Israel attacks Gaza, hundreds parish, with no end in sight...

I have been greatly disturbed by Israel's attacks on Gaza these past couple of weeks. (As always, Hamas' and other terrorist organizations' rocket-fire on Israel is also greatly troubling, though the destruction from those attacks are minuscule compared to the havoc Israel has managed to wreak even in a day.) Elections are coming up in Israel, and many analysts are saying there are political motives behind Israel's offensive streak.

This has to stop. Israel has no right to punish all of Gaza for the crimes of a few. In fact by attacking innocent civilians it just provides Hamas and other extremist organizations with a populist rallying cry against Israel. The air raids lead to indiscriminant killing; the ground offensive has only escalated the bloodshed.

BBC News:

Thirteen days of fighting between Israel and Hamas have left an estimated 765 Palestinians and 14 Israelis dead.

Israeli warplanes appeared to be making new air strikes on Gaza after dark.

The sound of circling planes and car horns hung in the air over Gaza City and several explosions from apparent airstrikes lit up the night-time sky, an Associated Press reporter says.

A UN agency has halted aid operations in Gaza citing danger to its workers.

The suspension would continue "until the Israeli authorities can guarantee our safety and security", the UN's relief agency Unrwa said.

Among the dead are tens of children. Gaza's infrastructure has been all but wiped out, meaning its economy will continue to hurt even after the attacks cease (Israel cutting off supplies, etc. even when it's not attacking certainly doesn't help either).

On an international level, the United States has proven to be an obstacle a UN Security Council call for an immediate ceasefire, and Egypt — cooperating with Israel — refuses to open up the Rafah border in the south of Gaza.

Israel has behaved inhumanely these past couple weeks (no departure from its usual policy regarding the Palestinian territories, of course). It has prevented media from reporting the happenings in Gaza despite an Israeli supreme court order ruling such actions are not allowed. Furthermore, the prevention of the UN from sending aid into Gaza just means more suffering for the people of Gaza, most of whom pose no security threat to Israel. Meanwhile the International Red Cross has also been prevented from reaching civilian victims of Israel's air offensive:

The international Red Cross accused Israel on Thursday of "unacceptable" delays in letting rescue workers reach three Gaza City homes hit by shelling where they eventually found 15 dead and 18 wounded, including young children too weak to stand.

The Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC, said the Israeli army refused rescuers permission to reach the site in the Zeitoun neighborhood for four days. Ambulances could not get to the neighborhood because the Israeli army had erected large earthen barriers that blocked access.
...
The ICRC normally conducts confidential negotiations with warring parties, and its accusation against Israel was a rare public criticism of one party in a conflict over a specific incident.

Of course Israel has a right to defend itself, but this is a horrible and impractical way to go about doing so. Hamas is to blame at the core of this, but Israel's response to the terrorist group's rocket attacks is wholly disproportionate. Hamas must, for the sake of the people of the Gaza strip, budge on its stubborn, extremist positions; and Israel must stop going about defending itself the wrong way. Send in special ops to try to raid strategic Hamas strongholds; don't risk bombing schools full of children, children who will remember seeing the dismembered remains of their peers and vow revenge on the perpetrators of the attack, dragging out this conflict for generations (as if it hasn't been going on long enough). We must learn from the past.

Update: The UN Security Council has adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire.

Israel and Syria: Talking at last

A debate is brewing about diplomatic negotiations between Syria and Israel, who are technically still at war. In this situation, it's quite hard to see how talks could hurt. However the White House's policy on 'no talks with the enemy (lest we appease them)' seems to contradict its Mideast ally's approach.

NYT:

Israel, America’s staunchest ally in the Middle East, just became the latest example of a country that has decided it is better to deal with its foes than to ignore them.

The announcement that Israel has entered into comprehensive peace talks with Syria is at odds with the course counseled by the Bush administration, which initially opposed such talks in private conversations with Israelis, according to Israeli and American officials.
...
But in many ways, the Bush administration’s own policies appear to be at odds with his thesis.

Isn't this the same administration that took part in talks (albeit delayed ones) that resulted in the ongoing denuclearization of the North Korean state?

Wishing Israel a happy birthday

(If only it was a peaceful one.)

It has been roughly 60 years since the founding of the Zionist state of Israel. Here are a couple articles of note:

BBC News - Israel at 60

Foreign Policy - Think Again: Israel (subscription required; I'll try to find an alternate link)

And its nearly impossible to talk about Israel without bringing up the fun topic of Palestine... Is Israel contributing to humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip? You decide!

What can the Annapolis peace talks accomplish?

There are hopes that Annapolis will pave the way for a 2008 peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians.

The US, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have voiced hope that a conference in Maryland could produce a starting point for serious peace negotiations.

Bush said that peace was 'worth it to try' and that he 'work[s] the phones' in the peace process.

This peace conference is the first of its kind since 2000. The US is actively taking a role in the talks, after sitting on the sidelines on many previous occasions.

Israel has argued that initiatives that have isolated the Palestinian territories are needed for its security. The general pattern of Israel-Palestinian skirmishes is militant fires rocket into Israel or attacks army, Israel responds with raids which result with civilian deaths, more rocket fire and retaliations by Palestinians, and collective punishment upon already-angry Palestinians by Israel. This is how it has been for years.

