster the more politically moderate Fatah this approach is likely to severely undermine the prospects for reaching a two-state solution and for strengthening democracy in Palestine.. Because Hamas enjoys broad popular support among many Palestinians, any efforts to promote peace and democratic institutions will only be sustainable if Hamas is included.

The spiral of intra-Palestinian conflict is unfolding against the backdrop of the long-standing conflict with Israel and the occupation of Palestinian territories by the Israeli army. The Carter Center believes that the single most important obstacle to a viable two-state solution is the continued expansion of Israeli settlements and outposts in the West Bank. A seemingly permanent infrastructure is emerging in the West Bank, characterized by a grid of settler-only roads, roadblocks, checkpoints, and the giant concrete separation wall.

Mr. Kissinger (http://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/wp022706.html) has some points to ponder as well.


The emergence of Hamas as the dominant faction in Palestine should not be treated as a radical departure. Hamas represents the mind-set that prevented the full recognition of Israel's legitimacy by the PLO for all these decades, kept Yasser Arafat from accepting partition of Palestine at Camp David in 2000, produced two intifadas and consistently supported terrorism. Far too much of the debate within the Palestinian camp has been over whether Israel should be destroyed immediately by permanent confrontation or in stages in which occasional negotiations serve as periodic armistices. The reaction of the PLO's Fatah to the Hamas electoral victory has been an attempt to outflank Hamas on the radical side. Only a small number of moderates have accepted genuine and permanent coexistence.

William F. Owen
12-28-2008, 05:05 AM
I'm not talking about overt political recognition - I'm talking about recognizing the simple fact that Hamas is more than simply "terrorists." IMO it seems that many policymakers alternately believe that Hamas and Hezbollah are garden-variety terrorist groups on one hand and the next Nassar on the other. The 2006 elections are a case-in-point and only succeeded in demonstrating our own hipocrisy; not to mention it actually strengthened and legitimized Hamas in the eyes of Palestinians.


Sorry not to get to this sooner. I'm not quite sure I get your point.

Hamas and Hezbollah don't want peace. Hamas and Hezbollah, are both militant/military/political groupings dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the extermination of all Jews in the Middle East. They are racists and extremists, and no different from the Taliban, AQ or the Iraqi insurgents.

What do you suggest as the basis for negotiation. Israel can only strive for their suppression or destruction, by continued existence.

Why has the election of Hamas got any bearing on their legitimacy? As all Israelis school children will tell you, Hitler died democratically elected by 19 million Germans. Elections in Gaza are nothing like Elections in Rhode Islands. If you don't believe me, look what happened after the election.



It is hard to argue with the King's logic. We made an ally absorb the cost of forming a Jewish homeland instead of taking it out of German soil.


What ally? Egyptian Arab Nationalist backed Hitler in WW2 - as did the Palestinian Arabs, fronted by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Egypt had no territorial claim on the Palestine mandate area what so ever. Gaza was never part of the 1948. It was part of Egypt as the "West Bank" was part of Jordan.

Surferbeetle
12-28-2008, 07:34 AM
From this mornings Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,598534,00.html)


Israelische Truppen marschieren in Richtung Gazastreifen, auch Panzer wurden gesichtet: Nach massiven Bombardements auf Standorte der Hamas droht Israel jetzt mit dem Einmarsch. Verteidigungsminister Ehud Barak sagt, eine Bodenoffensive sei möglich

My translation...


Israeli Troops are marching in the direction of the Gazaborder, and tanks have been spotted: After massive bombardments of Hamas positions Israel threatens to invade. Defence Minister Ehud Barak says that a ground offensive is possible.

Bill Moore
12-28-2008, 10:01 AM
Talk about being between a rock and hard place. What should Israel do? If they do nothing while being attacked they failed as a government to protect their people. The Hamas obviously doesn't care about their citizens, so they launch their attacks from heavily populated areas, so any response is going to result in the death and maiming of incidents, which will create ripple effect of emotion through all those related or affiliated by friendship, thus adding to the narrative and providing another generation of willing recruits. It also results in bad public relations for Israel, and has repercussions far from the Middle East. Israel's venture into Lebanon moblized support for the Hezbollah far outside the Middle East, and I suspec this operation will do the same, plus give AQ something to gripe about on their next video release.

In some cases I think the scorched earth policy is appropriate, but in this case Israel would have to scorch the earth east to Tehran and north to the Turkey's southern border, so scorched earth isn't.

Bob's World Population Centric Engagement won't work, the hate is simply too overwhelming. Legitimacy is defined by who you hate, and what actions will you take against against them, not peace. It also shows the limitations of democracy in a society full of hate.

Looks like this truly is going to be situation normal for the forseeable future. The only thng that appears clear is that the U.S. shouldn't commit troops to help in any shape or fashion.

Truly a wicked problem.

Bob's World
12-28-2008, 12:45 PM
Bill,

wicked problem indeed, but we know what we are currently doing isn't working, so a change of approach is not really an option, we must evolve in our approach. As to PCE, this is only looking at a problem and defining it and working out solutions with a focus on the populaces involved instead of on the governments or the threats involved. It does not mean we all sing songs and roast marshmellows. Sometimes you do indeed need to crack heads, but with PCE you are hopefully cracking the right heads to achieve an end that addressess the needs of the populace.

One new approach that I would like to see in the middle east is to use the vatican city model for both Jerusalem and Mecca/Medina. The first is a crucial holy site for all Jews, Christians and Muslems and should not be part of any one state. I'd pick a council with three equal governors from those three faiths, with lead rotating on a set pattern to rule a separate city-state of Jerusalem. I don't know if there is a "Switzerland" that could provide a security force, but some similar mixed option of Muslim, Christian and Jewish security forces working together could have its own beneficial second order effects.

Similar with Mecca/Medina, but with a Sunni-Shia council. Saudi Arabia (The decisive point of what we call GWOT IMHO, but that is another topic) cannot evolve as a nation and a government and address the failures that leads to their populace making up 3/4 of the 9-11 attackers and 40% of foreign fighters in Iraq, until the role as guardian of Islam's holy sites is taken off their shoulders. This would allow them to evolve their horrible constitution, reduce Sunni/Shia tensions, make the presence of westerners in the Kingdom less offensive, etc.

Neither move is a cure-all, and there would be more fighting, but I would much rather see the US involved in brokering such moves as this rather than what we've been doing.

Keeping Jerusalem out of the original Jewish state was part of the original British plan, recognizing the emotional issues involved. I don't recall the details or why that key components was written out.

Oh, a saved round.

There has been some serious talk lately of having Israel give the Golan back to Syria. This type of appeasing land transfer makes no sense to me. Golan in the hands of the Syrians puts Israel at a tremendous strategic disadvantage, which leads to suspicion, fear, & hinders those two countries reaching some unsteady co-existance. On the converse, keeping the heights in Israeli hands does not put Syria at any strategic disadvantage that I am aware of, and losing the ground is just reward for attacking Israel in the first place.

Just an example of why I think we need to step back and relook this entire issue with fresh eyes, because I can't see the logic of some of the proposed actions.

Entropy
12-28-2008, 03:48 PM
Hamas and Hezbollah don't want peace. Hamas and Hezbollah, are both militant/military/political groupings dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the extermination of all Jews in the Middle East. They are racists and extremists, and no different from the Taliban, AQ or the Iraqi insurgents.

I mostly agree with that.


What do you suggest as the basis for negotiation. Israel can only strive for their suppression or destruction, by continued existence.

Here is where you and Israel go wrong. That strategy is obviously failing. My main point is that you should not keeping beating your head against that wall and expect a different result. Hamas and Hezbollah are where they are today in no small measure because of Israeli action. Israel might keep them weak militarily with this policy, but it comes at the expense of strengthening them politically. This is a strategy that certainly brings short-term rewards but at the cost of long-term risk and danger. Take Hezbollah, for example. Hezbollah, like it or not, is a legitimate political force in Lebanon. It has a real political constituency. There can be no political solution in Lebanon without Hezbollah. Israeli actions helped create and nurture this. How has Israel benefited? Israel now finds itself in a position where it has few options for dealing with Hezbollah. The same thing is going to happen with Hamas.


Why has the election of Hamas got any bearing on their legitimacy? As all Israelis school children will tell you, Hitler died democratically elected by 19 million Germans. Elections in Gaza are nothing like Elections in Rhode Islands. If you don't believe me, look what happened after the election.

Hamas is not Hitler. The intent may be the same but the capability is much different. In fact, I would suggest that the fatal flaw in Israeli strategic thinking is the apparent inability to distinguish between intent and capability.

My point on the Hamas election was that it represented an opportunity to set them up for failure and delegitimize them in the eyes of the population. Israel's actions did the opposite. At the rate you are going, Hamas is going to be another Hezbollah before too long. Moderate Palestinians, with whom a deal might be struck, have little legitimacy anymore. How exactly does that benefit Israel?

William F. Owen
12-28-2008, 05:21 PM
Here is where you and Israel go wrong. That strategy is obviously failing. My main point is that you should not keeping beating your head against that wall and expect a different result.

The ONLY stratergy is survival. How is that failing? Having a state is the strategy. The strategy is not peace, at any price.

When all Arabs recognise Israel within the 1948, and allow Jews to exist in peace, then there might be peace.

The legitimacy of Hezbollah, or Hamas is utterly irrelevant. It's their actions and beliefs. I'm sure the Taliban has a following in A'Stan.

If you have any ideas that don't pre-suppose that the enemy is reasonable or will listen to reason, then me, and six million others are very interested.

Rex Brynen
12-28-2008, 06:32 PM
I think it is absolutely essential, in cases like these, to understand the subtleties and complexities of the organizations, cadres, and supporters involved.

Hamas did not win election in 2006 on a "destroy Israel" platform. Indeed it deliberately underplayed this (since it was a vote-loser) and emphasized reform and good governance issues instead. Polls show that most Palestinians accept a two-state solution to the conflict—including, by some surveys, most of those who voted for Hamas in 2006.

Among Hamas cadres, the distribution of political views is somewhat different. However, even here there is a substantial minority of Hamas activists who would accept a two-state solution based on the 1967 lines. They are yet to articulate this in a way that would have much credibility in Israel, however, and their weight has been eroded since 2006 by the growing influence of Gaza-based members of the Hamas military wing.

I'm not at all surprised by the current Israeli military action—even though the upsurge in rocket attacks was likely a Hamas effort to pressure Israel into renegotiating the ceasefire on better terms (notably with regard to access issues--in the Palestinian view, Israel never really implemented the previous agreement in this respect), they clearly miscalculated. They also read the Israeli political context very poorly if they thought an election campaign would dissuade Kadima and Labor from military action.

In the short term, its not clear to me how and when the current confrontation will wind down. I don't think Israel wants to be back in much of Gaza with ground troops for any period of time--rather they want to punish Hamas as best they can, weaken it, and impose a new "understanding" on Israeli terms. Hamas will probably decide that they can ride this out, and will want to be the last one firing a rocket. At this point I suspect we'll a matched reduction in violence over a period of time, followed by more Egyptian-mediated ceasefire talks. However there are several other possibilities, especially if Hamas rockets actually do some serious damage.

The longer-term issue is what needs to happen to weaken the appeal of Hamas and other radicals, and to shift the great majority of the Palestinian electorate back into the moderate Fateh camp. This is a complex and multi-dimensional challenge: it requires improvement in economic and security conditions in the West Bank; Fateh reform (now effectively on hold again with yet another postponement of the Fateh 6th Congress); a real halt to settlement activity (seen by Palestinians as every bit as threatening as Israelis view rockets from Gaza); governments on both sides prepared to make real compromises (rather than a weak Abbas and likely a harder-line Israeli government post-elections); and US and international leadership of a meaningful peace process.

It would also be nice to engage Hamas soft-line cadres. Sadly, that has become more and more difficult in the past two years.

In my view, the best thing a new Obama Administration could do it to dust off the Clinton Parameters, rename them, get them endorsed by the UNSC, and tell the parties "we can't make you negotiate or agree, but we can nail down the goalposts and make it clear what sort of agreement the international community expects from you eventually." With the Hamas hard-liners (who may be strengthened by the current military activity in Gaza) rejecting a two-state solution, and Bibi Netanyahu doing so too (albeit it more subtly), I think this is more important than ever.

reed11b
12-28-2008, 07:37 PM
Bill,

One new approach that I would like to see in the middle east is to use the vatican city model for both Jerusalem and Mecca/Medina. The first is a crucial holy site for all Jews, Christians and Muslems and should not be part of any one state. I'd pick a council with three equal governors from those three faiths, with lead rotating on a set pattern to rule a separate city-state of Jerusalem. I don't know if there is a "Switzerland" that could provide a security force, but some similar mixed option of Muslim, Christian and Jewish security forces working together could have its own beneficial second order effects.



If there is a "Switzerland" in the ME it is Jordan. They are the only ME country that has recognized Israel to my knowledge and there Military and security forces are supposed to be top notch. That is a very interesting suggestion, BW, but Israel would have to have a very good reason to "buy in" to have any chance of success. Any idea what a good reason for an Israel "buy in" might be?
Reed

Surferbeetle
12-28-2008, 08:08 PM
I think it is absolutely essential, in cases like these, to understand the subtleties and complexities of the organizations, cadres, and supporters involved.

Hamas did not win election in 2006 on a "destroy Israel" platform. Indeed it deliberately underplayed this (since it was a vote-loser) and emphasized reform and good governance issues instead. Polls show that most Palestinians accept a two-state solution to the conflict—including, by some surveys, most of those who voted for Hamas in 2006.


Rex,

Defining who is who in the major league game that is the ME is vital. References are always appreciated :D by those of us working on improving our understanding. I would also note that the never ending 'negotiation' takes place in many venues and via many different methods (have I mentioned DIME lately?).

I would ask your patience as I share a little hard won first hand knowledge. Wrongly or rightly the fault line that is Judaism, Christianity, and Islam takes on a more urgent and 'in-your-face' quality in some parts of the ME. With many of the more educated and older folks I was humbled by the hospitality that was offered to me in Iraq. Over time many of the kids that I dealt with came to learn that a Christian such as my self was not the nasty stereotypical caricature that they had been taught. Jews, in my opinion, had it worse than I. With fighting age folks things were always precariously balanced and for a good part of my tour I was consistently and pleasantly surprised to wake up the next morning. Perhaps things are different in Israel, I have not yet lived there, so I can not truly say...however with regards to Hamas' history and potential for change my trust levels are low.

Regards,

Steve

Icebreaker
12-29-2008, 03:40 AM
Bill,


One new approach that I would like to see in the middle east is to use the vatican city model for both Jerusalem and Mecca/Medina. The first is a crucial holy site for all Jews, Christians and Muslems and should not be part of any one state. I'd pick a council with three equal governors from those three faiths, with lead rotating on a set pattern to rule a separate city-state of Jerusalem. I don't know if there is a "Switzerland" that could provide a security force, but some similar mixed option of Muslim, Christian and Jewish security forces working together could have its own beneficial second order effects.

Similar with Mecca/Medina, but with a Sunni-Shia council. Saudi Arabia (The decisive point of what we call GWOT IMHO, but that is another topic) cannot evolve as a nation and a government and address the failures that leads to their populace making up 3/4 of the 9-11 attackers and 40% of foreign fighters in Iraq, until the role as guardian of Islam's holy sites is taken off their shoulders. This would allow them to evolve their horrible constitution, reduce Sunni/Shia tensions, make the presence of westerners in the Kingdom less offensive, etc.

Neither move is a cure-all, and there would be more fighting, but I would much rather see the US involved in brokering such moves as this rather than what we've been doing.

Keeping Jerusalem out of the original Jewish state was part of the original British plan, recognizing the emotional issues involved. I don't recall the details or why that key components was written out.


They once had a system somewhat like that when the area was a British Mandate form the end of World War I to the creation of the State of Israel. The British had the “British Palestine Police Force”. Below is a link to this forces “Old Comrades Association”:

http://www.wyevalley.worldonline.co.uk/index.htm

They handled a number of incidents related to holy sites. Below is a quote I took off of the website about an incident regarding the famous “Wailing Wall”:

The Wailing Wall

The Wailing Wall in Jerusalem has always been a source of potential trouble between Jews and Arabs. It is all that is left of the third temple built by King Herod the Great and destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. It is on the site of the western boundary of the Jewish temple built by King Solomon and is thus holy to the Jews. This area is also holy to Moslems as it is from this place that Mohammed is claimed to have ascended to Heaven upon El Buraq, his white horse.

While the Wall has been accepted as Moslem property by Jews and Moslems alike, it has been the custom for Jews to pray there freely. The Wall formed a boundary of the Haram esh Sharaf area, holy to the Moslems within which was the Mosque of Aksar and the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock.
Certain rules were understood by Jews and Arabs alike and incidents arose when these rules were infringed upon, sometimes with deliberate intent to cause trouble. When Moslems wanted to remove weeds from' their' Wall, Jews protested and when Jews attempted to place seats or screens near the Wall, Moslems protested.

On 24th. September, 1928, The Day of Atonement, an unpleasant incident was avoided when Police were ordered to remove screens which had been placed against the Wall by Jews. The authorities were attacked in the Press for their actions which had almost certainly prevented an incident from occurring.


The Palestine Police eventually got caught between the Arabs and the people who wanted to create the state of Israel. After they were disbanded in 1948, many of them were shipped to various other colonies that were nearing independence – such as Malaysia and Kenya. In that way they had an influence on counter-insurgency operations and small wars.

William F. Owen
12-29-2008, 09:57 AM
In my view, the best thing a new Obama Administration could do it to dust off the Clinton Parameters, rename them, get them endorsed by the UNSC, and tell the parties "we can't make you negotiate or agree, but we can nail down the goalposts and make it clear what sort of agreement the international community expects from you eventually."

With the greatest respect Rex, this is same pie in the sky stuff that the Middle East Peace Industry always comes out with.

Everywhere Israel withdraws from creates new rocket bases for the Iranian backed extremists like Hezbollah and Hamas. That's an historical fact and a reality for the foreseeable future.

Making peace with the so-called "moderate" Palestinians is not a workable reality.

Sure you sign a piece of paper and withdraw from from 95% of the West Bank. Two week or three years later the first Grad-B slams into Petach Tikva, followed by 30 more every day, because the moderates have been over ruled and the extremists are back in the driving seat. 99% of Israel population is then within man-carried SSM range. That IS an Iranian plan, as much as some would like to deny it.

