Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...

[craner]

Well, you know, some bibliographical references, then! Help people with their libraries, like. Don't Avi Shlaim or Rashid Khalidi have anything to say about it?

 

[droid]

Im not here to spoonfeed you!

I think Avi Shalim mentions it in 'War and peace in the middle east', also this recent Guardian article. There may be somethng in the recent book whose name escapes me, but Ive only flicked through it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

...Like other radical movements, Hamas began to moderate its political programme following its rise to power. From the ideological rejectionism of its charter, it began to move towards pragmatic accommodation of a two-state solution. In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a national unity government that was ready to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel, however, refused to negotiate with a government that included Hamas.

It continued to play the old game of divide and rule between rival Palestinian factions. In the late 1980s, Israel had supported the nascent Hamas in order to weaken Fatah, the secular nationalist movement led by Yasser Arafat...

Cant remember anything from Khaldi. Havent read him for at least 5 years.

 

[crackerjack]

Seeing this

The main UN compound in Gaza was in flames today after being struck by Israeli artillery fire, and a spokesman said that the building had been hit by shells containing the incendiary agent white phosphorus.

The attack on the headquarters of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) came as Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, arrived in Israel on a peace mission and plunged Israel's relations with the world body to a new low.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5521925.ece

made me wish this was for real

 

[droid]

made me wish this was for real

Funnies.

This one is a bit too close to the truth though - talk about overkill...

 

[Sick Boy]

Funnies.

This one is a bit too close to the truth though - talk about overkill...

Yeah, that shit is so grim. Because the sites were shelled, the body parts scattered for meters. There are reports of nearby residents finding entrails, hands, etc. on their roof tops.

That being said, they were probably finding those anyway. The newest statistics put Palestine's body count at over 1000, including at least 300 children.

They've gone and pissed bin-Laden off now too. Yesterday he made a statement encouraging Muslims to declare holy war on Israel.

It's a shame really. Although it looks like Ban Ki-Moon is brokering some sort of truce deal, and even some members of Hamas have been hinting at possibilities of letting talks commence between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, this whole affair has pushed peace between Arabs and Jews much further away than it was before it all started. Some are saying decades away.

Even if Hamas takes a back seat, these atrocities have now galvanized people who otherwise opposed them to the point where now they are expressing outrage at the perceived complicity of places like Egypt (who in my opinion are complicit) and Jordan.

 

[droid]

From The Independent, 18th June 2008:

Wiki page listing rocket attacks from Gaza, 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008

Wiki page listing rocket attacks from Gaza, pre-2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks[/IMG]

...A deal was agreed but Hamas did not stick to their side of the bargain, i.e. stopping the flow of rockets....

OK, first of all, what exactly do wikipedia graphs prove? Isn't it common knowledge that when it comes to politics wikipedia is notoriously unreliable for anything but the most basic and uncontroversial of details? Even if you accept this graph as proof it has no relevance to the period in question except to emphasise how successful the truce was.

Secondly, you have sidestepped the point I was making about the ceasefire so I will reiterate.

Let's start by having a look at the exact text of the 'understanding' which were recently released to the International Crisis Group.

1- Mutual agreement to cease all military activities by the start of “zero hour” on Thursday, June 19, at 6:00AM.

2- Duration of ceasefire is six months according to agreement concluded among the national parties under Egyptian auspices.

3- Ceasefire will be implemented under national consensus and under the Egyptian auspices.

4- After seventy two hours from the start of the ceasefire, the crossing points will be opened to allow 30% more goods to enter the Gaza strip.

5- Ten days after that (i.e., 13 days after ceasefire begins), all crossings would be open between Gaza and Israel, and Israel will allow the transfer of all goods that were banned or restricted to go into Gaza.

6- Egypt will work to expand the ceasefire into the West Bank later.

From the beginning of the ceasefire on June 19th there was a marked decrease in rocket attacks, in fact, between June 19th and November 4 there was a 98% decrease in rockets fired with no fatalities.