There are several firsts for this conference. Syria will be in attendance — a first for the dictatorial, terror-supporting-yet-marginalized (and under-utilized) nation. The country will, of course, be on the side of the Palestinians and is still pushing for the return of its Golan Heights from Israel. As a reminder, Syria is on President Bush's "axis of evil". This will also be the first big job for British PM turned peace negotiator Tony Blair. Lastly, Saudis and Israelis will be sitting at the same table — but Israeli diplomats beware: the Saudi representative has stated he will not shake hands with you.

A total of 40 countries are attending the summit in Annapolis, Maryland. Hamas, which rules Gaza, will not be coming. In fact, it wouldn't see the point in such a meeting as it neither recognizes Israel nor diplomacy as a good way to achieve results.

This is an odd, if possibly inappropriate, time for peace talks. Tensions are high over Iraq; the Bush administration faces hurdle after hurdle with shear incompetence and poor diplomacy. Perhaps Bush is making a last-ditch effort at setting the stage for the creation of a free and independent Palestinian state, an aspiration of his. Secretary of State Condi Rice may be vying for a good diplomatic spot in history, odd since she helped block former Sec. of State Colin Powell's attempts at a similar Mideast peace conference.

CFR's Richard Haass argues that one will have to wait for the time to be right before a real drive for peace can be effectively made. But talking in the meantime can't hurt. It isn't good to be impervious to reality just for the sake of optimism.

There is an overall mood of skepticism as talks get underway. The best and most realistic hope is that some progress can be made in bringing Israel and Palestine out of decades of conflict using diplomacy. Hopefully both sides will make valuable concessions, but considering Palestinian Authority President Abbas only has control of the West Bank, his options are even more limited. Seven years ago US President Clinton made a large effort at Mideast peace — it failed miserably. Even though I don't care at all for this White House or its historical legacy, I hope this summit's results aren't the same.

Is now the time for a Palestinian state?

Even as political tensions rise and the situation on the ground worsens, America seems to (finally) be pushing for an independent Palestinian state, if just in foreign policy rhetoric.

"Frankly it is time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," Ms Rice told reporters in a news conference which she held with the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

One unique thing about the Bush administration is that it has always expressed a wish for a Palestinian state, something even the Clinton-led White House wasn't willing to do in public. Rice's wish for a sovereign state conflicts with the very slanted policy the US has held in favor of Israel, especially under President Bush.

Israel has attacked Syria; Hamas has offered to at least try to kiss and half-heartedly make up with its rival Fatah — news, both good and bad, has been coming out of this area of the Middle East. In the midst of all of it, I am frankly surprised to hear such a bold, but not bad, statement from the American secretary of state.

Rice hopes for a diplomatic meeting between Israeli and Palestinian leaders on American turf. I don't know what to make of that idea. On one hand, there is a desperate need for a peace settlement that results from concessions from both sides. One the other hand, assuming the proposed talks fail is this just an excuse for the US to say, 'Well, we gave it a try'? Will important Palestinian factions be kept out of the meeting, thus further alienating many and helping the radicals? I neither want to be too optimistic nor too pessimistic. United States isn't the only external party in this diplomatic picture: the Quartet, of which it is a member, has acted incorrectly at the wrong times — where is it when it's most needed and why can countries not be more flexible?

This summer the major unresolved issue (besides security) that prevented any progress between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators was refugees; now it looks like land rights in Jerusalem, a holy city to both Muslims and Jews, is a central focus.

It is believable that the White House wants a Palestinian state; I do not doubt that their intentions are good. But after years of poor policy under this president and others, I do not see what can change at this point as long as America has a role in the change. It is time for a Palestinian state; but shouldn't stability and agreement on the basic issues come first?

Fallout from Israel's Gaza decision

Israel's decision to label Gaza as an "enemy entity" has backfired, it seems, in more ways than one. Hamas has called it a 'declaration of war'; UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the world's top diplomat, has asked Israel to reverse — for the sake of its image, security, and international law, as well as human rights — what looks to be another big foreign policy mistake.

“There are 1.4 million people in Gaza, including the old, the young and the sick, who are already suffering from the impact of prolonged closure,” he said. “They should not be punished for the unacceptable actions of militants and extremists.”

The statement noted that the United Nations has broad humanitarian responsibilities and is mandated to provide assistance to and meet the humanitarian needs of civilians in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Mr. Ban added that “the continued indiscriminate rocket fire from Gaza into Israel is unacceptable and I deplore it. I call for it to stop immediately. I understand Israel’s security concerns over this matter.”

UN officials have expressed concern repeatedly in recent months that the closure of border crossings and other restrictions in Gaza have cut exports and forced factories to shut, leaving tens of thousands of Palestinians in the territory without jobs or income.

As I said in my earlier post, it's time for Hamas to take initative, too. And why hasn't there been much progress — even superficial progress — with diplomacy between the less anti-Israel Abbas and the Israeli government? Since his new emergency government was made earlier this summer, not much seems to have happened. Even with Hamas out of the picture, closed off in Gaza as Abbas' Fatah controls the West Bank, things don't seem to be moving along. Maybe Israel could focus more of its energy (positive energy) on Abbas and let Hamas hurt itself instead of giving the party more fuel for its popularity.

