Strongly Recommended: Sara Roy's new book on "Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza"

Roy's book is the latest volume in the "Princeton Studies in Muslim Politics" that I co-edit with Dale F. Eickelman.

Gaza

Sara Roy offers a pithy commentary on Gaza, popular pressure for Palestinian reunification and the prospects for breaking the U.S.-Israeli siege.

Earlier pieces:

Gaza war of 2008-9.

Hamas and the PA.

Turkish report on Mavi Marmara incident

What are Israeli strategists thinking? One example.

The setting for these remarks was the Herzliya National Security Conference, in early February.  They are reported in Defense News, Feb. 14, 2011, pp. 1 and 8.

Retired U.S. Marine Gen. James Jones, who up until last October served as Obama’s national securi­ty adviser, dismissed claims of Washington’s decline.

“I reject the idea that the United States is in decline or even in rela­tive decline,” Jones told conference participants here. “To be sure, there is much to be done to ensure we are as successful in the 21st century as we were in the 20th ... and Egypt is just a small sign of the potential for change.” Alongside efforts to prevent a nu­clear-armed Iran and to fortify a coalition of the moderates com­prised of pro-Western Arab states respectful of the universal rights of its people, Jones cited the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as “a mat­ter of urgent necessity.” Jones said the lack of a peace deal jeopardizes regional stability by un­dermining moderates, provoking the young and hopeless classes, and empowering Iran.

Time is not on Israel’s side, Jones warned: “The growing isolation of Israel is a very real concern. The number of countries that recognize a Palestinian state can outrank the number of countries that recognize Israel.” Jones urged Israel’s leaders to restart peace negotiations.

“Failure to act could ignite a rep­etition of Egypt on streets in neigh­boring countries,” he said. “Will ex­tremists win the hearts and minds of the young Arab street? Or will moderate voices prevail for a two­state solution? This could be the most important national security question of our time, and if we fail, history will not forgive us.” Amos Gilead, director for politi­cal-military affairs at Israel’s Min­istry of Defense, was brutally direct in rejecting Jones’ premise.

“Even if we sign an agreement to­morrow with the [Palestinian Au­thority], they won’t honor it,” Gilead said. “Look around the Middle East: If there is a democratic process here, it will bring, for sure, hell.” In tactless and borderline racist remarks here, Gilead insisted that democracy and stability cannot co­exist in the Arab Middle East.

“In the Middle East and the Arab world, there is no place for democ­racy,” he said.

Gilead said free elections in the region would breed either a Gaza­like “Hamastan,” or Lebanon, which he described as a so-called democracy.

“In Lebanon, there is a constitu­tion without a state. They have an elected president, prime minister, speaker, but the country is losing it­self when it allows entities more powerful than Lebanon to drive the agenda,” Gilead said, alluding to Hezbollah.

“The only place in the region with a real chance of democracy is Iran,” a non-Arab nation, he said. “But what was the reaction to Iranian democratic forces? Indifference. And so dissenters in Iran got the message and we lost the opportuni­ty to change Iran.”

Less tsunami than ripple in Gaza

The Goldstone Commission: Accounts by Israeli soldiers lend further corroboration

The Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010 The Turkel Commission

The full report runs almost three hundred pages, while "regretting" loss of life the report validates Israel's blockade of Gaza, which it argues does not constitute collective punishment of Gaza.  Of course, the blockade is an ingredient in a broader policy that aims to isolate Gaza, incapacitate the Gazan economy, and discredit and disable the Hamas leadership.  The report does not address that broader policy, of which the blockade is only a part.
The full report may be downloaded at the Commission website.

If you follow events on the Israel-Palestine front, you already know that the Goldstone Report has been very much vindicated by Israeli investigations and prosecutions

I do want to post Yaniv Reich's important comment on the Goldstone Report.  Reich summarizes the war crimes and other violations that were first reported in the Report that have been subsequently admitted by Israeli authorities (July 2010 report by Israeli military).  As Reich notes, many of the mendacious critics of Judge Richard Goldstone should be on their knees apologizing.  First in line should be Harvard's Alan Dershowitz who described Goldstone as a latter day Dr. Mengele.
According to informed sources, several of the investigations are still being stonewalled within the IDF, so there are still some shoes to drop.

[I have had little time to post these past months because I have been working on some new projects, including an initiative on Iraq, which I will describe here in due course.]

Israel's announced modification of its blockade of Gaza

Cross-posted with Informed Comment Global Affairs.

Israel's decision to adjust its punitive blockade of Gaza is mainly intended to deflect international pressure that has grown since May 31st, when Israel commandeered the aid flotilla in international waters and killed nine activists.  The Israeli announcement, incidentally, came in English and was not repeated in Hebrew according to Haaretz.

