Notes on the Gaza assault: breaking down American and Egyptian reactions

As the Israeli incursion into Gaza continues I will be creating posts in this series entitled “Notes of the Gaza Assault,” attempting to highlight some of the primary issues we should all be concerned with as events continue to develop. These may be a bit more free form and written a bit more “from the hip” so to speak, however I will do my best to keep providing sources for information discussed.

The lack of discourse in American politics

Since Barak Obama’s re-election two weeks ago, the media outlets in the United States have been reporting heavily on the political deadlock in congress. Well, I’m happy to report, that this deadlock has been officially broken. On Friday, 16 November, both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed identical resolutions supporting Israel’s onslaught in Gaza. H.Res.813.EH frames this support in terms that reproduce Israel’s narrative of the current conflict.[1]

Reading the document one might be led to believe that the source of violence between Israel and Palestine boils down to the agitation and belligerence of militants: the resolution “expresses unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel… and recognizes and strongly supports its inherent right to act in self defense and protect its citizens against acts of terrorism;” and “reiterates that Hamas must end Gaza-linked terrorist rocket and missile attacks against Israel, recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Considering the ever-rising body count in Gaza, anyone with even a moderately informed conception of the history of this conflict should be offended by this resolution, however this is bizarrely the only accepted position in Washington. Take for instance Senator Frank Lautenberg’s (D-NJ) comments[2] in solidarity with Israeli aggression and imagine if they represented an honest and reasonable reaction to the onslaught. They may sound something like this:

"No country should be forced to withstand attacks on its own people. We cannot expect [the people of Gaza] to stand idly by while its [people] are the targets of continued... attacks. We support [the Palestinians people's] right to defend itself and call on [Israel] to immediately renounce terror and recognize [Palestine's] right to exist."

Overnight, Lautenbergy would be ostracized and denounced rather than lauded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

Much is made of American support for Israel, and I want to make it clear what my thoughts are on the issue. The United State's unwavering support for Israel is based on two things: vote and money. Consider that in 2008 AIPAC spent just over $2.5 million on political lobbying.[3]  This is not an insubstantial sum, but the fact that key corporations in American’s military industry like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing spent $17 million[4] and $15 million[5] respectively on lobbying.  These types of arms sales not only affect regional balances of power but also American domestic concerns.  The Wallstreet Journal reports that a 2010 arms deal with Saudi Arabia will create at least 75,000 jobs.[6]  The fact that Saudi Arabia is widely regarded as one of the most brutal, un-free regimes in the world is at best irrelevant (and at worst a positive). More recently discussions of cutting back on the US’s grossly overinflated military spending could result in the loss of many jobs in the “defense” industry, though this is somewhat overdramatized.[7] Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign military aid, earmarked to be spent in the United States on contractors like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing. Currently, Israel receives approximately $3 billion every year from the United States, though this is set to increase by 2018. [8]

Votes are easy enough to explain: for the Republicans, their policies are informed by evangelical Christians that believe that Israel (and apparently Israeli) oppression is a necessary component of their eschatology. On states (like Florida) and dominant in others (like New York).[9]

All eyes on Egypt

Any attention to media coverage of the violence taking place in Gaza brings to fore questions regarding the new government in Egypt. If the Palestinians have any hope for avoiding an Israeli ground offensive, that hope lies with the new political geography of the Middle East. The consequences of such a ground assault are simply too unpredictable.

The Washington Post's Max Fisher had some cogent observations and predictions regarding Egypt's response, explaining the Egypt may lift its end of the embargo on Gaza and--while not likely--a campaign like 2008-2009 may very well result in the dissolution of the 1079 Camp David Accords.[10] It's certainly true that the newly elected Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi has little interest in a confrontation with Israel, but Egypt's post-Mubarak political landscape demands an new attention and respect for popular opinion.

On the one hand, there is little doubt that Egypt was severely embarrassed by Israeli's assassination of Ahmed Jabari, breaching the Egyptian mediated ceasefire that had persisted for over 24 hours. A brief review of the events transpired through the ceasefire.

On Tuesday, in the midst of the short-lived ceasefire, Egypt made it clear that in the event of an escalation in violence, Egypt would not intervene on Hams' behalf.[11] However, significant protest against Israel was already mobilizing in Egypt's political arena, with ten different political parties signing a statement criticizing the government's relationship with Israel before marching through the streets of Cairo.[12] Nevertheless, the ceasefire continued to hold while Hamas leaders--no doubt Jabari was among them--met with leaders from the Popular Resistance Committees and Islamic Jihad. The result was a consensus on continuing the ceasefire as long as Israel did. A Hamas spokesperson made what turned out to be a rather ominous statement: "Palestinian organizations answered Hamas' call and are willing to stop firing, so long as Israel doesn't attack or carry out assassinations in Gaza.”[13]

Worse yet Jabari was a valuable mechanism in the dialogue between Israel and Hamas facilitated by Egyptian mediators. Israeli peace activist Gershon Baskin has written several Op-Eds detailing his interactions with Jabari and the draft proposals for a permanent ceasefire that Jabari received just hourse before his death. This narrative is worth the time of anyone serious about understanding the relationship between Israel and Gaza. [14]

At the end of it all, there is no doubt that Egypt has lost face after their efforts to prevent escalation. Outraged and shamed, Egypt recalled their ambassador from Israel, though this has not stopped them from continuing ceasefire efforts. Egypt's prime minister visited Gaza on Friday, with the promise that both Hamas and Israel would stop firing once he arrived, but the attacks did not stop for long. Tunisia's foreign minister followed suit with similar results.

