Saturday, May 29, 2010
[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word.]
1.
Writing in Haaretz, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff point to an aspect of the Free Gaza Flotilla that hasn't received the attention it should,
In the approaching clash, the complex system of alliances and counter-alliances of the Middle East is beginning to emerge. It does not appear to be coincidental that the Islamist governing party in Turkey is involved, behind the scenes, in dispatching the flotilla, in coordination with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. At the same time it is doubtful that it is coincidental that the Israel Air Force held this week exercises with Greece, the traditional rival of Turkey, of the sort that two years ago were carried out mostly in Turkey.
2.
The editorial writer of the same paper shows no interest in the strategy of other actors in the conflict and goes for a simpler approach,
... the Israeli government knows exactly the price it must pay to free Shalit. It has already conducted indirect negotiations with Hamas and even announced that it was willing to release a large number of prisoners who are members of the Islamic group. The deal has been held up due to a number of prisoners who committed extremely serious crimes whom Israel refuses to release. Israel's firm refusal to free those prisoners is becoming its most costly move so far.
There seems to me to be a basic misunderstanding about the meaning of the term "negotiation" here. While most people understand it to refer to a process with an uncertain outcome in which both parties attempt to make the fewest concessions possible while extracting the most from their rival, Haaretz seems to understand it as one in which Israel receives its enemy's wish list and immediately concedes to it in full. Any other approach is seen as a sign of intransigence and bad faith on Israel's part.
3.
Relations with Turkey have deteriorated significantly due to Israel's policy in Gaza.
To see Israel's Gaza policy as the sole determinant of the quality of its relations with Turkey you have to ignore any possible changes in the attitude of Turkey to Israel that arise from shifts in Turkish politics. I'd say that at least as influential in the chilling of Ankara's attitude to Israel were the governing AK Party's gradual hollowing out of the institutions of the Kemalist republic and the broader Ottomanization of its foreign policy.
4.
Israel could probably be more flexible about the amount and type of goods it allows into Gaza without benefiting Hamas. Beyond that, it's hard to see what good policy options it has. If it releases all the prisoners Hamas is asking for in return for Shalit it will be offering an even greater incentive for future kidnappings and it certainly won't win any brownie points from Ankara or anywhere else. If it drops the naval blockade it gives the opportunity for Hamas to import whatever it likes into the territory. Again, those who imagine that such a move would lead to a sudden surge in Israel's popularity abroad are living in cloud cuckoo land. Apart from the question of Shalit, I've no doubt that Israel already negotiates indirectly with Hamas on matters related to the management of the conflict and the odd rocket fired into Israel and the occasional bombing of a tunnel by the IAF form part of those negotiations.
However, when Haaretz editorials writers and those with similar views urge Israel to negotiate with Hamas I get the feeling they're talking about some other kind of process, one in which Israel would be expected to take seriously and make real concessions to the political ambitions of the organization that currently rules the Gaza Strip in a manner recently described as fascist by the PA's Foreign Minister.
Which is more "fascist", Hamas or the Israeli government?
neither seem to care very much about human welfare
Only to people who don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Yo Ma Ma Mahmoud,
Which is more "fascist"? Let me think....
These pictures have the answer.
http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/hezbollah_hamas_nazi_salute.jpg
I believe the ones doing the outstretched arm salutes are more fascist.
So too are the "activists" who support hamass gaza - the "activists" are fascists too.
Next question!
Israel will negotiate with Hamas (again) as they have a long history together. In due time, even terror organizations become politically acceptable parties - it happened in Israel, it will happen so too in Gaza.
Nothing in Israel was ever like the genocidal maximalist party that Hamas is.
The reference is to Israel's early involvement with Hamas as a counter measure to Fatah and Arafat.
Weak.
A question then: do you believe that Israel will succeed in ridding Gaza of Hamas? Not asking to provoke but rather I am genuinely interested in your thoughts. The actions of the past 3 years seem to have done nothing to loosen Hamas' grasp on Gaza but, rather, it seems even more entrenched than ever. Would not the pragmatics of actually governing 1.5 million people necessitate that Hamas evolve into the day-to-day activity of governance? Do you think the blockade can continue indefinitely as a battle of wills?
A brief answer: First understand that I shy away from offering policy suggestions. I look at what the people in power are doing, listen to their explanations and the criticisms against them and decide to support them or not. I'm not sure the "blockade" was good -- it's the kind of half measure that leads to no sort of conclusion and Israel just suffers during the inevitable long grind. The sad fact is that sanctions rarely work. I find it perfectly justifiable, though, and support fully the Israeli choice in the matter.
Second, the idea is not just to remove Hamas (it's unknown how entrenched and popular they actually are at this point. Their rule is enforced by brutality.), it's to deprive them of the means of doing damage.
Third, there is no evidence that a group like Hamas moderates by being in power. They are not a group formed for giving good government. If they were, they would have moderated long ago without the need for a blockade. In fact, the entire conflict would have been solved decades ago as the rational thing would be to get down to doing business and raising prosperity. Governing did not moderate the Taliban, the Islamic Revolution, Saddam Hussein...the list goes on and on and on.
This is an apocalyptic, genocidal terror group with maximalist aims that sends children off to suicide in the name of their god. They are not concerned with the general welfare as long as their own thug leadership is comfortable. Maintaining the conflict actually serves their interests and maintains their power and relevancy. A peaceful resolution works against them.