vimothy

yurp
Matt Yglesias makes a good point:

A number of writers have noted the possibility of Hamas being politically strengthened by Israel’s bombing of Gaza, just as Hezbollah were strengthened by Israel’s 2006 bombing of Lebanon. This would obviously be a bad outcome, but it’s important to understand that it would not be the worst. A much worse outcome would be that the bombings weaken Hamas while strengthening Salafist elements in Gaza, who consider Hamas a bunch of timid, half-stepping sellouts.

Salafism is a strict, puritanical interpretation of Islam, of which Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are extreme exponents. One of the many tragic consequences of the Iraq war is that... it provided an environment for radicalized Muslims to come and train alongside their radical brethren in the latest guerrilla tactics against the world’s best military.[...]

Many of these fighters are now filtering back into the region, bringing their hardened ideology and training with them. Michael Scheuer, the CIA’s former point man on bin Laden, has been examining the penetration of the Levant by extremist factions facilitated by the war in Iraq. Scheuer recently reported that “the bleed-through from Iraq also is having some impact in the Palestinian territories — especially Gaza — and in Israel.”

In these theaters, of course, access to Israeli targets already is assured, and so the emphasis of the newly arrived mujahideen and a number of in-place Israeli Arabs seems to be to build a foothold from which Salafism can be preached and have a chance to grow among the populace.

There have been anti-Israeli operations conducted by Salafi groups in Gaza - such as the Jaysh al-Islam (Army of Islam) - but the attacks have not been major, and the Salafis appear to spend just as much time fighting with their erstwhile Islamist colleagues in Hamas.​

Scheuer quoted Jordanian writer Urayb al-Rintawi’s warning that “those who blockaded Gaza to take revenge on Hamas and champion Fatah could one not-too-distant day see that their reprehensible deed has only led to bring [in] al-Qaeda and draw [in] fundamentalist organizations that are more extreme than both the hawks of Hamas and the militants of Islamic jihad.”

In April, the Jamestown Foundation reported on Al Qaeda’s growing interest in Palestine.[...]

In July, Der Speigel ran a story on the competition between Hamas and Salafist elements in Gaza:

Abu Mustafa says, he and his comrades in arms realize they need to be patient. There’s a long way to go before they can begin their struggle for global influence. First, they have to take care of an enemy closer to home: Hamas.

So far, Hamas has done what it can to keep the Salafis under control. They know the ultra-radicals are just waiting to take over Hamas’ position of leadership. “They are traitors,” Abu Mustafa says of Hamas. “Compared to us, they are Islamism lite.” […]

The group’s greatest sin, says Abu Mustafa… is its effort to bring Islam and democracy together. “Hamas represents an American style of Islam. They have tried to curry favor.” Which is not such a bad thing for Abu Mustafa and his Salafis. “Hamas is like a block of ice in the sun,” he says. “Every minute they get smaller — and we get larger.”​
 

vimothy

yurp
Tactics but no strategy again; lots of dead civilians again... It's hard to see how Israel can come out of this a net winner in the long-term, though they have seriously dented Hamas's operational capacity and even killed a few commanders.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
I suppose. Although they have been preparing this for a long time, unlike 2006. One eye is surely fixed on Iran.
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
brutal house-tidying?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733155685&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

one of the things i found interesting about that IICC thing i linked to was their description of Israel killing seven Hamasniks on 4th Nov which the IDF say was pre-emptive.
very much tit-for-tat, in the strictly military sense of these two competing operations (by which i mean Hamas fighters and IDF troops) as described below
On November 4, Hamas prepared to abduct Israelis by digging a tunnel under the border security fence. According to the report, Hamas decided on this action in the knowledge of the damage it would do to the truce. This is because they concluded that, with the Shalit negotiations dragging out, it would be better to have another Israeli soldier as a bargaining chip. The IDF prevented the attack, killing seven Hamasniks in the process; Hamas responded with a massive barrage of fire.

EDIT: "interesting", tragic, deeply sad etc. of course.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Just out of interest, do the ME-heads here know of any major Palestinian resistance factions that are mainly of a straightforward leftist/secular/anti-imperialist stripe? Or are the options 'somewhat Islamist' and 'mega-Islamist'? What about Fatah, where do they fit in here ideologically?
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Just out of interest, do the ME-heads here know of any major Palestinian resistance factions that are mainly of a straightforward leftist/secular/anti-imperialist stripe? Or are the options 'somewhat Islamist' and 'mega-Islamist'? What about Fatah, where do they fit in here ideologically?

That describes Fatah, historically at least.
 