If it weren't for diplomatic moves like the one Israel made today, I bet Hamas would have already lost popularity. It would have lost the main reason for its existence: to pester and 'destroy' the 'Zionist entity': Israel. If the Palestinian people were not given so many reasons to dislike Israel, Hamas would loose support; and without Israel fighting back, it would probably implode, at least a bit.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has sucked in the attention and meddling of so many foreign powers, and has altered the political and economic composition of the Middle East for decades now. It has had a great and negative effect on international relations and the people of the region. Perhaps it's time for Israel to no longer punish Palestinian civilians, but work with those willing to work towards a peaceful solution to one of the biggest long-term conflicts of our time.

More Israeli twisted logic

BBC News:

Israel declares the Gaza Strip a "hostile entity", which may lead to it cutting off vital fuel and electricity supplies.

Because surely cutting off vital resources and inflicting collective punishment won't increase support for terrorists opposed to Israel...

Why do they think Gaza has grown so hostile? It was in part a result of Israel's horrendous policy towards the Palestinian territories. Yes, Hamas has brought Gaza to a new low, but why should regular people pay? I hope someone in the Israeli government will recognize the faulty logic of shutting off electricity and other essential utilities from people who have already suffered enough, and are already understandably angry at their overbearing neighbor.

As far as the legality of collective punishment goes,
IHT:

Under international law, Israel is considered an occupying power in Gaza, even though it has removed its troops and settlers. Denying civilians access to the necessities of life is considered collective punishment and a violation of international law under both the Hague and Geneva conventions.

Of course America rushes to the defense of Israel on this matter. Israel is just in calling the Hamas haven of Gaza 'hostile', but punishing the 1.4 million residents of the entity is no solution -- in fact, it ultimately hurts all parties.

I understand Israel's dilemma. After all, the most direct way to confront the militants firing rockets into Israel would be to invade or launch a military attack. That would be the worst thing Israel could do; it would draw scorn from foreign powers as well as serve as the perfect rallying cry for the same rebels Israel wishes to defeat. I do not know, however, if it is sending covert special forces to help take down the rocket-firing militants — just the militants. I certainly would not be against that.

If Israel really wanted peace in Gaza, it would stop fueling the fire paradox (counterintuitive actions in fighting terrorism), and that includes inflaming the already-disconsolate -- and often radicalized -- civilian population of Gaza. Hamas also needs to look at the damage it's doing to its own people, innocent Israelis, as well as its own political standing. If it ever wants legitimacy, it needs to recognize Israel. There are steps for both parties to take, but neither is willing, especially Hamas.

Why America's Mideast military aid is bad news

Countering the spread of Iran and terrorism in the Middle East is tricky business. That's why the Bush administration has decided to give Israel US$30 billion, Egypt $13 billion, and Saudi Arabia [see post], Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and UAE a shared $20 billion in a new arms deal (BBC).

George and Condi's ill-reasoned idea
"Rice says Mideast military aid will counter Qaeda" (Reuters). Yes, throwing money at terror-sponsoring states like Saudi Arabia will surely help defeat al-Qaeda... I wouldn't expect any finer logic from the Bush administration.

How will this military aid help stem the spread of Iran's influence? Won't it make them just want to bolster their military strength? So far the aid doesn't seem to be promoting stability; it is only invoking cries of favoritism and, if anything, destabilizing the fragile state of Mideast diplomacy.

Is instability the new 'stability'?
In some ways I see how this military aid can bring stability, but only if it's used in the right way. Does anyone honestly think Israel or Saudi Arabia will use this military aid in a way that reduces tensions and terrorism? Begin on the policy level, then move on to aid; you don't approve a budget before you see what you're budgeting and the planned end product, right?

America needs assurance these military gifts will be used in a positive manner. Not only that, but we've seen what military force does in the Middle East (and elsewhere). Force is countered by more force, and sometimes breeds terrorism and destabilizes relations. Military force led to increased support for Hezbollah following its skirmish with Israel last summer. Force led to the Iraq war and to — decades ago — the rise of state-sponsored militant groups like what became the Taliban and Hamas. Thinking that military force will bring about peace is the same kind of twisted logic implemented by America and other nations that has resulted in the disaster that is much of the Mid-East.

Buying allies
The NYT reported about the White House's request that Congress approve this aid package. It also touched upon the issue of whether this is such a good idea.

Mr. Burns insisted that the arms package isn’t an attempt to trade weapons for a more cooperative Saudi policy toward the Maliki government in Baghdad.

“There are no formal quid pro quos in this, but it figures that we would want our friends to be supportive of Iraq,” he said.

So the US is buying support... but not really? If Saudi Arabia was a true friend it wouldn't need billions in military aid to keep it a non-enemy. Non-enemy doesn't necessarily equal friend either.

'B' in Rhetoric, 'F' in Logic
Just by looking at history as a guide — throwing even common sense aside (not Bush's strong point anyways) — is even the Bush White House too blind to recognize the follies it is still committing? It's almost like giving disturbed children guns, when you know perfectly well nothing good will come of it. It also makes the US look worse. The charge of favoritism is yet another thing states like Iran and groups that use terrorism will certainly use against the United States, especially since it is so publicly and so largely supporting the 'Zionist enemy' in its quest for world domination over Muslims (their thoughts, not mine). The last thing America needs is more bad PR.

