END THE CANT AND HYPOCRISY
Isi Leibler
Jerusalem
Post, January 5, 2009
Anyone seeking a case study of the forces of good facing evil incarnate would not find a better template than our current confrontation with Hamas. And yet, having for years endured bias and the application of double standards from the amoral international community, we are pained that much of the global media continues relating to us in a malevolent and hypocritical manner. In lieu of being commended for defending ourselves against terrorists, we are portrayed as the heartless killers while the barbarians committed to murdering us are depicted as innocent victims.
Self-styled liberals refuse to face the brutal truth that our Hamas neighbors have created a criminal society based on death and destruction.… Whereas we grieve over the death of fellow Israelis and innocent Palestinians, Hamas celebrates the murder of both—the first as “apes and pigs,” the latter as prized martyrs of Allah whom they gleefully exploit for propaganda purposes. An independent state of
Palestine
is not Hamas’s primary goal. Its charter unequivocally prioritizes the destruction of the Jewish state and killing as many Jews as possible: “The annihilation of the Jews in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for
Palestine
,” said Palestinian cleric Muhsen Abu Ita recently on Al Aksa TV.…
Hamas representative Fathi Hamad openly told Al-Aksa TV: “Palestinians formed human shields of women, children, the elderly and the mujahedeen in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It was as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death like you desire life.” Not surprisingly, those human rights groups continuously castigating
refuse to concede that such behavior would qualify as war crimes under international law.
No country whose citizens are continuously under missile attack from its neighbor would match the restraint displayed by
. I take no pride in this because I believe that the government’s failure to respond earlier was unconscionable. It emboldened Hamas terrorists, accustomed the world to accepting that as long as many people were not killed, launching missiles against
was “tolerable” and effectively eliminated our deterrent capability. Moreover it doomed close to a million citizens in the South to becoming refugees in their own land as they took refuge from missile attacks which, by any benchmark, were acts of war.
Now, in a rare display of unity so far including even the most dovish Knesset parties, Israelis have affirmed that the outcome of this conflict must ensure that their citizens will never again be targeted by missiles. An imposed unilateral cease-fire with Hamas that fails to implement this would be akin to the and its allies consummating an unconditional truce with a victorious Taliban in
. That is why international public opinion is so important. If the victims who defend themselves by killing Hamas terrorists and the perpetrators who target and kill innocent civilians are viewed as morally equivalent, that would represent a clear victory for the global jihadists.
Regrettably, there are sectors of the international community who once again are burying their heads. While the , , the and hold Hamas responsible, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned for invading
Gaza
and employing “disproportionate” force and harming civilians. Other Europeans, led by the retiring head of the European Union, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, also accused
of responding in a disproportionate manner.…
Would the inadvertent death of noncombatants become “more justifiable” if only more targeted Israelis were killed? Does
have to experience a mega massacre before implementing deterrence? What sort of sick thinking is this? As Barack Obama said in June when he visited Sderot, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect
to do the same thing.”
Today, as never before, we need the international community to act in a responsible manner. We therefore appeal to our friends and people of goodwill everywhere. Raise your voices now and support our struggle to overcome terrorism. Hamas is not merely another brand of Taliban. It is also the surrogate of
. If Western governments appease this criminal organization at the expense of the security of Israel, they strengthen the forces of global jihad, signal moderate Muslims that it is futile to resist the fanatics and expose citizens in their own capitals to increased bombing attacks.
BATTLING TOWARD THE COLLAPSE OF THE HAMAS REGIME
Martin Kramer
Jerusalem
Post, January 4, 2009
’s long-term strategic goal is the elimination of Hamas control of
Gaza
. This is especially the goal of the Kadima and Labor parties, which are distinguished by their commitment to a negotiated final-status agreement with the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas. The Hamas takeover in
Gaza
reduced Abbas to a provincial governor who no longer represents effective authority in all the areas destined for a future Palestinian state. Hamas rule in Gaza is a bone in the throat of the “peace process”—one
is determined to remove.