Egypt has an uphill battle as it tries to mediate a ceasefire especially since one or both sides may be unwilling to participate for very long if at all. It won't be surprising to learn that Hamas has no faith in Israel's participation in a ceasefire, but more likely Hamas must surely know that they cannot balk at the offer, if only for the sake of the Palestinians in Gaza. 

Currently, Egypt is hosting talks between Hamas politiburo chief Khaled Mashaal, Qatar's emir SHeikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, and Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan about how to arrive at a ceasefire. Time will tell how Egypt's efforts play out as well as how the Morsi government compares to its predecessor.

---

[1] http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx

[2] Lautenberg’s original comments: “No country should be forced to withstand attacks on its own people. We cannot expect Israel to stand idly by while its citizens are the targets of continued rocket attacks. We support Israel’s right to defend itself and call on Hamas to immediately renounce terror and recognize Israel’s right to exist.” http://supportisrael.us/news/?p=1735

[3] "Lobbying Spending Database-American Israel Public Affairs Cmte, 2008." OpenSecrets. Web. 14 Dec. 2010. Online

[4] "Lobbying Spending Database-Lockheed Martin, 2008." OpenSecrets. Web. 14 Dec. 2010.  Online.

[5] "Lobbying Spending Database-Boeing Co, 2008." OpenSecrets. Web. 14 Dec. 2010. Online.

[6] Entous, Adam. "U.S.-Saudi Arms Deal Moves Ahead." The Wall Street Journal. 12 Sept. 2010. Web. 14 Dec. 2010. Online.

[7] Cassata, Donna. “Defense Budget Remains Likely Target For Deficit Reduction.” The Huffington Post. 12 Novemebr 2012. Accessed 17 November 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/defense-budget_n_2116166.html

[8] Sharp, Jeremy M. “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel.” Congressional Research Service. 12 March 2012. Accessed 17 November 2012. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

[9] This is a bit of an oversimplification, and it deserves mentioning that Jewish Americans by and large do not vote based on a referendum of policies toward Israel. For a good analysis of the Jewish vote in 2012 see Moore, Mik. “Reflections on the Jewish Vote, 2012.” The Huffington Post. 9 November 2012. Accessed 17 November 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mik-moore/jewish-voters-2012_b_2100586.html

[10] Fisher, Max. “How will Egypt respond to Israeli strikes on Gaza?” The Washington Post. 14 November 2012. Accessed 17 November 2012.

[11] “Egypt to Hamas: We will not intervene if violence continues.” Israel Hayom. 13 November 2012. Accessed 17 November 2012. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6398

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Baskin, Gershon. “Israel’s Shortsighted Assassination.” New York Times. 16 November 2012. 17 November 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/opinion/israels-shortsighted-assassination.html?hp&_r=0

Notes on the Gaza Assault: Twitter and the electronic age of propaganda

As the Israeli incursion into Gaza continues I will be creating posts in this series entitled “Notes of the Gaza Assault,” attempting to highlight some of the primary issues we should all be concerned with as events continue to develop. These may be a bit more free form and written a bit more “from the hip” so to speak, however I will do my best to keep providing sources for information discussed.

 “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” –George Orwell

Just after the assassination of Ahmed Al-Jabari, the leader of Hamas’ militant wing, the Israeli military announced “The IDF [Israeli Defense Force] has begun a widespread campaign on terror sites & operatives in #Gaza Strip, chief among them #Hamas & Islamic Jihad targets.”[1] They made this announcement via Twitter. Less than three hours later the same Twitter account posted a link to YouTube featuring the Israeli army’s video evidence of the drone strike that killed Al-Jabari, his bodyguard, and his son. Within twenty-four hours many Israeli news websites carried Op-Eds up detailing the just and necessary measure of killing this Al-Jabari, many replete with a comments section full of gleeful and impassioned praise.[2] None of these editorials carried the slightest mention about the bystanders thus far killed, at least two of them children (though there are unverified reports of more).[3]

One such Op-ed entitled “Bull’s-eye in Gaza” spells out how the government of Israel is justified in the ongoing aerial and naval bombardment of a densely populated area, claiming that the operation is defensive in nature. This is, and has long been, the hallmark of Israeli doublespeak. Part of it is certainly for its own domestic audiences, but one must realize that for international audiences, the propaganda and dishonesty is taken to completely new heights. In Hebrew, the assault is going on under the name “Pillar of Cloud.” However for English audiences the operation has rebranded as “Pillar of Defense.” While Gaza’s sympathizers on twitter on using the hash tag #GazaUnderAttack to stay up to date on developing information, Israel’s sympathizers are using #PillarOfDefense, picking up the Israeli army’s twitter post that carried the fancy, new, sanitized operation name.