I really do hope Rice is right when she says this deal will not destabilize the Middle East. But a glimpse at reality can bring about quite a different view than the one seen by the secretary of state. Over $60 billion is also a lot of money to give away, considering it probably won't be spent wisely, plus many of the recipients are human rights-abusing, malevolent regional actors. Is this their reward?

Continuing the trend of buying Saudi Arabia's half-hearted support is not the wisest of choices. How will they react, though, when America takes away their allowance? With more terrorism, perhaps...

Also, what will Congress say? It's they who carry the purse.

Reposted. Still in California.

Hamas opens up? More on Sharm el-Sheikh

This is an update on an earlier post concerning Israel's release of a number of Palestinian Fatah prisoners and other events at a diplomatic summit being held in Egypt.

From the afore-quoted BBC News article:

The sacked Prime Minister, Ismail Haniya of Hamas, said he was ready to engage in talks with Fatah.

A spokesman for Mr Haniya in Gaza said Hamas was "disposed to immediately take up this dialogue" urged by Mr Mubarak.

(Update: new article can be found here.)

Is this a good sign of dialogue to come? Haniya's Hamas talks to Abbas' Fatah; Abbas talks to Israel? For all its turns away from freedom and democracy, I must give kudos to Egypt for time and time again playing mediator in the Palestinian conflicts — including that between Israel and Palestine. Mubarak might want to try his hand at ambassador rather than strengthening his authoritarian hold on Egypt. Along with Israeli, Palestinian, and Egyptian leaders, Jordan's King Abdullah was in attendance. Jordan is a fairly neutral player in the Middle East and, like Egypt, holds decent relations with America. I was somewhat surprised that Saudi Arabia was not at the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting. The Saudis have taken an active role in Palestinian mediation, notably cementing the short-lived Hamas-Fatah unity government earlier this year.

Plus I just wanted to add that

About 10,000 Palestinian prisoners are being held in Israeli jails, some without charge.

So the release of a mere 250 Fatah prisoners "who do not have blood on their hands", as Israeli PM Olmert said, is at most a "goodwill gesture", and nothing more. No doubt there are plenty of innocents in those jails, and that their jailing serves as a rallying cry for anti-Israel forces. However if Israel were to let them all go, it would loose major leverage (not that it seems to be using it, but brute rather military force shown to worsen the situation) and appear weak. It's a lose, lose situation — much like the conflicts of the Middle East themselves.

Israel does the right thing for peace

Finally one Israeli-Palestinian story that does not result in blaming both sides?

BBC News:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has told Arab leaders he plans to seize a new opportunity to promote peace.
He said Israel would free 250 prisoners from the Fatah group led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

The meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh brings together Mr Olmert, Mr Abbas, Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan.
...
On Sunday the Israeli cabinet decided to release the frozen tax funds to the Palestinian emergency government based in the West Bank.

A few points:
1. It's good that this meeting is occurring and that the parties are showing support for Abbas. Too bad he didn't get this kind of support from the Arab countries, Israel, and the West before Hamas' recent 'coup' in Gaza.
2. Olmert has made the right decision: peace instead of hostility.
3. Hamas should seize this opportunity — although since it's isolated in Gaza and left out of the new government, I do not know how it can react in any political manner, although militarily it can stop attacking both Israel and Palestine.
4. This shows what diplomacy and open channels for discussion can accomplish: this move is ultimately good for the Palestinians and, in effect, the Israelis. Diplomacy and peace, however, take more time than war and aggression, which aren't instant fixes either. In the past Israel's military excursions have led to more political and security woes.
5. Because of the aforementioned slow and steady course of diplomacy, neither the Israeli government nor the electorate should expect to see the immediate results of this progressive move.
6. It is likely Abbas will have to eventually form a real government instead of an emergency one in the West Bank. When he does so Hamas should be peacefully welcomed and/or elections should be called when the time is right. International mediators should be called if needed and Israel and the US shouldn't object to the outcome of Palestinian democracy, further driving up Palestinian hostility to them and isolating an already angry people.

So how did the Hamas-Fatah rift grow to such great proportions? An Economist in-depth report looks at the series of events in Palestinian politics resulting in virtually two governments — one viewing the other as illegitimate, and vice versa — in one.

Not until last year did the Islamists feel ready to challenge Fatah in parliamentary elections. It meant, after all, tacitly accepting the Oslo accords, which had created the PA. But Fatah was by then in such a mess that it could not even unify its lists of candidates. Using its network of cells as a grassroots campaign organisation, Hamas won nearly twice as many seats as Fatah (though a small majority of votes).

Fatah, however, never fully relinquished control. On the eve of the new parliament's swearing-in, Mr Abbas brought some of the PA's dozen-odd security forces under his own command by decree. Other forces, notionally under the new Hamas government's orders, stayed largely loyal to their Fatah commanders.