But how? After the Hamas takeover in June 2007, imposed a regime of economic sanctions on Gaza, constricting the flow of goods and materials into
Gaza
via its border crossings. The idea was gradually to undermine the popularity of Hamas in
Gaza
, while at the same time bolstering Abbas.…
So
’s war aim is very straightforward, and it is not simply a total cease-fire. At the very least, it is a total cease-fire that also leaves the sanctions against Hamas in place. This would place
in an advantageous position to bring about the collapse of Hamas rule sometime in the future—its long-term objective.
The Israeli operation is meant to impress on Hamas that there is something far worse than the sanctions…. Many Western and Arab governments see the logic of this. They would like to see Abbas and the Palestinian Authority back in authority over
Gaza
, thus restoring credibility to the “peace process.” Because they wish to see Hamas contained if not diminished, they have moved slowly or not at all to respond to calls for action to stop the fighting. The question now is how
turns its military moves into political moves that achieve the shared objectives of this coalition of convenience.
A hint of the solution envisions comes from a senior Israeli diplomatic source: “
cannot agree that the only party responsible for implementing and regulating the cease-fire be Hamas.” ’s objective is to put another player on the ground in
Gaza
, which over time would be positioned to undermine Hamas. And since the objective is gradually restoring
Gaza
to control by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, it seems logical to assume that this mechanism will be designed to enforce Hamas submission to that authority… in the name of “national unity,” but it would become beholden to the PA.
It is the PA, for example, that could be reinserted at the Egyptian border crossing at Rafah (as already demanded by
Cairo
). It is the PA that could be given exclusive control of reconstruction budgets to repair damaged and destroyed ministries, mosques and homes. (In the eventual reconstruction boom, will hold all the cards: Gaza has no construction materials, and gravel, aggregate and cement must be trucked in from
.) The premise is that if economic sanctions are to be lifted—and post-war Gaza will be desperately in need of all material things—it must only be through the agency of the PA. Finally, PA security forces could be reintroduced in a police capacity, as part of the “national” reconciliation. An envelope for this restoration of the PA could be provided by the international community.…
What could go wrong with this scenario? A lot. Hamas assumes (probably correctly) that its Palestinian opponents fed
with much of the intelligence it needed to wage precision warfare against Hamas. There is likely to be a vicious settling of scores as soon as a cease-fire is in place, if not before, and which could approximate a civil war. This could open space for small groups like Islamic Jihad and other gangs, which could shoot off rockets at their own initiative (or that of
).…
As diplomats work to put together a cease-fire mechanism, Hamas will work hard to tempt governments to talk to it, persuading them to skirt the Quartet’s insistence that Hamas not be “engaged” until it accepts past PA-Israel agreements, recognizes
and renounces armed struggle. Legitimation of Hamas could seal the fate of the “peace process” and give “resistance” the reputation of a truly winning strategy.
As with any multi-stage plan,
’s appears clearer at the outset and fuzzier in the later stages, where consensus dissipates. In particular, the opposition Likud has less confidence in Abbas and the “peace process” as presently configured. While it is adamant about ending Hamas rule in
Gaza
, it would be much less concerned with restoring the unity of the Palestinians. As
achieves its military aims, underlying political differences, now suppressed, are bound to surface, especially as elections are only a month away. But for now,
is united in pursuing its war of demolition against Hamas. Its aim is not only to stop the rockets from falling in southern , but to move a long stride forward toward a change of regime in
Gaza
.
(Martin Kramer is a senior fellow at the Shalem Center’s Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies in
Jerusalem
.)
THE ‘BACK-TO-THE-FUTURE’ OPTION FOR
GAZA
Daniel Pipes
National Post, January 6, 2009\
’s war against Hamas brings up the old quandary: What to do about the Palestinians? Western states, including , need to set goals to figure out their policy toward the West Bank and
Gaza
.
Let’s first review what we know does not and cannot work:
• Israeli control Neither side wishes to continue the situation that began in 1967, when the Israel Defense Forces took control of a population that is religiously, culturally, economically and politically different and hostile.
• A Palestinian state The 1993 Oslo Accords began this process, but a toxic brew of anarchy, ideological extremism, anti-Semitism, jihadism and warlordism led to complete Palestinian failure.
• A binational state Given the two populations’ mutual antipathy, the prospect of a combined Israel-Palestine (what Muammar al-Qaddafi calls “Israstine”) is as absurd as it seems.