This was the longest period of calm since rocket attacks began in 2002. A success according to the IICC which (as already mentioned is a closely associated with the Israeli foreign ministry and the intelligence community):

4. An analysis of the situation on the ground indicates two distinct periods:

i) A period of relative quiet between June 19 and November 4 : As of June 19, there was a marked reduction in the extent of attacks on the western Negev population. The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters). Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire. The IDF refrained from undertaking counterterrorism activities in the Gaza Strip, taking only routine defensive security measures along the border fence. Between June 19 and November 4, 20 rockets (three of which fell inside the Gaza Strip) and 18 mortar shells (five of which fell inside the Gaza Strip) were fired at Israel . ​

14. As soon as the lull arrangement went into effect there was a marked decrease in the
extent of rocket and mortar shell attacks against the western Negev population and the
Ashqelon region. There was relative calm in Sderot and the towns and villages near the GazaStrip, although the calm was disrupted by sporadic rocket and mortar shell fire and occasionally by light arms fire and attempts to place IEDs by rogue terrorist organizations (primarily networks of Fatah, the Popular Resistance Committees and other small groups, some of them affiliated with Al-Qaeda). Hamas, for its part, was careful to maintain the ceasefire. IDF forces refrained from undertaking counterterrorism activities in the Gaza Strip and only carried out defensive security activity around the border security fence to prevent attacks. That was the situation on the ground before November 4. During the first period 20 rockets were fired, three of which fell inside the Gaza Strip, and 18 mortar shells, five of which fell inside the Gaza Strip.

15. The sporadic rocket fire during this period was generally carried out in response to what the rogue organizations called “Israeli violations” of the arrangement. In certain instances there were attacks to protest the fact that the arrangement had not been extended to Judea and Samaria; that was noticeable from the beginning of the lull. For example, on June 24 three rockets were fired at Sderot, the first Palestinian violation of the arrangement, after a Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative was killed in Nablus (in Samaria), despite the fact that Judea and Samaria were not included in the lull arrangement, and both terrorist attacks and counterterrorism activities were carried out there at that time.

16. Networks belonging to Fatah/Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades were the most prominent and central in violating the lull arrangement. Their motivation was the desire to show themselves as the standard bearers of the “resistance” (i.e., terrorism) and to send a message of defiance to Hamas, their rivals, even though Fatah in Judea and Samaria renounced the attacks.5 In certain instances the Palestinian Islamic Jihad or other organizations fired rockets. In most instances they did not publicly claim responsibility. Such attacks were motivated by deep internal Palestinian rivalries, especially between Fatah and Hamas, and not responses to “violations” on the part of Israel.

17. During the first period Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire and its operatives were not involved in rocket attacks. At the same time, the movement tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement on the other terrorist organizations and to prevent them from violating it. Hamas took a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangement, but in a limited fashion and contenting itself with short-term detentions and confiscating weapons. For example, a number of times Hamas’s security services detained Fatah/Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades operatives, including Abu Qusai, an Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades spokesman, who claimed responsibility for rocket fire (June 29). Detained operatives were released after a short interrogation and no real measures were taken against them. However, it was clear that throughout the first period Hamas sought to avoid direct confrontations with the rogue organizations (especially the PIJ) insofar as was possible, lest it be accused of collaborating with Israel and harming the “resistance.” Hamas therefore focused on using politics to convince the organizations to maintain the lull arrangement and on seeking support for it within Gazan public opinion (including issuing statements by its activists regarding the lull’s achievements). ​

So according to one of the most prominent anti-terror groups and an approved source of the Israeli foreign ministry, Hamas maintained the ceasefire, attempted to prevent rocket attacks which were launched in defiance of Hamas, and rocket attacks only restarted as a response to the Israeli incursion of November 4th.

This has all been partly confirmed by Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli prime minister in an interview on Channel 4 news.

Hamas for their part publicly condemned the al-Asqa Martyrs Brigade (a military splinter group of Fatah) launched rocket attacks of the week of June 23rd, "claiming that they were deliberately trying to wreck the fragile Gaza truce with Israel to "settle internal scores"." They also publicly reaffirmed their commitment to the ceasefire.

It's also worth mentioning here that Fatah groups such as Abbas's presidential guard and the "Preventive Security Force" headed by warlord Mohammad Dahlan had previously been armed and trained via Israel and had the political support of Israel and the US in their armed opposition against the elected Hamas government.

If there was any doubt whatsoever about Israel's support for Fatah fighters in the strip it was dispelled when150 Fatah supporters were allowed to enter Israel as a refuge following a Hamas crackdown - possibly including some members of the same groups that had been firing on Israel in defiance of Hamas' truce agreements.

Cont...

 

[droid]

As for Israel's side of the deal - on June 19th they did allow 30% more aid (not normal traffic - just humanitarian aid) into the strip but then restricted access for the remainder of the ceasefire after the first al-Asqa rockets were launched. Israel expanded the security zone at the border to 300 meters, entry into which was an automatic death sentence for Palestinians. Israeli officials acknowledged in June that "that they had no intention of opening the border crossings fully, even though they anticipated that this would be the source of serious conflict with Hamas... ...and in late July Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni declared that the border crossings should remain closed until Hamas agreed to the release of Gilad Shalit...", which was not a condition of the ceasefire.