"Oh but you made peace with Egypt and Jordan" - so what? Israel still has to maintain a big army because one day the extremists will be in the driving seats in those countries as well, and they will have large US-equipped armies under their control. Egypt is especially suspect.

Now make no mistake, I loathe the idea of occupying the West Bank with passion, as do most Israelis (contrary to what the BBC would like you to believe), but the achievable peace is merely lulls in the fighting. The father of the last Israeli soldier to die in Gaza has not been born yet.

Put Gaza under UN-control? Well the UN is doing nothing/practically nothing to stop Hezbollah re-building it's military capabilities, so I don't see that one as a good idea either and the next attack by Hezbollah on Israel is merely a matter of time.

Rex Brynen
12-29-2008, 03:48 PM
With the greatest respect Rex, this is same pie in the sky stuff that the Middle East Peace Industry always comes out with.

Oh you would be surprised what a hard-bitten cynic I am, Wilf. Years of working on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does that to a person ;)

More to the point, what I've advocated is almost the exact opposite of what the MEPP industry has done—since Oslo, and again with the Road Map, and even with Annapolis, the international community has systematically failed to articulate a clear vision of what permanent status arrangements would look like. The only time it did so was for a brief few weeks in December 2000, with the Clinton Parameters—which were then pulled off the table by the Bush Administration in January 2001.

If you reread my post, you'll see that I'm not predicting that laying the ground rules and contours for eventual peace will make it happen any time soon. I am arguing that it makes it harder for the radicals on both sides to drag the conflict even further away from any future agreement.


Sure you sign a piece of paper and withdraw from from 95% of the West Bank. Two week or three years later the first Grad-B slams into Petach Tikva, followed by 30 more every day, because the moderates have been over ruled and the extremists are back in the driving seat. 99% of Israel population is then within man-carried SSM range. That IS an Iranian plan, as much as some would like to deny it.

Paradoxically, this is the Hamas critique of negotiations with Israel too:

"Sure you sign a piece of paper and agree to negotiate peace. Two week or three months later a settlement expands or a new settlement outpost is established, followed by more every week, because the moderates have been over ruled and the extremists are back in the driving seat. More Palestinian land is then increasingly de facto annexed by Israel. That IS a Zionist plan, as much as some would like to deny it."

Those two narratives are a mutual recipe for never-ending conflict.

I would neither suggest nor predict that Israel would withdraw from the Palestinian territories while there is no stable Palestinian government there able to maintain a secure environment—hence the need to bolster both the legitimacy and security capacity if peace is ever to be achieved. This won't happen soon.


Everywhere Israel withdraws from creates new rocket bases for the Iranian backed extremists like Hezbollah and Hamas. That's an historical fact and a reality for the foreseeable future.

Hamas isn't particularly an Iranian proxy, even if--for obvious reasons--it accepts Iranian aid.

Israel's ill-fated and ill-considered 1982 invasion of Lebanon gave rise to the birth of Hizbullah, which didn't exist before then. Sharon's decision to not effectively coordinate Gaza disengagement with the PA, coupled with PA/Fateh failings and equally ill-considered US policy, helped propel Hamas into power there. When Israel withdrew it knew from Gaza the way it did it knew full well this day could come—something that was made amply clear at the time to me and others working on implementation at the time.


Now make no mistake, I loathe the idea of occupying the West Bank with passion

I think on this we both agree. In addition to all of the things the Palestinian side needs to do, I think we would both agree that a real halt to freeze on Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank would be in the Israeli, as well as Palestinian interest.

William F. Owen
12-29-2008, 04:19 PM
If you reread my post, you'll see that I'm not predicting that laying the ground rules and contours for eventual peace will make it happen any time soon. I am arguing that it makes it harder for the radicals on both sides to drag the conflict even further away from any future agreement.

Well I may have misunderstood what you said and you may have to say it again, but make it clearer! :)


Paradoxically, this is the Hamas critique of negotiations with Israel too:

"Sure you sign a piece of paper and agree to negotiate peace. Two week or three months later a settlement expands or a new settlement outpost is established, followed by more every week, because the moderates have been over ruled and the extremists are back in the driving seat. More Palestinian land is then increasingly de facto annexed by Israel. That IS a Zionist plan, as much as some would like to deny it."

Very well aware, but the West Bank is not Gaza. They are and will become two separate nations. Negotiating them together harks back to the Arafat Pan-Palestine, stance of 1964, that is out of touch with political, historical and even ethnic reality.


Hamas isn't particularly an Iranian proxy, even if--for obvious reasons--it accepts Iranian aid.

Sure, but Iran wants Hamas to be an instrument of their foreign policy. Knowing the Iranians I'm sure they'll make it happen.


Israel's ill-fated and ill-considered 1982 invasion of Lebanon gave rise to the birth of Hizbullah, which didn't exist before then.
Ill-fated and ill-considered occupation of Southern Lebanon, I'll grant you.


I think on this we both agree. In addition to all of the things the Palestinian side needs to do, I think we would both agree that a real halt to freeze on Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank would be in the Israeli, as well as Palestinian interest.
Absolutely, but that's part of a West Bank solution, not a Gaza solution, or even an complete Israeli security solution.

Rex Brynen
12-29-2008, 06:13 PM
Former Israeli policy advisor/negotiator Daniel Levy, at his Prospects for Peace blog:

What next on Gaza/Israel and Why Americans Should Care (http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/2008/12/what_next_on_gazaisrael_and_wh.html)


For many people, what has happened today between Gaza and Israel may have all too familiar a ring to it – Israel warns and then retaliates to an alleged or real Palestinian escalation of violence, there is Arab condemnation and international exasperation, eventually things de-escalate but according to Israel’s timetable as the U.S. prevents effective early international mediation, and we’re back to where we started - with the addition of more blood and death (many innocent, some less so), more wounded and more shattered families.

Most of those involved, often including Israel, tend to regret things not coming to a halt sooner. The Israel Defense Forces with their modern weaponry try to pinpoint targets but invariably, predictably, and painfully there are plenty of “misses”; the Palestinians – well their weaponry is by definition more crude, they use what is available and the results are correspondingly messy and indiscriminate. Bottom line – Arabs and Jews are killing each other – so what’s new? And why on earth would America want to be involved?

Here’s the bad news folks – America is involved, up to its eyeballs actually. Today, after Israeli air-strikes that killed over 200 Palestinians in Gaza, the Middle East is again seething with rage. Recruiters to the most radical of causes are again cashing in....

Rex Brynen
12-29-2008, 07:21 PM
Interesting Israeli and Palestinian perspectives, as always, from bitterlemons.org:

War in Gaza (http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl291208ed46.html)
December 29, 2008
Edition 46


Limited strategic objectives by Yossi Alpher
Under the best of circumstances, this operation will not solve our Hamas problem.

War crimes in Gaza put PA in awkward place by Ghassan Khatib
The Israeli attack on Gaza is strengthening Hamas politically and increasing public support and sympathy for the movement.

Replaying the 2006 Lebanon War by Yisrael Harel
Israel's reticence to deploy ground forces will generate a very negative outcome.

An Israeli trap for Hamas by Mkhaimar Abusada
Military operations are like snowballs: the more momentum they gather the bigger they become.


A sample (more at the link above):


AN ISRAELI VIEW
Limited strategic objectives
by Yossi Alpher

Israel has opted to launch a major attack on Hamas in Gaza. The idea appears to be to use heavy military force, primarily from the air, but with a limited objective: to weaken Hamas to a point where it returns to a ceasefire on conditions congenial to Israel.
The opening conditions are favorable from Israel's standpoint: it achieved tactical surprise in launching a Sabbath attack while much of the world is busy with Christmas and New Year celebrations. The United States is supportive and is in any case between administrations; PM Ehud Olmert's recent visit to Turkey gave Syria an incentive not to meddle; Egypt shares Israel's frustration with Hamas and seemingly--through the vehicle of FM Tzipi Livni's meeting with President Hosni Mubarak on the eve of the attack--gave its blessing. The Israeli political scene, both (Zionist) left and right, is supportive, to the extent of setting aside the current election campaign.

Militarily, Israel ended up with little alternative but to respond to Hamas rocket attacks. Even the Egyptian mediators between Israel and Hamas agreed that the latter had unilaterally broken a ceasefire. Hamas seemed to believe it could fire rockets at Israeli civilians with impunity, while arming and fortifying Gaza and flouting Egypt's invitation to negotiate a unity government with the West Bank-based PLO.

Yet the difficult part for Israel is to attack, achieve something, then get out. Minister of Defense Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi are clearly not anxious to get drawn into ambiguous ground warfare that could multiply Israeli losses and lead to reoccupation of Gazan territory. Nor is the Israeli public or body politic interested in renewed, open-ended occupation of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza or even a portion thereof. On the other hand, the ghost of Israel's failed war against Hizballah in 2006 hovers over this operation: it must end by strengthening Israel's deterrent profile against the militant Islamists.

At the end of the day, however, the operation confirms the contention I have voiced in these virtual pages repeatedly over recent weeks and months: neither Israel nor anyone else has a long-term workable strategy for dealing with Hamas in Gaza....

Entropy
12-30-2008, 02:09 AM
The ONLY stratergy is survival. How is that failing? Having a state is the strategy. The strategy is not peace, at any price.

Survival against what, Hamas? Hezbollah? They have the means to destroy the Israeli state?

My point here is that the "survival" strategy succeeds in the short term but fails over the long term and will likely continue to fail.


When all Arabs recognise Israel within the 1948, and allow Jews to exist in peace, then there might be peace.

And here's some evidence Israel's strategy is failing. Over 25 years of punitive expeditions and the Arabs apparently still don't get it! How much longer is it going to take?


The legitimacy of Hezbollah, or Hamas is utterly irrelevant. It's their actions and beliefs. I'm sure the Taliban has a following in A'Stan.

Their legitimacy is completely relevant. That they are legitimate in the eyes of their populations means there will be no peace and Israeli actions, on the whole, serve to increase and not decrease that legitimacy. Considering Israel is unwilling or unable to decisively use its military power to impose its will, what exactly is the end state? Hope that Israel's enemies will tire of attrition and endless conflict? How is that success?

Rex Brynen
12-30-2008, 02:40 AM
Very well aware, but the West Bank is not Gaza. They are and will become two separate nations. Negotiating them together harks back to the Arafat Pan-Palestine, stance of 1964, that is out of touch with political, historical and even ethnic reality.

Certainly there are social differences, but the differences are not much greater than between, say, Ramallah and Hebron—and arguably much, much less than between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Ethnopolitically, they are all Palestinians. It is certainly true, however, that current political dynamics tend to reinforce, rather than weaken, the regional differences.

William F. Owen
12-30-2008, 07:04 AM
Their legitimacy is completely relevant. That they are legitimate in the eyes of their populations means there will be no peace and Israeli actions, on the whole, serve to increase and not decrease that legitimacy.

Their legitimacy is irrelevant to the only population that Israel cares about and that is their own. Israelis do not care what Arabs think for the most part. Do you really care what the Iranians or Sunni Insurgents think of the US? Do you care what the Taliban thinks?


Considering Israel is unwilling or unable to decisively use its military power to impose its will, what exactly is the end state? Hope that Israel's enemies will tire of attrition and endless conflict? How is that success?

The end state is still being here in another 100 years and then then another 100. Endless conflict? You might want to read Jewish history, and then ask that question again.

Existence, not Peace, is the prize. Do not apply Liberal US Caucasian values on folks from a completely different culture.

Success? Look at the progress Israel has made in 60 years, of being constantly attacked. I've seen incredible social and economic progress just in my life time. (I'm 45)

Rex Brynen
12-30-2008, 03:38 PM
Ha'aretz
17:19 30/12/2008

Defense establishment to recommend 48-hour truce with Hamas (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051234.html)

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent


The defense establishment on Tuesday said it would recommend that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seek out a diplomatic initiative to abate the war against Hamas and embark on a 48-hour truce, before it becomes necessary to begin a significant ground invasion of the Gaza Strip.

Senior defense officials believe that such a diplomatic process need not be a unilateral Israeli procedure, but should rather be based on an initiative originally proposed by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

The goal of the temporary calm would be to see if Hamas can abide by the truce and cease firing rockets at Israel.

The initiative is seen as a possibility to cease the operation before sending a massive Israel Defense Forces ground corp into the Gaza Strip.

Entropy
12-30-2008, 03:47 PM
Their legitimacy is irrelevant to the only population that Israel cares about and that is their own. Israelis do not care what Arabs think for the most part. Do you really care what the Iranians or Sunni Insurgents think of the US? Do you care what the Taliban thinks?

Yes I do because I realize there are limits to the military instrument and if I want to obtain my strategic objectives, I need to understand my enemy. Knowing what they "think" of the US in important in that regard. I find it quite amazing to hear you state you do not care what your enemy thinks, particularly given your frequently cogent comments on Clausewitz. How are you going to impose your will on your enemy if you're not willing to learn or understand what fountain that will flows from?


The end state is still being here in another 100 years and then then another 100. Endless conflict? You might want to read Jewish history, and then ask that question again.

Existence, not Peace, is the prize. Do not apply Liberal US Caucasian values on folks from a completely different culture.

For me this is not about values and I don't have a dog in this fight. A rational examination of the long-term existence of Israel is exactly what I'm talking about. My basic argument is that Israel's short-term actions make its long-term existence less likely, not more likely. Pretty much everyone understands Israel's lack of strategic depth. My argument is that "endless" conflict is a conflict Israel will lose. Time and the regional demographic realities are decidedly not on Israel's side.


Success? Look at the progress Israel has made in 60 years, of being constantly attacked. I've seen incredible social and economic progress just in my life time. (I'm 45)

Yes, it has made great progress, but sixty years is not very long. Israel's enemies are comparatively weak for now - will they be in another 60 years, another 160? To me, that's the question - the long-term survival of Israel - and It seems to me Israel's actions may be sowing the seeds of its future destruction.

I would be interested in any Clausewitzian analysis you have on Israel's current strategy. To me it doesn't make any sense. To me, Israel is misusing the military instrument.

Entropy
12-30-2008, 04:00 PM
BTW, I don't agree with the whole thing, but I think Rami Khouri makes some good points (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=98723):


Israel's use of its clear military superiority against Palestinians, Lebanese and other Arabs has consistently led to five parallel, linked and very predictable results:

1. Israeli power has momentarily shattered Palestinian and Arab military and civilian infrastructure, only to see the bludgeoned Arabs regroup and return a few years later -with much greater technical proficiency and political will to fight Israel. This happened when the Palestinians who were driven out of Jordan in 1970 eventually re-established more lethal bases in Lebanon; or when Israel destroyed Fatah's police facilities in the West Bank and Gaza a few years ago, they soon found themselves fighting Hamas' capabilities instead.

and


5. Israeli policies over decades have been a major - but not the only - reason for the transformation of the wider political environment in the Arab world into a hotbed of Islamism confronting more stringent Arab police states. The Islamists who politically dominate the Arab region - whether Shiite Hizbullah, or Sunni Hamas or anything else in between - are the only Arabs since the birth of Israel in 1948 who have proved both willing and able to fight back against Zionism.

All these trends can be seen in action during the current Israeli attack against Gaza: Palestinian and Arab radicalization, Islamist responses amid pan-Arab lassitude, the continued discrediting of President Mahmoud Abbas' government, and regional populist agitation against Israel, its US protector, and most Arab governments. None of this is new - which is precisely why it is so significant today, as Israel's war on Gaza paves the way for a repetition of the five trends above that have plagued Israelis and Arabs alike.


Read the whole thing.

William F. Owen
12-30-2008, 04:45 PM
Yes, it has made great progress, but sixty years is not very long. Israel's enemies are comparatively weak for now - will they be in another 60 years, another 160? To me, that's the question - the long-term survival of Israel - and It seems to me Israel's actions may be sowing the seeds of its future destruction.

I would be interested in any Clausewitzian analysis you have on Israel's current strategy. To me it doesn't make any sense. To me, Israel is misusing the military instrument.

60 years is no time at all, especially in Jewish history and Israel has been over run and destroyed a couple of times in recorded history... and keeps coming back! :D

Clausewitz wrote on War, not strategy, and I am not a strategist. I think Clausewitz would be doing what the IDF are doing now. I can make better sense of what the IDF do, than I can the US and NATO in A'Stan.

...but what do you suggest? Everyone assumes it's up to Israel to make peace, with people who do not want peace. All Israel's enemies want is Israel's destruction.

Rex Brynen
12-30-2008, 06:43 PM
...but what do you suggest? Everyone assumes it's up to Israel to make peace, with people who do not want peace. All Israel's enemies want is Israel's destruction.

I think that if one looks at what happened during the Oslo era of negotiations (1993-2001) there's plenty of blame to go around for all sides.

There are clearly Palestinians who want to destroy Israel (including most of the Hamas leadership). There are clearly Israelis who would permanently retain control of most or all of the Palestinian territories and deny the Palestinians meaningful self-determinations (including most of the current Israeli opposition parties).

There are also a great many Palestinians and Israelis—a majority by most polls (http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/index.html)—that whatever their dislike for the other or historical grievances, would be willing to live in peace with each other on the basis of a stable, negotiated two-state solution. They don't have to love each other for there to be peace and security, just an appropriate balance of interests.

The policy challenges that arise from all this are multifold:

1) How do we strengthen the moderates and undermine the hardliners (on both sides)?

2) How do we build Palestinian capacity and will to assure that any future agreement will endure?

3) How do we deal with the current challenges of violence and terrorism, without undercutting longer-term objectives #1 and #2? The current Gaza operation makes this an immediate priority.

4) While the focus is on military violence, how do we not lose sight of the structural violence of occupation, land confiscations, and illegal settlement construction? I don't think that firing rockets from Gaza at Sderot is an effective or acceptable way of stopping this. However, I'm not the least bit surprised that some people do. If Iran started annexing part of Texas, I'm sure there would be a few Texans taking potshots at them too.

Finally, having said all that, perhaps I can refocus all of this a little on the question of the next few weeks. How is the current violence likely to play out? Is there a clear war termination strategy (and, for that matter, clear war goals) on the Israeli side? What are Hamas' options? How can humanitarian suffering be alleviated (malnutrition rates already rivaled those in Africa before the fighting started)? Where does all this leave Fateh?