Excluding these three prospects leaves only one practical approach, that which worked tolerably well in the period 1948-67: Shared Jordanian-Egyptian rule, whereby Amman rules the West Bank and Cairo runs
Gaza
. To be sure, this back-to-the-future approach inspires little enthusiasm. Not only was Jordanian-Egyptian rule undistinguished, but resurrecting this arrangement will frustrate Palestinian impulses, be they nationalist or Islamist. Further, Cairo never wanted
Gaza
and has vehemently rejected returning there.…
The failures of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the “peace process,” have prompted rethinking in Amman and
Jerusalem
. Indeed, The Christian Science Monitor’s Ilene R. Prusher found, already in 2007, that the idea of a West Bank-Jordan confederation “seems to be gaining traction on both sides of the
Jordan River
.” The Jordanian government, which enthusiastically annexed the
West Bank
in 1950 and abandoned its claims only under duress in 1988, shows signs of wanting to return.… Israeli officialdom has also showed itself open to this idea, occasionally calling for Jordanian troops to enter the
West Bank
.
Despairing of self-rule, some Palestinians welcome the Jordanian option. An unnamed senior PA official told [Dan Diker and Pinchas Inbari of the Middle East Quarterly] that a form of federation or confederation with
offers “the only reasonable, stable, long-term solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”… Nor is this just talk: Diker and Inbari report that back-channel PA-Jordan negotiations in 2003-04 “resulted in an agreement in principle to send 30,000 Badr Force members” to the
West Bank
.
And while ’s President Hosni Mubarak announced a year ago that “Gaza is not part of
, nor will it ever be,” his is hardly the last word. First, Mubarak notwithstanding, Egyptians overwhelmingly want a strong tie to
Gaza
; Hamas concurs and Israeli leaders sometimes agree. So the basis for an overhaul in policy exists. Secondly, Gaza is arguably more a part of than of “
Palestine
.” During most of the Islamic period, it was either controlled by Cairo or part of
administratively. Gazan colloquial Arabic is identical to what Egyptians living in Sinai speak. Economically, Gaza has the most connections to
. Hamas itself derives from the Muslim Brethren, an Egyptian organization. Is it time to think of Gazans as Egyptians? Thirdly,
Jerusalem
could out-manoeuvre Mubarak. Were it to announce a date when it ends the provisioning of all water, electricity, food, medicine and other trade, plus accept enhanced Egyptian security in Gaza, Cairo would have to take responsibility for Gaza. Among other advantages, this would make it accountable for Gazan security, finally putting an end to the thousands of Hamas rocket and mortar assaults.
The Jordan-Egypt option quickens no pulse, but that may be its value. It offers a uniquely sober way to solve the “Palestinian problem.”
(Daniel Pipes is director of the
Middle East
Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of
Stanford
University
.)
GAZA WILL NOT BE
STALINGRAD
Amir Mizroch
Jerusalem
Post, January 6, 2009
…As of this writing, Hamas is trying to draw IDF forces into the cities of
Gaza
, and the IDF is trying to coax Hamas combatants out into the open. While Hamas is trying to pull the IDF in, the IDF currently has the time to decide where and what to strike. It’s up to the IDF to decide which bait to take and which not. But… [t]he longer the IDF waits outside the cities the greater Hamas’s power in shaping the battle.
There are several ways Hamas will try baiting the IDF into the urban areas. For one, it will attempt to kidnap soldiers, which would require rescue missions. Sniper fire is another form of bait, as the sources of fire have to be taken out. At present, snipers are being killed with anti-tank rockets and helicopter fire. But once they fire from civilian buildings inside an urban setting, these methods will become tricky. Hamas will eventually fire mortars at troop concentrations outside the cities from within built-up areas and the IDF will then have to direct fire at the source of the sniper or mortar fire, which would ideally be done by tank, artillery, or helicopter, meaning from the outside.…Further movement into the heart of the built-up areas would mean deadly urban warfare, replete with house-to-house fighting in crowded streets and alleyways familiar to Hamas’s 20,000 fighters. Hamas has booby-trapped the streets of
Gaza
cities with explosives placed along routes and at the entrances to buildings. This will be devastating for ground forces walking into that kind of area and will cause most of the IDF’s casualties. Hamas has also dug tunnels throughout the major cities and will carry out much of its fighting through them….