Its power curtailed, Hamas created its own force in Gaza. America, which before Hamas's election had been helping reform the PA forces as a whole, switched to beefing up Mr Abbas's presidential guard. Hamas-Fatah clashes, exacerbated by feuds between Gaza's powerful clans, grew more frequent. Attacks by militants on Gaza's border crossings prompted frequent closures of these trade lifelines by Israel, tightening the economic chokehold imposed by the West's embargo of the PA. When the militants raided Israel and kidnapped a soldier, Israel launched an offensive that killed some 400 Gazans.

After some arm-twisting from Saudi Arabia, Fatah and Hamas at last formed a unity government at a meeting in Mecca in February. But they could not agree on who would control the security forces.
...
And when election day dawns at last, Hamas will still be there. Many Palestinians feel that for all its faults, it was robbed of the chance to govern properly. Fatah, to become electable again, needs to end its infighting and corruption.

And we all know the story from there: more bloodshed, ceasefires, ceasefires broken, then, eventually Hamas seizes control of Gaza and Abbas sets up camp in the West Bank and forms an emergency government with the support of the West.

By ignoring the Palestinian's choice of Hamas for government, Abbas and his Fatah party as well as the outside world that shunned the democracy it had long been self-rightously pushing for have helped create this mess. Hamas was not the only militant actor: Abbas' security power grab — whether to defend his presidency or as a show of political power — was questionable to say the least. Israel and America's support of it makes them look ever worse to a Palestinian people who are, I can safely assume, sick of all this fighting.

Stubborn militancy (Hamas) and selfish politics (everyone else) have hurt an already scarred population. Whenever one side steps up — like Israel just did — the other refuses to rise alongside it and help their own people escape the trap of death and desolation that mark their land. Moreover America wanted democracy and free and fair election. That's what they got in Palestine and Hamas was elected. Abbas refused Hamas' government; America refused Hamas even though they were fairly elected in an election the US pushed (thus America refused democracy? only more hypocrisy in the eyes of many); Hamas refused peace and coexistence with Israel (in part because Israel did the same); the international community cut off essential aid to Palestine as Israel cut of money and utilities; and the Palestinian people were rejected by everyone. After all, it's the people who receive the full blow of all these poor policies and actions.

Is the new Palestinian government 'illegal'?

The new Hamas-free Palestinian government has been sworn in. America is happy and might now let some aid trickle in to help the impoverished Palestinians; Israel is content too. Hopefully they will let the door open to new diplomacy with President Mahmoud Abbas' emergency Fatah government. Hamas still rules supreme in Gaza. See this post for background.

Reformist Salam Fayyad has been named prime minister.

Could it be we see an ill-formed three-state solution as a result of this major rift in Palestinian politics?

Palestine (Fatah) in the West Bank, Palestine (Hamas) in the Gaza Strip, and, of course, Israel.

Hamas maintains the new government is not only illegal, it's unneeded because Hamas itself doesn't recognize that its power was vanquished when Abbas dissolved the government following a large uprising by Hamas in the already-turbulent Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hinted at the prospect of an international force in Gaza. If Abbas asked for peace keepers, that could be a possibility. I doubt he'd refuse like, say, the government of Sudan has over its genocide in Darfur. Abbas needs all the help he can get. He cannot appear too weak, nor can he look like just another tool of the West — especially of the 'evil' America and Israel.

Many are blaming the United States with an array of justified and unjustified arguments.

Oh and some rockets were fired at Israel by Islamist militants in Lebanon. Two Katyushas hit Kiryat Shmona, a northern Israeli town. (Thankfully there were no casualties.) Last summer all over again?

In related news, there have been more reports of Israel finally gearing up for diplomacy with Syria. They are not on the best terms mainly because the Israelis occupy Syria's Golan Heights. "Secret test diplomacy: the story of Israel and Syria" coming soon.

What goes around, comes around

Israelis launch raids into Gaza, devastate neighborhoods, resulting in more recruitment and support for extremists; extremists attack Israel.

Palestinian militants have launched a raid into Israel from the Gaza Strip.

Fresh fighting has now erupted between rival Palestinian political and militant factions Hamas and Fatah, breaking a recent ceasefire. Will this also desecrate the weak governmental unity between these two powers?

I'm still in New York... I will be writing some about my trip soon.

US and Israel proxy warring with Hamas via Fatah?

Did America and Israel's urge to fight Hamas result in Palestine destabilization and loss of life?

On 18 May, Israel and the US pushed Fatah to fight Hamas — just as radical Islamic leaders have, I might add:

Israel this week allowed the Palestinian party Fatah to bring into the Gaza Strip as many as 500 fresh troops trained under a U.S.-coordinated program to counter Hamas, the radical Islamic movement that won Palestinian parliamentary elections last year. Fighting between Hamas and Fatah has left about 45 Palestinians dead since Sunday.

And today, some less bleak news:

The rival Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah have embarked on another ceasefire as they attempt to end an upsurge in fighting in the Gaza Strip.

It is the fifth such truce since violence broke out last Sunday. Since then about 50 people have died.

As Israel and the United States instigated a fight between the rival factions, a ceasefire has followed. That actually is a sign of hope for the often virulent Palestinian political situation.

Meanwhile, the Israeli air-strikes continue.