On November 15, Mark Regev, an Israeli government spokesman, conducted an interview on SKY television. While Mark Regev denied that “regime change” was Israel’s goal he announce that

“The truth is we are trying to defend and protect Gaza’s civilian population if you think about it. Despite all the propaganda that Hamas is spewing out, they are keeping their own population under an iron fist. I mean they are trying to establish in Gaza a Taliban type regime that oppresses the people of Gaza that is stamping out all freedom there in Gaza, stamping out all independent civil society.”[4]

It seems that Operation Pillar of Cloud Defense is becoming reoriented yet again to Operation Iraqi Gaza Freedom. Regev goes on to reiterate the familiar chastisement that Hamas ought to focus on the economy in Gaza rather than attacks on Israel, with apparently no cognitive dissonance at all regarding Israel’s part in the embargo placed on Gaza.

Regev is not alone in the campaign to paint Israel’s policies as benevolent. Numerous public figures and news reports have reminded their audiences of Israel’s 2005 disengagement of Gaza, insisting that the Palestinians were handed independence only to squander it on “unprovoked” acts of terrorism.[5] Retired Major General Dan Harel in an interview with Arutz Sheva exclaimed, “We carry Gaza on our backs. I do not know if Israeli [sic] are aware of this, but we supply Gaza with all of its needs. We supply it with electricity, we supply it with water.”[6] However, there can be no doubt that Maj. Gen. Harel is aware that this obvious measure of dependence, this obvious mechanism of containment, is by design. Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan formulated in April 2004, while not implemented completely the following year, retained this provision.[7]   He knows as well that the disengagement was simply the most effective way of imposing complete control and closure over the strip.[8] These arguments about the benevolence Israel’s occupation and Israeli policies go back decades. Neve Gordon demonstrates this effectively in his work Israel’s Occupation, particularly in a discussion of how the Israeli leadership was caught off guard by the first intifada due to the widespread perception that Palestinians were satisfied with the economic developments that had been achieved under occupation, albeit under the framework of economic dependence and captive markets.[9]

This schizophrenic approach is symptomatic of the Orwellian mobilization tactics that Israel employs. Israel’s security is no doubt a complicated topic, but the reality is the so-called “wars” that Israel has engaged in during the previous decades have not been wars in the traditional sense. They’ve never been threatened by foreign soldiers on their own soil, never endured bombing campaigns the likes of which they have visited upon Lebanon and Gaza. This is not to diminish the effect of terrorist attacks that have been perpetrated in Israel by militant groups, but the vast majority of these militant groups come from the occupied Palestinian territories. The latest assault demonstrates this: the Israeli army is currently bombing the Gaza Strip, a place commonly referred to as an open air prison.[10] Yet Israel’s representatives and surrogates are constantly reiterating Israel’s right to defend itself. No where though, does this discussion allow for consideration of Gaza’s rights. How are the people of Gaza expected to resist the aerial and naval bombardment, blockade, and the general misery visited upon them by the Israeli government and its policies? Certainly the rocket attacks carried out by militants are an inadequate approach—both in terms of practicality and morality—toward improving the lives of Gazans, but the question remains: What, by the standards of the Israeli government, is an acceptable form of Palestinian resistance to its policies?

The most useful tool for poking holes in the propaganda that this offensive will make any serious improvements for Israel’s security is simple attention to detail. I’ve said in a previous post, that a “who shot first?” discussion is pointless.[11] But consider this: on Wednesday morning it was reported that a tentative ceasefire (or lull, if you prefer) had occurred between the two parties during which no shots were fired, no one was injured, and no one was killed.[12] This lull had lasted for over 24 hours when the Israeli government decided that rather than a ceasefire, they would prefer Operation Pillar of Cloud Defense. Since this operation began three Israeli civilians have been killed by rocket fire, largely because the frequency and volume of rocket attacks have increased, while casualties due to rocket fire had been reported since October 2011.[13] Doesn’t this objectively mean that Operation Pillar of Cloud Defense has imperiled rather than secured the lives of Israeli citizens?

In spite of all reason and evidence, Israel’s spokesmen and surrogates persist in claiming that the offensive in Gaza is about national security and the defense of its citizens. Today it has been reported that Hamas and other militants are now using more sophisticated rockets that are capable of reaching Tel Aviv.[14] This is the kind of escalation that Hamas had refrained from before the most recent, more typical exchanges with Israel. Currently, however, there are an excess of contradictions and double speak. Regev appears on international television and declares that the bombardment of Gaza—at the time of this writing the death toll is fast approaching 100 Palestinians—is at least in part being carried out for the benefit of the Palestinian people. Spokesmen continually evoke self-defense as the onus for the operation, ignoring the context of such violence, ignoring the fact that Israeli citizens have become dramatically less safe since the beginning of the operation, ignoring all of the conclusions that reasonable, informed individuals are drawing this conflict. The path forward for Israel does not lead deeper into Gaza. If the government of Israel wants peace and security for its citizens, it is a ridiculous, dishonest, contradictory proposition that they pursue war.

Follow Expert/Activist: Middle East on facebook at (http://tinyurl.com/cwj387s) and on Twitter at (@Adam_Wes_S). Comments, discussion, and criticism are always welcome.

---

[1] https://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson/status/268722403989925888

[2] Haber, Eitan. “An Endless War.” Yediot Ahronot. 15 November 2012. Accessed 15 November 2012. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4305905,00.html. Raskas, Joseph. “Bull’s-eye in the Gaza Strip: when targeted killings is justified.” The Times of Israel. 14 November 2012. Accessed 15 November  2012. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/bulls-eye-in-the-gaza-strip-when-targeted-killing-is-justified/ . Rosen, Jonathan. “Inside Out: Beyond Gaza Rhetoric.” The Jerusalem Post. 14 November 2012. Accessed 15 November 2012. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=291892.