In a densely populated urban setting such as Gaza City, there are a lot of hiding places for snipers to shoot from; suicide bombers can come running up from everywhere and even fall onto troops from buildings. There is not much a force can do about that, except for shooting anything that moves. Any Gazan approaching a force will be suspected of being a shooter or suicide bomber. Many members of Hamas’s military wing will not be wearing their uniforms. These two factors will make extreme prejudice on the part of the IDF very difficult. Hamas may use stone-throwing children as shields, from behind which they’ll fire at IDF units. Past experience has shown that civilians caught in the hell of urban warfare will try to run away, which means a lot of movement on the streets and much confusion about the identity of combatants and civilians.
If the IDF is to perform what Spokesman Brig.-Gen. Avi Benayahu calls a “root canal and not just a filling” on Hamas’s terror infrastructure, troops will have to go into the cities and take on the hardcore of Hamas’s military wing. The IDF believes it has a good chance of inflicting damage on Hamas fighters inside the cities, as the military’s training over the past two years has included testing fighting techniques—both in simulation and actual fighting…. Even though Hamas technically has superior numbers in the cities, the IDF can bring to bear a more effective fighting force. Technically, the IDF is invading Hamas territory, not occupying the Gaza Strip, so its operations there are offensive raids, whereas Hamas is playing defense. Since the aim is not to control the population of
Gaza
and occupy territory, IDF units can make aggressive incursions and retreat to staging areas.…
There are two different types of urban combat: military-to-military and guerrilla. In the former, anything goes, including the use of artillery to bomb buildings, massive use of armor and indiscriminate aerial bombardment. An example of this is the battle of
Stalingrad
.
Gaza will not be
Stalingrad
. In
Gaza
, the IDF’s armored units will become susceptible to anti-tank rockets in the narrow streets and tight corridors, which can easily disable the slow-moving machines.… In
Gaza
, the IDF will mostly be using infantry without armored support. Before taking over buildings, soldiers will have to sweep them for bombs. The main goal is to minimize the amount of infantry within the streets. The IDF will try to damage the enemy as much as it can “from the outside”—using suppressing fire from tanks and helicopters. Once the troops enter dense urban spaces to carry out missions, they will be operating in an extremely sensitive environment, requiring careful command and control abilities and specific fighting techniques.…
The problem with urban areas is that all IDF’s technological advantage will be largely nullified. Everything becomes close-quarters battle. On the streets of
Gaza
it is easy to be surprised by the enemy, because targets cannot be seen properly. With technology diminished, training and technique come to the fore. Effective urban guerrilla fighting comes down to movement on the streets using cover fire from several different positions, and the IDF has been training intensively for this.
A force heading towards a target will want to enter its theater of operations through several different streets, so that each part of the force can have cover fire from the other. If one force is stuck another one can outflank the enemy. In urban fighting cover fire is of supreme importance. Every corner wall that a soldier passes he momentarily loses eye contact with the rest of his force. These are perilous seconds.
Command and control becomes key and here again the IDF has been putting a lot of emphasis in its training over the past two years. In an urban area a commander will not always be able to see the troops he is controlling. Each movement has to be extremely well coordinated to avoid friendly fire, which is also a very big concern in an urban area.
The trick is to work slowly and systematically. Units cannot allow themselves to be drawn into traps, which is exactly what Hamas is trying to do. The forces cannot work too slowly, however, as the threat to their safety increases in proportion to the amount of time they remain in the theater of operations.
MILITANT ISLAM THREATENS
US ALL
Benjamin Netanyahu
Wall Street
Journal, January 7, 2009
Imagine a siren that gives you 30 seconds to find shelter before a Kassam rocket falls from the sky and explodes, spraying its lethal shrapnel in all directions. Now imagine this happens day after day, month after month, year after year. If you can imagine that, you can begin to understand the terror to which hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been subjected. Three years ago withdrew from every square inch of
Gaza
. And since that withdrawal, our civilians have been targeted by more than 6,000 rockets and mortars fired from
Gaza
. In the face of this relentless bombardment,
has acted with a restraint that other countries, faced with a similar threat, would find hard to fathom.