Update on my earlier post above--IDF sources are now denying that they recommended a 48 hour truce (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051234.html).

William F. Owen
12-31-2008, 07:43 AM
I think that if one looks at what happened during the Oslo era of negotiations (1993-2001) there's plenty of blame to go around for all sides.

Not denying it. There are Jewish groups here I loathe as much as Hamas and Hezbollah, and Jews who would kill Jews to prevent peace.

But fact is that Israel has made peace with Arabs such as Jordan, Egypt, and Qatar.


There are also a great many Palestinians and Israelis—a majority by most polls (http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/index.html)—that whatever their dislike for the other or historical grievances, would be willing to live in peace with each other on the basis of a stable, negotiated two-state solution.

...and that has been true since 1948. It was true in 1929, when the Arab Governments started rejecting all and any plans for peace.


If Iran started annexing part of Texas, I'm sure there would be a few Texans taking potshots at them too.

I concur. However it is not a "few" Texans. It is the official and supported policy of the Government of Gaza. Those rockets fly because Hamas wants them to, and they have 1,200 approx. trained and salaried men dedicated to doing it.

AmericanPride
12-31-2008, 11:08 PM
Wilf,

Why do you believe that the Palestinians do not and never will want peace?

Why did you label "survival" as a strategy, and not an end for strategy?

A historical side-note: you stated that an Egyptian nationalist had supported Hitler. So did Gandhi -- less for the Nazi military and Jewish policy, and more for Germany's war against Imperial Britain. I think Arab animosity should be read in the light of the colonialism narrative rather than in some unending ethnic hatred of Jews. The differences in ethnicity and religion, IMO, only serve to intensify the underlying conflict inherited from colonialism.

Ken White
01-01-2009, 12:03 AM
...The differences in ethnicity and religion, IMO, only serve to intensify the underlying conflict inherited from colonialism.you will find that the evils of colonialism get far more play in European hearth academia than they do in the streets of the ME (liberal guilt is a terrible thing to behold... ;) ).

Residents of former colonial areas pay it lip service when it suits to reinforce their position politically or at the bargaining table but in casual conversation or even intense interchanges, drunk or sober (a surprising number drink theoretically forbidden alcohol) it is a non-issue to most.

AmericanPride
01-01-2009, 12:08 AM
Residents of former colonial areas pay it lip service when it suits to reinforce their position politically or at the bargaining table but in casual conversation or even intense interchanges, drunk or sober (a surprising number drink theoretically forbidden alcohol) it is a non-issue to most.

I should have been more clear: I think the consequences of colonialism have shaped the various ME conflicts, and in many ways have contributed to their causes; though I agree with you that anti-colonialism is not at the top of anyone's agenda.

Ken White
01-01-2009, 12:53 AM
boundaries drawn by the former colonial overseers and their problematic locations. The fact that the NKVD, the MVD and the KGB put in a lot of effort from the old Agitprop days of the 1920s until the breakup of the USSR stirring up trouble along those fault lines has not helped -- nor has the fact that today's FSB is quietly fanning the flames along them been a big asset... :wry:

The actions of all those Chekists in tilting education, particularly in the west, over the years has also had its effect as natives of the Region pursued higher education and were exposed to anti-colonial rants and has helped keep a few of them convinced nothing wrong is their fault.

Entropy
01-01-2009, 03:15 AM
...but what do you suggest? Everyone assumes it's up to Israel to make peace, with people who do not want peace. All Israel's enemies want is Israel's destruction.

What Rex said is a good starting point. What I would suggest is as a general strategy is to consider the effects of your actions and avoid those that are likely to strengthen the radical Islamist elements and marginalize the moderate elements you can deal with. That will probably mean there will be times when not responding militarily to provocation will be necessary. It's also going to require a little more forethought before military action is undertaken with particular attention to achievable ends. This latest operation, so far, seems a good example mismatching means to ends. The goals are (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3646673,00.html):


Dealing Hamas a forceful blow, fundamentally changing the situation in Gaza, and bringing the rocket attacks against Israeli citizens to a complete halt.

Pretty vague except the last one. Even the press is commenting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081230/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians) on this:


Beyond delivering Hamas a deep blow and protecting border communities, the assault's broader objectives remained cloudy. Israeli President Shimon Peres acknowledged the challenge, saying the operation was unavoidable but more difficult than many people anticipated.

Unavoidable? More difficult than anticipated? What have Israeli decisionmakers been drinking - I want some.

And there's more (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051210.html):


Operation Cast Lead is entering the problematic phase of any war: The first, surprise strike is over, the operational successes are less impressive, and the enemy is beginning to rally. Israel would want to continue hurting Hamas, but the goals readied before the operation are running out and the magical aerial solutions that do not involve loss of soldiers are coming to an end.

This is the stage when the government must decide whether to send ground troops into the Gaza Strip and begin face-to-face combat with Hamas or make do with threats, seek a cease-fire that will bear the imprint of the bombardments of the first days and announce that the goal had been attained and threaten that if rocket-fire from Gaza continues the next strike will be more painful.

This is worth reading too (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733120327&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

Israel's credibility is on the line again. It began an operation with lofty goals and subsequently found that meeting those goals is probably going to cost more that it's willing to pay. Even if Israel bloodies Hamas, it's all downside if it can't stop the rocket attacks - which so far, it can't. Not only will it have failed in its once clear objective, but Hamas will be strengthened politically and Fateh, Egypt (who's paying a big price as it is) and anyone who's not an Islamist is weakened. Syria, who's been interested in striking a deal with the US and Israel for a while now, isn't so interested anymore. What benefit is any of this to Israel? I can't see any benefit at all.

jmm99
01-01-2009, 04:53 AM
From Ha'aretz here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051682.html).


Last update - 05:12 01/01/2009
IDF recommends major, but brief Gaza ground offensive
By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents and News Agencies
....
The Israel Defense Forces recommended a major, but relatively short-term, ground offensive in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, as military preparations continued on the border. The army was given the green light to forge ahead with Operation Cast Lead, which enters its sixth day Thursday. ...

Wilf - Is there anything in Gaza that could even slow down Israeli armor ? I assume we are not dealing with anything remotely close to Hez in Leb.

William F. Owen
01-01-2009, 05:58 AM
From Ha'aretz here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051682.html).



Wilf - Is there anything in Gaza that could even slow down Israeli armor ? I assume we are not dealing with anything remotely close to Hez in Leb.

Yes. They have some AT-3 Saggers which they had used during the cease fire, at least twice, plus they have suicide bombers and RPGs.



Israel's credibility is on the line again. It began an operation with lofty goals and subsequently found that meeting those goals is probably going to cost more that it's willing to pay. Even if Israel bloodies Hamas, it's all downside if it can't stop the rocket attacks - which so far, it can't. Not only will it have failed in its once clear objective, but Hamas will be strengthened politically and Fateh, Egypt (who's paying a big price as it is) and anyone who's not an Islamist is weakened. Syria, who's been interested in striking a deal with the US and Israel for a while now, isn't so interested anymore. What benefit is any of this to Israel? I can't see any benefit at all.

Credibility on the line? Credibility with who? A member of the US Armed Forces? The International community? Israelis care very little about either. Frankly an American lecturing Israel about military affairs or international strategy would be considered grotesque in the extreme.

Sorry Entropy, but you are looking at this whole thing like an American or European. If you struggle to understand Arabs, you'll never understand their closest psychological cousins, the Israelis.

You are snap shooting what you are seeing on TV as something that started 5-10 days ago. It did not. It goes back to well before 2006. The result may not be even remotely clear for another 5-10 years, and the success marker/ benefit is the continued existence of the state of Israel within the 1948 cease fire line. What other success is there?

...and if you really think Syria is interested in a deal, you have very different tea leaves to the ones I read, and if they really want a deal, there will be pause for appearance and then back to business as normal.


Wilf,
Why do you believe that the Palestinians do not and never will want peace?
The average Palestinian, working for my parents in law, wants peace. He just wants what most normal folks want. I see Palestinians everyday, an they are mostly decent folk.

However, there is a very large body of Palestinian "opinion formers," who are deeply committed to the destruction of Israel and see it as their only form of personal/social credibility. Mix in Iran and their proxy's and it's an impossible mix. I am very committed to a two/three state solution, but it will not bring peace. It just re-shapes the problem into an different form.


Why did you label "survival" as a strategy, and not an end for strategy?
How long have you got. When has anyone ever let Jews be, and left them alone to live in peace. Getting the state was one thing. Keeping the state is everything.


A historical side-note: you stated that an Egyptian nationalist had supported Hitler. So did Gandhi -- less for the Nazi military and Jewish policy, and more for Germany's war against Imperial Britain. I think Arab animosity should be read in the light of the colonialism narrative rather than in some unending ethnic hatred of Jews. The differences in ethnicity and religion, IMO, only serve to intensify the underlying conflict inherited from colonialism.

... except the Arabs do have an unending hatred of Jews. Yes, they call Jews "people of the book," but they hate Jews for the reasons Christians do. Look at the Hebron Massacres of 1929, where they butchered Jews who had lived there since records began. Very few Arab nations have not conducted wide spread extra-judicial killings of Jews, in much the same way as Americans used to lynch Afro-americans. I met a Moroccan the other day who lost 50 members of his family during the 1948 and 1956 anti-Jewish riots.

To add to all this, Hitler is a figure widely revered in extremist Arab organisations. Look at Hezbollah's salute!

AmericanPride
01-01-2009, 08:30 AM
However, there is a very large body of Palestinian "opinion formers," who are deeply committed to the destruction of Israel and see it as their only form of personal/social credibility. Mix in Iran and their proxy's and it's an impossible mix. I am very committed to a two/three state solution, but it will not bring peace. It just re-shapes the problem into an different form.

How does Israel go about "[reshaping] the problem" so that the "very large body of Palestinian opinion formers" have something other than the destruction of Israel to demonstrate/illustrate their credibility?

William F. Owen
01-01-2009, 09:09 AM
How does Israel go about "[reshaping] the problem" so that the "very large body of Palestinian opinion formers" have something other than the destruction of Israel to demonstrate/illustrate their credibility?

By making the destruction of Israel less and less likely/plausible and thus denying them credibility. It may take generations. How you really convince a very large group of people that Jews should be able to have a peaceful state in the Middle-East I don't really know, and the vast majority of Israelis don't care what these people think anyway.

tranquill
01-01-2009, 01:27 PM
Israeli dissident analytic writes that IDF op in Gaza is already stuck, Israelis are bogged down, and basically that's the end of the war: http://samsonblinded.org/news/israeli-attack-on-gaza-loses-momentum-5424

William F. Owen
01-01-2009, 02:17 PM
Israeli dissident analytic writes that IDF op in Gaza is already stuck, Israelis are bogged down, and basically that's the end of the war: http://samsonblinded.org/news/israeli-attack-on-gaza-loses-momentum-5424

...errr from Samson Blinded? Ask Rex about those guys.
Try a reputable Israeli source like Ynet or Ha'Aretz (Haaretz)

Rex Brynen
01-01-2009, 02:22 PM
...errr from Samson Blinded? Ask Rex about those guys.
Try a reputable Israeli source like Ynet or Ha'Aretz (Haaretz)

You beat me to it, Wilf!

Entropy
01-01-2009, 03:29 PM
Credibility on the line? Credibility with who? A member of the US Armed Forces? The International community? Israelis care very little about either. Frankly an American lecturing Israel about military affairs or international strategy would be considered grotesque in the extreme.

Sorry Entropy, but you are looking at this whole thing like an American or European. If you struggle to understand Arabs, you'll never understand their closest psychological cousins, the Israelis.

You are snap shooting what you are seeing on TV as something that started 5-10 days ago. It did not. It goes back to well before 2006. The result may not be even remotely clear for another 5-10 years, and the success marker/ benefit is the continued existence of the state of Israel within the 1948 cease fire line. What other success is there?

...and if you really think Syria is interested in a deal, you have very different tea leaves to the ones I read, and if they really want a deal, there will be pause for appearance and then back to business as normal.

The "credibility" I'm talking about is the ability for Israel to do what it says it will do - especially militarily. This "credibility" deters enemies but more importantly than that, promotes the welfare of your people. The real credibility is in the eyes of Israelis. If you don't think the credibility of meeting one's own military objectives is important, then I don't know what to tell you.

I'm not so dumb as to be completely ignorant of the fact that there is more than one way to destroy a state, not least Israel. The focus is always on the external threats, but for Israel those aren't what they used to be. More dangerous is the demographic threat I alluded to earlier - not only disparities in birth rates, but the threat of key Israeli demographics throwing in the towel and emigrating. There are already some indications this might be taking place. What do you think will happen when the Israeli military can't keep its security promises? You seem to believe Israeli's, on the whole, are prepared for the kind of endless survival conflict you apparently believe is inevitable. We shall see.

Additionally, credibility with the rest of the world isn't immaterial. Israel needs allies.

Finally, please explain how it's "grotesque" to question the design and purpose of this latest Gaza operation? What about all the threads on 2006 - would they be considered "grotesque in the extreme?" Last I checked, the Gaza operation would be considered a legitimate topic here. And it's not even me - your own press are asking the same questions about the vague varying goals of this operation and your own leadership's public statements are completely inconsistent.

Wilf, you should not mistake me for an Arabist or one who wishes Israel ill, wants an end to US support, etc. I don't have a dog in this fight. But I'm an analyst by nature and by trade. Stating "existence of the Israeli state" as a self-evident justification for virtually any strategic, operational or tactical decision Israel makes, which is what most of your responses boil down to, is not particularly enlightening. Neither is the subtext of "you're not Israeli therefore you don't understand" which also permeates your responses. To me, this comes across as a big paternalistic STFU, not to mention defensive. Message received. I'm interested in debate, but not this kind of debate.

Happy New Year. I, for one, hope Israel and the Jewish people are able to find some peace this year.

davidbfpo
01-01-2009, 07:16 PM
This website can be subscribed too, or visited and they are issuing regular bulletins on IDF action: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/home/default.asp and this is the latest newsletter: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e022.htm

The website is not an official government site, but clearly is well connected. Makes an interesting read and subject matter can be wider than the normal MSN.

davidbfpo

Rex Brynen
01-02-2009, 03:57 AM
Haaretz, 02/01/2009

ANALYSIS / IDF is sending Hamas a message: now it's personal (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052051.html)

By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent



...

Almost a week into the war it now seems clear that Israel missed a golden opportunity in the first or second day to end the operation as a reprisal action only. The government says it is giving the IDF a chance to achieve the maximum, but in reality the air strikes were to have given the government time to come up with an exit strategy. That did not happen. As a result, Hamas is rallying somewhat while Israel is sliding toward a a ground operation that holds many risks.

The battle is being conducted in the shadow of a looming, election-eve political crisis, with tensions especially high between Livni and Labor Party chairman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The latter gained points early in the operation but in the past two days his mood seems to have soured, following media criticism after it was leaked that he was willing to consider a cease-fire before a ground offensive.

William F. Owen
01-02-2009, 07:37 AM
The real credibility is in the eyes of Israelis. If you don't think the credibility of meeting one's own military objectives is important, then I don't know what to tell you.

Concur, and right now th IDF is credible. I was having dinner with a woman from the extreme left the other night, and even she is behind the Gaza operation. - and my wife is far left wing, and see's no other way.


More dangerous is the demographic threat I alluded to earlier - not only disparities in birth rates, but the threat of key Israeli demographics throwing in the towel and emigrating. There are already some indications this might be taking place. What do you think will happen when the Israeli military can't keep its security promises?

Within the state, (not the occupied territories) there are about 1 million Arabs living amongst 5.5-6 million Jews. No demographic threat there. The Haredi are breeding like rabbits - and as some don't pull their weight, that could be a problem. There are about 750,000 Israeli passport holders living or working outside Israel at anyone time. Israel's population is growing, not declining - at least according to my sources. We got 7,000 French folk, in just last 2 years.


Finally, please explain how it's "grotesque" to question the design and purpose of this latest Gaza operation? What about all the threads on 2006 - would they be considered "grotesque in the extreme?"
The Grotesque (and I apologise for the use of that word) aspect is what I took to be the implied suggestion that Israeli strategic thinking is somehow inferior to US. It clearly isn't.


I don't have a dog in this fight. - and nor do 90% of the people criticising Israel, especially when they take selective and vastly hypocritical positions on Israeli military action, but I accept your point.


But I'm an analyst by nature and by trade. Stating "existence of the Israeli state" as a self-evident justification for virtually any strategic, operational or tactical decision Israel makes, which is what most of your responses boil down to, is not particularly enlightening.
Well, then forgive me, because I'm not sure I can explain it any more simply. Having a nation and keeping it, is what the conflict is about. It's about land, people and nation. It's not a "4GW" war of ideas. It never has been.


I'm interested in debate, but not this kind of debate. Apologise for that, but I have dogs in this fight. I am prone, as are you all, to Clausewitz's trinity of enmity, hatred and violence. As Rex will tell you, I normally stay away from discussions on Israel on these boards, but sometimes, you got to jump in. - and enough Israelis read this board and know who I am so rude not to!


Happy New Year. I, for one, hope Israel and the Jewish people are able to find some peace this year. They won't, but thanks, and DASH! - back at you in Hebrew. I would add, as I'm sure you would that the Palestinians also get some light at the end of tunnel. The problem is that Hamas switched that light off.

Jedburgh
01-02-2009, 01:59 PM
SSI, 23 Dec 08: Hamas and Israel: Conflicting Strategies of Group-Based Politics (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB894.pdf)

This monograph considers the changing fortunes of the Palestinian movement, HAMAS, and the recent outcomes of Israeli strategies aimed against this group and Palestinian nationalism external to the Fatah faction of the Palestinian Authority. The example of HAMAS challenges much of the current wisdom on “insurgencies” and their containment.

As the author, Dr. Sherifa Zuhur, demonstrates, efforts have been made to separate HAMAS from its popular support and network of social and charitable organizations. These have not been effective in destroying the organization, nor in eradicating the will to resist among a fairly large segment of the Palestinian population.

It is important to consider this Islamist movement in the context of a region-wide phenomenon of similar movements with local goals, which can be persuaded to relinquish violence, or which could move in the opposite direction, becoming more violent. Certainly an orientation to HAMAS and its base must be factored into new and more practical and effective approaches to peacemaking.