Might civilians just support radical groups like Hamas more as they look to them for security? If Israel wanted to really take out the rocket positions, they could send elite, black-ops, ground forces to do so, instead of instituting disproportionate collateral damage that might just make the terrorism problem much worse. Mass air strikes do not make sense. Clandestine operations would work much better at accomplishing small, precise goals.

Pros and cons of Israel's Gaza raid

Here we go again: another Israeli excursion
Judging by previous experiences, how can Israel expect these raids to make things better? It will just make Palestinians more annoyed and spark even more terrorism. But since the matter is hardly void of opinion, here I present a list of "Pros" and "Cons" of the Israeli raid of Gaza.

Pros:

Helps with Israeli security*

Gets rid of some terrorists

Weakens Hamas*

Good for domestic politics; makes Olmert not seem soft

Secures Israeli military personnel

Increases power and leverage in future negotiations

Cons:

Creates more Palestinian strife

Kills, injures, and destroys

Weakens support abroad, save the US

Puts semi-stable Palestine unity government in disarray

Creates more terrorism (see fire paradox)

Does not accomplish mission and objectives*

Cuts chances of diplomacy

Infringes on human rights, political sovereignty (if officials are arrested like in previous raids)

Palestinians support radicals more because of anguish and need for security against Israel, which appears more malevolent than ever

Moderate Abbas loses support of people because of above reason

* - Questionable

This is sure to (not) help Israel's terrorist situation...

Yes. Violating more international laws while isolating and angering the people already alienated and mad enough to support terrorism is a sure fire strategy [sarcasm]...

BBC News:

The international Red Cross has privately accused Israel of reshaping Jerusalem to further its own interests, in violation of international law.
...
Israel's unilateral moves in Jerusalem have been condemned by several UN Security Council Resolutions.

US and EU ambassadors have boycotted ceremonies in the run-up to Israel's Jerusalem Day on Wednesday, arguing that the status of the city should be determined by negotiations with the Palestinians.

When the US tears away from Israel, you know there is a major problem. Invade a sovereign nation in a questionable and overreacting manner, imposing disproportionate damage: OK. Expanding in your own interests a city of heated debate, thus worsening the situation for yourself and practically any nation: not OK.

I know Israel is not entirely to blame for the extremism shaping the region, and the many Palestinian movements, just as the US isn't entirely to blame for the terrorist movements growing in Iraq. But in both cases both countries consciously acted in a way that would worsen the very thing they are apparantly fighting against: Islamic extremist terrorism (see the fire paradox).

technorati tags: jerusalem, israel, terrorism, palestine, news, islamic+extremism

Setting bad examples

Evidence of torture in Israeli prisons. More faults in Israeli PR; or, how to annoy your already peeved neighbors.

Also, American troops condone torture, blamed in part on the long serving periods for US soldiers in Iraq. Vice President Cheney, touring the Middle East — which won't really help anything diplomatically — spoke in defense of these extended deployments.

Neither case of abuse by the militaries of two countries so despised in the Mid-East are all that new news, but both will inflame, and continue to inflame, those effected or who feel violated in the Middle East, thus perception plays more into extremism. Extremists will no doubt use the despicable actions by Israel and the US's armed forces to try to gain public support and recruit against two forces seen as evil.

Olmert's political losses

Ehud Olmert is a man with a problem — well, several problems in fact. He is the prime minister of a nuclear state, a world player in fact, with many security troubles and political conundrums. His country gets more attention than most; and the majority of his neighbors resent the country he governs. Olmert is the prime minister of Israel. He faces many problems: investigations into the ethics of his administration; the loss of political support within his new centrist party as well as in the wider population; frequent acts of terror from both inside and outside Israel's borders — among other issues. His personal goals — namely the much needed Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank — are in shambles and his nations external security is looking as bleak as ever. America seems to be the only steadfast ally, and even it is hinting at doubt in Israel's handling of itself and Olmert's handling of Israel. Every foreign policy move Olmert makes might find itself under international scrutiny.

So why is this flaring up all of the sudden? A panel released its findings of last summer's torrential Israeli-Lebanese war (i.e. the 2006 Lebanon War), which was mainly a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel's defense forces. (From the start the battle was seen as poorly executed, and this is a result of a major inquiry.) Lebanon is still unstable following the skirmish of summer 2006. Israel took the militant group's bait, and now Israel is seen as even more of an aggressor against innocents — in the Arab Muslim world as well as abroad.

An Israeli government commission excoriated Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday for "severe failures" in last summer's war against the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, setting off a furious debate on whether he should remain in office.

The commission accused him of having decided hastily to go to war, neglecting to ask for a detailed military plan, refusing to consult outside the army and setting "over-ambitious and unobtainable goals."

Israel's political troubles are vast and wide. In its parliament, the Knesset, parties must gain power often by forming coalitions, many times with more extreme factions of the Israeli politik. Israelis also doubt how pulling out of Palestinian territories will help — they think the attacks will continue nonetheless just as some Palestinians fail to rationalize how a stop in the fighting will help them too.