’s government has finally decided to respond.
For this action to succeed, we must first have moral clarity. There is no moral equivalence between , a democracy which seeks peace and targets the terrorists, and Hamas, an Iranian-backed terror organization that seeks
’s destruction and targets the innocent.
In launching precision strikes against Hamas rocket launchers, headquarters, weapons depots, smuggling tunnels and training camps,
is trying to minimize civilian casualties. But Hamas deliberately attacks Israeli civilians and deliberately hides behind Palestinian civilians—a double war crime. Responsible governments do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties, but they do not grant immunity to terrorists who use civilians as human shields. The international community may occasionally condemn Hamas for putting Palestinian civilians in harm’s way, but if it ultimately holds
responsible for the casualties that ensue, then Hamas and other terror organizations will employ this abominable tactic again and again.
The charge that
is using disproportionate force is equally baseless. Does proportionality demand that fire 6,000 rockets indiscriminately back at
Gaza
? Does it demand an equal number of casualties on both sides? Using that logic, one would conclude that the
employed disproportionate force against the Germans because 20 times as many Germans as Americans died in World War II. In that same war,
responded to the firing of thousands of rockets on its population with the wholesale bombing of German cities.
’s measured response to rocket fire on its cities has come in the form of surgical strikes. To further root out Hamas terrorists in a way that minimizes Palestinian civilian casualties,
’s army is now engaged in a ground operation that places its soldiers in great peril. Carpet-bombing of Palestinian cities is not an option that any Israeli leader will entertain.
The goal of this mission should be clear: To end the current round of missile attacks and to remove the threat of such attacks in the future. The only cease-fire or diplomatic initiative that should be accepted is one that achieves this dual objective.
If our enemies assumed that the Israeli public would be divided on the eve of an election, they were wrong. When it comes to exercising our most basic right of self-defense, there is no opposition and no coalition. We stand united against Hamas because we know that only by defeating Hamas can we provide security for our people and hope for a future peace. We fight to defend ourselves, but in so doing we are also fighting a fanatical ideology that seeks to reverse the course of history and throw the civilized world back into a new dark age. The struggle between militant Islam and modernity—whether fought in , , or
Gaza
—will decide our common future. It is a battle we cannot afford to lose.
(Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s ninth prime minister, is the chairman of the Likud Party and its candidate for prime minister.)
A POUND OF PEACE
George Jonas
National Post, January 7, 2009
What news on the
Rialto
? Try a re-enactment of The Merchant of Venice. Shylock, played by , vacated
Gaza
in favour of Antonio, a. k. a. the Palestinian Authority, for the surety of a pound of peace. To make room,
dragged Jewish settlers kicking and screaming from the land. Instead of peace, it got Hamas and its daily bombardment of rockets exploding among the civilian population. When Shylock confronted Antonio demanding to collect his pound of peace, the Duke of Venice, going under the name of UN-EU these days, turned for advice to Portia, masquerading as Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, leading a delegation of EU dignitaries.
“Is the Jew entitled to his pound of peace from the death-merchant Hamas?” the ducal UN-EU wanted to know. “Well, it’s a valid contract,” Portia-as-Sarkozy replied. “Shylock is entitled to collect his pound of peace.” “Oh, drat!” said the UN-EU. “You sure? Double drat and boo!” “Do not despair, though,” Portia-Sarkozy continued. “We’re not doctors of law for nothing. Shylock can collect his pound of peace, but the contract says nothing about blood. Sure,
is entitled to peace, but only if he can get it without shedding any blood. “If he does, he’s a war criminal.” “Oh learned judge,” said Hamas & Co., visibly relieved. “Oh, second Daniel!” And there the matter stands. ’s “right to defend itself,” to which its Western critics are careful to pay lip service, hinges on
never actually doing so. The Jewish state is entitled to armed self-defence; it just cannot shed any blood. If it does, gotcha! Shylock drawing blood commits the capital offence of disproportionality.
