MideastWeb Middle East Web Log

log  archives  middle east  maps  history   documents   countries   books   encyclopedia   culture   dialogue   links    timeline   donations 


Gaza Gimmix


The Gaza "crisis" can only be understood if we remember that none of the governments and leaders on either side are being completely honest, and some, like the Hamas, are simply lying. The result of these manipulations is the people of Gaza and and the people of Sderot, Ein Hashlosha and other communities inside Israel are suffering in order for the various sides to advance their political agendas.

The "crisis" has several components: the "siege," the rocket attacks on Israeli communities, the Israeli attempts to kill those who launch the rockets and their leaders which inevitably result in civilian casualties and damage as well, the Fatah-Hamas split, and the refusal of Hamas to accept the Oslo accords that are the basis of legitimacy of the Palestinian authority. The solution to the Gaza crisis has to be to get Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority, ruled by a government that has a public commitment to peace, to enable holding free elections with participation of all parties that are committed to peace, to stop the terror attacks and Israeli reprisals, and to get Gaza functioning as a normal community that imports commodities and raw materials and exports goods for sales, rather than importing explosives and exporting bombs.

Nobody is really interested in this solution with the possible exception of the Palestinian Authority. And if the Palestinian Authority is interested in this solution, they are do nothing to show it. Each side wants you to forget one or another component, and tries to blur the issues to gain sympathy or advance their agenda.

We are constantly reminded about the "siege" of Gaza by various rights groups. The blockade of Gaza and the embargo of Hamas have several different aspects and causes and these are all deliberately blurred together to mislead the public.

1. Hamas originally came to power in "democratic" but basically illegal Palestinian elections. The elections were illegal because under the Oslo accords that were the enabling document for the elections, Hamas, which does not recognize the right of Israel to exist and insists on violence, should not have been allowed to participate in elections to a government that is supposed to negotiate peace with Israel. Therefore, international donors imposed an aid embargo of the new government.

2. To prevent importation of weapons, and export of terrorists to Israel checkpoints were set up in Rafah on the Egyptian border, manned by EU personnel, and checkpoint traffic to Israel was curtailed. The Gaza port and airport are closed. Since large quantities of weapons were smuggled in from Rafah and are still being smuggled in, these measures were not completely effective.

3. In June of 2007, Hamas ousted Fatah in a bloody coup in Gaza, resulting in closing of the Rafah crossing by the EU and tightning of the "siege" - in part because Hamas attacked the border crossings.

4. In response to indiscriminate attacks on civilians by rocket fire and snipers, initiated or encouraged by Hamas, Israel further tightened the "siege" by cutting fuel supplies to Gaza. Israel then announced that it would allow a one time shipment of fuel, and now announced that all crossings will be closed except for humanitarian aid.

Lifting the "siege" of Gaza, as demanded by these groups, would put an end to the peace process and to the rule of Fatah, since it would amount to international recognition of the Hamas government.

Hamas is clearly lying to its people and the world concerning the causes of the siege and of the "humanitarian crisis." All that is necessary to lift the siege and the international embargo and to stop the Israeli military actions is for the Hamas to recognize the right of Israel to exist and to stop the rocket attacks and arms smuggling. Frankly, even the most insincere declaration concerning Israel's right to exist and readiness to participate in negotiations would bring about an end to the aid embargo. They could probably even get away with continuing to hold kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit.

Hamas, for their part, are not interested in stopping the rockets or entering the peace process, because these moves would inevitably oust them from power, and necessarily bring about the return of Fatah rule. They have built their entire political platform on opposition to the peace process. Hamas decisions in this respect are made in Syria and Iran, and those countries have no interest in furthering a peace process that is sponsored by the EU and the United States.