[3] “Gaza conflict intensifies.”Al Jazeera. 15 November 2012. Accessed 15 November 2012.

[4]http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1140772454001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAA4Q0OiRE~,zBDGy0QklBlMT3nMCupudyS5B02SHi6B&bctid=1970910577001

[5] Spivak, Yaakov. “In Solidarity with Israel.” NY Daily News. 18 November 2012. Accessed 19 November 2012. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/node/134246.  Shragai, Nadav. “From Disengagement to terrorism.” Israel Hayom. 13 November 2012. Accessed 19 November 2012. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2864. Also see Alan Dershowitz’s comments on Piers Morgan Tonight: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1211/16/pmt.01.html.

[6] Ronen, Gil. “Disengagement General: Stop Carrying Gaza on our Back.” Arutz Sheva. 29 October 2012. Accessed 19 November 2012.

[7] http://www.knesset.gov.il/process/docs/DisengageSharon_eng.htm

[8] Li, Darryl. “The Gaza Strip As Laboratory: Notes in the Wake of Disengagement.” The Journal of Palestine Studies. Winter 2006. Web. Accessed 19 November 2012. http://www.pchrgaza.org/Library/darryl.pdf

[9] Gordon, Neve. Israel’s Occupation. Berkeley. University of California, 2008. Print. Pg. 148.

[10] Most recently: Chomsky, Noam. “Impressions of Gaza.” Chomsky.info. 4 November 2012. Accessed 19 November 2012. http://chomsky.info/articles/20121104.htm

[11] “’None of your governments would accept such a situation.’” Expert/Activist: Middle East. 13 November 2012. Accessed 15 November 2012. http://expert-activist-mideast.blogspot.com/2012/11/none-of-your-governments-would-accept.html

[12] “Israel and Gaza reach tacit truce.” Al Jazeera. 14 November 2012. Accessed 15 November 2012.

[13] Nguyen, Phan. “Dissecting IDF propaganda: The numbers behind the rocket attacks.” Mondoweiss. 17 November 2012. Accessed 19 November 2012. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/dissecting-idf-propaganda-the-numbers-behind-the-rocket-attacks.html

[14] “Tel Aviv Suburb Hit By Rocket.” The Huffington Post. 15 November 2012. Accessed 15 November 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/tel-aviv-rockets_n_2137334.html. 

'None of your governments would accept such a situation.'

The government of Israel and Hamas are once again acting like children. With the eyes of the world looking over with disdain and some irritation, members sympathetic to or affiliated with both parties are shouting “They started it!”[1] At the mention of a ceasefire, representatives of both Israel and Hamas indignantly sneer, “You stop it!” “No, you stop it!”[2] Unlike a schoolyard fight, however, one of the participants is the western supplied, funded, and supported government of Israel, and the other is a choked, impoverished, and condemned Gaza Strip. Also unlike a schoolyard fight, the cost of continued escalation between Israel and Hamas will be measured in human lives.

There is very little point, as far as I can tell, in detailing when the latest exchange of violence between the Israeli army and the conglomeration of militant groups in Gaza began. Whether it began over this past weekend or perhaps weeks earlier in October, the enmity and hostility between the two parties has persisted for years and the therein lies the real story, rather than the recently reached boiling point.

Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu recently gathered 50 Ambassadors in Ashkelon (within range of rocket attacks) in order to head off any criticism of Israel’s actions against Gaza. “We will not sit idly,” he told them, “in front of recurrent attacks that occur almost daily, against our citizens and our children. More than one million citizens have to live in a reality where within 15 or 30 seconds they need to find shelter against terrorists who shoot at civilians, while the terrorists themselves hide behind civilians… None of your governments would accept such a situation.”[3]

This is certainly true. Indiscriminate rocket attacks fired at civilian populations in southern Israel are absolutely worthy of condemnation, and there is no government that would find them tolerable.  However, this is only half the story. Any envoys that visited Gaza (however unlikely such a trip may be) might be treated to a similar speech from Ismail Haniyeh, the former Prime Minister of the Palestine Legislative Council (PLC).

He might tell envoys that no country would tolerate the foreign support for the overthrow of its democratically elected government. This is precisely what happened in 2007, though it is still commonly referred to as a Hamas coup d'etat.[4] Following Hamas’ electoral victory in 2006, Israel announced that it would stop transferring tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority (PA).[5] The Quartet (the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia), rather than condemn Israel’s meddling in the democratic affairs of the occupied territories, immediately did the same, suspending all aid previously pledged to the PA.[6] PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah acted immediately to strip the PLC of its parliamentary powers, consolidating them under the office of the President.[7] Hamas representatives called this an attempted “white coup d’etat;” the red coup d’etat was not far off.[8] The United States moved weapons (with the assistance of the governments of Israel and Egypt) to the Fatah spy master/thug in Gaza Mohammed Dahlan.[9] His bloody 2007 attempt at overthrowing Hamas in Gaza was a failure, and Hamas subsequently ousted Fatah members from the Gaza Strip (others were killed outright) resulting in the current political bifurcation of the occupied territory.[10]