Remember that the Israeli siege was a continuation of policies which were commenced prior to 'disengagement' from Gaza, and are in direct violation of International Humanitarian law and constituted collective punishment, condemned by the UN human rights council in January 07 (the 15th such condemnation on human rights in the occupied territories in the preceding 2 years). In March of the same year, aid agencies and NGO's such as Amnesty, CARE International UK, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Medecins du Monde UK, Oxfam, Save the Children UK and Trocaire issued the joint report 'The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion':

The situation for 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is worse now than it has ever been since the start of the Israeli military occupation in 1967. The current situation in Gaza is man-made, completely avoidable and, with the necessary political will, can also be reversed.

Gaza has suffered from a long-term pattern of economic stagnation and plummeting development indicators. The severity of the situation has increased exponentially since Israel imposed extreme restrictions on the movement of goods and people in response to the Hamas take over of Gaza...

Israeli human rights group B'tselem outlined these breaches of humanitarian law and the effects of the economic strangulation of Gaza even prior to the Hamas takeover in 2006, in their March '05 report 'The Gaza Strip - One Big Prison':

Despite the easing of restrictions that Israel declared following the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in February 2005, there has been almost no improvement in the movement of Palestinians to and from Gaza, nor in the movement of goods. The report illustrates the extent to which Israel treats many fundamental human rights – among them the right to freedom of movement, family life, health, education, and work – as “humanitarian gestures” that it grants or denies at will...

...The strangulation of the Gaza Strip increased following Palestinian attacks against civilians in Israel and the Occupied Territories over the past few years. Targeting civilians is a “war crime” and never justified. Israel is entitled, even obligated, to protect its citizens. However, Israel’s right to self-defense does not permit it to trample on the rights of an entire population...

...

Israel closed the borders in response to continued rocket attacksthat have (almost eight years after the first attacks) united Israeli society. And so for Hamas, either Gaza is their problem and they broke the ceasefire, or it is not their problem and they cannot claim a single counterterror operation as deus ex machina.

Even if you take the position (in conflict with official Israeli sources) that Hamas broke the ceasefire between June-November, and that Israel (in agreement with the ICG, Amnesty etc...) broke the ceasefire by refusing to ease the blockade, this contention is still nonsense. It appears that the understanding held, despite it's lack of perfection. Israel seemed to accept that Hamas was doing everything in its power to prevent rocket attacks (and the 98% reduction in attacks bears this out), and Hamas seemed willing to continue on this course despite Israel's continuing blockade.

This understanding ended on November 4th after an unprovoked Israeli raid on gaza (lets dispense with the preemptive 'tunnel/kidnapping' pretext nonsense) which killed 6 Palestinian militants and prompted a resumption of widescale rocket attacks and a closing of all borders, resulting in what a UN Human rights investigator described as 'severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law'.

(As an aside, there is an uncomfortable historical echo in the assertion that one Palestinian group broke a ceasefire (thus justifying retaliation) because an opposing group attacked Israel. In the summer of 1982 after attempting to provoke a response from the PLO by shelling southern Lebanon for over a year (in violation of ceasefire agreements), Israel finally launched it's brutal invasion in June - the stated pretext being the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador to London by the Abu Nidal group, who happened to be bitter opponents of the PLO. the real reason behind the attacks is sickeningly familiar:

The actual reasons for the 1982 invasion have never been concealed in Israel, though they are rated "X" here. A few weeks after the invasion began, Israel's leading academic specialist on the Palestinians, Yehoshua Porath, pointed out that the decision to invade "flowed from the very fact that the cease-fire had been observed" by the PLO, a "veritable catastrophe" for the Israeli government because ir endangered the policy of evading a political settlement. The PLO was gaining respectability thanks to its preference for negotiations over terror. The Israeli government's hope, therefore, was to compel "the stricken PLO" to "return to its earlier terrorism," thus "undercutting the danger" of negotiations. As Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir later stated, Israel went to war because there was "a terrible danger.... Not so much a military one as a political one." The invasion was intended to "undermine the position of the moderates within [the PLO] ranks" and thus to block" the PLO `peace offensive'" and "to halt [the PLO's] rise to political respectability" (strategic analyst Avner Yaniv); it should be called "the war to safeguard the occupation of the West Bank," having been motivated by Begin's "fear of the momentum of the peace process," according to Israeli Arabist and former head of military intelligence Gen. Yehoshaphat Harkabi. US backing for Israel's aggression, including veto of Security Council efforts to stop the slaughter, was presumably based on the same reasoning.)