President Sarkozy pushes for an immediate truce between Hamas and
. It’s hard to say if he does so in the mistaken belief that it would further the cause of peace, or in the accurate belief that it would rescue Hamas, one of the most implacable enemies of peace. If the latter, then the President of France, far from being a solution, is part of the problem. It’s possible, of course, that Sarkozy doesn’t really want what he’s ostensibly pushing for. If so, he’s devious, which is pretty much what everyone expects a politician to be. Finally, since Sarkozy uses the phrase “truce as soon as possible,” he may mean “truce as soon as a reliable method of stopping Hamas’s rocket attacks on
has been found,” in which case he may even be right. The minute the rocket fire stops for good, a truce does no harm—but until then, a truce only reduces the chances of any reasonable resolution to conflict in the region.… Imagine muggers calling 911 to stop their victims from harming them when the mugging doesn’t go their way. Next, picture the police responding and doing exactly as the muggers demand. Voila, President Sarkozy and his bizarre push for a truce—and not just Sarkozy, but the rest of the Euro-gang, headed by Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner. They flock to the region, ravens disguised as doves, the terminally naive and terminally cynical harbingers of faux-peace from angelic
Europe
, home continent of World Wars One and Two, to lecture Jewish victims of 60 years of relentless Arab/Islamic aggression about proportionality and humanitarian concerns.
Hamas and supporters are demonstrating the art of the brazen assault, a cultural specialty, whose sheer viciousness is matched by its impertinence. Step one: We hit you as hard as we can. Step two: If you dare hit us back as hard as you can, we’ll have the law on you. Really? If you don’t want to be hit by
, it’s easy. Don’t hit it. The many people and places never bombed or invaded have one thing in common: They never bombed or invaded
. The phenomenon is consistent enough to be reduced to a simple formula. For a good night’s uninterrupted sleep, avoid firing rockets into
the previous day.
THE TASK AT HAND
Moshe Arens
Ha’aretz, January 7, 2009
We have reached a crucial stage in the IDF’s operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. If we are not careful, we may have defeat staring us in the face—another defeat, after the fiasco of the Second Lebanon War. This time at the hands of Hamas, a terrorist organization even smaller and weaker than Hezbollah.
Insistent calls are being heard for a cease-fire. Some of these calls come from outside
and others come from within our midst. If the IDF does not complete the mission it has been assigned, of suppressing the launching of rockets from the Gaza Strip against the cities, towns and villages of southern Israel, and if the final act before a cease-fire goes into effect ends up being an avalanche of rockets fired by Hamas against Israel, not only Hamas and the Arab states, but most of the world, will consider Hamas as having succeeded in defeating Israel.… [S]uch a second defeat would do irreparable damage to the general security of , serving as an invitation to further provocations and aggression by
’s enemies in the years to come. All of
’s citizens, not only those living in the south, would bear the burden of such a development.
It was Henry Kissinger who said that “the conventional army loses if it does not win—the guerilla wins if he does not lose.” Any terrorist group that manages to face up to the might of the IDF and survive while continuing its attacks against
will invariably be seen as the victor. In the present fighting in the Gaza Strip, the IDF will lose if it does not win, and Hamas will emerge as the victor. No amount of wordage in a UN Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire, or promises offered Israel by the international community, are going to change the face of the end result. That is what happened when UN Security Council Resolution 1701 brought about the cease-fire that ended the Second Lebanon War and the deployment of UNIFIL forces in southern
. You only need to take a look at what has happened to Hezbollah, its stockpile of rockets and its position in
since the cease-fire to see what is likely to occur in the Gaza Strip in the wake of a similar cease-fire there. For some reason, it is
that has difficulty learning that a cease-fire with terrorists is only to the advantage of the terrorists. Terrorism has to be destroyed.…
The idea that
may face unbearable international pressure that would limit its response against terrorist forces has little basis in fact.… [I]f we are seen as being successful, we will have nothing to fear from any quarter. If there are any doubts in our midst they can be laid to rest by recalling the statements made by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, of New York, during his recent visit to
Ashkelon
, and those made by senior Democratic and Republican senators and by President Bush. Most of those Israeli politicians who speak of the need to stop our military activity before international pressure forces us to stop have precious little experience with the American political establishment.