D

droid

Guest
And so began the tit-for-tat of the 'ceasefire' proper, continuing in that vein (militants not aligned to Hamas keeping up a steady if much reduced supply of rockets and mortars into Israel; Israel closing the borders), and culminating in the Nov 4th counterterrorism operation (and I think the second of its kind during the ceasefire?), which Israel describes as being undertaken in order to prevent an attack through one of Gaza's tunnels by Hamas with the aim of kidnapping IDF soldiers.

And so your argument collapses at the first hurdle: militants not aligned to Hamas keeping up a steady if much reduced supply of rockets and mortars into Israel...

So militants who are not party to the ceasfire attack Israel and this gives Israel justification for imposing seige like conditions on Gaza and breaking the ceasefire with Hamas? Can you not see the gap in logic there?
 

vimothy

yurp
Iran on the move:

DAMASCUS (AFP) — Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Saturday met Iran's Supreme National Security Council chief Saeed Jalili to discuss the situation in the Gaza Strip, the official SANA news agency reported.

It said Jalili, who arrived in Damascus on Friday night, and Assad held talks on "the dangerous situation the Palestinian people of Gaza are going through because of the Israeli aggression."

They discussed the "consequences on security and stability in the region of the Israel's aggression continuing" and "ways Islamic countries can force Israel to immediately stop the massacres against the Palestinian people, end the Gaza blockade and open the crossing points," SANA reported.

Jalili told Assad of "Iran's commitment to cooperation and coordination with Syria on Gaza," it added.

The Iranian security supremo also met the Islamist Hamas movement's exiled political chief Khaled Meshaal and Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Abdullah Shallah after he arrived on Friday, a Palestinian source said. Both men are based in Damascus.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Palestinian People's Party. Straightforward socialists.

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Who are still around, amazingly. They all flirt with jihad and martyr imagery these days, though. It's de rigeur.
 

vimothy

yurp
And so your argument collapses at the first hurdle: militants not aligned to Hamas keeping up a steady if much reduced supply of rockets and mortars into Israel...

So militants who are not party to the ceasfire attack Israel and this gives Israel justification for imposing seige like conditions on Gaza and breaking the ceasefire with Hamas? Can you not see the gap in logic there?

I’m was trying to be transparent, but it's not my logic that's faulty, I'm afraid:

Hamas policing its own borders and imposing the peace on groups who refused to take part was a condition of the ceasefire.

Furthermore, such an activity is a condition of sovereignty. It is indeed farcical to suggest otherwise. Bombs are falling on Israel. It's not Hamas's problem -- they're a quasi-state terror group and don't have to worry abut such things -- but woe betide an Israeli response to the numerous non-breaches of the ceasefire -- that would of course violate the ceasefire and invite the just retaliation of Hamas.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Palestinian People's Party. Straightforward socialists.

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Who are still around, amazingly. They all flirt with jihad and martyr imagery these days, though. It's de rigeur.

what was the name of Habash's group? he was Christian by upbringing, I believe.
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
Hamas and Fatah are basically as bad as each other.

a key reason Hamas won those democratic elections at the start of '06 was due to anger at Fatah lining their own pockets, not helping the people etc

(what was it Robert Fisk called Arafat? a 'mega-terrorist', 'mega corrupt'?).

Hamas were the party of reform.

you can see why their promises of a clean-up soon morphed into strong-man tactics once in office..
(a bit like the ICU bringing some stability to Mogadishu during their time in charge there, arguably- i am not condoning the ICU here, granted, nor am i saying Hamas are just like ICU, which would be wrong)
 
Last edited:

scottdisco

rip this joint please
there's a section in Joe Sacco's magnificent, sympathetic, humane Palestine comic book where he's with somebody and they start talking about Habash (IIRC). and they just start abusing Habash, with these grotesque OTT insults, which i found strangely amusing
 
D

droid

Guest
Furthermore, such an activity is a condition of sovereignty. It is indeed farcical to suggest otherwise. Bombs are falling on Israel. It's not Hamas's problem -- they're a quasi-state terror group and don't have to worry abut such things -- but woe betide an Israeli response to the numerous non-breaches of the ceasefire -- that would of course violate the ceasefire and invite the just retaliation of Hamas.

So Gaza is soveriegn now? I thought sovereign states had control over their own borders, airspace, coastline etc...? Can israel seriously demand that Gaza act as a sovereign state whilst denying Gaza the most basic of rights of a sovereign state?

If the IRA and the British government agree to a ceasefire in Belfast and the INLA then attack British forces in belfast, have the IRA broken the ceasfire? There are over a hundred militant groups based in gaza, Hamas did a remarkable job in controlling attacks to the extent they did, especially consideriung Israel's attempts to erode their control over Gaza. Also, Israel can make no such arguments that they did not have full control over atttacks made against Palestinians, nor of their policy of collective punishment through seige...

Is now a pertinent time to bring up Israel's sponsoring and support of Hamas after it's formation as a response to the PLO's peace offensive?
 
Top