At the same time, HAMAS offers a fascinating instance of the dynamics of strategic reactions, and the modification of Israeli impulses towards aggressive deterrence, as well as evolution in the Islamist movements’ planning and operations. As well, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict bears similarities to a long-standing civil conflict, even as it has sparked inter-Palestinian hostilities in its most recent phase.

The need for informed and critical discussion of the future of Islamism in the region continues today. We offer this monograph to those who wish to consider this particular aspect of the Palestinian-Israeli-Arab conflict.
Complete 107-page paper at the link.

Entropy
01-02-2009, 04:21 PM
It's been seen before of course, but this Danger Room piece on cell phone use (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/israel-calls-th.html) and text message is pretty interesting:


Nobody likes getting cell phone messages from strange callers. Especially not when the callers say they're about to level your house.

But residents of Gaza say those are exactly the kind of messages they're getting from the Israel Defense Forces.

According to Ha'Aretz, "Palestinians reported that in some cases, the caller leaves a message on their voice mail warning that the IDF will bomb any house where weapons are rockets are found and the owners of the houses will be the ones to suffer the consequences."

jmm99
01-03-2009, 08:52 PM
Two articles from Ha'Aretz, here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052299.html) and here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052316.html).


Last update - 22:24 03/01/2009
Israel launches ground operation in Gaza Strip
By Amos Harel, Yoav Stern and Yanir Yagana, Haaretz Correspondents, and News Agencies

Israel entered the second week of its offensive against rockets from Hamas-ruled Gaza on Saturday evening by launching a much-expected ground operation into the coastal strip.

Shortly after the ground operation began, a heavy exchange of fire was reported between Israeli troops and Hamas militants inside the Gaza Strip.

"The objective is to destroy the Hamas terror infrastructure in the area of operations," said Israel Defense Forces Major Avital Leibovitch, a military spokeswoman, confirming that incursions were under way. "We are going to take some of the launch areas used by Hamas." .....

and


Last update - 22:23 03/01/2009
Barak: Gaza invasion won't be short, and it won't be easy
By Haaretz Service

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Saturday that Israel's campaign against
Islamic Hamas militants in Gaza will not be short, nor will it be easy.
....
Addressing the nation in a special televised press conference following the launch of the ground invasion, Barak said that Israel was not eager to wage war, but could not abandon its citizens, residents of the south, who have been victimized by Hamas rockets.

"The campaign won't be easy and it won't be short," he said, emphasizing that the operation entails the risking of Israeli lives. "I know well the dangers that come with an offensive, and what the heavy price will be."

"I don't want to fool anyone. The residents of southern Israel will also undergo some tough times," Barak continued.

The defense minister also addressed the possibility of an escalation in violence in northern Israel, along the border with Lebanon. "We hope that the northern front will remain calm, but we are prepared for any possibility," he said.

davidoff
01-03-2009, 11:05 PM
I have been watching some of the newscasts from english.aljazeera.net because of the live coverage and their dedicated coverage. While they do focus on the palestinian side they also have interviewed Israeli(civilian and military) sources as well as airing any Israeli press conferences. Any comments out there as to their credibility or suggestions of other news sites to supplement my understanding?

Rex Brynen
01-03-2009, 11:18 PM
I have been watching some of the newscasts from english.aljazeera.net because of the live coverage and their dedicated coverage. While they do focus on the palestinian side they also have interviewed Israeli(civilian and military) sources as well as airing any Israeli press conferences. Any comments out there as to their credibility or suggestions of other news sites to supplement my understanding?

al-Jazeera English is considerably more balanced than its Arabic broadcasts are at the moment, although it still is sympathetic to the Palestinian side.

Among English-language Israeli sources, try Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/) (center-left, and an excellent source), the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/) (center-ish), and YNet (http://www.ynetnews.com) (center-populist).

Useful English-language Palestinian sources are the Maan News Agency (http://www.maannews.net/en/) and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (http://www.pchrgaza.org/).

On humanitarian conditions, try the OCHA ReliefWeb website for the occupied Palestinian territory (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/dbc.nsf/doc108?OpenForm&emid=ACOS-635PFR&rc=3).

davidoff
01-04-2009, 10:54 AM
For the links. Is it me or is there a noticeable lack of people talking about the situation in Gaza on small wars?

davidbfpo
01-04-2009, 01:08 PM
Davidoff,

Yes, you are right there is little comment and I would suggest that many of the issues around the context of this conflict can be found on the earlier thread on the action against Hezbollah. Secondly the more military / tactical details are similar and may not be available from open sources.

I digress now to other points.

Secondly the timing of the decisions - by both sides - to use violence coincided with the Xmas and New Year holiday. Many politicians and government officials here (UK) have been on an extended break and return tomorrow (5th Jan). MSM also has a lower staffing ration and as others have commented many analysts too have been away. Here some odd people have appeared to comment, for e.g. Sky News.

So fewer watchers? Yes, with a potentially bigger public audience, although at such a time of goodwill I suspect quite a lot of turning off the news.

The public protests here have attracted tens of thousands, not more. Estimates vary for the national demo in London yesterday (from 12k by police to 60K plus from organisers). Little sign of massive mobilisation, although anecdote suggests large donations to Palestinian supporting charities.

davidbfpo

Jedburgh
01-05-2009, 05:02 PM
BESA Center, 4 Jan 09: Has the IDF Earned the Support of the Israeli Public? An Interim Assessment of the IDF's Performance in Operation Cast Lead (http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/docs/perspectives54.pdf)

The current Gaza operation offers the IDF an opportunity to repair at least some of the damage caused to the image and reputation of the Force by its less-than-stellar performance during the Second Lebanon War. Here is an interim, and mixed, assessment of the IDF's performance thus far in three spheres: (a) public communications; (b) treatment of reservists; and (c) performance of the Rear Command.
Complete 5-page paper at the link.

ICG, 5 Jan 09: Ending the War in Gaza (http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/arab_israeli_conflict/b26_ending_the_war_in_gaza.pdf)

.....A massive intervention that in effect topples Hamas is looking increasingly possible. But who will take over on the back of Israel’s occupation? How could a then discredited PA assume power? Even crushing military victory ultimately might not be that much, or that lasting, of a political win.

Fighting that began as a tug-of-war over terms of a new ceasefire has become a battle over terms of deterrence and the balance of power – with no easy way out. Israel in principle wants a ceasefire, but only after it brings Hamas to its knees, strips it of long-range capabilities and dispels any illusion of a fight among equals in which rocket fire has the same deterrent effect as airforce raids, all of which could take a long time. Hamas, too, has an interest in a ceasefire, but only in return for opening the crossings. In the meantime, it sees every day of conflict as testimony to its resistance credentials. Both inexorably will see more benefit in persevering with violent confrontation than in appearing to give in.....
Complete 28-page paper at the link.

Rex Brynen
01-06-2009, 02:36 AM
Haaretz - 04:01 06/01/2009

ANALYSIS / The price of stubbornness over Gaza exit is dead soldiers (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053121.html)

By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents


Since the beginning of Cast Lead, most of the cabinet and the army have praised themselves for their thorough application of the Winograd recommendations from the Second Lebanon War. But the Winograd Committee's criticism of the poor coordination between military action and diplomatic achievements seems relevant in this round as well. Most of the military at the operational level is pushing for continuing the operation deep within Hamas territory. That is exactly what is expected of them.

In contrast, Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi was very cautious in presenting the risks and opportunities in Friday afternoon's cabinet meeting. Ashkenazi is likely to be satisfied with a quick end to the ground operation, in the coming days. However with the defense minister and the foreign minister both beginning their days trying to figure out how to thwart the success of the other, and the (outgoing) prime minister toying with the idea of smashing Hamas, it's little wonder that a diplomatic solution is still far off.

Also:

Haaretz, 04:37 06/01/2009

ANALYSIS / Israel is on its way to reoccupying all of Gaza (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053122.html)

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent



The way events played out yesterday did not stir the political leadership into thinking of stopping the ground offensive and moving toward a cease-fire. On the contrary, Israel is moving toward a decision to occupy the whole Gaza Strip.

The message yesterday from Jerusalem was that it is impossible to end Operation Cast Lead without an achievement, and if in the next two days there is no satisfactory diplomatic solution, Israel will have to broaden the operation.

"Broadening the operation" could mean moving from house to house as in Operating Defensive Shield in 2002 in the West Bank, aiming to kill or capture as many Hamas fighters as possible. Or it could mean surrounding Gaza City, similar to the way the Egyptian Third Army was cut off in 1973, or like the siege of Beirut in 1982, until Hamas? leaders emerge from their hideouts with their hands up. This could take several weeks.

...

Israel is in a bind. If it pulls out now from Gaza, it will appear to have cut and run at the first sign of trouble in battling Hamas. And if it goes on to a full occupation of the Strip, it may pay a heavy economic and political price without achieving its political goals.

Ron Humphrey
01-06-2009, 04:15 AM
Or it could mean surrounding Gaza City, similar to the way the Egyptian Third Army was cut off in 1973, or like the siege of Beirut in 1982, until Hamas? leaders emerge from their hideouts with their hands up. This could take several weeks.

Whats the likelihood of any international presence in order to replace them thus allowing them to stand down?

You know hey we don't want to be here but these #@#$@'s keep using southern Israel for target practice and mommas getting a little pissed off so whats a guy to do?

Somehow one wishes it were only that simple:(

Why does it seem like thats the only part of the world where it apparently doesn't seem like a bad idea to keep throwing pebbles at your next door neighbors windows when he's a gun collector and a professional hunter to boot???

I don't think I'll ever understand it

Rex Brynen
01-06-2009, 05:00 AM
Whats the likelihood of any international presence in order to replace them thus allowing them to stand down?


Its worth remembering that the IDF couldn't prevent the initial growth of Hamas in 1987-94 when they were in full and complete control of Gaza, nor in 1995-2005 when they still occupied large parts of the Strip.

I get worried when policymakers start throwing around the idea of an "international presence" without any sense as to whether the mandate and mission are actually feasible.

Ken White
01-06-2009, 05:49 AM
throwing around the idea of an "international presence" without any sense as to whether the mandate and mission are actually feasible, however, though not a gambler, I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money on that being a non-viable mission... :wry:

William F. Owen
01-06-2009, 07:09 AM
The message yesterday from Jerusalem was that it is impossible to end Operation Cast Lead without an achievement, and if in the next two days there is no satisfactory diplomatic solution, Israel will have to broaden the operation.

The actual objective (as opposed to stated) for IDF military action is essentially to force the International Community to combat Hamas by making them monitor the strip, or to commit to action to tackle Hamas as an armed Force.

If there is a ceasefire based on that, and the EU or UN then fails to make it happen, then this falls into line with Israeli opinion that neither the EU or the UN can be trusted and you have to go again.



I get worried when policymakers start throwing around the idea of an "international presence" without any sense as to whether the mandate and mission are actually feasible.

Concur. Obviously the ability to use "armed force" to stop the rockets would be a must. That means an EU or UN occupation of Gaza until Hamas rejects violence.

Rex Brynen
01-06-2009, 11:43 AM
Concur. Obviously the ability to use "armed force" to stop the rockets would be a must. That means an EU or UN occupation of Gaza until Hamas rejects violence.

This would widely be seen in Gaza—and not just by Hamas supporters—as UN or EU occupation. While public opinion polls show that a majority of Gazans supported continuation of the ceasefire (and support a negotiated two-state solution to the broader conflict), they also show a large majority support the right of Palestinians to engage in armed resistance so long as Israel continues to occupy Palestinian territories. (This is to be expected—it is hard to imagine any population under foreign military occupation with different views.)

A robust international presence could work if it were combined by equally robust international diplomatic action to bring an end to all Israeli settlement activity. Otherwise it could end up doing substantial longer-term harm to Western interests in the region, with the international force seen as an Israeli enforcer.

More likely we'll end up with something like the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (http://www.tiph.org/)—largely useless, other than as a fig-leaf that allowed parties to climb down from their initial positions.

Tom has done the "international observer" part in both Lebanon and the Sinai ends as part of UNTSO (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/untso/), so he may have some views on this.

William F. Owen
01-06-2009, 12:28 PM
This would widely be seen in Gaza—and not just by Hamas supporters—as UN or EU occupation. While public opinion polls show that a majority of Gazans supported continuation of the ceasefire (and support a negotiated two-state solution to the broader conflict), they also show a large majority support the right of Palestinians to engage in armed resistance so long as Israel continues to occupy Palestinian territories. (This is to be expected—it is hard to imagine any population under foreign military occupation with different views.)

So linking Gaza to the West Bank, again, for no useful purpose. No rockets coming out of the West bank (yet).


A robust international presence could work if it were combined by equally robust international diplomatic action to bring an end to all Israeli settlement activity. Otherwise it could end up doing substantial longer-term harm to Western interests in the region, with the international force seen as an Israeli enforcer.

I for one, am utterly disgusted by the acts of the illegal (mostly ultra-orthodox "new comers") settlers in the West Bank. How is the theft of an olive grove near Tul Karem, a block to peace in Gaza, with a Terrorist group bent on the destruction of Israel? To link the two defies good judgement and plays in Hamas's hands.


More likely we'll end up with something like the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (http://www.tiph.org/)—largely useless, other than as a fig-leaf that allowed parties to climb down from their initial positions.


...and two weeks later, Hamas renews it's rocket attacks, and it all has to be done again, at even greater cost.

Rex Brynen
01-06-2009, 01:03 PM
So linking Gaza to the West Bank, again, for no useful purpose. No rockets coming out of the West bank (yet).

Much as some might want to delink them, Palestinians still see them both as Palestine.


I for one, am utterly disgusted by the acts of the illegal (mostly ultra-orthodox "new comers") settlers in the West Bank. How is the theft of an olive grove near Tul Karem, a block to peace in Gaza, with a Terrorist group bent on the destruction of Israel? To link the two defies good judgement and plays in Hamas's hands.

There are over 282,000 settlers currently living the in occupied Palestinian territory, and at any given time almost one-third of the West Bank is off-limits to most Palestinians. From a Palestinian point of view, settlement activity is an existential threat too, threatening to permanently prevent them from ever enjoying self-determination in an independent state. Indeed, I think it could well be argued that West Bank settlements are more likely to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state than Gaza rockets are to destroy the Israeli one.

Arguing that you should disarm while a foreign power is gobbling up your territory isn't likely to sell any better in Gaza than it would anywhere else in the world.

Let me be clear on the rocket fire coming out of Gaza: it is criminal and stupid in equal measures. I'm not the slightest bit surprised that Israel has shifted to a strategy of massive retaliation in an effort to change that particular equation. I am arguing, however, that no one should expect any kind of international force to end the challenge of an armed Hamas, absent a whole series of other things happening in the broader peace process (none of which I see happening).

What are we therefore left with? I would suggest the following:

1) An Israeli exit strategy that leaves a sense that leaves Hamas both physically and politically weakened. The tricky part here is the latter, since it may only take a few rockets the day after the IDF withdraws for Hamas to make a credible argument to its constituency that by surviving 2(+) weeks of Israeli onslaught and still firing back at the end it "won."

2) Impairing the ability of Hamas to rearm by working with the Egyptians to reduce smuggling from the Egyptian side of the border. This is better done with technical assistance than a high-profile international presence.

3) Recognition that as long as the siege of Gaza continues a ceasefire won't last. Returning the border crossings to PA control would provide Israel with political excuse to reopen them properly (something that never really happened even BEFORE Hamas was in control of Gaza), and would assure that credit for this doesn't flow to Hamas.

4) A reinvigorated Fateh, more able to take Hamas on politically. This requires both Fateh reform and a meaningful post-(Israeli) election peace process. I'm not optimistic on either score.

I would have added something on Fateh-Hamas reconciliation dialogue too, but to be frank I think the current violence makes that unlikely any time soon.

If one wants to add a few international observers in the mix as diplomatic window-dressing, that's fine. But be clear that's all they are.

William F. Owen
01-06-2009, 03:27 PM
Much as some might want to delink them, Palestinians still see them both as Palestine.

A comparatively recent view. Post 1948 and 67, they were seen as part of Egypt and Jordan respectively.


There are over 282,000 settlers currently living the in occupied Palestinian territory, and at any given time almost one-third of the West Bank is off-limits to most Palestinians.

...and a fair few of the 200,000 want to leave and go live somewhere else. They are only there because they were settled their in the 1970's to help protect Israel. It is extremely important to differentiate from those who would gladly move, if correctly compensated (not yet happened to those who moved from Gaza) and the nutters living in Portacabins on hill-tops.

Rex Brynen
01-06-2009, 03:37 PM
A comparatively recent view. Post 1948 and 67, they were seen as part of Egypt and Jordan respectively.

Certainly not by Gazans, who were never encouraged (or inclined) to feel Egyptian. It the West Bank it was a little more complicated, since there was so pro-Jordanian sentiment 1950-70. This was essentially gone by the 1970s, however. Palestinians in the territories see themselves as Palestinian.

On settlements and settlers I think we are in full agreement.

Ron Humphrey
01-06-2009, 04:13 PM
I guess the reason I felt compelled to ask a question that I already had a fairly good idea of what the answer would be was because of the very fact that since the answer seems so apparent why should Israel be expected to do anything but what they are now.

If its a gimmee to any one in the know that international force, presence, etc is not only unlikely but almost guaranteed useless then why even bother discussing ceasefires. If the problems are as diverse as Rex infers and as Ken states international presence is probably unviable then what business does anyone who can and will do absolutely nothing to stop the consistent aggression by hamas to the conflict but wants to complain about fairly inane aggression by the Israel(how dare you settle here). This goes doubly if as both William and Rex seem to agree that most those settlers would move in ten seconds flat given the right motivation and actual believable promise of real peace because if you know that then it's almost a guarantee that they know it too.

As to the current actions in Gaza considering that they could level the place and their not but rather trying to minimize casualties and they are making efforts to get aid in, not trying to starve them out then not sure how much more could be asked for.

bourbon
01-06-2009, 06:43 PM
What about an Iranian force to monitor the strip?

Iran is Israel's natural and historical ally, and they are also one of the few Muslim nations who could provide such a force to ensure order. I keep hearing how Hamas cannot be negotiated with because there is so much disunity between hardliners and moderates. The Iranian could ensure unity...keep everyone in line.

Yes Ahmadinejad is crazy.......but again he has no power. Even the Israeli's will agree that Iran is not crazy.