It is certain that the Hamas are lying about the recent short-lived fuel embargo as well. Gaza had adequate fuel supplies. If the power was cut, it was not cut because they ran out of fuel. The diesel powered generators in question together supply about 15% of Gaza's power. 70% is supplied by Israel, and 15% is supplied by Egypt. The dramatic photos of candle light living were media hype. Gaza health authorities earlier complained, according to Palestinian media, that the Hamas stole hospital fuel supplies for use by the Hamas Executive Force. According to AP, anonymous Palestinian Health ministry officials in Gaza noted that Hamas charges that 5 patients had died as a result of the current fuel shortage were untrue.

There is no doubt that the people of Gaza are suffering hardships. Today, tens of thousands of Gazans
broke through into Rafah
to gather supplies, after explosions tore holes in the barrier separating Gaza from Egypt. The people of Sderot on the other hand are living in constant terror through no fault of their own. Israeli missile attacks on Gaza take their toll of civilian casualties and are not effective in reducing the rocket attacks. Last week, a foreign volunteer, Carlos Chavez, was murdered by Palestinian snipers as he worked in the fields at Kibbutz Ein Hashlosha.

"Ending the siege" of Gaza will not solve any problems. It will create a much bigger problem, because it will entrench a Hamas run government that is free to terrorize not only Israelis, but Palestinians as well.

The Arab governments have done little or nothing to ameliorate the Gaza crisis. On the contrary, Egypt allowed thousands of Hajj pilgrims back into Gaza without checking to see if any were Hamas operatives, and funding from Iran and Arab countries has enabled the Hamas government to stay afloat. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are constantly urging Hamas-Fatah "unity."

Israel, for its part, has handled the Gaza issue with what could charitably be described as belligerent negligence. The refusal of the Olmert government to finance improved shelters for Sderot is a case in point. Is it just a matter of money or is it also convenient to maximize the impact of the rockets? It may be awful to think about, but it is not impossible. Israel admittedly faces a number of unappetizing choices. Living with the rocket fire is unacceptable. In the long run, living with the Hamas government is unacceptable as well, because the Hamas will inevitably grow stronger, graduating to larger and larger rockets. They have already fired Grad rockets on Ashkelon. But Israel has not formulated any rational plan for ending Hamas rule, and neither has anyone else. The missile attacks and incursions can only lead to gradual escalation. They serve to boost morale in Israel, but it is plain that they do not provide a deterrent to the rocket attacks and sniper fire.

Physically, the problem is not insurmountable. With enough military force, Israel could retake Gaza and eliminate the Hamas. It might exact a very high price in Israeli and Palestinian lives. This price can only be worthwhile if a Gaza takeover by Israel could end the problem of Hamas. It is unlikely to do so. Israel could not, and should not, hold Gaza. It would need to turn it over to an international force or to the Palestinian Authority. However, a Palestinian Authority that came to power by Israeli military force would lose its legitimacy. An international force could not be counted on to stop arms smuggling, as the experience of UNIFIL in Lebanon has proved. But what if Israel were to take over the Rafah crossing and then invite an international force to take over Gaza?

The international powers and the UN are not exactly being honest either. If they wanted to, they could insist on internationally supervised deliveries of fuel and other supplies, and put personnel in Gaza who would guarantee that fuel reaches power plants rather than vehicles of terrorists. Israel could not, for example, oppose the docking of container ships in Gaza harbor, filled with supplies that had been checked by Israeli security personnel. The UN and the EU and United States have all carefully shied away from even offering to take over responsibility for Gaza and sending an international force there. Perhaps Israel or the Palestinians would not agree, but then the ball would be in the court of those who refuse to allow the force. It is somewhat beside the point for the international community to issue pious pronouncements about the humanitarian situation in Gaza as long as they are unwilling to do anything about it except issue more pious pronouncements.

The Palestinian Authority has offered its own "solution": it proposes to take over the Gaza border crossings. Of course, this would not stop the rockets or the smuggling of arms, nor would it free the people of Gaza from the grip of the Hamas. What the Palestinian Authority did not offer is more significant: it did not offer to take over the Gaza strip under the umbrella of an international force, restore order and hold free elections. They would then have the responsibility of stopping the terror attacks and ending the smuggling of arms and explosives. This solution could end the suffering of the Gazans as well as the people of Israeli border towns and allow the peace process to begin in a meaningful way. Perhaps the Palestinian Authority too, finds that the status quo serves their purposes.