Had the Israeli Government’s primary concern been the safety of its citizens, it would have fulfilled its obligations under the ceasefire agreement – desisting from military actions against Gaza and lifting its economic blockade of Gaza. Had it done so, there was the strong possibilty that Hamas would have been prepared to maintain indefinitely the ceasefire that prevailed prior to 4 November... Israel claims (echoed by yourself) that it only wants to end the rocket attacks and protect it's citizens. If this is the case, then why have they continually refused and broken ceasefires which have been shown to be effective in achieving this exact aim, including their own unilaterally declared ones?

Mar. 13, 2008: Moving Toward an Israeli-Hamas Truce

When Palestinian militants this week laid down their terms for a cease-fire with the Israelis — an end to Israeli military operations in Gaza and in the West Bank, and the re-opening of borders into the besieged Mediterranean strip — it wasn't long before the Israelis responded.

In Bethlehem on Wednesday evening, Israeli agents disguised as Arabs and driving a car with a Palestinian license plate ambushed and killed four suspected militants, including a senior commander of Islamic Jihad...

April 21, 2008: Hamas offers truce in return for 1967 borders

The leader of Hamas said Monday that his Palestinian militant group would offer Israel a 10-year "hudna," or truce, as implicit proof of recognition of Israel if it withdrew from all lands it seized in the 1967 Middle East War.

Khaled Mashaal told The Associated Press that he made the offer to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in talks on Saturday. "We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition," Mashaal said.

April 25th 08: Israel rejects Hamas cease-fire offer as humanitarian crisis deepens in Gaza

Israel rejected a cease-fire offer from the Palestinian group Hamas as a humanitarian aid crisis erupting in the Gaza Strip threatened wider instability. The crisis in the troubled Palestinian territory deepened as President Bush, meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Washington, offered assurances that a two-state deal is possible before he leaves office in January.

Hamas offered a six-month truce to Israel on Friday if Israel would end a blockade it has imposed since June on the Gaza Strip, after Hamas seized the disputed territory...

Cont...

 

[droid]

Nov 23, 2008 Egypt reportedly brokers Hamas-Israel ceasefire, easing blockade of Gaza
Gaza – Ma’an – An agreement has been reached between Palestinian resistance factions in the Gaza Strip and Israel, Hamas announced on Sunday.

The agreement centers around a pledge to stop firing on Israeli targets in return for Israel opening crossing points into the besieged Strip, a top Hamas leader said.

Hamas official Ayman Taha announced that he had received a telephone call from Egyptian intelligence on Friday, which delivered a message from Israel asking that operations be scrapped in exchange for opening the crossing points...

30 Dec, 08: UN official says Israel attacked during lull
Palestinians in Gaza believed Israel had called a 48-hour "lull" in retaliatory attacks with Hamas when Israeli warplanes launched a massive bombardment of Hamas installations in the Gaza Strip, a UN official said Monday.

Karen Abu Zayd, commissioner of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which helps Palestinian refugees, raised the possible violation of an informal truce in a video press conference with UN reporters from her base in Gaza...

Jan 9, 2009 Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December

WASHINGTON, Jan 9 (IPS) - Contrary to Israel's argument that it was forced to launch its air and ground offensive against Gaza in order to stop the firing of rockets into its territory, Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel ceasefire arrangement, according to a U.S.-based source who has been briefed on the proposal.

The proposal to renew the ceasefire was presented by a high-level Hamas delegation to Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman at a meeting in Cairo Dec. 14. The delegation, said to have included Moussa Abu Marzouk, the second-ranking official in the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, told Suleiman that Hamas was prepared to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if the Israelis would open up the Gaza border crossings and pledge not to launch attacks in Gaza.

Fri Jan 9: Israel rebuffs U.N. resolution, pursues Gaza war

Israel rejected a U.N. resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip on Friday and warplanes and tanks pounded the Palestinian enclave.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert dismissed Thursday's binding Security Council resolution demanding an "immediate and durable" ceasefire in the two-week-old war as "unworkable."

Fri, 09 Jan 2009 : Israel pounds Gaza during truce hours

Israel has violated a three-hour truce declared to allow the passage of humanitarian aid, and has resumed attacks on the Gaza Strip.

Israeli troops violated the truce on Friday and continued their attacks on the costal sliver.

The cities of Jabaliya and Beit Lahiya in the north and the Zeitun neighborhood of Gaza City came under Israeli tank fire, witnesses said on Friday...