Rex Brynen
01-06-2009, 08:10 PM
What about an Iranian force to monitor the strip?

Only if the Jerusalem police agree to enforce the modesty regulations in Tehran.

Tom Odom
01-06-2009, 08:26 PM
Only if the Jerusalem police agree to enforce the modesty regulations in Tehran.

Brilliant! I like it! Maybe with an assist from the ultra-orthodox elders :wry:

Ron Humphrey
01-06-2009, 09:02 PM
What about an Iranian force to monitor the strip?

I keep hearing how Hamas cannot be negotiated with because there is so much disunity between hardliners and moderates. The Iranian could ensure unity...keep everyone in line..

As our esteemed SecDef is fond of saying pretty darn tough to find the Iranian moderate: so at least there wouldn't be that problem:cool:



Yes Ahmadinejad is crazy.......but again he has no power. Even the Israeli's will agree that Iran is not crazy.

Exactly how sane is it though to let a nut be your face to the world?

Ken White
01-06-2009, 09:54 PM
Exactly how sane is it though to let a nut be your face to the world?that it's worked for them -- and North Korea; both of whom employ the same techniques of a lot of yapping without much action...

Ron Humphrey
01-06-2009, 10:01 PM
Big difference is that one of them likes to spout off about blowing up everybody(and generally noone including his own put too much stock in what he says) vs the other who likes to be very singular in his approach as to who he wants blown up(and he not only talks but has groupies who act on it.)

Not sure ol KOH's really looking out for his own interests as well as he might think.

Who's to say?

davidbfpo
01-06-2009, 10:27 PM
Someone has red-discovered an old Israeli article: http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/just-talking-about-israel/

and linked it via the Kings of War website, with a comment as being a guide to the current campaign in Gaza: http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com/

Not seen the data before and needs a lengthy read, probably in hard copy and undoubtedly controversial. I have placed this on the Suicide Bombing thread of old.

davidbfpo

bourbon
01-06-2009, 10:58 PM
Exactly how sane is it though to let a nut be your face to the world?
I think it can be considered sane, and as Ken White has noted - it's worked so far.


"I call it the Madman Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory), Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, 'for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about Communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry -- and he has his hand on the nuclear button' -- and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace." - President Richard Milhous Nixon


Big difference is that one of them likes to spout off about blowing up everybody(and generally noone including his own put too much stock in what he says) vs the other who likes to be very singular in his approach as to who he wants blown up(and he not only talks but has groupies who act on it.)
Woofing aside, he has no real power. I believe a solid look at Iran's actions reveal it to be a far more a rational player than a irrational fanatic. (Tom Odom has recently reviewed (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/11/book-review-the-devil-we-know-1/) one such work)

Ron Humphrey
01-07-2009, 12:25 AM
I think it can be considered sane, and as Ken White has noted - it's worked so far.



and just re-read the review again and I don't disagree with your assertion that they are not exactly irrational actors. That said there is a determination to made about any rational action as to exactly which rationale it reflects.

Much like many of the actions by actors such Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Iran, or the US and its counterparts are based in some form of rational consideration the baseline behind those is generally endstates. And as such I still hold that their ways won't meet the expected ends.

The US actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan might be described as efforts to free themselves from threats and those nations from non-representated lives. While the end is unlikely to be exactly as expected it is probably a pretty fair bet that those two can and will happen in some form or another.(This if for no other reason than they are states of existence which are compatible with the human condition.

Hamas and some others on the other hand regardless of the varied implied purposes exist mainly on a baseline that Israel must end as a state, something which I might suggest is not only nonviable but even more so unlikely due to an enormous number of other factors which have to do with many countries besides Israel. In that context exactly what rationale do the actions of Hamas represent with regard to their stated endstate?

As to Iran yes they are acting in ways which they percieve will gain them more "influence" within their neighborhood. The rationale however seems to break down if one considers that partly due to their own actions not only do they have neighbors who aren't extremely fond of them but several of them may very well have much more military capacity and capability then they in the not so distant future. So exactly what have their actions up till now accomplished.

1- They have had to maneuver politically and security ways which probably are not extremely comfortable.

2- They may have more military hardware but are looking at much higher costs should they use them

3- They have almost achieved nuclear status but,
a: As soon as they try to capitalize on that by sharing it with the world they automatically become prime target for all their neighbors as well as other international bodies for focused efforts to not only track anything and everything that comes in and out of there but all those promises for what type of recognition that would bring them (which is how they have sold it to the public) comes due. and exactly what are they gonna have to show for it.

b: Should they choose to share that capability with anyone (terrorists,criminals,etc) and anything happens anywhere there's not a big enough army anywhere to keep whats coming their way from coming

c:This all assumes someone doesn't call their bluff before they get there



"I call it the Madman Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory), Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, 'for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about Communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry -- and he has his hand on the nuclear button' -- and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace." - President Richard Milhous Nixon


Woofing aside, he has no real power. I believe a solid look at Iran's actions reveal it to be a far more a rational player than a irrational fanatic. (Tom Odom has recently reviewed (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/11/book-review-the-devil-we-know-1/) one such work)

See c: above

ipopescu
01-07-2009, 04:12 AM
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/090105_cordesman_gaza-_how_does_it_end.pdf

Interesting commentary, touches on several issues debated on this thread, and also on the potential impact on the conflict on US interests in the region.

......One thing is certain. The fighting has already become a strategic liability for the US. There is no good answer to what level of force is “proportionate” in this kind of asymmetric warfare. There is no equation that can decide how many rocket firings and acts of terrorism justify a given level of air strikes or use of conventional ground forces. The fact that the weak suffer more than the strong in war is a grim reality, as is the fact that no power is going to accept terrorism because its best military options produce civilian casualties.

Nevertheless, the US has again been pushed into being Israel’s only defender in an international environment where it is far easier (and more lucrative) to take the Arab side than seek any form of balance. Arab and Islamic media and think tanks already portray the fighting as enabled by US support of Israel and actions in the UN, and this is the judgment of most media and think tanks in Europe and outside the US....

Surferbeetle
01-07-2009, 06:47 PM
From Today's WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128812156759281.html) an opinion piece by Ruel Marc Gerecht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuel_Marc_Gerecht)


With Hamas, Iran has the opportunity to make amends. The mullahs have a chance of supplanting Saudi Arabia, the font of the most vicious anti-Shiite Sunni creed, as the most reliable backer of Palestinian fundamentalists. Even more than the Lebanese Hezbollah, which remains tied to and constrained by the complex matrix of Lebanese politics, Hamas seems willing to absorb enormous losses to continue its jihad against Israel. Where Saudi Arabia has been uneasy about the internecine strife among Palestinians -- it has bankrolled both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas -- Iran has put its money on the former.

Although Fatah, the ruling party within the Palestinian Authority, may get a second wind thanks to the excesses of Hamas and the Israelis' killing much of Hamas's brain power and muscle, it is difficult to envision Fatah reviving itself into an appealing political alternative for faithful Palestinians. Fatah is hopelessly corrupt, often brutal, and without an inspiring raison d'être: a Palestine of the West Bank and Gaza is, as Hamas correctly points out, boring, historically unappealing, and a noncontiguous geographic mess. Fatah only sounds impassioned when it gives vent to its anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, profoundly Muslim roots. It's no accident that the religious allusions and suicide bombers of Fatah and Hamas after 2000 were hard to tell apart. If Hamas can withstand the current Israeli attack on its leadership and infrastructure, then the movement's aura will likely be impossible to match. Iran's influence among religious Palestinians could skyrocket.

Ron Humphrey
01-07-2009, 08:14 PM
From Today's WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128812156759281.html) an opinion piece by Ruel Marc Gerecht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuel_Marc_Gerecht)

TOM, and Bourbon, got the Devil We Know today and also another by Nathan Gonzalez - Engaging Iran. Any thoughts on that one

tpjkevin
01-08-2009, 04:07 AM
Broto Wardoyo writes in The Jakarta Post, Gaza assaults: Fighting fire with fire? (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/01/08/gaza-assaults-fighting-fire-with-fire.html)



It is a mistake to call for the eradication of Israel since Israel has their right to exist. It is also a mistake to call for the destruction of Hamas since they also have the right to be recognized as part of the Palestinian people. Israel's right to exist, however, must not come at the expense of Hamas or Palestinians as a whole, and vice versa.

Israel has always had to be concerned about its existence. Rejected by its immediate neighbors since its independence in 1948, Israel faced another three major wars afterward. In 1956, out of the blue, Egypt decided to force the UN mission to abandon their post and started a military move eastward, occupying the whole Sinai Peninsula.

In 1973, Israel was hit with a surprise attack right on the Yom Kippur holiday, when observant Jews are forbidden to conduct normal business. A sense of insecurity lives on in their minds up to today.

Hamas, on the other hand, shared a similar experience. Created in 1988 during the first intifada, their existence was undercut by the dominant Palestinian Liberation Organization. Hamas' decision to choose the path of jihad, and to clearly calling for the destruction of Israel in their charter, signals their anti-peace stance. Hamas, then, is perceived by many, including elements among the Palestinians, as an obstacle to peace.

The choice of violence seems to be the only option now, both for Israeli and Hamas. It is their way of communicating with each other and to the other actors. The message behind Hamas' violence is clear. They are there and need to be included in the game. Israel's message behind its actions is also clear. They are there and must not be challenged.

Rex Brynen
01-08-2009, 01:17 PM
In 1956, out of the blue, Egypt decided to force the UN mission to abandon their post and started a military move eastward, occupying the whole Sinai Peninsula.

The columnist might have a little more credibility if they knew their history and geography.

There was no Egyptian attack "out of the blue" in 1956. Rather, Israel attacked Egypt as part of a secret plan with the British and French to enable the latter's armed intervention against Nasser's Egypt.

Other than a very small contingent of UNTSO observers (who weren't forced by Egypt to abandon their positions), there was no UN force until after 1956.

Perhaps the author is thinking of 1967. However, in neither 1956 nor 1967 did Egypt "occupy" the Sinai--it was already Egyptian. It didn't fall under temporary Israeli control until after the June 1967 war.

Egypt did ask UNEF to leave in 1967. Equally, Israel refused to accept their redeployment to the Israeli side of the border.

Tom Odom
01-08-2009, 04:00 PM
The columnist might have a little more credibility if they knew their history and geography.

There was no Egyptian attack "out of the blue" in 1956. Rather, Israel attacked Egypt as part of a secret plan with the British and French to enable the latter's armed intervention against Nasser's Egypt.

Other than a very small contingent of UNTSO observers (who weren't forced by Egypt to abandon their positions), there was no UN force until after 1956.

Perhaps the author is thinking of 1967. However, in neither 1956 nor 1967 did Egypt "occupy" the Sinai--it was already Egyptian. It didn't fall under temporary Israeli control until after the June 1967 war.

Egypt did ask UNEF to leave in 1967. Equally, Israel refused to accept their redeployment to the Israeli side of the border.

No kidding, Rex! I found the same to be true when teaching officers from either side at CGSC. It was rather fun to push them out of their comfort zone; most responded quite well after some initial hostility. Some did not.

Best

Tom

Granite_State
01-08-2009, 04:31 PM
Colonel Pat Lang (SWJ friend?) has a long post on the IDF's lack of real NCOs:



I associated with and/or conducted liaison with The Israel Defense Force (IDF) for many years. This activity occurred as part of my regular duties as a US Army officer and later as a civilian executive of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Since my retirement from US government service I have had many occasions to visit Israel and to watch the IDF in action against various groups of Palestinians all over the West Bank. I have many friends who are retired and/or reserve members of the IDF. My observations concerning the IDF are based on that experience.

I write here of the ground force. The air force and navy are unknown to me from personal experience except that I know some of their officers from their service in joint (inter-service) assignments like general staff intelligence.

IMO, the IDF is an army built to very specifically suit Israel's individual circumstances, needs, and philosophy. It is in some ways, a singular force. It actually more closely resembles the Swiss military establishment than it does a large standing force backed by reserve units in the way that the US Army is built.

The IDF ground force is essentially a reserve or militia army that keeps most of its forces in inactive status while maintaining a handful of units on active duty as a training base and a force in being to meet short term contingencies.

In this post I am writing of the "line" of the ground forces as represented by armor, infantry, paratroop and artillery units at brigade elvel and below, i.e., battalion and company.

The special operations forces are a small part of Israeli capabilities and are manned and maintained on a very different basis. In many ways they are more like a "SWAT" team than a military force.

To understand the IDF ground forces as an institution, there are certain things that must be understood in order to "see" clearly the actual capabilities of this army:

- Because of the heavy reliance on reserve units filled with older, part time soldiers, any mobilization of a large number of ground force units for considerable periods of time places a heavy burden on the Israeli national economy. Mobilized reservists are lost to their jobs. Israeli soldiers are among the strongest and most skilled members of their society. They are typically well employed in the civilian world. When they are gone in military service the economy suffers. This automatically limits the scale and duration of reserve mobilizations.

- Older reserve soldiers serve in units made up almost entirely of similar reservists. These units are hard to maintain at a high level of training and readiness. Only limited amounts of training time and money are available for this necessity. As a result units are often unready for deployment into combat in an emergency. On a number of occasions this problem has caused IDF troops to be committed to combat in a less than "ready" status. In other words, troops have gone into combat with equipment not properly maintained and with insufficient unit training. It must be said that they have typically been lucky in their enemies and that if they had faced more serious enemies, they would have had a much different experience than the ones they had. In the Golan Heights the Syrians gave them a very difficult time in 1973 and in the same war their victory against Egypt featured a renewal of offensive activity under the cover a cease fire which they had accepted.

- There are no career ground force sergeants except as technicians. Unless the system has changed very recently, the IDF ground forces typically do not have career NCOs in the LINE of the combat arms. This is a structural tradition that derives originally from the Russian tsar's army and which came to Palestine through Russian and Polish Zionist immigrants. Then this passed through the Haganah into the IDF. The IDF "line" conscripts what amount to yearly classes of recruits and selects from them more promising soldiers who are given NCO level command responsibilities as; infantry leaders, tank commanders, artillery gun captains, etc. The IDF does have career NCOs but they are typically found in jobs of a more technical nature rather than junior combat command at the squad or platoon (section) level. As a result, junior officers (company grade) are required to perform duties that in more traditionally organized armies would be performed by sergeants. Leading a small combat or reconnaissance patrol would be an example. As a result, a non-reserve infantry or tank company in the field consists of people who are all about the same age (19-22) and commanded by a captain in his mid 20s. What is missing in this scene is the voice of grown up counsel provided by sergeants in their 30s and 40s telling these young people what it is that would be wise to do based on real experience and mature judgment. In contrast a 22 year old American platoon leader would have a mature platoon sergeant as his assistant and counselor.

- As a result of this system of manning, the IDF's ground force is more unpredictable and volatile at the tactical (company) level than might be the case otherwise. The national government has a hard time knowing whether or not specific policies will be followed in the field. For example, the Israeli government's policy in the present action in the Gaza Strip has been to avoid civilian casualties whenever possible. Based on personal experience of the behavior of IDF conscripts toward Palestinian civilians, I would say that the Israeli government has little control over what individual groups of these young Israeli soldiers may do in incidents like the one yesterday in which mortar fire was directed toward UN controlled school buildings.

In Beit Suhur outside Bethlehem, I have seen IDF troops shoot at Palestinian Christian women hanging out laundry in their gardens. This was done with tank coaxial machine guns from within a bermed up dirt fort a couple of hundred yards away, and evidently just for the fun of it. In Bethlehem a lieutenant told me that he would have had his men shoot me in the street during a demonstration that I happened to get caught in, but that he had not because he thought I might not be a Palestinian and that if I were not the incident would have caused him some trouble. I have seen a lot of things like that. One might say that in war, s--t happens. That is true, but such behavior is indicative of an army that is not well disciplined and not a completely reliably instrument of state policy. In my travels in the west Bank in March of 2008, it was noticeable that the behavior towards Palestinian civilians of IDF troops at roadblocks was reminiscent of that of any group of post-adolescents given guns and allowed to bully the helpless in order to look tough for each other. I think the IDF would be well advised to grow some real sergeants.

All in all, I think the IDF ground forces can best be described as specialized tools that reflect 20th century Zionist socialist and nationalist ideals, and which have military traditions that are in no way reflective of those of the United States. They can also be justly said to have been been fortunate in their enemies. The Jordanians gave them a run for their money in 1948-49. Hizbullah delivered a hint of the inherent limits in such a socio-military system in 2006 and now we are seeing whatever it is that we will see at Gaza. pl

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/01/the-idf-ground.html#more

Tom Odom
01-08-2009, 04:59 PM
- As a result of this system of manning, the IDF's ground force is more unpredictable and volatile at the tactical (company) level than might be the case otherwise. The national government has a hard time knowing whether or not specific policies will be followed in the field. For example, the Israeli government's policy in the present action in the Gaza Strip has been to avoid civilian casualties whenever possible. Based on personal experience of the behavior of IDF conscripts toward Palestinian civilians, I would say that the Israeli government has little control over what individual groups of these young Israeli soldiers may do in incidents like the one yesterday in which mortar fire was directed toward UN controlled school buildings.

In Beit Suhur outside Bethlehem, I have seen IDF troops shoot at Palestinian Christian women hanging out laundry in their gardens. This was done with tank coaxial machine guns from within a bermed up dirt fort a couple of hundred yards away, and evidently just for the fun of it. In Bethlehem a lieutenant told me that he would have had his men shoot me in the street during a demonstration that I happened to get caught in, but that he had not because he thought I might not be a Palestinian and that if I were not the incident would have caused him some trouble. I have seen a lot of things like that. One might say that in war, s--t happens. That is true, but such behavior is indicative of an army that is not well disciplined and not a completely reliably instrument of state policy. In my travels in the west Bank in March of 2008, it was noticeable that the behavior towards Palestinian civilians of IDF troops at roadblocks was reminiscent of that of any group of post-adolescents given guns and allowed to bully the helpless in order to look tough for each other. I think the IDF would be well advised to grow some real sergeants.

Matches my personal experience in southern Lebanon.

Tom

William F. Owen
01-09-2009, 08:01 AM
And now for the corrections...



The special operations forces are a small part of Israeli capabilities and are manned and maintained on a very different basis. In many ways they are more like a "SWAT" team than a military force.

