Hamas in Gaza (merged thread)

[William F. Owen]

...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?

[Hacksaw]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Tom Odom]

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

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

and by the way congrats on the newborn


Tom

[William F. Owen]

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]

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]

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/...insonSep08.pdf

[Tom Odom]

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]

...in the context of clashes between clans and the ruling authority:

ArabNews, 17 Sep 08: Eleven Die in Gaza Gunbattle

Eleven people, including a police officer and an infant, were killed yesterday in a fresh outbreak of internecine Palestinian clashes 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, as well as the SI article linked in earlier posts in this thread.

[Rex Brynen]

INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP - NEW BRIEFING

Palestine Divided

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]

ANALYSIS / IAF strike on Gaza is Israel's version of 'shock and awe'

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]

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]

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 didn't seem to have the same cachet as did 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 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 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]

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]

From this mornings Spiegel

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]

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]

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.