There is also the case of the Hamas ceasefire announced in February 05 which ended after the Israeli navy shelled a family picnic on Beit Lahya beach in June 2006.

The wider context is the thousands of rockets fired into Israel since its unilateral withdrawal in 2006.

The 'wider context' as you put it, is not the use of almost completely ineffective terror tactics by Palestinians. As is plainly obvious to all but the ideologically blinkered, the 'wider context' is:

• The 40 year old occupation
  
• The continuing Israeli contempt for Palestinian life (approx 6000 killed since 2000, including 1500 minors)
  
• The continuing denial of Palestinian sovereignty and national rights
  
• The continuing denial of basic human rights in areas almost entirely controlled by Israel
  
• The continuing rejectionism by the US and Israel of the international, Arab and Palestinian consensus for a 2 state solution
  
• The continuing rejection by Israel of international law with the backing of the US and to a lesser extent the UK and Europe.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that the aim of this attack was to destroy political, economic and civil life in Gaza, can there be any ambiguity now in what the Israelis are doing?

Since December 27th, Israel has wantonly bombed and attacked built up areas full of civilians. It's evacuating civilians into buildings and then shelling that building. It's refusing access of medical personnel and ambulances. It's starving surviving children in the process. It's shooting at medics and shelling hospitals. It's sniping and shooting at civilians holding white flags and children outside hospitals. It's using white phosphorous (classed as a chemical weapon when used against civilians), experimental weapons, and possibly depleted uranium. It's repeatedly attacking UN convoys and facilities used as refuges and storehouses for aid and medicine, despite being in constant contact with the UN at ground and government level. It's arresting reporters, refusing access to the international press and then attacking the press. Its arresting Israeli demonstrators and arab demonstrators, and excluding Arab parties from elections. In short it's engaging in wholesale slaughter of civilians and a multitude of war crimes, whilst its leaders call for the use of nuclear weapons, all as part of an operation that has been cynically timed for political reasons and has been planned since last March... And yet there are still moral morons out there who claim that Israel does not target civilians...

This is utterly indefensible terror, far far worse in scale and brutality than ANYTHING ever done by Palestinians to Israelis and the consequences for the region will be disastrous.

 

[scottdisco]

Even if Hamas takes a back seat, these atrocities have now galvanized people who otherwise opposed them to the point where now they are expressing outrage at the perceived complicity of places like Egypt (who in my opinion are complicit) and Jordan.

Sick Boy OTM re Egypt.

what's this about my mate Brendan O'Neill?

 

[droid]

On top of everything else, it looks as if Israel is attempting to clear the border areas by transferring the population to create a new 'security zone'.

The IDF has also forced at least 40,000 people to leave their homes in agricultural and border areas. In Rafah, most of the 20,000 people removed from their homes were lodging with relatives and not in UNRWA facilities

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache...+posing+as+hamas+men&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=uk

And from the same article: Is this the correct way to evacuate civilians?

...Haaretz has also learned that one of the army's methods for evacuating a home is to fire a missile toward its upper level. That is how B.'s house in Sajaiyeh was destroyed. It was bombed just a few minutes after a missile struck and 40 shell-shocked family members walked out of the house...

Amira Hass makes some cogent observations:

...The siege of Gaza did not begin when Hamas seized control of the Strip's security organs, or when Gilad Shalit was taken captive, or when Hamas was elected in democratic elections. The siege began in 1991 - before the suicide bombings. And since then, it has only become more sophisticated, reaching its peak in 2005.

The Israeli public relations machinery happily presented the disengagement as the end of the occupation, in brazen disregard of the facts. The isolation and closure were presented as military necessities. But we are big boys and girls, and we know that "military necessities" and consistent lies serve state goals. Israel's goal was to thwart the two-state solution, which the world had expected to materialize once the Cold War ended in 1990. This was not a perfect solution, but the Palestinians were ready for it then.

Gaza is not a military power that attacked its tiny, peace-loving neighbor, Israel. Gaza is a territory that Israel occupied in 1967, along with the West Bank. Its residents are part of the Palestinian people, which lost its land and its homeland in 1948.

In 1993, Israel had a one-time golden opportunity to prove to the world that what people say about us is untrue - that it is not by nature a colonialist state. That the expulsion of a nation from its land, the expulsion of people from their houses and the robbery of Palestinian land for the sake of settling Jews are not the basis and essence of its existence.

And Thomas Friedman succinctly sums up Israeli policy towards civilians and its commitment to terror:

..Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future.