The blockade has been severely criticized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The ICRC is an organization that goes out of its way to maintain a neutral stance, which it feels allows it to function effectively in conflict areas.  When it does take a position based in international law, it does so in a measured way.  Thus, the ICRC's finding that Israel vis-a-vis Gaza is not meeting its responsibilities under international humanitarian law, and is practicing "collective punishment" is important.  Furthermore, the ICRC has reiterated its position that the blockade is not merely a humanitarian issue.   Israel's "closure" of Gaza denies the people living there the opportunity to sustain normal economic opportunity and development. 

Of course, the blockade of Gaza was progressively tightened following the electoral victory of Hamas in 2006 with significant encouragement and support from the U.S. government.  The point was precisely to undermine the credibility of Hamas and sow discontent among Gazans.  After the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June 2006, and especially after Hamas thwarted Fatah's (U.S. supported) effort to topple it from power in 2007, Israel was even more invested with keeping the blockade in place.

Israel is now betting that by adjusting the arbitrary terms of reference for the shipment of food and consumer goods into Gaza, and by permitting limited construction to occur, it will be able to keep the blockade in place.  Perhaps so. 

My own reaction to Israel's decision is quoted in part in the Washington Post.  My full comment follows:

Israel's government is attempting to retain the blockade of Gaza by allowing international NGOs to import some raw materials while denying Gazans the materials they need to reconstruct their simple homes, to move out of tents and hovels into barely adequate homes. If Israel was serious about improving the living conditions of Gazans, it would stop preventing the exports of agricultural goods and allow the strip's simple manufacturing sector to resume making and selling everyday essentials. This latest decision by Israel is an arrogant in-your-face to the US and other concerned members of the international community. Watch the US government spokespersons for their reaction. If they commend Israel, then you may discount Obama's commitment to Middle East peace making heavily. 

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, described the newly announced adjustments to the blockade as only "a step in the right direction."  Obama has described the Gaza humanitarian situation as "unsustainable."  Gibbs repeated that yesterday.  Will the U.S., in concert with the EU, keep up the pressure to end the collective punishment of Gaza and allow the Gazans to attempt to create a viable economy, or will the pressure ebb?  It is obviously too soon to tell, but one lesson of recent weeks is that absent diplomatic pressure, the status quo will continue.

A skillful diplomatic effort led the U.S. would end the punitive blockade, and lend renewed momentum to the flagging efforts of George Mitchell.  It is hard to imagine such an effort succeeding without the release of Gilad Shalit, a move toward reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, and an effective long-term ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.   That is a tall order, but Obama's aides insist he is deeply committed to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

Useful compiliation of material by Glenn Greenwald challenging the Israeli narrative on the commandeered flotilla

Israel's deadly fiasco at sea condemned but what next for the U.S. and its "eternal ally"?

Even with overnight arm twisting by the U.S. the U.N. Security Council "Presidential Statement" leaves no doubt that Israel is being condemned for its seizure--in international waters--of the Gaza-bound flotilla.

Middle East Report Online provides by far the most valuable brief on the flotilla and Israel's response.

Notwithstanding Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren's claim that the Israeli commandos were armed only with paint guns and side arms, Israel has once again demonstrated its penchant for disproportionate force and its contempt for international law. While the "Free Gaza" flotilla has been prevented from reaching Gaza with its cargo of humanitarian supplies, the political purpose of the convoy has been largely achieved. Israel (with Egyptian complicity) blockades Gaza from sea, land and air, and has done so since 2006 when Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections. Israel's commando fiasco at sea draws world's attention to the blockade and its humanitarian consequences for the 1.5 million civilians of Gaza (Israeli officials claim the situation in Gaza is good). Here is the relevant paragraph from the Presidential Statement:

The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860. In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.

This is moment when Barack Obama's diplomatic mettle will be put to the test. Will he seize the moment to deliver a stern wake-up call to the "eternal ally"? Even Israel's Mossad head, Meir Dagan, recognizes that Israel is becoming a burden for the U.S. Will Obama?

Alternatives to Hamas: Be careful what you wish for...

US Response to Gaza: April 21, 4:30 pm at MIT

Goldstone and Gold at Brandeis, November 5, 2009

The Brandeis event was held the day after the General Assembly's endorsement of the Goldstone report. By a vote of 114 ayes, 18 nos, 44 abstentions and with 16 member states not voting, the GA confirmed the report. Notable abstentions were France, the UK and Japan. China voted with "aye". All Scandinavian countries abstained. [Thanks to Muzz] Ireland, Switzerland, Portugal, Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Cyprus, Albania, and Malta were the European countries voting "yes".