Haniyeh might tell visiting dignitaries about the disturbing blockade that Gazans are confronted with and have been confronted with since Israel’s 2005 “disengagement” from Gaza that was intensified following the democratic election of Hamas in 2006 and the 2007 split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The blockade is specifically calculated to bring Gaza to the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe though without pushing it over. These calculations are measured down to the amount of calories each Gazan needs to avoid starvation.[11] Israel’s efforts to prevent such a disaster are not entirely successful however. Approximately 61% of Gazan households remain food insecure which in no small part has resulted in serious consequences for the next generation of Gazans.[12] For example 15% of children in Gaza are stunted from malnutrition and 76% of Palestinian infants are anemic.[13]

Haniyeh might tell envoys that no country would tolerate, in Israel’s words, “economic warfare” being waged upon their populace.[14] Israel, in spite of the disengagement, maintains sovereignty over Gaza’s airspace, coastal waters, and borders. It allows few exports, and no more imports than required to prevent a famine. One Op-Ed in The Jerusalem Post cited letters the writer had sent to Hamas leaders one which extolled them to “focus on building rather than destroying.”[15] If only it were so simple. During the December-January 2008-2009 Israeli incursion into Gaza (the likes of which are being considered now[16]) Israel was indisputably focused on destruction. According to the Goldstone Report*, Israel targeted a wide variety of civilian infrastructure for destruction including flour mills, chicken farms, sewage treatment facilities, and large swaths of civilian housing.[17] This is in addition to the 1400 Gazans killed in the assault.[18] Until June of 2010, Israel barred the entrance of concrete into Gaza so reconstruction and repair were out of the question. Since this relaxation, there has indeed emerged a burgeoning construction sector.[19] However this sector still relies on the black market tunnel economy to supply it with enough raw materials still restricted (and some barred completely) by Israel’s blockade.

Haniyeh might exclaim to visiting ambassadors about Israel (as Israel’s advocates would exclaim about Hamas) that they do not abide by ceasefires, that they cannot be negotiated with. Even now Israeli officials are making threats (threats with plans behind them) about the possibility of another ground assault or perhaps a more rigorous campaign of aerial bombardment while refusing to enter into negotiations or direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza.[20] Hamas has indicated they would be willing to enter into negotiations and that they would support a two state solution (though not without some rhetorical/ideological schizophrenia).[21] However, Israel refuses to enter into negotiations with Hamas without a specific precondition: that Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Hamas refuses to do so explicitly. There is ample room for discussion about either side’s willingness to negotiate and coexist, but the fact remains that Hamas and other militant groups have signaled they are willing to resume the previous ceasefire and it is the Israeli government that is discussing deterrence as if it is the only option available to them.

In the context of military occupation, historic and contemporary dispossession, admitted “economic warfare,” continued military excursions, and general misery and terror created in Gaza, it doesn't matter how the latest conflagration began. This recent surge in violence is merely a symptom of an underlying condition. Any ceasefire reached (God willing) soon will be nothing more than a temporary remedy that will require more serious introspection about the fundamental relationship between the government of Israel and the people that live in the shadow of its mercy. Gaza may not be a country, but we must understand that the people of Gaza cannot be expected to tolerate the conditions imposed upon them by Israel: there are no other peoples among the nations from whom anyone in their right mind would make such a demand. Moreover while both sides are responsible in one way or another for the boisterous reactionary violence that terrorizes Israeli citizens in Ashkelon and stateless citizens in Gaza, the status quo—unequivocally, objectively—has been created and is sustained by decisions made and policies carried out by the government of Israel.

---

[1]  “Netanyahu promises IDF will act ‘forcefully’ in response to rocket attacks.” The Times of Israel. 11 November 2012. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www.timesofisrael.com/ministers-threaten-to-up-the-ante-including-targeted-killings-in-response-to-rocket-fire/ Glaser, John. “Israel’s Latest Assault on Gaza: The Lie of Who Started It.” Antiwar. 11 November 2012. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/11/11/israels-latest-assault-on-gaza-the-lie-of-who-started-it/

[2] “Israel warns Hamas of ‘heavy price’ for Gaza rockets.” Mail & Guardian. 12 November 2012. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://mg.co.za/article/2012-11-12-israel-warns-hamas-of-heavy-price-for-gaza-rockets. “Israel launches fresh strikes on Gaza.” Al Jazeera. 13 November 2012. Accessed on 13 November 2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/20121112205723641623.html

[3] Ahren, Raphael. Davidovich, Joshua. “Your government would not tolerate a situation like this, PM tells enoys as fire pounds south.” The Times of Israel. 12 November 2012. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www.timesofisrael.com/rocket-fire-continues-to-pound-south-as-pm-defends-israels-right-to-respond/

[4] Issacharoff, Avi. “Hamas leader lauds visiting Qatar emir for ‘breaking’ Gaza blockade.” Haaretz. 23 October 2012. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/hamas-leader-lauds-visiting-qatar-emir-for-breaking-gaza-blockade-1.471765

[5] Lavie, Mark. “Hamas facing severe tests even before it takes over Palestinian government.” The Associated Press. 29 January 2006.