...In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to “educate” Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population...

 

[vimothy]

Truce: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/18/gaza-fragile-truth-and-fragile-future

Joe the Plumber is covering Gaza:
Re Friedman, Matt Taibbi's recent v. funny takedown: http://www.nypress.com/article-19271-flat-n-all-that.html

 

[crackerjack]

Re Friedman, Matt Taibbi's recent v. funny takedown: http://www.nypress.com/article-19271-flat-n-all-that.html

Brilliant.

 

[droid]

So Israel manages to avoid any chance of even a medium term resolution by ignoring Hamas' conditions for a truce and declaring it's own unilateral ceasefire, the timing of which can leave no doubt as to the cynicism behind the entire brutal operation. And so, just like after previous attacks the blockade remains in place, and the already wretched Gazans will suffer even more and have no hope of rebuilding their shattered society.

ANALYSIS-Israel's Gaza ceasefire may set stage for next conflict

Israel declared an end to its first war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip on Sunday, but few think it will be the last.

Determined to deny the Islamist group any gains from the 22-day conflict, Israel opted for a unilateral ceasefire that leaves largely unsettled the issues at the heart of the conflict -- Israel's blockade and Hamas's future role.

Though weakened militarily, Hamas remains the de facto force within the coastal enclave.

For now, the big question is whether Hamas militants will fire on Israeli ground troops during the withdrawal, as the group's leaders have threatened to do.

If that happens, Israel made clear the fighting will resume.

But long-term, the real question is whether Israel will abandon its stranglehold on Gaza. So long as Hamas remains in power, most diplomats don't think so.

That means living conditions for the enclave's 1.5 million residents, half of whom are children, are unlikely to improve much, even if international donors promise to rebuild the impoverished enclave.

Despite the head of the ICC claiming the court has no jurisdiction over Gaza, the Israelis are preparing for war crimes litigation:

Israel fears wave of war crimes lawsuits over Gaza offensive

Israel is preparing for a wave of lawsuits by pro-Palestinian organizations overseas against Israelis involved in the Gaza fighting, claiming they were responsible for war crimes due to the harsh results stemming from the IDF's actions against Palestinian civilians and their property.

Senior Israeli ministers have expressed serious fears during the past few days about the possibility that Israel will be pressed to agree to an international investigation of the losses among non-combatants during Operation Cast Lead; or alternately, that Israelis will be faced with personal suits, such as happened to Israeli officers who were accused of war crimes in Britain for their actions during the second intifada.

When the scale of the damage in Gaza becomes clear, I will no longer take a vacation in Amsterdam, only at the international court in The Hague," said one minister. It was not clear whether he was trying to make a joke or not...

Angry Arab is clear on the scale of Israel's defeat:

On balance: Evaluation of the Israeli festival of slaughter and butchery in Gaza

...So Israel failed in 1) achieving a total surrender of Hamas; 2) in propping up the Dahlan-Abu Mazen gangs who are more discredited today than ever. Early in the campaign, Dahlan appeared on Al-Arabiyya and on Egyptian TV and was quite bombastic because he was expecting that the matter would be over in the first week. When that did not happen, he disappeared, and some say that he went back to Montenegro--his news base. 3) Israel failed in achieving a victory that it needed: a victory that would once and for all put to rest the humiliating defeat of Israel in 2006. Hamas knew that its performance was extremely influential in possibly dramatically altering the image of the Israeli soldiers in the eyes of all Arabs: fighters and lay people alike, and it knew that expectations were in building on the performance on Hizbullah in 2006; 4) Israel failed in creating a rift between the Palestinian people and Hamas, just as it failed to create a rift between the population of the South and Hizbullah, its silly SMS messages notwithstanding; 5) Israel failed in putting an end to the rockets; 6) Israel failed in smashing Hamas; 7) Israel failed in creating a new psychological climate in the Middle East: it was expected that Israel would use more massive and indiscriminate violence than before, and that it would try to "shock and awe" more than before because it wanted to kill the image of its humiliation in South Lebanon. That was not accomplished despite the high number of casualties among the civilians. 8) Israeli prime minister today bragged about intelligence successes: but that was inflated. It is true the killing of two Hamas leaders (along with tens of innocent civilians but that is how Israel "assassinates") was a success for Israel but there are other Hamas leaders. Plus, Israel policy of assuming that an organization would die by killing the leader has always been one of the many dumb Israeli miscalculations. The most recent case was in 1992 when Israeli terrorist leaders killed Abbas Musawi (and his family) and they got...Hasan Nasrallah instead. I have no doubt that they probably now regret killing Musawi. And Hamas now operates on the assumption that all leaders may die and they have most likely structured the organization on that assumption, unlike the centrally run, say, DFLP or Fatah under `Arafat. 9) Israel failed to build on the years-old Saudi policy of mobilizing Arab public opinion against Iran, instead of Israel. That clearly failed miserably. If anything, Arab public opinion is more mobilized against Israel than any other time in memory. 10) Israel failed to sell its slaughter as a legitimate contribution to the "war on terrorism". Clearly, the scenes of carnage offended public opinion around the world with the exception of the US and the UN embassy of Micronesia. But there are successes: if Israel was aiming to kill a very large number of women and children, that was achieved to a large measure. Very knowledgeable sources in Beirut tell me that only 5% of Hamas' fighting abilities were damaged in this war thus far, and there will be another round no doubt. But think about Karamah battle. In Karamah: a lot of the lore was built by Arafat's bombast and a unit of the Jordanian army fought with the Palestinian resistance. This time around, Arab and particularly Palestinian public opinion will look with admiration at the performance of Hamas during this 22 days. It is commonly estimated that some 20,000 Palestinians volunteered in the resistance movement after Karamah, and I expect a region-wide campaign of recruitment to the benefit of Hamas...