Israel's policy towards Palestine is a prime example of the fire paradox at work: in fighting terrorism, Israel has created more. For example, Hezbollah's support has arguably grown following last year's conflict with Israel, which killed many civilians, left even more scared, and destroyed all too much. Hezbollah, fueled by funds from Iran, helped rebuild and aided civilians. However, some view Hezbollah's moves as haphazard and blame it for sparking the conflict with Israel. That launched a perpetual drive of terrorism and recruiters take advantage of the poor, hopeless, yet angered, Palestinians. And its a two-way street. There are also plenty of militant extremists within Israel, extra-Zionists, so to speak, who think the world is theirs for the taking, and Israel should not fail to resort to heavy military means when attacked.

How to fight the terror? Sending tanks into a neighborhood of Lebanon (home to Hezbollah) or Palestine (home to Hamas) that is already angry because its power and water supplies are cut off, and the bridge is blown up, does not help. There is also the issue of the politics within Israel's neighboring states. Would Israel rather moderate Islamic rule in its Arab neighbors, or dictatorships which are more of a hotbed for terror?

If Israel really wanted to take back its captured soldiers in Southern Lebanon and Palestine last summer, black ops or special forces could have gotten the job done much better. Now there are ever more terrorists, terrorist supporters, and potential terrorists wanting to get their revenge on the state who they feel harmed them and their people. Both the Israelis and their neighbors are also scared, and there are plenty of examples of how people act amazingly irrational when scared.

If Olmert is forced out or his political condition worsens, there are multiple fears about the potential repercussions:

A more conservative government might take power, and institute policies only making the Palestinian issue worse and not act in the true national interest;

Groups like Hezbollah will see it as a victory and will launch future, more powerful attacks;

Israel's domestic political situation will be very bad, to say the least;

Olmert, if still in office, will have to make concessions to conservative Israelis or political groups in order to stay in office, thus worsening the situation.

The execution of the war in Lebanon was botched from the start. Who is to blame? Should Olmert be forced out because of his government’s poor decision making, which costed and affected hundreds of thousands of Lebanese lives, not to mention many Israelis, and increased the tension between his country and its Middle Eastern neighbors, and the international community. The strategy also proved to be counter-intuitive and might yet breed more terrorism. Israelis should take note of these major mistakes, and in the future strive for not repeating them.

For now it looks like Olmert's job is secure. But with new protests, it's anyone's guess. One outcome could be a (more) hawkish, right-wing party — more conservative than Likud — winning over support from Olmert's ruling centrist Kadima party.

technorati tags: ehud+olmert, israel, hezbollah, hamas, terrorism, lebanon, middle+east, arab+israeli, 2006+lebanon+war, olmert+political+israel, palestine

Political stability against extremists: the real Mid-East danger

Iran is in the news more and more. Between its capture of 15 British sailors, to the advancement of its nuclear weapons program and defiance of sanctions. Much of it — from anti-Zionist rhetoric to nuclear politics — might just be an act. Like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Iran's Ahmadinejad is populist and very showy.

At the risk of sounding like I'm in Shakespeare's time: How will this all fadge?

I think there are many factors that cause discomfort on both sides — Iran and the United States — one issue being the Iranian president's harsh anti-Israel rhetoric, another being the allegations of meddling in Iraq (which could just be a scapegoat excuse for the Bush administration, who often create false scapegoats), along with Iran's refusal to halt its nuclear program. I think if Iran, Israel, the US, and Palestine all were more open-minded, a treaty of peace and political recognition could be in order and would help relations between all of the countries — including those between Israel and the US and the Arab and Muslim world.

Iran still needs to at least let IAEA inspectors in. But with the political situations at home for America, Iran, and even Israel and Palestine, who knows who will next be in charge and how that will shape this nuclear diplomacy we are seeing more and more of. I think the US would rather have the prospect of its own security — even if that is only a sense of security — than the prospect of peace. American foreign policy has consistently focused more on preventing aggression than promoting peace. There are still plenty in the government who think peace is best achieved by though military force.

Ahmadinejad may think his hard-line rhetoric is helping him win over supporters abroad, but it is not helping him at home. Respect is an issue all sides need to learn, for without it, real diplomacy cannot take place and real progress cannot be made. It is now in the mutual interest of both Iran and the United States to work together on Iraq. It is in the interest of the US and Israel (since they are allies) to work with Israel's neighbors; peace between Israel and the Arab world also helps lower international terrorism and Muslim extremism, as does quelling the sectarian violence in Iraq. The Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as the civil war in Iraq, have both spread Islamic fundamentalism and created new waves of hopelessness, aggression, and, thus, terrorism and irrationality to those lands in such strife and their allies and supporters.

A big issue is political stability. If the current hardline government is taken over by extremists — because the government isn't delivering what the people want (thus the radicals get public support) or some other reason — those extremists may have an industrial level nuclear program in their hands. That is not good. The same thing goes for Pakistan. In that case, the US is close to the country (Pakistan), which empowers the extremists in a way. Pakistan is already a nuclear state — imagine if Islamic terrorists got hold of nuclear weapons. However, in Iran's case there does need to be a level of dialogue. Isolation would empower extremists even more than seeing their country talk to a country they despise would.

In short: the US needs to talk with Syria to get it away from Iran; needs to talk with Iran for plenty of other reasons; and needs to talk to all in the Middle East because of the Iraq issue, along with the problem of terrorism. Syria, Pakistan, and Iran are all oppressive governments with ties to militias. However, all three view terrorism as as much of a threat as the United States does, if not more (extremists are in their own backyards).