[6] Knudsen, Are. Basem, Ezbidi. "Hamas and Palestinian Statehood." Where Now for Palestine?: the Demise of the Two-state Solution. Ed. Jamil Hilal. (London: Zed, 2007) 188-209.

[7] Laub, Karin. “Abbas consolidating powers to make it harder for Hamas to rule.” The Associated Press. 14 Februay 2006.

[8] Nissenbaum, Dion. “Abbas given new powers.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 14 February 2006.

[9] Harel, Amos, and Avi Issacharoff. "Israeli Defense Official: Fatah Arms Transfer Bolsters Forces of Peace." Haaretz. 28 Dec. 2006.

[10] Rose, David. “The Gaza Bomb Shell.” Vanity Fair. 2008 April. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804. Leupp, Gary. “A Hamas Coup d’Etat in 2007?” Counterpunch. 6 January 2009. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/01/06/a-hamas-coup-d-etat-in-2007/.

[11] Seikaly, Sherene. “Counting calories and making lemonade in Gaza.” Egypt Independent. 12 November 2012. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www.egyptindependent.com/opinion/counting-calories-and-making-lemonade-gaza

[12] Cole, Juan. “Israel’s Strangulation of Gaza by the Numbers.” Informed Comment. 5 November 2011. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www.juancole.com/2011/11/israels-strangulation-of-gaza-by-the-numbers.html. The link used here contains information derived from the United Nations and the National Center for Biotechnology Information, among others. Professor Cole provides links to these publications on his website.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Frenkel, Sheera. “Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn’t about security.” McClatchy. 9 June 2010. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/09/95621/israeli-document-gaza-blockade.html

[15] Baskin, Gershon. “Ecountering Peace: Message to Hamas, Israel leaders.” The Jerusalem Post. 12 November 2012. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=291533

[16] Ginsburg, Mitch. “The approach of an unwanted war in Gaza.” The Times of Israel. 11 November 2012. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-approach-of-an-unwanted-war-in-gaza/

** While Richard Goldstone, the former judge who headed the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, has since recanted some of the mission’s conclusions, the findings detailed meticulously throughout the report have not been discredited. Moreover, the other authors of the report disagreed with Goldstone’s retraction.

[17] “Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.” United Nations Report A/HRC/12/48. 25 September 2009. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

[18] During this same time period 13 Israelis lost their lives, of which 10 were soldiers, of which 4 casualties was the result of friendly fire.

[19] “Construction sector booms in Gaza.” Al Jazeera. 13 July 2012. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2012/07/2012713112137195857.html

[20] “Netanyahu promises IDF will act ‘forcefully’ in response to rocket attacks.” The Times of Israel. 11 November 2012. Accessed 13 November 2012. http://www.timesofisrael.com/ministers-threaten-to-up-the-ante-including-targeted-killings-in-response-to-rocket-fire/

[21] Mccarthy, Rory. “We can accept Israel as neighbor, says Hamas.” Guardian. 21 April 2008. Accessed 9 November 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/21/israel. Hass, Amira. “Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders.” Haaretz. 9 November 2008. Accessed 9 November 2012. http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915.  Waked, Ali. “Mashaal: Hamas willing to accept peace deal with Israel.” Yedioth Ahronot. 20 October 2010. Accessed 9 November 2012. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3972646,00.html

Critically Assessing Dershowitz's Latest Comments on the Palestinian-Israeli Peace Process

The peace process between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships has lain dormant and dysfunctional for years now, but Professor Alan Dershowitz, a staunch supporter of Israel, has recently proposed a plan meant to break the deadlock between the two parties.[1] Dershowitz’s plan to resume negotiations, however, is rife with Israeli advantages that play into the current weaknesses of the Palestinian leadership. Palestinian negotiators have demanded that Israel halt all settlement activities before they will once again return to the negotiating table. Conversely, Israel rejects any preconditions to negotiations and refuses to halt the continued expansion of what are recognized around the world as illegal settlements.[2]

Thus Dershowitz has a plan that proposes that negotiations begin without preconditions, as the current Israeli government demands, where the two parties will immediately agree on the status of three types of areas: in the first type of area, Dershowitz explains, are areas that everyone knows will be a part of Palestine (main urban centers like Ramallah and Jericho that are populated exclusively by Palestinians) where illegal Israeli construction will stop; in the second type, areas that “will definitely remain part of Israel after any peace agreement,” (which Dershowitz identifies explicitly as “areas contiguous to greater Jerusalem”) construction will continue; finally, in all other areas that remain, using Dershowitz’s jargon, “disputed” there will be a temporary freeze of illegal Israeli construction.  Only days ago, these “disputed” areas were among the sites that Netanyahu announced a further expansion of settlements, though the lion’s share of these new illegal structures are targeted at East Jerusalem, further galvanizing Israel’s claim to “greater Jerusalem” (re: an undivided, Israeli Jerusalem).[3] Dershowitz explains that at the end of this process, both sides will get what they want, a resumption of negotiations and a freeze in settlements.

However there are several problems with this plan, a plan that Mahmoud Abbas has apparently already agreed to. The most glaring of these problems is that it pre-empts the status of Jerusalem, once an issue deferred to final status talks that would now be conceded by Palestinians to Israel’s successful—albeit criminal—campaign of expansion. Moreover the “freeze” of illegal settlement construction elsewhere in the occupied Palestinian territories is offered as a prize to Palestinians rather than the proper, legal course of action that it ought to be for the government of Israel.