Well that's a context free observation. There are 3 different levels of SF Capable units in the IDF covering 5 Services, and they are under constant evolution. At best that is a snap shot of 1 possible SF unit in the last 60 years and devoid of the actual record of SF units.


Unless the system has changed very recently, the IDF ground forces typically do not have career NCOs in the LINE of the combat arms. This is a structural tradition that derives originally from the Russian tsar's army and which came to Palestine through Russian and Polish Zionist immigrants.

Rubbish. Zionist?? It has nothing to do with the Tsarist Army. It is actually not possible to trace a clear line in the historical influences of the IDF. By far the biggest influence was the British, and the next was the Turkish (trained by the Germans). The structual form of the IDF was developed by the Palmach, not the Haganah.


Then this passed through the Haganah into the IDF. The IDF "line" conscripts what amount to yearly classes of recruits and selects from them more promising soldiers who are given NCO level command responsibilities as; infantry leaders, tank commanders, artillery gun captains, etc

Again, what he fails to mention is that all IDF officers are former NCOs, and the Kabbah system used in selection that creates officers of a pretty high standard even in comparison to NATO Armies and sometimes far higher. I know as many IDF officers as I know US officers. There is no big difference, expect Unit and Formation commanders tend to be younger.


In Beit Suhur outside Bethlehem, I have seen IDF troops shoot at Palestinian Christian women hanging out laundry in their gardens. This was done with tank coaxial machine guns from within a bermed up dirt fort a couple of hundred yards away, and evidently just for the fun of it.

... if this happened, then it is clearly unacceptable. - but as we all know, it is not a problem unique to the IDF. The US and UK armies have more than their fair share of similar, and much worse, incidents, since they have been in Iraq, and else where.


In my travels in the west Bank in March of 2008, it was noticeable that the behavior towards Palestinian civilians of IDF troops at roadblocks was reminiscent of that of any group of post-adolescents given guns and allowed to bully the helpless in order to look tough for each other. I think the IDF would be well advised to grow some real sergeants.

I was in the West Bank at that time as well. Most Marsom are actually manned by Reservists. I think you'd find the average age of a regular IDF soldier matches that of US regular soldiers -18-22. I'm not saying bad things don't happen at check points. My wife has plenty of stories, but they are pretty inherent to the task.

Why on earth should the IDF take US advice on leadership and training? Based on a track record of best practice and success, it's a pretty hard sell.

The IDF ditched the UK system, because it simply did not work when applied outside the British class system on which it is based.

Ken White
01-09-2009, 04:52 PM
... if this happened, then it is clearly unacceptable. - but as we all know, it is not a problem unique to the IDF. The US and UK armies have more than their fair share of similar, and much worse, incidents, since they have been in Iraq, and else where...I'm not saying bad things don't happen at check points. My wife has plenty of stories, but they are pretty inherent to the task.Nineteen tear olds will misbehave and the best leadership in the world cannot be everywhere. Anyone who encountered bored MPs at 0200 in the morning back in the days when they manned the gates at US posts can testify that they were not always well behaved...

My major point is this:
Why on earth should the IDF take US advice on leadership and training? Based on a track record of best practice and success, it's a pretty hard sell.

The IDF ditched the UK system, because it simply did not work when applied outside the British class system on which it is based.Part of the issue accurately outlined in those two paragraphs is that we adopted and still use vestiges of the British class and military system neither of which ever really took root in this country. Nor will they. I can remember a Gunnery Sergeant in Korea who lamented the impending demise of his beloved Corps because "the Corps is adopting all the US Army's bad habits and none of their good ones..." In my view, he was correct -- and I say the same thing about the US Armed Forces with respect to the British. And the Prussian...

Entropy
01-12-2009, 01:23 PM
Anthony Cordesman has some unusually harsh things to say (http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=5188):


This raises a question that every Israeli and its supporters now needs to ask. What is the strategic purpose behind the present fighting? After two weeks of combat Olmert, Livni, and Barak have still not said a word that indicates that Israel will gain strategic or grand strategic benefits, or tactical benefits much larger than the gains it made from selectively striking key Hamas facilities early in the war. In fact, their silence raises haunting questions about whether they will repeat the same massive failures made by Israel’s top political leadership during the Israeli-Hezbollah War in 2006. Has Israel somehow blundered into a steadily escalating war without a clear strategic goal or at least one it can credibly achieve? Will Israel end in empowering an enemy in political terms that it defeated in tactical terms? Will Israel’s actions seriously damage the US position in the region, any hope of peace, as well as moderate Arab regimes and voices in the process?

To blunt, the answer so far seems to be yes. To paraphrase a comment about the British government’s management of the British Army in World War I, lions seem to be led by donkeys. If Israel has a credible ceasefire plan that could really secure Gaza, it is not apparent. If Israel has a plan that could credibly destroy and replace Hamas, it is not apparent. If Israel has any plan to help the Gazans and move them back towards peace, it is not apparent. If Israel has any plan to use US or other friendly influence productively, it not apparent.

As we have seen all too clearly from US mistakes, any leader can take a tough stand and claim that tactical gains are a meaningful victory. If this is all that Olmert, Livni, and Barak have for an answer, then they have disgraced themselves and damaged their country and their friends. If there is more, it is time to make such goals public and demonstrate how they can be achieved. The question is not whether the IDF learned the tactical lessons of the fighting in 2006. It is whether Israel's top political leadership has even minimal competence to lead them.

Ken White
01-12-2009, 03:15 PM
one not only has no responsibility for but doesn't even have a dog in a fight.

Pardon the sour note. I've just finished my morning round of world news and am, as always, just really 'impressed' by the punditiocracy. Their lack of understanding of the reality of war and in international relations versus their refined and idealized views of what they think should be never ceases to amaze me... :mad:

Rex Brynen
01-12-2009, 05:39 PM
one not only has no responsibility for but doesn't even have a dog in a fight.

Pardon the sour note. I've just finished my morning round of world news and am, as always, just really 'impressed' by the punditiocracy. Their lack of understanding of the reality of war and in international relations versus their refined and idealized views of what they think should be never ceases to amaze me... :mad:

In this case, however, I think Tony is right--he's certainly not saying anything that isn't being said just as strongly by a growing number of Israeli commentators.

Olmert seems committed to a maximalist ground campaign. Both FM Livni and DM Barak feel that Israel risks compromises its gains if it continues too long, and have pushed for the operation to be ended once Egypt commits to more robust anti-smuggling efforts.

Ken White
01-12-2009, 08:22 PM
little less arrogance and condescension. I'm sure they're saying it with far more knowledge.

Rex Brynen
01-12-2009, 08:46 PM
little less arrogance and condescension. I'm sure they're saying it with far more knowledge.

I agree that Tony was rather condescending in his pithiness. He also drew an excessively sharp dividing line between the IDF and the political echelons, in my view--both in 2006 and now some of the shortcomings in strategic vision have to do with apparent weaknesses in strategic assessment by the defence and intel community too.

That being said, I can't say that the Israeli media (parts of which are usually very good) has particularly good job in assessing what is going on right now, in large part because of the natural wartime rally-around-the-flag effect.

The Arab media has been even worse.

Tom Odom
01-12-2009, 09:26 PM
Olmert seems committed to a maximalist ground campaign. Both FM Livni and DM Barak feel that Israel risks compromises its gains if it continues too long, and have pushed for the operation to be ended once Egypt commits to more robust anti-smuggling efforts.

Rex,

Perhaps Olmert is seeking to rebuild his political stature after the 2006 war and domestic issues that followed? At one stage he was portrayed as gone and he is still here.

Best

Tom

Ken White
01-12-2009, 09:58 PM
I agree that Tony was rather condescending in his pithiness. He also drew an excessively sharp dividing line between the IDF and the political echelons, in my view--both in 2006 and now some of the shortcomings in strategic vision have to do with apparent weaknesses in strategic assessment by the defence and intel community too.all of that...

Cordesman is like many other would be military experts scattered about. They're annoying to me because of their penchant for stating the obvious and assuming that only they saw or see it and their tendency to state their position or view as being the only rational possibility. Those things and their propensity for judgmental statements calls both their objectivity and their expertise into question.

Everyone has a right to an opinion and to state it; their willingness to do so publicly does not accord 'expert' status so most of those folks IMO are letting their egos get wa-a-a-ay ahead of their capability. Most annoying are those with a few years service who think they've got all the answers. I've been around things militaire since I was born and I learn things every day; mostly how much I do NOT know... :wry:
That being said, I can't say that the Israeli media (parts of which are usually very good) has particularly good job in assessing what is going on right now, in large part because of the natural wartime rally-around-the-flag effect.

The Arab media has been even worse.and that -- I've sort of given up on the media worldwide. Either they were this bad when I was much younger and I just didn't realize or they have totally fallen apart in the last forty years. Don't know which but I'm inclined to believe the latter.

The raw superficiality and ignorance they continually display is scary...

Entropy
01-13-2009, 12:18 AM
I guess it's not a surprise that I agree with Cordesman's analysis, if not his tone, since I was questioning Israeli strategy earlier in the thread. From what little quality information is available, it seems like the IDF is performing pretty well overall, so it appears to me the disconnect is at the policy/strategy level. That various Israeli political figures are publicly saying different things doesn't inspire much confidence that there is a unity of effort at the top.

Ken White
01-13-2009, 02:10 AM
...so it appears to me the disconnect is at the policy/strategy level. That various Israeli political figures are publicly saying different things doesn't inspire much confidence that there is a unity of effort at the top.Bad as a bunch of Merikuns... :D

Rex Brynen
01-13-2009, 02:35 AM
Haaretz - 03:45 13/01/2009

ANALYSIS / Neither Israel nor Hamas can be choosy (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054907.html)

By Amir Oren



...

The main goal, which dictated the operation's logic in its aerial phase and ground phase so far, was deterrence - to convince Hamas to refrain from shooting its rockets for a very long time. The image of solid American support builds deterrence no less than the taking of a fortified objective in some God-forsaken neighborhood.

...

And what will happen when the forces roll southward in a firestorm, followed by bulldozers that will mow down hundreds of houses on the Philadelphi route to put an end to the tunnels? Israel will be quickly tossed out of both south and north, losing diplomatic assets in the process.

Israel, a proud country with solid yet flexible principles, is prepared to conduct indirect talks with Hamas, as long as they are not defined as indirect talks a la Turkey-Syria. The bride will meet with the Egyptian matchmaker, Omar Suleiman, not only without the groom, but on a different day. But it is likely that a match, albeit loveless, will result, since neither side can be choosy.

The chances of persuading Hamas to stop the rocket fire is high: The rate of firing has fallen continually, from 80 to 60 to 40 to 20. And the chances of it signing a pledge to stop smuggling is low. Israel will have to take what it can get, not as little compared with before December 27, but less than it had hoped.

bourbon
01-13-2009, 04:00 PM
Iran: Cold calculations in Gaza (http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?ots591=4888CAA0-B3DB-1461-98B9-E20E7B9C13D4&lng=en&id=95293), By Kamal Nazer Yasin. ISN Security Watch, 13 Jan 2009.

An Iranian academic who follows these developments found this statement significant. “It [the statement] is unusual in many ways more than one,” he told ISN Security Watch on condition of anonymity.

“First it is only one grade lower than an official fatwa. Secondly, it is uncommonly emotional and full of pathos. Third, about 70 percent of it is devoted to attacking Arab political and religious leaders. Fourth, the ayatollah speaks with the authority of the leader of all Muslims as opposed to Shias or some Shias.”

Whoever the War Nerd is (believed by some to be Dr. John Dolan), imo, they use an excellent literary device to deliver astute and timely analysis.

The War Nerd: Hamas Ain’t No Hezbollah (http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-hamas-aint-no-hezbollah/), By Gary Brecher. The eXiled, January 6th, 2009.

The Israelis attacked now because of two non-military cycles: the news cycle and the presidential cycle. This was like a war by an astrologer: the stars had to be in exactly the right position before the Apaches could start blasting and the Merkavas could roll.

War Nerd: Rules in the Era of Squeamishness (http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-rules-in-the-era-of-squeamishness/), By Gary Brecher. The eXiled, January 12th, 2009.

When you live in a lull like we do, you think everything’s happening for the first time, when what you really have is the same plays called with different rules. What made me realize that was this article I saw in the Israeli paper Haaretz that summed up a US Army report on the 2006 war between the IDF and Hezbollah. According to this report, Hezbollah had scored some kind of tactical breakthrough by fighting almost like a conventional army, fighting from bunkers instead of relying on mobile warfare. They claimed this was a first in history, a “non-state actor” fighting a successful conventional war.

Well, of course it’s not new at all. What’s new is the squeamish, namby-pamby set of rules that operate since 1945. Those rules are why Hezbollah was able to win. Unless you understand that, you won’t understand how wars work these days.


That’s why Hezbollah’s bunker strategy seemed so brilliant; under the new rules it works. If you don’t understand how the rules have changed, you’ll never get anywhere applying Stalingrad rules to Lebanon news.

Rex Brynen
01-13-2009, 06:00 PM
Whoever the War Nerd is (believed by some to be Dr. John Dolan), imo, they use an excellent literary device to deliver astute and timely analysis.

I thought it was rather shallow analysis, with the pithy no-holds-barred writing style obscuring a lot of technical weaknesses in the analysis.

On the basic point he makes: yes, contemporary public opinion is far more sensitive to civilian casualties, making it much more difficult to slaughter innocents as part of your post-WWII COIN strategy. The IDF could certainly be doing far more damage than it is in Gaza because of the political imperative of keeping civilian casulaties down.

That being said:

1) Hamas is not Hizbullah in terms of military performance, but part of the reason for that is something that Gary Brecher (War Nerd) doesn't mention at all: Hizbullah was far, far better armed, especially with ATGMs and RPGs. Hamas has very few of these, and is largely fighting with small arms and improvised explosives. (The other reasons he mentions are also valid, such as strategic depth).

2) While Gaza City is very densely populated, it is not the most densely populated place on earth (an erroneous claim that is often made). Many third world cities are just as densely populated, if not more so.

3) A key constraint on Israeli use of force is not just (Western) public reaction to civilian casualties, but the ramifications of Israeli actions for the broader Middle East. Large-scale mass killing of civilians could fatally destabilize the PA and Jordan, and even compromise the Egyptian government.

He's especially wrong in suggesting that the current operation shifts the Hamas-Fateh competition in the latter's favour. On the contrary, it has made President Abbas and the PA look like Israeli stooges, which is never much of a support-winner in Palestinian politics.

davidbfpo
01-13-2009, 11:28 PM
The Target is Iran: Israel's Latest Gamble May Backfire By Muriel Mirak-Weissbach: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11747

The Battle for Oil & the War on GAZA & British Gaz!??War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza's Offshore Gas Fields by Michel Chossudovsky:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11680

Maybe odd, way left of centre arguments, but I suspect articles like these are being circulated as proof of a conspiracy. No time to check the origins of the website, perhaps Rex can comment as it appears to be Canadian.

davidbfpo

Rex Brynen
01-14-2009, 01:51 AM
Maybe odd, way left of centre arguments, but I suspect articles like these are being circulated as proof of a conspiracy. No time to check the origins of the website, perhaps Rex can comment as it appears to be Canadian.

Yes, Michel Chossudovsky is into conspiracy theories, as is the Centre for Research on Globalization (http://www.globalresearch.ca/) in a big way. Among the articles posted there are those questioning whether al-Qa'ida was really responsible for 9/11, whether the WTC really collapsed because of an aircraft strike, etc. To quote from the blurb from Chossudovsky's book America's War on Terrorism:


In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky's 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by "Islamic terrorists". Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the "war on terrorism" is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The "war on terrorism" is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the "New World Order", dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington's agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.


'nuff said.

William F. Owen
01-14-2009, 05:42 AM
I thought it was rather shallow analysis, with the pithy no-holds-barred writing style obscuring a lot of technical weaknesses in the analysis.

On the basic point he makes: yes, contemporary public opinion is far more sensitive to civilian casualties, making it much more difficult to slaughter innocents as part of your post-WWII COIN strategy. The IDF could certainly be doing far more damage than it is in Gaza because of the political imperative of keeping civilian casulaties down.

That being said:

1) Hamas is not Hizbullah in terms of military performance, but part of the reason for that is something that Gary Brecher (War Nerd) doesn't mention at all: Hizbullah was far, far better armed, especially with ATGMs and RPGs. Hamas has very few of these, and is largely fighting with small arms and improvised explosives. (The other reasons he mentions are also valid, such as strategic depth).

2) While Gaza City is very densely populated, it is not the most densely populated place on earth (an erroneous claim that is often made). Many third world cities are just as densely populated, if not more so.

3) A key constraint on Israeli use of force is not just (Western) public reaction to civilian casualties, but the ramifications of Israeli actions for the broader Middle East. Large-scale mass killing of civilians could fatally destabilize the PA and Jordan, and even compromise the Egyptian government.

He's especially wrong in suggesting that the current operation shifts the Hamas-Fateh competition in the latter's favour. On the contrary, it has made President Abbas and the PA look like Israeli stooges, which is never much of a support-winner in Palestinian politics.

Born again hard, Rex. - not that you ever were not. We might not always agree, but your commentary and analysis stands in a league of it's own.

Presley Cannady
01-14-2009, 06:35 AM
Its worth remembering that the IDF couldn't prevent the initial growth of Hamas in 1987-94 when they were in full and complete control of Gaza, nor in 1995-2005 when they still occupied large parts of the Strip.

What do you think Tel Aviv estimated Hamas to be in 1987, or even after Mehola Junction? The momentum for disengagement after Oslo was so great that even Netanyahu came to Wye River. Hell, even as the Second Intifada finally tore down Oslo Sharon of all people found time to disengage from Lebanon, Gaza and form Kadima. By then, Israel had already accepted de facto Palestinian statehood and was fighting a war that was ten times more destructive than the fight in the eighties. Let's face it, the IDF didn't destroy Hamas twenty years ago because Tel Aviv saw Hamas as a nuisance--more to Fatah than to Israel. And seeing as how long it took the rest of the world to take the Islamists seriously, can you blame them?


I get worried when policymakers start throwing around the idea of an "international presence" without any sense as to whether the mandate and mission are actually feasible.

Cut off the lifeline to armed groups in the territories and watch as both infighting and Quixotism wear them down. Israel and the occupied territories are small enough that Tel Aviv can and does take care of business along her lines of control. The Egyptians, Jordanians and Lebanese--out of not least a clear sense of political and literal self-preservation--either don't at all or only intermittently so. The intractable part is identifying participants acceptable to all parties, and by intractable I mean with the Turks probably out of the game there's probably no one left.