Ami Isseroff

If you like this post - click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.usAdd to digg - digg it

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000668.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.

by Moderator @ 03:59 PM CST [Link]


Middle East e-Zine

Midde East News

Opinion Digest

Late Updates


Middle East Glossary

Middle East Maps

Middle East Books

Middle East Documents

Israel-Palestine History

Israel-Palestine Timeline

Middle East Countries

Middle East Economy

Middle East Population

Middle East Health

Zionism History

Palestinian Parties

Palestinian Refugees

Peace Plans


Middle East


Blog Links

OneVoice - Israeli-Palestinian Peace Blog

Bravo411 -Info Freedom

Israel News


Michael Brenner

Dutchblog Israel

Dutch - IMO (Israel & Midden-Oosten) Blog (NL)



Alas, a Blog

Little Green Footballs

Blue Truth

Fresno Zionism

Reut Blog

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Blog

Simply Jews: Judaism and Israel

Jeff Weintraub - Commentaries and Controversies

Vital Perspective


Meretz USA Weblog


MIDEAST observer

On the Contrary

Blogger News Network- BNN

Google Sex Maps

Demediacratic Nation

Realistic Dove

Tulip - Israeli-Palestinian Trade Union Assoc.

On the Face

Israel Palestjnen (Dutch)

Middle East Analysis

Israel: Like This, As If

Middle East Analysis

Mid_East Journal

Z-Word Blog

Dvar Dea

SEO for Everyone

Web Sites & Pages

Israeli-Palestinian Procon

End Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: One Voice


ATFP- American Task Force on Palestine

Americans For Peace Now

Shalom Achshav

Chicago Peace Now


Peacechild Israel

Bridges of Peace


Israeli-Palestinian Conflict



Zionism and Israel

Zionism and Israel on the Web

Israel - Palestina:Midden-Oosten Conflict + Zionisme

Isral in de Media

Euston Manifesto

New Year Peace


Christian Zionism

Jew Hate

Space Shuttle Blog

Israel News Magazine


My Ecosystem Details
International Affairs Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

Link 2 us
We link 2 U.
MidEastWeb- Middle East News & Views
MidEastWeb is not responsible for the content of linked Web sites

Replies: 7 comments

Ami, you don't seem to offer any solutioise even, realistic or other.

As I see it, there are five options.

1) Continuing with the current situation.

2) Reconquering Gaza

3) Cease Fire with Hamas now.

4) Cease fire with Hamas after a successful (hopefully) major military operation.

5) Outside force.

To me it seems 4 is the only acceptable option, as unsatisfying as it is.

Somewhere along the way Israelis became seduced by an all or nothing idea -- either we obliterate terror completely or we have acheived nothing and everything we do, mililtary or diplomatic, is in vain. This idea is promoted both by the left and by the right, it's either peace or nothing or another Naqba or nothing as far as they are concerned. But in the real world military action and diplomacy have limited but still very real power. If Israel uses a well executed (this time) military action in Gaza, it might not destroy the Hamas or prevented from rearming, but it could weaken it for a while, force it to accept cease fire on better terms, give an object lesson that will reduce it's legitimacy or enthusiasm to brake the ceasefire, reduce the Hamas's popularity and legitimacy, force the international community to take a stand, restore Israelis confidence which would increase their willingness to pursue peace, create a more advantagious military ituation to deal with threats in Gaza.

Look, the war in Lebanon was not handled very well, no doubt. It is considered a failure. Israel did not destroy the Hizballa or prevent it now from rearming. But then, the 6 say war did not destroy Baathist Egypt or prevent it from rearming either. The war in Lebanon did cause the Hizballa to accept a ceasefire on better terms than the previous ones in which it continued low scale fighting across the border without impunity. It reduced it's legitimacy to use Lebanon as a base for attacks against Israel. It's control in the south diminished. And international commitment was increased somewhat. And this was in a war which was fought badly.