Our job now is to keep our eye on the ball, and not be diverted from the task at hand. The IDF must continue to pursue the mission it has been assigned and put an end to the firing of rockets from the Gaza Strip. We have the ability to do so and it must be done. The consequences of failure, regardless of the explanations offered by Israeli politicians and the wording of the relevant UN Security Council Resolution, would bode very ill for
.
WHY HAS THE WEST BANK BEEN QUIET?
Khaled Abu Toameh
Jerusalem
Post, January 6, 2009
A rally held here [Ramallah] on Tuesday in solidarity with the Gaza Strip drew about 150 protesters. Similar demonstrations in other parts of the
West Bank
over the past 11 days have also attracted small numbers of Palestinians. As the demonstrators in this city’s central
Manara Square
chanted slogans condemning as a “Nazi state” and calling on the Arabs to severe their ties with
and on Fatah and Hamas to join forces, shopkeepers did not shut their businesses to participate in the rally.… [Y]oung men and women smoked water-pipes, sipped cappuccino and exchanged jokes, totally ignoring the protest and the graphic images broadcast on Al-Jazeera via an LCD screen hanging on the wall.
The general atmosphere in this city was not different from other places in the
West Bank
. While the overwhelming majority of the Palestinians in the
West Bank
continue to express their full solidarity with their brethren in the Gaza Strip, they have not gone a step further by resorting to widespread violence against the IDF and settlers. In fact, the feeling here on Tuesday was that many Palestinians related to the war in
Gaza
as if it were happening in another country.
The
West Bank
and the Gaza Strip have been separated for nearly two decades now. Most Palestinians living in the
West Bank
have never been to the Gaza Strip. Similarly, only a few Palestinians from the Gaza Strip have ever set foot in the
West Bank
. Even when there were no Israeli-imposed travel restrictions, there was almost no interaction between the two communities. Although they may be united politically, the Palestinians in each area have always had different traditions and attitudes.…
Some Israeli and Palestinian security officials had expressed fear that the Palestinians in the
West Bank
would erupt into violence in response to the massive IDF operation. Their fears were based on the assessment that Hamas would try to open a new front in the
West Bank
so as to ease the pressure on the Gaza Strip. Last week, Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal openly urged the Palestinians in the
West Bank
to declare a “third intifada.” Hamas supporters in the
West Bank
have also been trying to organize large protests, but to no avail.…
Palestinians said on Tuesday there were a number of reasons why the West Bankers have chosen so far to sit on the fence. One has to do with the tough measures imposed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s security forces in the
West Bank
. The PA has banned pro-Hamas rallies, and Palestinians who were caught carrying Hamas flags were either beaten or detained by Abbas’s forces.
The PA security forces have also been doing their utmost to prevent protesters from approaching IDF checkpoints and settlements. Demonstrators who tried to march toward soldiers and settlers in
Hebron
and in the Ramallah area over the past few days were dispersed by force by Abbas’s policemen. This is in addition to the fact that the IDF has been waging a relentless crackdown on Hamas supporters and other radical groups in the
West Bank
over the past five years. Another reason behind the relative calm is attributed to the fact that some Palestinians blame Hamas for the latest cycle of violence. They are convinced that Hamas was responsible for the misery of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip because of its refusal to extend the cease-fire and its continued rocket attacks on
.
It’s also possible that the West Bankers today feel that they have more to lose by resorting to violence. Over the past two years, their economic situation has improved remarkably as the international community resumed financial aid to the PA. In contrast, the situation in the Gaza Strip ever since Hamas took full control over the area has only been deteriorating, on almost all levels. Moreover… [t]he massive air strikes and the high casualty toll in
Gaza
(more than 600 killed and nearly 3,000 wounded, according to Palestinian sources) have sent the message to the public that “the Jews have finally gone mad” and that this is not the proper time to mess with them.
Finally, the West Bankers, like their brothers in the Strip, have once again been reminded of the sad fact that the Arab and Islamic governments don’t really care that much about their plight. In the absence of strong backing from the Arabs and Muslim regimes, there is less motivation among the West Bankers to engage in another round of violence.
But the relative calm in the West Bank does not necessarily mean that the Palestinians living there have become more moderate or that they are willing to accept almost anything that
offers. If anything, the war has, at least in the short-term, radicalized all Palestinians to a point where the talk about the resumption of peace talks sounds like a joke.