So the only question now is, what are Israelis going to do for entertainment now they can no longer watch 'highlights' on dedicated TV channels, or dance in celebration, or picnic on the hills around Gaza whilst cheering the slaughter of Palestinians?

 

[droid]

Excellent, clear and relatively concise Q+A on Znet which dispels many of the myths associated with Hamas and the recent conflict.

 

[vimothy]

Maybe that's because As'ad AbuKhalil is such an objective observer.

Interesting emerging trope that in Lebanon the Israelis were incompetent -- because they couldn't defeat Hezbollah -- but in Gaza they were brutes -- because they could defeat Hamas.

To take his points in turn:
1. Israel was not aiming at the total surrender of Hamas -- the organisation is conflicted between political and military wings, and most of its leadership live in Damascas away from the fighting. Which Hamas did Israel expect to surrender? And making this non-point that was never an Israeli goal the first point of your analysis -- what's up with that As'ad?
2. Agreed.
3. Well, if anything is clearer now that wasn't then, it is that Hamas are not Hezbollah. Hamas melted -- even its best units turned into air -- the resistance never resisted, and more Israelis were lost to friendly fire than were killed by Hamas's guns. Politically/stratgically, this was probably a foolish operation, but Israel annihilated them on the battlefield. What does that prove? Not that much. Hezbollah are much more competent than Hamas. Syria will probably take their Grads and give them to someone less useless in the future.
4. Agreed.
5. Too early to say. The IAF destroyed munitions and smuggling tunnels so reduced Hamas/PIJ/whoever's capacity to launch rockets -- we will surely see in the coming months whether Israel has managed to reduce the incidence of rocket fire from Gaza.
6. Isn't this the same as point 3 and point 1? It defeated Hamas on the battlefield with ease, but it was never likely that Hamas's leadership (in Damascus) would surrender.
7. See point 3.
8. Israeli intellignce assets in Gaza were obviously superior to those in Lebanon '06 -- I think that much is self-evident.
9. Agreed.
10. Agreed.

 

[droid]

Razor sharp analysis on Israels propensity to end ceasefires in fear of 'peace offensives'. the whole article is very much worth a read.

Thwarting Palestinian moderation

...The use of force by Israel to end unwanted ceasefires and avert the threat of Palestinian moderation has a long history. The most obvious example is the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which killed some 20,000 people, overwhelmingly civilians. Launched on an even flimsier pretext than was the invasion of Gaza, the war’s objective was the “annihilation of the PLO”, which Israel did “not want as a partner for talks or as an interlocutor for any solution in the West Bank”. (Yoel Marcus, cit. Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel & The Palestinians, p. 199) Like the present-day Hamas, the PLO had scrupulously observed a ceasefire with Israel in the face of repeated Israeli violations, and, like Hamas, was becoming increasingly explicit about its acceptance of a two-state settlement. This political moderation terrified Israel into launching the invasion. As leading Israeli scholar Yehoshua Porath observed at the time, the decision to invade “flowed from the very fact that the cease-fire had been observed”. Arafat’s ability to enforce adherence to the truce for so long was “a veritable catastrophe in the eyes of the Israeli government” since it indicated that the PLO “might agree in the future to a more far-reaching arrangement”, leaving Israel unable to justify its rejectionism on the grounds that the PLO were merely “a wild gang of murderers”. It was thus the threat of PLO moderation that the invasion was “primarily designed to prevent”:

“The government’s hope is that the stricken PLO … will return to its earlier terrorism: it will carry out bombings throughout the world, hijack airplanes and murder many Israelis. In this way, the PLO will lose … political legitimacy … [and thereby undercut] the danger that elements will develop among the Palestinians that might become a legitimate negotiating partner for future political accomodations.” (cit. ibid., pp. 200-201)

As Israeli journalist Danny Rubinstein explained, the PLO “as an orderly political body is more terrifying to the government of Israel than the powerful terrorist PLO” because it undermines Israeli rejectionism. The only solution was to force it to revert to “murderous terror”. (cit. ibid., p. 201) The “terrible danger” posed by the PLO to Israel was, as Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir stated, “[n]ot so much a military one as a political one”. Specifically, Israel feared the prospect of having to negotiate with any genuine Palestinian nationalist movement because, as Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin explained, any such negotiations would “provide a basis for the possibility of creating a third state between Israel and Jordan”, a possibility that, as Rabin emphasised, Israel refuses to countenance. (Chomsky, Fateful Triangle, p. 70)

In short the invasion of Lebanon was, as Israeli strategic analyst Avner Yaniv describes, intended to crush the PLO’s “peace offensive” and “to halt [the PLO's] rise to political respectability” by undermining “the position of the moderates within [the PLO] ranks”.

Replace ‘the PLO’ with ‘Hamas’ and you’ve got a pretty accurate explanation of invasion and siege of Gaza. A key goal for Israel is the destruction of Hamas as a credible political force. As Livni recently explained:

“Hamas wants to gain legitimacy from the international community. Hamas wants to show that there is a place which is called the Gaza Strip, that this kind of an organization - an extremist Islamic organization that acts by terrorism and which is a designated terrorist organization - can rule. And to make it seem a legitimate regime. So they want the crossings to be opened, not only for the sake of the population, but because this symbolically is how they can show that the Gaza Strip has become a kind of a small state, which is controlled by them…

“[It is] important to keep Hamas from becoming a legitimate organization”.

This explains the findings of a recent study that “it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week.” In Livni’s words, an extended calm or truce “harms the Israel strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement”...

 

[droid]

but in Gaza they were brutes -- because they could defeat Hamas.

In Gaza, they were brutes because they indulged in wholesale slaughter and war crimes.

5. Too early to say. The IAF destroyed munitions and smuggling tunnels so reduced Hamas/PIJ/whoever's capacity to launch rockets -- we will surely see in the coming months whether Israel has managed to reduce the incidence of rocket fire from Gaza.

This is the important point isnt it? Hamas' military capabilities never extended to much more than the firing of rockets. It was obvious to all that they could never mount a successful resistance to a concentrated IDF air, naval and ground assault, so essentially, stopping rocket attacks meant defeating Hamas' militarily. This does not seem to have been achieved, but we shall see.

I think the main point he's trying to make is that despite their military ineffectiveness and the overwhelming odds against them, Hamas has continued to fight back. It may be the equivalent of a man scratching the leg of the person jumping up and down on his head, but what's important is the symbolism - the refusal to submit...

RE; political aims. Has Israel succeeded in reducing the plight of Gazans to a mere humanitarian issue rather than a Political one?

 

[droid]

Also note (as reflected in early UN figures) the redefinition of 'civilian'. Taking a leaf out of the American assault on Falluja - there are no longer any such thing as male civilians, just 'women and children'. Any man killed by Israel is automatically a terrorist or a legitimate target.

(EDIT - fixed the missing image)

 

[crackerjack]

This seems fairly measured.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5545555.ece

 

[droid]

The IDF leave their customary calling card. At least they didn't spread their shit all over the place like they usually do.

He returned yesterday to find the houses ransacked and scarcely habitable, with furnishing and electrical appliances tossed out of the window, gaping holes in the wall made for firing positions, furniture smashed, clothes piled on the floor, pages of family Korans torn out and remains of soldiers' rations littered in many rooms.

Stars of David and graffiti in Hebrew and English proclaiming "Arabs need 2 die", "no Arabs in the State of Israel" and "One down and 999,999 to go" had been scrawled on walls. A drawing of a gravestone bore the inscription "Arabs 1948 to 2009".

Pictures of the UNRWA school hit by WP. If there could be any doubt about this its gone now.

The Israelis used chemical weapons against refugees, children and the UN:

There's more on this link if you have a strong stomach.