Defensive Shield and the fence were not perfect either. They certainly did not eliminate the enemy or it's will to attack. But suicide bombing are almost completely stopped for some time now, the Israeli army conducts operations against terrorists in a convenient fashion to it, and the people in the West Bank don't seem to be very enthusiastic about trying to escalate things. It is not perfect. There is no guarentee that it will last forever. But this action gave Israel a relative quiet which helped Israel both economically and diplomatically or a few years now. Moreover, the quiet increased the willingness of Israelis to pursue peaceful actions like the withdrawl from Gaza and negotiations until the Arabs + military incompetence ent Israelis back to a (justified) siege mentality.

So, although I do believe Israel should seek a complete solution in the form of peace, at present partial benefits of both military force and diplomacy are needed.

Posted by Micha @ 01/26/2008 03:42 AM CST

"Peace?" Process: Israel's Path to Suicide
With unremitting ferocity, Arab terrorists this weekend again attacked Israelis through rockets and other acts of violence. Despite such carnage, despite PA hollow promises to quell such violence, despite his record of flouting the terms of previous peace deals--advocates of the "peace process" are undaunted. They continue to demand that Israel resolve this conflict by diplomatic negotiation rather than military force.
Central to this process is a "land-for-peace" exchange, leading to a sovereign Palestinian state.
Such a "trade," however, will lead Israel not to peace but to self-destruction.
Although the land-for-peace doctrine seems to offer a mutually advantageous settlement, it is a vicious deception. Peace requires the cessation of Arab violence, particularly terrorism. To attain it, Israel is supposed to surrender territories crucial to its continued security--territories that were won in the war instigated by Arab countries in 1967 and historically belong to Israel, including the League of Nations Agreement from 1923. To attain land, however, the Arabs are supposed to concede nothing; they need only withdraw their use of force. Like any aggressor, they are, in essence, holding the Israelis hostage. And like any victim, Israel, by paying the ransom, gains no value that it did not already have a right to.
Evading the fact that Israel is being asked to cave in to extortion, advocates of the "peace process" treat Arab and Israeli claims as morally equivalent. They ignore the fact that the Mideast is dominated by Arab monarchies, theocracies and dictatorships--while Israel is a free country standing as the lone bastion of Western civilization in that region. It is only the citizens of Israel--Arabs and Jews alike--who enjoy the right to express their views, to form political parties, to elect their government.
Under Palestinian Authority, Palestinians are subject to ruthless censorship, in contrast to Israel's freedom of speech; expropriation and summary executions in contrast to the objective rule of law; and dictatorial edicts in contrast to political and economic liberty. Any Arab who values individual rights over tribalism collectivism--production and trade over statism and terrorism--would readily choose to live under Israeli rule rather than in a Palestinian state.
The function of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Only a free nation, like Israel, is entitled to invoke a moral right to exist. There can be no right to establish a state that consistently tramples upon rights. That is why this conflict is, fundamentally, a moral one. A concession by Israel of land for peace is a concession that it is an "oppressor"--it is a surrender of its moral legitimacy. Once Israel surrenders that principle, and accedes to a Palestinian state, it invites its own destruction.
A sponsor of such terror groups as Islamic Jihad and Hamas, PA has continually refused to prosecute Arab terrorists living under his jurisdiction--his latest perfunctory arrests of some Hamas members notwithstanding. A sovereign Palestinian state would thwart Israel's ability to apprehend such terrorists, and would enable them to strike more effectively. Even worse is the prospect that such a state could readily serve as a beachhead for a concerted "jihad" against Israel by its many Arab enemies.
Far from securing peace, compromises only weaken Israel and embolden its enemies. When Nazi Germany was appeased in 1938 by being allowed to claim Czechoslovakia as part of the Aryan people's "homeland"--an earlier version of "land for peace"--the result was to encourage Hitler to start a world war.
Israel must recognize that it cannot achieve peace by surrendering to those who are relentlessly hostile to the value of freedom. For the sake of its own survival, it must refuse any future compromises--and begin to undo the damage of previous concessions (including Barak's naïve offer of 95 percent of the captured territories). As a start, it should secure its own borders militarily, forbid the establishment of a Palestinian state, and oust PA from power. Rather than appeasing its attackers, Israel must retaliate with as much force as is necessary to subdue them.
These would be the first steps toward declaring a moral inequivalence between Israel and its Arab enemies.
History has proven since 1956 Israel has given land for peace, but no peace came of it. The Arabs cannot be trusted, they abuse their own people instill fear and demand and preach hatred of Israel.
I do not know if there ever will be peace, but I do know that to achieve peace you must negotiate from a position of strength.
Even the Qur’an states that the land belongs to Israel.
The Qur'an 17:104 - states the land belongs to the Jewish people