That under this framework negotiations begin with a Palestinian concession is a fairly clear signal: Israel expects more concessions and is ready impose more still. Dershowitz went on to suggest that the resumption of negotiations was the only remaining obstacle, explaining that “Everyone knows what a negotiated peace would look like.” Dershowitz describes the apparently self-evident conclusion to the long, tortuous peace process with several points whose sum amount to a troublesome future for any Palestinian state:

1. The borders will be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed upon land swaps. Dershowitz however fails to complicate just how “mutual” any such agreement may be, given the fragile nature of Abbas’ legitimacy. Abbas was due for re-election in January 2009, but the elections were postponed indefinitely, ostensibly due to the schism between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. In any event, Dershowitz’s previous criteria that divide occupied Palestine by its relationship to Israel’s expansionist goals have transgressed the 1967 lines resulting in a de-facto annexation of Jerusalem.
2. Palestine will exist as a “demilitarized” state. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision of this concept was spelled out in a speech he gave from Bar-Ilan University in 2009. Netanyahu elaborated, saying that this meant that Palestine would have no control of airspace, no right to make treaties with other nations, and no right to form and maintain army. The first stipulation seems like quite a breach of sovereignty, though one that is relatively minor in comparison with the following two tenets of “demilitarization” that leaves Palestine implicitly dependent on Israel for continued security and protection.
3. Israel will retain a military presence in the Jordan Valley. This is another point of contention that has recently manifested earlier this year during talks hosted by King Abdullah in Jordan. Israeli officials have for years claimed that a permanent presence in the Jordan Valley was necessary to protect Israel, however Israeli negotiator Isaac Molho explained that Israel was now seeking a long-term presence.[4] Since Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967, Israel has built not just military bases in the Jordan Valley, but also illegal civilian settlements. In Al Aqaba alone the population has been reduced from approximately 2000 inhabitants in 1967 to less than 300 today.[5] To this day, the Israeli army carries out demolition orders on civilian structures from tents to water containers, claiming that such structures are built without the proper permits, though the permits remain difficult to obtain. The status of the Jordan Valley has additional effects on the remainder of the West Bank however. Due to the presence of military installations and illegal settlements, there are numerous Israeli-only roads that cut across the West Bank that Palestinians have no access to. This means that the Palestinians are forced to accept infrastructure in their areas that they are forbidden from using, while they are resigned to building new infrastructure to circumvent the Israeli-only network. Additionally the Jordan Valley holds large amounts of water resources that the Oxfam International estimates could generate an additional $1 billion per annum for the Palestinian economy.[6] As of today, most of these resources go to Israel and to Israeli settlements.
4. There will be a “realistic resolution of the Jerusalem issue.” We can only infer from Dershowitz’s proposal that East Jerusalem would be remain under Israel’s sovereignty. The illegal settlements that surround East Jerusalem, according to Dershowitz, belong to Israel and the Palestinians should simply accept this. This amounts to a demand that Palestinians accept Israel’s expansionism and colonialism as legitimate, and discard the reality that Israel’s settlements anywhere beyond the green line, including in East Jerusalem, are illegal. However, we may return to Abbas and the Palestinian negotiators concessions that have already been issued with regard to Jerusalem. During the 2009 talks, as revealed by the Palestine Papers, the Palestinian leadership offered Israel all of Jerusalem—much to the ire of the Palestinian population—save for Abu Dis, a heavily populated Palestinian neighborhood.[7] This offer was rejected by the Israeli negotiators as well as the supposedly neutral mediator of Condoleezza Rice, who, confronted with Palestinian firmness on the neighborhood of Abu Dis, replied, “Then you won’t have a state!” A “realistic resolution of the Jerusalem issue” ought to be reasonable as well. Israel’s negotiators historically have obstinately refused the idea of dividing Jerusalem, even in the face of drastic and unpopular concessions on the part of the Palestinian leadership. Dershowitz’s proposal for the start of negotiations (as well as the subsequent forecast to their end) only serves to reinforce this stubbornness
5. Palestinians will abandon what Dershowitz dismisses as “the so-called Right of Return.” Just last week Abbas hinted that the Right of Return was being drastically revised by the Palestinian leadership—again to the consternation of the Palestinian population, both in the territories as well as abroad in refugee camps and elsewhere. However, due to popular dissatisfaction Abbas quickly backtracked on the comments.[8] In any event, the right of return, according to Human Rights Watch, is an individual right, not a collective right that can be conceded by any one leader.[9] The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research conducted a poll in 2003 that suggested that the overwhelming majority of Palestinian refugees would prefer to remain in either a newly created Palestinian state or their current country of residence.[10] However, it is still imperative that Israel (and apparently Abbas) recognize the Right of Return, as those who do not wish to return to Israel are still entitled to compensation. This compensation would be costly (estimated at approximately $100 billion, funded by the international community), but as David Gardner writes, this sum “will prove a lot cheaper than the alternative: a beleaguered Israel ringed by dozens of camps, desperate huddles of misery so cut off from any hope of a decent future they will become the new universities of Jihad. No Israeli wall will be proof against that.”[11] In short, the price of peace will inevitably be cheaper than the cost of continued violent confrontation and enmity.
6. Finally, Gaza will be discarded as a lost cause in any negotiations. This is, perhaps, one of the more egregious of Dershowitz’s profanities. The situation in Gaza was rapidly deteriorating following the blockade on the tiny strip of land (approximately 2% of historic Palestine) after Hamas’s 2006 electoral victory, and the situation became dire following Hamas’ successful defense against Fatah’s disastrous 2007 attempted coup. The destruction visited upon Gaza’s civilian infrastructure during the December-January 2008-2009 Israeli assault resulted in what was largely recognized (though not by the American or Israeli governments) as a humanitarian catastrophe. Following a recent visit to Gaza by famed public intellectual Noam Chomsky, he described the situation with language similar to others, declaring that Gaza is “the world’s largest open-air prison.”[12] Israel has met any attempts at a political reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas with predictable threats, thus preventing real progress on ameliorating the situation in Gaza. Under such conditions no reasonable, informed mind can think that Hamas will be made more likely to cooperate and submit to Israeli power. Dershowitz implies that unless Hamas recognizes “Israel’s right to exist,” the situation in there will remain the status quo, but while Hamas has a history of obfuscating this demand there is an opportunity for negotiations and diplomacy to resolve this issue. The militant group has insisted in the past that it would accept a two-state solution in which recognition is implicit, while at other times Hamas leaders have refused to admit this fact.[13] Nevertheless, Hamas has demonstrated that it is willing to be a part of negotiations and end violent actions toward Israel, albeit with certain—not unreasonable—conditions. In the face of such an opportunity, Hamas’ cognitive dissonance between embracing a two-state solution and refusing to recognitze Israel is entirely irrelevant. However, if such an outcome is to be realized, the collective punishment visited upon the Gaza Strip will have to end, and democratic, free, unhindered elections will have to return to the occupied territories to establish a national consensus and a legitimate forum of leadership. The issue of Gaza is absolutely critical to moving ahead with the peace process. No party can afford to move ahead while Gaza moves closer and closer toward oblivion.