Israel and the US alike need to stop ticking off those in the Middle East and empowering radicals, the opposite of their goals but nonetheless they are direct products of their policy. All parties need to learn from history. A closed, aggressive, hardline state cannot last long in the modern world of politics — at least it cannot when extremist movements more conservative than their own governments are brewing within and close to their borders. A regional power, but outcast, cannot continue annoying its neighbors, nor can it concede.

The world's superpower, seen as imperial and bad as ever by those in the Mid-East, cannot continue in its rogue anti-terroirsm fight when it makes the terrorist situation worse for itself and others (fire paradox again). It's perfect to choose the US as the face of evil: its big and powerful, yet faulty, as the Iraq debacle has shown, and does not position itself as benevolent or afraid to use preemptive force. It also sides with Israel through thick and thin.

America finds Iran as easy a scapegoat (for Iraq troubles) and poster-child for evil (see 'war on terror' and 'axis of evil') as Iran does for America ('death to the great Satan). That kind of politics doesn't help anyone but the extremists and the Manichaens like Bush and Ahmadinejad. Neither is doing swimingly at home either. (Keep in mind Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. Although he is the most internationally visible, he is probably roughly third on the chain of command.) Supremacy in a region as volatile as the Middle East is a tour de force. That being said, it often requires either massive brute force or political ingenuity.

technorati tags: iran, in+the+news, politics, international+relations, foreign+policy, ahmadinejad, united+states, usa, israel, syria, terrorism, islamic+extremism, pakistan, nukes

Syria, Israel, and Pelosi

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Syrian President Bashir al-Assad is ready for renewed peace talks with Israel. Pelosi is currently visiting various Middle Eastern countries — including Israel, Lebanon, and Syria — at the condemnation of the White House. I fail to see how this is, as US President Bush put it, undermining US foreign policy, considering how America’s foreign policy lies in shambles from his war on terror policies. Just because Bush blocks out the vital entity of Syria from his diplomacy does not mean others have to.

Pelosi did express worries over Syrian support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and terrorist groups, but also said the Middle Eastern nation had a role in the Israel-Palestine peace negotiations. Syria is also blamed for allowing some terrorist fighters into Iraq, although it has sealed much of its border. It is home to many Iraqi and Palestinian refugees. Because of the Israeli occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights, they have their own interests with Israeli peace talks. Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert said he was ready to begin talks too.

Pelosi’s visit has contrasted with the Bush administration’s often hostile or meaningless foreign policies, though some see her as overstepping her bounds. Remember: the Baker-Hamilton ISG report strongly pushed for talks between the United States and Syria (and Iran) over Iraq.

There have been changes in the administration policy, albeit small ones, when talks that included Syria and Iran were announced in March. However, these talks are only indirect. A real step forward is needed for the sake of the horrendous situation in the Middle East, diplomacy is needed.

"The meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well", Pelosi stated. The Bush administration has been trying its hardest to isolate the Syrian government, which is suspected of killing a Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in 2005. The assassination led to Syria leaving Lebanon and a new, more independent Lebanese government being set up. The assassination still remains shrouded in mystery; Syria has received much of the blame and international condemnation has been the norm.

However, diplomacy cannot work without isolation. If the US is able to make better ties with Syria, Syria may stray from Iran, whose influence has been a major issue. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States — and many other Mid-East states — all share the common interest and worry: Iraq. Pelosi’s reception by the Arab press is quite interesting, and overall positive. Common themes include: this visit is a blow to the Bush administration in a domestic political and foreign policy sense; Pelosi is taking a step forward and opening up communication, which is needed; she is also recognizing Syria’s importance in the Middle East, including in Iraq and Israel-Palestine; she is seeing reality and hopes to work on the issues at hand.

See this post for background on Syria.

technorati tags: syria, pelosi, nancy+pelois, bush, al-assad, harari, lebanon, iran, usa, united+states, diplomacy, foreign+policy, politics, news, israel, olmert, palestine, iraq, isg

Israel might be preparing for an attack Syria might make, maybe

Reports are coming out suggesting Israel's defense forces (IDF) and government might have an attack plan in case tensions with Syria elevate — not least they are preparing for a Syrian offensive. The attack may go ahead if another alleged attack plan by Syria (background) on its own Israeli-held Golan Heights is instigated from fear of Israeli attack. Israel has occupied the Golan Heights, which rightfully and legally belong to Syria, for decades. There have been rumors of a compromise, but the US would not support one between its ally, Israel, and apparent enemy Syria.

This all also ties into the fear of a US strike on Iran, which is a close Syrian ally as Israel is a close American ally. Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said it would be a "miscalculation" by the Syrians if they see a need to attack the Golan Heights. And who says Middle East geopolitics is simple?

Also, the speaker of the American House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, visited Israel, Lebanon, and Syria. The White House condemned the latter-most visit to Syria. President Bush deemed it "counterproductive". This administration should know a thing or two about being counterproductive in foreign policy and diplomatic relations. Syria is an honorary member of the Bush's haphazard — in the sense it is very unhelpful with foreign relations — 'axis of evil'.

technorati tags: syria, israel, pelosi, golan+heights, middle+east, diplomacy, IDF, politics, news, international+affairs, foreign