Rex Brynen
01-14-2009, 12:56 PM
What do you think Tel Aviv estimated Hamas to be in 1987, or even after Mehola Junction?

By the time of the suicide bombings of the 1990s, there is no doubt that Israel saw Hamas as its primary armed threat in the West Bank/Gaza.


Hell, even as the Second Intifada finally tore down Oslo Sharon of all people found time to disengage from Lebanon, Gaza and form Kadima.

Barak, not Sharon, disengaged from Lebanon in 2000.

Sharon's disengagement from Gaza was not intended, I believe, to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a Palestinian state any time soon, but the opposite—to relieve the demographic and political pressures on Israel, especially with regard to territorial concession in the West Bank. As Sharon's Chief of Staff, Dov Weisglass, explained it in 2004 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485929):



The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.

The American term is to "park conveniently." The disengagement plan makes it possible for Israel to "park conveniently" in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure. It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians.


The shift to the kind of operation we're seeing now ("a Lebanon-style retaliatory strategy" as one then-member of the Israeli NSC said to me in 2005) was foreseen. Using disengagement to push responsibility for Gaza on to Egypt was also discussed at the time (which helps to explain why the Egyptians are being so cautious about opening Rafah).


Cut off the lifeline to armed groups in the territories and watch as both infighting and Quixotism wear them down.

Meaning what, in this case? Almost everything dual-use is already barred from Gaza, as are quite a few things that aren't. Commercial food imports are so restricted and unemployment so high (largely because of trade restrictions) that even before the ceasefire broke down, more than half of Gaza's population depended on UN food-hand-outs. In some areas of Gaza one-third of children show signs of physical stunting (http://meero.worldvision.org/news_article.php?newsID=1720&countryID=15)—something that only appears after prolonged malnourishment, and which was previously quite rare in Gaza.

Moreover, the strength of radical rejectionist groups in the territories is largely a function of the larger political context—at the heyday of the Oslo process, Hamas has been reduced to single-digit support in some polls. While a large part of their resurgence can be attributed to corruption and incompetence within Fateh as well as Arafat's tacit encouragement of the disaster that was the second intifada, much is also due to Israeli actions (extensive mobility restrictions and massive settlement expansion, even in the "good days" of the mid and 1990s), the poor handling of negotiations by the Clinton administration in 2000, and subsquent missteps in US and Western diplomacy since then.

Rex Brynen
01-14-2009, 01:17 PM
Near East Consulting (http://www.neareastconsulting.com) did a telephone survey in Gaza on 29-30 December, after Israel air strikes had started but before the ground operation commenced.

While the results need to be read with some caution (landlines were down in north Gaza at the time, and polling in wartime is a tricky thing), but the results are interesting:

Is Hamas correct in not renewing the ceasefire agreement?


No 60%
Yes 40%

Do you support missile attacks (against Israel)?


No 46%
Yes 54%

(Does the military confrontation make) Hamas stronger or weaker?


Stronger 47%
Weaker 41%

(Does the military confrontation make) Fateh stronger or weaker?


Stronger 37%
Weaker 38%

Which faction do you support most?


Fateh 27.9%
Hamas 13.8%
Others 7.7%
None 50.5%

The "none of the above" response probably partly reflects caution at answering questions on the phone (although polling is very common in the Palestinian territories), but also reflects a profound disillusionment with the current quality of Palestinian leadership.

Other (pre-war) polling can be found on the excellent PCPSR website (http://www.pcpsr.org/).

Rex Brynen
01-14-2009, 02:04 PM
Combine a citizen-army, the frequent transition from military roles to political leadership, and a very active and free-wheeling press in israel and you get strategic and operational debates conducted through the media, coupled with constant leaks.

Indeed, the problem was so severe in the 2006 Hizbullah war that the IDF chief of staff barred senior IDF officers from using their cellphones (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1230733174214) during the current Gaza campaign.

Apparently its not working :wry:

Haaretz - 15:45 14/01/2009

Top Israel defense officials back immediate Gaza truce (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055476.html)

By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent


Senior defense establishment officials believe that Israel should strive to reach an immediate cease-fire with Hamas, and not expand its offensive against the Palestinian Islamist group in Gaza.

During meetings of the Israel Defense Forces General Staff and of the heads of the state's other security branches, officials have said that Israel achieved several days ago all that it possibly could in Gaza.

The officials expressed reservations about launching the third phase of Operation Cast Lead, preferring for it to remain a threat at this stage.

This sounds rather like a Barak-authorized leak, since the Defence Minister is currently arguing that PM Olmert risks the gains of the Gaza operation by over-extending it, rather than declaring victory and accepting a ceasefire (while retaliating against any further Hamas rocket attacks).

William F. Owen
01-14-2009, 02:31 PM
Meaning what, in this case? Almost everything dual-use is already barred from Gaza, as are quite a few things that aren't. Commercial food imports are so restricted and unemployment so high (largely because of trade restrictions) that even before the ceasefire broke down, more than half of Gaza's population depended on UN food-hand-outs. In some areas of Gaza one-third of children show signs of physical stunting (http://meero.worldvision.org/news_article.php?newsID=1720&countryID=15)—something that only appears after prolonged malnourishment, and which was previously quite rare in Gaza.

As far as I am concerned, Gaza is Egypt. The West Bank was ceded from Jordanian control by his Highness King Hussein. Something I have never forgiven for, and nor would the members of my family, whom he knew well, and had they lived to see it. If he wished to give a homeland to the Palestinians (which I have no problem with) he should not have quit the act in the way he did.

I will freely admit that actually have a bit of a problem with the restriction of foods stuff. It does not sit well with me, and has never been adequately explained to my satisfaction.

However, while malnourishment may have been rare in Gaza, it was never unheard of, nor is it in the entire Mid East. You can see under fed kids even in Israel.

Rex: I am also unclear as to the situation concerning the provision of water and electricity to Gaza, because to my estimation Gaza seems to get something like 65% of it's electricity and water, from Israel and for free. This is a commonly banded figure amongst the media.

Rex Brynen
01-14-2009, 03:18 PM
I am also unclear as to the situation concerning the provision of water and electricity to Gaza, because to my estimation Gaza seems to get something like 65% of it's electricity and water, from Israel and for free. This is a commonly banded figure amongst the media.

Wilf—The latest figures I have to hand (February 2008) show 126 MW from Israel, 65 MW produced in Gaza, and 17 MW from Egypt—which would put it at around the proportion you cite (61%). The proportion of Gaza-generated electricity used to be somewhat higher, but the IAF bombed Gaza's main generator in June 2006.

The issue of payment is a complicated one. It was never free--the PA paid for electrical and water supplies at times, and at other times the cost was deducted from taxes that Israel collected on the PA's behalf. As of the most recent PA Ministry of Finance reports that I've seen (3rd quarter 2008 (http://www.pmof.ps/news/plugins/spaw/uploads/files/Nov.%209,%202008,%20Final.pdf)), the PA was in the process of paying off arrears to the Israeli Electric Company.

Note that it is the PA that pays for this, not the Hamas administration in Gaza. Despite the Fateh-Hamas split, some semi-joint institutions continue to work (the same is true of the Palestinian Water Authority).

Rex Brynen
01-14-2009, 08:33 PM
Jeruslaem Post
Jan 14, 2009 15:40 | Updated Jan 14, 2009 21:02
Olmert, Barak at odds over ending op (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231917085180&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
By JPOST.COM STAFF

It seems that the left hand isn't quite sure what the right hand is doing, or vice-versa.


Senior officials close to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed veiled criticism at Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Wednesday for his backing of Egypt's truce efforts conducted via Defense Ministry Security-Diplomatic Bureau chief Amos Gilad.

"Hamas senior officials see these images and hear these voices and draw encouragement from the notion that Israel is looking for a way out. We regret the irresponsibility of ministers leaking information regarding their own private initiatives - as high ranking as these ministers may be," officials said.

Earlier on Wednesday, after Gilad's arrival in Cairo was postponed to Thursday, it was widely reported that a potential truce would initially consist of a slowing down of IDF activities followed by a temporary ceasefire and a halt to troop movement into the Gaza Strip. Agreements with Egypt regarding smuggling into the Strip would then be finalized, including the introduction of US monitors, and, after calm has been reached, a full cease-fire would be established and IDF forces would withdraw from Gaza.

In the prime minister's milieu, officials expressed regret that news of the potential draft for a ceasefire had been revealed "on behalf of government ministers, of all sources."

In the meantime...

Jerusalem Post
Jan 14, 2009 18:37 | Updated Jan 14, 2009 21:17
Hamas responds 'positively' to Gaza cease-fire proposal (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950847330&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH



Hamas announced on Wednesday that it had responded "positively" to the Egyptian cease-fire proposal, but said there were still some differences between the two parties that needed to be addressed.

The Egyptian news agency MENA reported earlier that Hamas had accepted the cease-fire proposal.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit confirmed that Hamas had given a "positive response" regarding the initiative. He said he would relay the Hamas position to Israel on Thursday.

William F. Owen
01-15-2009, 06:43 AM
It seems that the left hand isn't quite sure what the right hand is doing, or vice-versa.


...or that Barak loathes Olmut and their staffs dislike each other. Hardly a position unique to Israel, and only reported in the Israeli press, - like a whole raft of other stories, which the West chooses to ignore.

I don't normally post links on this issue, as I see it as mostly pointless, but this did catch my attention.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656420,00.html

It makes no mention of the NATO air strikes killings of civilians in Iraq or A'Stan, but perhaps it should.

Ron Humphrey
01-15-2009, 09:36 PM
It seems that the left hand isn't quite sure what the right hand is doing, or vice-versa.


Talking out of both sides of your mouth means everyone listening hears something they like:confused:

Then again might also mean nobody really knows whats going on:wry:

Jedburgh
01-16-2009, 06:46 PM
From CBC.ca

Comes with both text and video.
Here's another one, from Wired's Danger Room: Video: Inside a Gaza D.I.Y. Rocket Lab (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/how-homemade-ro.html)

.....watch this remarkable video report from Zouheir Alnajjar, an Algerian-born guerrilla journalist who now lives in the Gaza Strip. In it, a pair of Palestinian militants lead him, blindfolded, into their D.I.Y. rocket-building lab. Then they show him how they make their weapons, out of fertilizer and scrap metal......

yusra
01-16-2009, 09:05 PM
Regarding the "most densely populated" question: What is correct is that Jabalia refugee camp in North Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth, where over 110,000 Palestinian refugees live in an area 1.5 square kilometres. They lost their homes in Southern Palestine (now Southern Israel) in 1948.

Rex Brynen
01-16-2009, 09:52 PM
Regarding the "most densely populated" question: What is correct is that Jabalia refugee camp in North Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth, where over 110,000 Palestinian refugees live in an area 1.5 square kilometres. They lost their homes in Southern Palestine (now Southern Israel) in 1948.

I'm just being pedantic here, but at 76,207 persons per square km (UNRWA), Jabalia is nowhere near the most densely populated urban area on earth.

Having been to several Gaza refugee camps, and having lived in downtown Cairo, the latter is much more densely populated (around 136,000/km2).

Parts of New York are over 110,000 /km2, and parts of Mumbai over 150,000 /km2. Parts of Hong Kong city (not territory) are 1,924,263 /km2, or 26 times more dense than Jabalia. You'll find some comparative statistics here (http://www.demographia.com/db-dense-nhd.htm).

This isn't to say that Gaza isn't very crowded—it is. It also has a very young population (63% are aged 19 or younger, and 39% are under aged 10 according to the 1997 census). As a result, military operations there are akin to a shoot-out in a primary school—with all the inevitable resulting human tragedy.

Rex Brynen
01-17-2009, 03:07 PM
As a result, military operations there are akin to a shoot-out in a primary school—with all the inevitable resulting human tragedy.

Speaking of which:

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2009/1/17/2009117822253734_2.jpg

(UNRWA school/emergency shelter, Gaza)

I'll insert some kudos here for colleagues under fire: UNRWA (http://www.un.org/unrwa/) is doing a truly outstanding job in the current crisis in Gaza, providing emergency shelters, foodstuffs, and medical clinics for the 1 million Palestinian refugees in Gaza, together with all other Gazans.

SWJED
01-17-2009, 05:07 PM
Weighing Crimes and Ethics in Urban Warfare (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/world/middleeast/17israel.html?ref=world) - Steven Erlanger, New York Times


Your unit, on the edges of the northern Gaza town of Jabaliya, has taken mortar fire from the crowded refugee camp nearby. You prepare to return fire, and perhaps you notice - or perhaps you don’t, even though it’s on your map - that there is a United Nations school just there, full of displaced Gazans. You know that international law allows you to protect your soldiers and return fire, but also demands that you ensure that there is no excessive harm to civilians. Do you remember all that in the chaos?

You pick GPS-guided mortars, which are supposed to be accurate and of a specific explosive force, and fire back. In the end, you kill some Hamas fighters but also, the United Nations says, more than 40 civilians, some of them children.

Have you committed a war crime?

More at The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/world/middleeast/17israel.html?ref=world).

Rex Brynen
01-18-2009, 02:24 AM
Haaretz - 13:28 16/01/2009

Is Israel using illegal weapons in its offensive on Gaza? (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055927.html)

By Amira Hass


Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch (HRW), has come to Israel. His mission: to examine whether the weapons that both sides are using are themselves legal and whether the use of them is legal.


For years, Amira Hass was the only Israeli journalist resident in Gaza. She knows it intimately, and is very sympathetic to its people. Her reporting on Gaza political and social issues is usually outstanding. She isn't a military correspondent, however (and it shows).

As for Garlasco (http://www.motherjones.com/radio/2005/10/garlasco_bio.html), this is an interview that he probably shouldn't have given—it comes off as far too gee-whiz and lacking in any sort of objectivity, although the issues are real and important.

Jones_RE
01-18-2009, 05:50 AM
Since Hamas is in government shouldn't there be an investigation into whether the targetting of their rocket systems complies with the laws of war? How about their use of fighters wearing civilian clothing? Or siting weapons systems in the middle of sensitive sites like schools?

Rex Brynen
01-18-2009, 06:48 AM
Since Hamas is in government shouldn't there be an investigation into whether the targetting of their rocket systems complies with the laws of war? How about their use of fighters wearing civilian clothing? Or siting weapons systems in the middle of sensitive sites like schools?

There have been in the past, and there certainly will be in the future. As Garlasco comments in the interview:


Garlasco and Human Rights Watch also examine the other side, and he says, "We believe that the Grad and Qassam are illegal weapons because they are not accurate enough to be used in this situation." He adds that Hamas makes frequent use of land mines and explosive charges that are liable to injure civilians.

...

In 2005, Garlasco met with a political representative of Hamas and told him that use of Grads is a contravention of the Geneva Convention. The reply he got from the Hamas man was: "'All Israelis are military.' And I explained to them that their reading of international law is wrong."

After the 2006 war, HRW undertook an extensive investigation of Hizbullah rocket attacks against Israel (http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/08/28/civilians-under-assault). It found:


Hezbollah's attacks in violation of the laws of war, when combined with such statements indicating criminal intent, is strong evidence that some Hezbollah members and commanders were responsible for war crimes.

William F. Owen
01-18-2009, 07:15 AM
You pick GPS-guided mortars, which are supposed to be accurate and of a specific explosive force, and fire back. In the end, you kill some Hamas fighters but also, the United Nations says, more than 40 civilians, some of them children.

OK, while I get where this guy is coming from, I have to jump in with some corrections.

A.) There are no GPS-guided mortar rounds in service with the IDF, that I am aware of. Yes there is a 120mm mortar round in development, with IMI. It may have reached operational service, but based on other things I know, I doubt it. If this was responsible for the civilian deaths, then a bit more development is needed.

Yes, they have LINAPS type auto-laying kits on some types, but not all. It's a mortar positioning system, not a guidance system.

B.) The first round CEP of an 81mm mortar mounted on an M-113 is, IIRC 100-150m - anyone with better figures, jump in - based on a range 5,600m. No mortar can be more than 1% accurate over total range, so 56m right there for something fired (and made) in a laboratory. There are limits to GPS gun-laying systems and throw in wind, and few other things, and the errors creep up.

- so trying to hit anyone within 2-300m radius of protected facility is challenging to put it mildly. Anyone, with any military experience knows that.

C.) M825A1 shell is not defined as an incendiary weapon by the Third Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons.

Not making apologies for anyone or anything. Just filling on the blanks that you'd assume some of the experts would be aware of.

Rex Brynen
01-18-2009, 07:22 AM
A.) There are no GPS-guided mortar rounds in service with the IDF, that I am aware of. Yes there is a 120mm mortar round in development, with IMI. It may have reached operational service, but based on other things I know, I doubt it. If this was responsible for the civilian deaths, then a bit more development is needed.

Wilf: I have no idea what the answer is, but Haaretz did report it as a GPS-guided mortar:


Haaretz - 08:51 11/01/2009

IDF investigation shows errant mortar hit UN building in Gaza (http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1054284.html)

By Amos Harel


A preliminary investigation into the fatal shooting by the Israel Defense Forces into a United Nations building in northern Gaza on Tuesday reveals the Israeli troops firing on the building missed their targets by some 30 meters.

...

The probe, which was conducted by the Paratrooper Brigade whose troops were responsible for the area, found that the army's location system to pinpoint launch sites indicated that militants had launched a Qassam rocket into Israel from within a yard adjacent to the courtyard of the UN building.

The troops had intended to launch a smart missile to take out the Palestinian launch team but a technical malfunction made this impossible, according to the probe. The commanders of the force instead decided to fire on the Qassam team with mortar shells equipped with a Global Positioning System for accurate fire.

However, the GPS element has an error margin of 30 meters and one of the three rounds fired by the paratrooper force slammed into the building owned by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA.

William F. Owen
01-18-2009, 07:41 AM
Wilf: I have no idea what the answer is, but Haaretz did report it as a GPS-guided mortar:


Rex, well aware. However,
The commanders of the force instead decided to fire on the Qassam team with mortar shells equipped with a Global Positioning System for accurate fire.

But there is massive ambiguity in "mortar Shells" or "mortars" and GPS "positioning" and "guidance"

If there are now reliable GPS guided 120mm mortars, then happy days for my work, because that makes life a lot easier!