Dershowitz’s proposal for negotiations is more accurately described as the Palestinian leadership’s most recent invitation to hear Israel’s demands. Under Dershowitz’s framework and subsequent prognostication, future negotiations appear more as a forum for Palestinian concession, not negotiation. Anyone who truly wants to move the peace process forward must accept that the issues are more complex—and in some instances, more dire—than Dershowitz has thus shown fit to treat them.

---

[1] Dershowitz, Alan M. “Following the elections, Mideast peace negotiations should resume.” Gatestone Institute. 3 November 2012. Accessed 8 November 2012. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3432/mideast-peace-negotiations

[2] “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” International Court of Justice. Press Release 2004/28. Accessed 9 November 2012 http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&ca

[3] Horowitz, Adam. “Netanyahu on election eve: Approves 1,200 new settlement homes while promising Israel won’t wait for US to attack Iran.” Mondoweiss. 6 November 2012. Accessed 9 November 2012. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/netanyahu-on-election-eve-approves-1200-new-settlement-homes-while-promising-israel-wont-wait-for-us-to-attack-iran.html

[4] Hatuqa, Dalia. “Israel restricts Jordan Valley water access.” Al Jazeera. 28 July 2012. Accessed 8 November 2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/07/20127259518330800.html.

[5] Ibid.

[6] “On The Brink: Israeli settlements and their impact on Palestinians in the Jordan Valley.” Oxfam International. 5 July 2012. Accessed 8 November 2012. http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp160-jordan-valley-settlements-050712-en_1.pdf

[7] Carlstrom, Gregg. “The Palestine Papers: “The biggest Yerushalayim.”” Al Jazeera. 23 January 2011. Accessed 8 November 2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122112512844113.html

[8] “Abbas ‘refugee’ comments wow Israel, enrage Gaza.” Ahram Online. 4 November 2012. Accessed 9 November 2012. http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/57111.aspx

[9] “Human Rights Watch Policy on the Right of Return.” Human Rights Watch. Accessed 8 November 2012. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/israel/return/

[10] “Results of PSR Refugees’ Polls in the West Bank/Gaza Strip, Jordan and Lebanon on Refugee’s Preferences and Behavior in a Palestinian-Israeli Permanent Refugee Agreement.” Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. 18 July 2003. Accessed 8 November 2012. http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/refugeesjune03.html

[11] Gardner, David. “Israel-Palestine: solving the refugee question.” OpenDemocracy. 18 August 2009. Accessed 8 November 2012. http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/israel-palestine-solving-the-refugee-question

[12] Chomsky, Noam. “Gaza, The World’s Largest Open-Air Prison.” In These Times. 7 November 2012. Accessed 9 November 2012. http://inthesetimes.com/article/14148/gaza_the_worlds_largest_open_air_prison

[13] Mccarthy, Rory. “We can accept Israel as neighbor, says Hamas.” Guardian. 21 April 2008. Accessed 9 November 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/21/israel. Hass, Amira. “Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders.” Haaretz. 9 November 2008. Accessed 9 November 2012. http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915.  Waked, Ali. “Mashaal: Hamas willing to accept peace deal with Israel.” Yedioth Ahronot. 20 October 2010. Accessed 9 November 2012. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3972646,00.html