A video of the Brandeis presentations is here. As you will note, the introducers, not least Ilan Troen were at pains to underline their rejection of the Goldstone report.
An indicative sample:  Goldstone, asked to discuss incidents that corroborate the charges made by the commission, points, among other cases, to an attack on a mosque that killed 21 worshippers.  He notes there were no secondary explosions.  He continues that even if the mosque was being used for military purposes, then the Israeli military should have struck it during a time when the mosque was not being used for worship.  Dore Gold, in response, states emphatically that "Israel did not strike that mosque".  In rejoinder, Justice Goldstone says that remnants of the IDF munitions were found in the mosque and that tungsten fragments from Israeli munitions were removed from the wall of the mosque in his presence.

Goldstone Commission member Desmond Travers

"5. What is your view of the claim by Israeli officials that the IDF is the most “moral” army in the world?

"Given the tactics, the weapons used, and the indiscriminate targeting, I think this is a dubious claim."

Biblical support for the Walzer-Margalit essay, earlier referenced here

In light the important Goldstone report and earlier reports on the Gaza war*, it is apt to also recall the important essay by Michael Walzer and Avishai Margalit, which takes the Israeli army to task for failing to applying different standards of non-combatant immunity to Palestinian as opposed to Israeli civilians. If you have not read the essay, you will find the links in the following posts.

The Walzer-Margalit essay.

Earlier comments and response.

*Euphemistically described by the NYTimes as a "crackdown on Hamas", in a profile of Michael Oren, the U.S.-born Israeli Ambassador in Washington. The piece reads as though from an Hadassah magazine, and includes a comment from an associate at Georgetown U. who strains credulity by noting that former U.S. citizen was not ideological in his writings.

HRW calls on Hamas to repudiate rocket salvos on Israel

New report: Rockets from Gaza

UN War Crimes Commission enters Gaza June 1, 2009

After Israel refused to grant the team headed by the highly respected Judge Richard Goldstone access to Gaza via Israel, the group entered Gaza today, June 1, 2009, via Egypt. Israel notes that "it is impossible to cooperate" with Goldstone because there is no way the findings may be objective, given the alleged inherent bias of the United Nations Human Rights Council that appointed Goldstone and the other members of his group. Thus, Israel impugns Goldstone and those working with him as incapable of drawing objective conclusions based on a careful weighing of audience.

""They have been instructed to prove that Israel is guilty and we will not collaborate with such a masquerade," foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told AP news agency."

This is a stupid defense that may fly with those consumed by paranoia, but it would be rather strange for a figure of Goldstone's stature to allow himself to be used as Israelis claim.

Behind the stonewalling there is little doubt that the real problem with Goldstone, for Israel, is the fact that any report that he puts is name on is very likely to be received as credible and fair minded. Since he has already expressed his concerns about the high numbers of civilian casualties in the Gaza war, Israel knew that there was a big risk that the war crimes accusations that have already been credibly placed would be validated by a man of international standing.

This is not to say that Hamas will be let off the hook either, since any serious report will have to take note of the group's intentional targeting of civilians.

Earlier post includes names of commission members. And see this very helpful posting from UN-Truth.

The SG's Board of Inquiry report on 9 incidents in the Gaza war

The Secretary-General Off the Cuff

The full report has not been released but an extended summary, which Ban Ki-Moon claims is faithful to the full report, was prepared by the UN Secretariat. The summary is available here. Even in summarized form the report--examining a total of nine incidents--reveals pattern of intentional targeting of UN facilities by the Israeli army, which exercised inadequate regard for protected persons and sites. Several untruthful claims by Israeli officials are noted. In one instance it found Hamas gunmen responsible for firing, in another it did not determine responsibility.

See this informative Guardian report, and UN-Truth has a nice summary about the release of the Board of Inquiry report.

The Israeli reaction to the report was to accuse the investigators of bias and negligence. Citing Israel's own inquiry, the statement claims that the IDF did not intentionally fire on UN installations. "The State of Israel rejects the criticism in the board's summary report, and determines that in both spirit and language, the report is tendentious, patently biased, and ignores the facts presented to the committee. The board of inquiry has preferred the claims of Hamas, a murderous terror organization, and by doing so has misled the world."

Perhaps the most noteworthy component of the Israeli statement is in the final paragraph: "Israel views the publication of the report's findings as the end of the internal UN inspection process." In that regard, Ban Ki-Moon has indicated that there will no further investigations, in contrast to the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry.

Malley Interview--useful addendum to his article with Hussein Agha

One interesting suggestion is that the U.S. stand back and allow European and Arab allies to deal with nuts-and-bolts political questions among Palestinians, as opposed to trying to dictate who may and may not play in the Palestinian political game. This reminds me of the sensible suggestions of Alvaro de Soto, which you may download from this blog.
The Middle East: What Next? - The New York Review of Books