If the historic documents, comments written by eyewitnesses and declarations by the most authoritative Arab scholars are still not enough, let us quote the most important source for Muslim Arabs:
"And thereafter we [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".
Compiled by: Yehuda Draiman

Posted by Yehuda Draiman @ 01/27/2008 08:24 PM CST

Your assertion that the Palestinian elections were "basically illegal" is wrong -

Speaking in Number 10, the prime minister said Britain "absolutely" recognised that Hamas had a democratic mandate.
"We do respect the result of the election. That is why, as I have always said, we respect absolutely the mandate of Hamas," he told journalists.

Posted by sarah @ 01/30/2008 08:16 AM CST

"Hamas...are not interested in...entering the peace process, because [this would]...necessarily bring about the return of Fatah rule. They have built their entire political platform on opposition to the peace process".

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the main reason Hamas won the election was the endemic corruption of Fatah, the PLO and the PA. We already know that most Palestinians favour a 2-state political solution, so it would appear that Hamas won the election in spite of their Israel policy, not because of it.

Yehuda Draiman's contribution is interesting, if mad. Basically he calls for a one-state solution. If no Palestinian state is allowed and Israel rules the territories, the obvious move for the Palestinians who live there is to demand enfranchisement. That would decisively shift the conflict to the South African paradigm and as we have seen, that is very hard to defend. Unles of course there is an element of his plan he has not included in his post...

Posted by Chris @ 02/06/2008 02:22 PM CST

Actually, "dwell securely in the promised land" is not at all an endorsement of a Jewish state. I dwell securely in my apartment, but I don't own it. And the "mingled crowd" would also appear to edge more towards the Democratic Secular State idea. So maybe not the best quote to use.

Posted by Chris @ 02/06/2008 02:26 PM CST

a "successful" military operation? hmmm? israel has not had one of those since 1948 or ever. the war continues and will never end. there is only one option.

israel must repent for stealing the land of the pals.

Posted by scottsoperson @ 03/22/2008 09:20 PM CST

of course, perhaps one could declare the peace with jordan and egypt as successfull.

israel's military operations have only brought pain on israelis from the very beginning....all the way back to the balfour declaration of war.

Posted by scottsoperson @ 03/22/2008 09:22 PM CST

Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.

Powered By Greymatter

[Previous entry: "Bush in the Middle East"] Main Index [Next entry: "Gaza Grief"]


Thank you for visiting MidEastWeb - Middle East.
If you like what you see here, tell others about the MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log - www.mideastweb.org/log/.

Contact Us


Editors' contributions are copyright by the authors and MidEastWeb for Coexistence RA.
Please link to main article pages and tell your friends about MidEastWeb. Do not copy MidEastWeb materials to your Web Site. That is a violation of our copyright. Click for copyright policy.
MidEastWeb and the editors are not responsible for content of visitors' comments.
Please report any comments that are offensive or racist.

Editors can log in by clicking here

Technorati Profile

RSS FeedRSS feed Add to Amphetadesk Add to Amphetadesk

USA Credit Card - Donate to MidEastWeb  On-Line - Help us live and grow