Jedburgh
01-19-2009, 03:38 PM
WINEP, 14 Jan 09: The IDF in Gaza: Operational Concepts, Lines of Effort, and Effects (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2992)

.....Cast Lead (http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/08/oper/default.htm) appears to be guided by a number of important operational concepts: continuous attacks on Hamas and associated entities, allowing Hamas little time to regroup; pervasive attacks throughout the Gaza Strip and against the entire Hamas target system; precision attacks to ensure target destruction with minimal collateral damage; isolation of Gaza from Egypt by air attacks along the Philadelphia Corridor (http://www.arij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=26&lang=en); division of Gaza in half by ground forces; attention to humanitarian requirements while maintaining operational freedom of action; attention to information and psychological aspects of the battle; and minimizing IDF casualties through the application of heavy firepower and avoiding clashes in built-up and densely populated areas. Although these concepts are not immutable and some tension exists among them, particularly between the requirements to destroy enemy forces and facilities and to avoid civilian casualties, they shape the direction, emphasis, and intensity of IDF actions.....
JP, 18 Jan 09: Operation Cast Lead heads to the courtroom (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292898766&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

The next battle concerning Operation Cast Lead is likely to be played out in the courtroom rather than in the alleys of the Gaza Strip.....

....According to data gathered by NGO Monitor (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/eu_and_nif_funded_ngos_lead_condemnations_in_gaza_ conflict_), Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/amnesty-international-team-gains-access-gaza-20090119) has accused Israel of "unlawful attacks," Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/16/israel-stop-shelling-crowded-gaza-city) accused Israel of "indiscriminate" attacks that were against the "rules of law," and Oxfam (http://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/gaza) said Israeli leaders have committed "massive and disproportionate violence... in violation of international law."

These allegations may find their way into foreign courts - with Britain and Spain likely sites for suits and even attempts at criminal prosecution. In the past, many of the allegations against Israeli military and defense leaders were filed with British magistrates, since in the United Kingdom, individuals presenting evidence can request indictments from magistrates. In such instances, Israel must rely on local lawyers to plead its case in the courts.....

Rex Brynen
01-21-2009, 02:17 AM
But there is massive ambiguity in "mortar Shells" or "mortars" and GPS "positioning" and "guidance"

If there are now reliable GPS guided 120mm mortars, then happy days for my work, because that makes life a lot easier!

More on both the GPS "guided"/"targeted" mortar issue, and the use of WP in Gaza (I'm sure Wilf caught this in Haaretz, but for the benefit of others):



Haaretz, 21 January 2009
IDF probes improper use of phosphorus shells in Gaza Strip (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057361.html)

By Amos Harel


Alkalai's probe is thus focusing on the second type: phosphorus shells, either 81mm or 120mm, that are fired from mortar guns. About 200 such shells were fired during the recent fighting, and of these, according to the probe's initial findings, almost 180 were fired at orchards in which gunmen and rocket-launching crews were taking cover.

The one problematic incident was the reserve paratroops brigade that fired about 20 such shells in a built-up area of Beit Lahiya. Many international organizations say phosphorus shells should not be used in heavily populated areas. The brigade's officers, however, say the shells were fired only at places that had been positively identified as sources of enemy fire.

The 120mm shells, a recent acquisition, have a computerized targeting system attached to a GPS. Brigade commanders say they were very effective, but they were also responsible for two very serious mishaps: a strike on a UNRWA school that killed 42 Palestinians and a friendly fire incident that seriously wounded two officers.

Ken White
01-21-2009, 05:12 AM
Don't know but would bet the Israeli GPS guided 120 mortar round is NOT a WP round, that would make no sense.

The use of WP in war is 'legal' -- it is not a proscribed weapon. It is used heavily in some cases and few who engage in infantry combat will avoid getting WP burns occasionally. As they say, it only hurts for a little while...:wry:

There are those who say it should not be used at all; there are others who say it should not be used if civilians are present. Those who say that in most cases have never had to worry about getting shot and generally do not understand all they know about what they are saying.

I do not know if they Israeli's used it or not; they probably did -- I certainly would have -- and if so, the noise about it is merely spin. HE wounds and kills FAR more people than WP.

William F. Owen
01-21-2009, 07:45 AM
I do not know if they Israeli's used it or not; they probably did -- I certainly would have -- and if so, the noise about it is merely spin. HE wounds and kills FAR more people than WP.

The IDF used the US M825A1 WP airburst shell, specifically designed to be used "danger close" or on own troops. The WP airburst was seen commonly on TV, and the IDF never denied they were using it.

I agree with Ken, that the use of "Smoke" is a vital tactical advantage when operating in urban terrain and almost anywhere else.

Coldstreamer
01-21-2009, 09:52 AM
We seem (and I admit I have been scanning) to be missing the elephant in the room of Iran's pivotal role behnid both Hizballah and Hamas, both of which are heavily influenced by it to the point of being proxies. Serious fundamentalism, rather than nationalism/ethnic buckshee Jew-Arab, really started in 1979 with the Iranian revolution, and they have been the most organised and virulent exporters of it since.

Rex Brynen
01-21-2009, 11:48 AM
We seem (and I admit I have been scanning) to be missing the elephant in the room of Iran's pivotal role behnid both Hizballah and Hamas, both of which are heavily influenced by it to the point of being proxies. Serious fundamentalism, rather than nationalism/ethnic buckshee Jew-Arab, really started in 1979 with the Iranian revolution, and they have been the most organised and virulent exporters of it since.

Hamas certainly receives weapons and some of its funding from Iran, but it is in no way an Iranian proxy. Rather, there is an alliance of convenience based on mutual self-interest.

Ideologically, they aren't especially close—Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which long, long predates the Iranian Revolution. Domestically, close ties with Iran are not particularly popular among Palestinians (which is why Fateh supporters sometimes jeer "Shiites" at Hamas supporters). Operationally, Iran has a far more intimate relationship with Palestinian Islamic Jihad (which Hamas sometimes restrains), and even some rogue al-Aqsa Maryrs Brigade cells.

Hizbullah's relationship with Iran, by contrast, is extremely close, complex, and fundamental.

Rex Brynen
01-21-2009, 11:58 AM
I do not know if they Israeli's used it or not; they probably did -- I certainly would have -- and if so, the noise about it is merely spin. HE wounds and kills FAR more people than WP.

I wasn't commenting on the rightness/wrongness of using smoke ammo in MOUT (because I agree: it is neither prohibited by CCW Protocol III (http://www.ccwtreaty.com/KeyDocs/protocol3.html) nor terribly surprising)—just flagging the article.


The IDF used the US M825A1 WP airburst shell

Yes, although the article is explicitly discussing the use of an incendiary (not smoke) round by 120mm mortars (not 155mm artillery). I'm not sure whether this is the dual use incendiary/smoke M65 or M110 120mm mortar rounds, or something else.

William F. Owen
01-21-2009, 01:27 PM
We seem (and I admit I have been scanning) to be missing the elephant in the room of Iran's pivotal role behnid both Hizballah and Hamas, both of which are heavily influenced by it to the point of being proxies.

Rex has it pretty on the nail in my opinion. I would only add that Iran has strategic interest in the West Bank, as key terrain in it's stated intent to "remove the Jews/Israel/Zionists from the book of history." In terms of that game, they will do whatever it takes to exert influence on Hamas, and/or create a proxy they can control.

...which is what makes the recent unpleasantness in Gaza a bit of side show, in Geo-strategic terms.


Serious fundamentalism, rather than nationalism/ethnic buckshee Jew-Arab, really started in 1979 with the Iranian revolution, and they have been the most organised and virulent exporters of it since.

I would dispute this as a useful characterisation of the facts. From a very simple western viewpoint it fits. From a local or even regional view point it is far more complex.

William F. Owen
01-21-2009, 01:35 PM
Yes, although the article is explicitly discussing the use of an incendiary (not smoke) round by 120mm mortars (not 155mm artillery). I'm not sure whether this is the dual use incendiary/smoke M65 or M110 120mm mortar rounds, or something else.

I don't know of any airburst WP 81 or 120mm natures. Unfortunately, WP is axiomatically a de-facto incendiary weapon. No smoke without fire.

I am not sure there are any dedicated "incendiary" rounds currently in IDF service (or in any NATO army for that matter). If there were, they would not be WP. They would use another compound, such as "Thermite" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite)

20 years ago I saw US Thermite grenade demonstrated for fun, but I understand they are now out of production.

bourbon
01-21-2009, 05:20 PM
Rex has it pretty on the nail in my opinion. I would only add that Iran has strategic interest in the West Bank, as key terrain in it's stated intent to "remove the Jews/Israel/Zionists from the book of history." In terms of that game, they will do whatever it takes to exert influence on Hamas, and/or create a proxy they can control.

...which is what makes the recent unpleasantness in Gaza a bit of side show, in Geo-strategic terms.
Wilf,

Who in the Iranian leadership structure has stated its intent as removing the Jews/Israel/Zionists from the book of history, and what power do they have? Iran knows they would see nuclear annihilation if they directly attacked Israel, not to mention lose all their hard won imperial gains.

Understandably Israel views any threat as a threat to its very existence. That said, it is as you say, far more complex on the local and regional level. Is the threat really of Iran “removing the Jews/Israel/Zionists from the book of history”; or rather is the threat that Iran challenges Israel’s geo-strategic position as the top regional power, with Israel viewing that position as vital to its existence?

William F. Owen
01-22-2009, 05:58 AM
Who in the Iranian leadership structure has stated its intent as removing the Jews/Israel/Zionists from the book of history, and what power do they have? Iran knows they would see nuclear annihilation if they directly attacked Israel, not to mention lose all their hard won imperial gains.

I think Ahmadinejad comment is well known = بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود
I don't speak Farsi, but I have a few friends that do. Either way, it's not "live in Peace"


Understandably Israel views any threat as a threat to its very existence. That said, it is as you say, far more complex on the local and regional level. Is the threat really of Iran “removing the Jews/Israel/Zionists from the book of history”; or rather is the threat that Iran challenges Israel’s geo-strategic position as the top regional power, with Israel viewing that position as vital to its existence?

Does it matter? Israel's territorial security is founded making it either impossible or far too costly to attempt any form of military action (conventional and unconventional) against it. That hasn't altered since 1948. It's based on the "strongest tribe" principle, so recently rediscovered by the US. This had nothing to do with garnering economic or social influence. It is entirely a security necessity.

Iran has a program of generating, co-opting and developing proxy forces in the territories surrounding Israel. I don't think anyone disputes that. Why? Who knows.

Rex Brynen
01-23-2009, 03:10 PM
An excellent account of the complex Israeli diplomacy surrounding the military campaign in Gaza:


Haaretz - 15:00 23/01/2009

Israel's multi-faceted Gaza cease-fire (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057934.html)

By Aluf Benn


The political goals of Operation Cast Lead were not formulated until a few days after the fighting in Gaza began. Heading the list was a "stable cease-fire," centering around an effort to prevent arms smuggling into the Strip. The logic was that the Israel Defense Forces operation would damage Hamas' military capabilities, and that putting an end to the arms buildup would prevent renewed rocket fire into Israel. Senior policy-makers, whose decisions were instrumental in shaping the war in Gaza, say Israel succeeded in placing the smuggling issue on the international agenda after years in which it has been shunted to the sidelines. Now Israel has secured a commitment from the United States, Europe and Egypt to act against an arms buildup in Gaza.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak sought an "arrangement" via Egyptian mediation, which would be more stable than the previous tahadiyeh (cease-fire) agreement with Hamas. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni opposed a deal that would legitimize Hamas and proposed ending the operation with an act of "deterrence": a unilateral cease-fire that would allow Israel to resort to force again if hostilities from Gaza were renewed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was against a settlement with Hamas - even one achieved by indirect means - but strove to reach an understanding with the international community.

Rex Brynen
02-17-2009, 07:54 PM
Explosives haul missing in Gaza (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7895123.stm)

BBC, 17 February 2009


Israeli aircraft dropped hundreds of tons of explosives on Gaza, not all of which exploded

A large stockpile of unexploded weapons has disappeared in Gaza, before United Nations experts were able to dispose of it safely, the BBC has learned.

Israel has accused Hamas of taking the stockpile, which was under Hamas guard....

Two weeks ago, on 2 February, the UN team was given access to a storage site in Gaza City where more than 7,000kg of explosives was being housed.

UXO have long been an important source of explosives for groups in Gaza (usually landmines from 1948-67, although in some cases even WWII and WWI stock). I imagine the "7,000 kg" refers to the gross weight of the UXO, not the amount of usable/extractable explosives.

JJackson
02-23-2009, 10:54 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/23_02_09_amnesty.pdf

BBC coverage


Israel-Hamas arms embargo urged
Palestinians run for cover during an Israeli strike over a UN school in Beit Lahia, 17/01
Israel has denied allegations of illegal use of white phosphorus rounds

Amnesty International has called for a freeze on arms sales to Israel and Palestinian groups such as Hamas following the recent Gaza conflict.

The human rights group said it had evidence both Israel and Hamas had used weapons sourced from overseas to carry out attacks on civilians.

full story http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7904929.stm

jmm99
03-21-2009, 08:38 PM
When I saw the photo on an "anti-war" blog, I immediately thought "it has to be Palestinian disinformation" - until I followed the link to Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html).

I came from a household in which Bobby Briscoe - and Chaim Herzog (Dublin-born) - were positive figures (http://jewishsitesvisited.com/articles/JEWISH-DUBLIN.pdf). This T-shirt disturbed me, even though I realize that "Psychologically speaking, this is one of the ways in which soldiers project their anger, frustration and violence." (quote from Dr Levy in the article).

Entropy
03-21-2009, 09:15 PM
JMM,

Just my opinion here, but it seems to me the Israeli-Arab conflict is descending into deeper levels of dehumanization on both sides. WILF may disagree with me here, but the conflict more resembles a perpetual tribal blood fued as much as anything else.

Uboat509
03-22-2009, 01:10 AM
When I saw the photo on an "anti-war" blog, I immediately thought "it has to be Palestinian disinformation" - until I followed the link to Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html).

I came from a household in which Bobby Briscoe - and Chaim Herzog (Dublin-born) - were positive figures (http://jewishsitesvisited.com/articles/JEWISH-DUBLIN.pdf). This T-shirt disturbed me, even though I realize that "Psychologically speaking, this is one of the ways in which soldiers project their anger, frustration and violence." (quote from Dr Levy in the article).

Joe is Joe, no matter what army he is in. This is par for the course. Joe always wants people to know what a bad-ass tough guy he is. If you look at the shirts you see Joe wearing here, you will see common themes. Skulls wearing berets is popular. So are bladed weapons for some reason. Often there are "cool" slogans like "mess with the best, die like the rest". There are also a lot of themes that might be considered inappropriate or even offensive. Commanders dont typicaly let Joe wear that kind ofnstuff on duty but Joe still loves to wear it when he's off. Other than raising the overall level of cheese I don't really think that it has any real effect nor is it a reliable indicator of Joe's capacity for violence.

SFC W

jmm99
03-22-2009, 01:56 AM
from Ub
Joe is Joe, no matter what army he is in.

Agreed - and I am not offended by such as "mess with the best, die like the rest". Nor, by folks chanting "I'm a natural-born killer", even though only true for a few.

This one explicitly gets into intentional killing of innocents - no suicide vest in sight ("1 shot, 2 kills"). Admittedly, I was most disturbed by a probably Jewish soldier wearing it - who knows, maybe the guy is an atheist (denial on my part). I'm reminded of a long-ago CO militia cav colonel - "nits grow into lice." Some Joes go beyond the rest of the Joes.

PS: Been slogging thru the many comments at Ha'aretz. One notes that she has a rifle (held in left hand, raised over left shoulder) - that is so; an armed combatant, albeit very pregnant - which may be a rationalization on my part for some justification. Need Dr Levy on that one.

Uboat509
03-22-2009, 03:06 AM
Again, I maintain that this goes to the Joe mentality. It becomes a kind of competition to see who can say or do the most outrageous thing. You say that this short goes over the line. I would say that that was the explicit intention of the designer/wearer, to "go over the line", the further the better.


SFC W

William F. Owen
03-22-2009, 04:29 AM
Just my opinion here, but it seems to me the Israeli-Arab conflict is descending into deeper levels of dehumanization on both sides. WILF may disagree with me here, but the conflict more resembles a perpetual tribal blood fued as much as anything else.

I see no change. Not for the last 3,000 years. The T-shirt is really no big deal. Vietnam produced far worse, and I can show you some outright racist bumper stickers, in my neighbourhood.

The only alarming thing about the IDF T-shirt is that traditionally they have always been humorous or nationalistic, not hate driven. It's a big thing here, "not to hate." You get taught it at school.

... but really. We're discussing what some troops wear on a T-shirt? ...and bear in mind, it's written in English.

jmm99
03-23-2009, 06:52 PM
The IDF issued a statement on the T-shirts (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073234.html).


Last update - 15:00 23/03/2009
IDF: Soldiers' anti-Palestinian T-Shirts are 'tasteless'
By The Associated Press

The Israel Defense Forces on Monday condemned T-shirts worn by soldiers that depict scenes of violence against Palestinians as the army faces increasing domestic criticism over its conduct during the recent offensive in the Gaza Strip.
.....
One depicts a child in the cross-hairs of a rifle with the slogan, "The smaller they are, the harder it is," said one of T-shirts. Another shows a pregnant woman in the cross-hairs and the words "1 Shot 2 Kills".
....
"The shirts are not in accordance with IDF values and are simply tasteless," the army said in a statement. "This type of humor is unbecoming and should be condemned."

When I first looked at the photo, I saw the caption and only a pregnant woman. I overlooked the rifle in her left hand - as did all but one of the 160+ who commented on Ha'aretz the day its story ran (as noted in my PS).

It is possible that the T-shirts were an attempt at black humor or even hate. It is also possible (since I'm not in the mind of the cartoonist) that they were a statement about the nature of the war that confronted the sniper. A war where pregnant women are armed combatants - and children are armed with grenades.

Putting oneself in the shoes of the sniper and his actual sight picture (an armed combatant) leads (possibly) to a different conclusion as to what was really meant by the cartoon. So, an over-reaction on my part due to overlooking a key fact.

The story will go on - not as to T-shirts; but as to the UN report and the statements of some IDF soldiers.