Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
What was the Obama administration thinking with the Goldstone report?
I'm still trying to figure out the thinking behind the Obama administration's rapid moves to block the Goldstone report on the Gaza war. Without even getting into the moral issues involved or the accuracy of the report, the most likely tactical considerations behind the administration's decision seem short-sighted. Its move likely responded to the intense public and private Israeli campaign against the report, and probably aimed at winning back some positive relations with the Israelis and maintaining momentum on the peace process.
But if the administration's hope was that killing the report would make the issue quietly go away while winning some political capital with the Israelis, it is likely to be disappointed. Quite the contrary: the report is becoming a major political issue in the Arab world, badly damaging the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority, while Obama seems to be getting little credit from Israeli public opinion or the Israeli government.
Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are already paying a heavy price for succumbing to reported American pressure to drop the report. It isn't just Hamas criticism, though there's plenty of that. This has rapidly become a leading issue in the Palestinian and Arab media, and is shaping up into a profound setback for the already weak PA leadership. Virtually every sector of Palestinian opinion -- from Hamas to Fatah, from Gaza to the West Bank -- has united in harsh criticism of the move. Even Mohammed Dahlan -- Dahlan! -- is positioning himself in opposition, showing where he thinks the political points are to be scored. The Economics Minister in Fayyad's government Bassem al-Khoury reportedly submitted his resignation in protest. Given his key role in pushing the so-called "economic peace" that Israeli and American officials are so keen upon, perhaps that will get more attention than the massive, broad-based criticism across the rest of Palestinian society.
There seems to be little question that Abbas's decision to go along with American pressure will have a significant impact on the popularity and legitimacy of the PA. He is already backpedaling in the face of the intense public backlash, announcing the formation of a committee to look into the "circumstances surrounding the issue" (gee, wonder what he'll find when he investigates his own decision?), but it's probably too late. Whatever gains made by Fatah after its Bethlehem conference and by Fayyad with the announcement of his agenda for a Palestinian state are likely to be washed away in this deluge. The credibility of the Hamas narrative about the PA's collaboration with Israel and unrepresentative nature will be strongly enhanced. And it will not help Salam Fayyad establish authority that he has been fingered by some sources as the person directly responsible for the decision.
Why was the PA leadership put in this untenable situation? The Obama team has consistently identified building Palestinian Authority legitimacy and capacity as a key part of its strategy. Did nobody consider the impact that such an important symbolic issue as the perceived suppression of the Goldstone report would have on this supposedly crucial dimension of the strategy?
At the wider Arab level, the American stance on the Goldstone report has galvanized doubts about the credibility of Obama's outreach to the Muslim world and claims to genuine change. The skeptics who demanded deeds to match words are having a field day. As much as the inability to prevail in the battle over the settlements hurt Obama's credibility with the Arab world, at least he got some credit for trying, for prioritizing the issue and paying some costs to keep at it. But the Goldstone report decision looks to most of the Arab public as a straightforward capitulation to Israel and abdication of any claims to the moral high ground. It will further undermine the Cairo promises, which look ever more distant.
Meanwhile, I have searched in vain for signs that the Israeli public or hawkish commentariat have given the Obama administration any credit for its efforts. Israeli commentators seem to have simply taken the American protection for granted, or grudgingly acknowledged it in passing, without revising their views of Obama. The scornful, dismissive tone of the hawks towards Obama continues, while doves largely ignore it or disagree. If there's been a concerted effort to leverage the decision to improve his standing with the Israeli leadership or public, I haven't seen it.
I can understand the decision to sacrifice the Goldstone inquiry into the Gaza war to tactical or strategic considerations, whether or not I agree with the call. It wouldn't be the first time. But I would hope that such a decision would have seriously anticipated the implications for the legitimacy and efficacy of the Palestinian Authority, for Obama's credibility among Arab and Muslim audiences, or for how to leverage it into real gains with the Israeli public.
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
What is
Abu Aardvark?
Writing under this pseudonym, Marc Lynch began his influential Middle East politics blog Abu Aardvark in 2002...
Contact me at:
abuaardvark [at]
gmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, @abuaardvark
Follow me on
:
@abuaardvark
Goldstone
I agree in principle with Marc Lynch's comments here, and think the Obama administration should take his analysis seriously.
I defer to Lynch as to the Palestinian reaction to the Goldstone report's treatment; my own greatest concern is that the Obama administration seems to be drifting into letting its support be taken for granted by the people who need it most. That this is undesirable is something I assume right from the start. I'm not sure President Obama and his team are convinced that doing favors without negotiating what one will get for them in advance is the way to approach foreign affairs -- or legislating either, though that's another story.
The Goldstone Report.
There is a long history of the USA blocking any condemnation moves of Israel in international fora. I don't know why we should expect anything different now, especially that, Sec. Clinton had made the administration's displeasure with the findings of the Report, abundantly clear when it first came out, and she was told by Mr. Netanyahu in New York, that Israel will not hold any peace talks with the Palestinians, as long as the Goldstone Report is being discussed at the UNHRC; peace talks which the current Washington ddministration seems to invest plenty of political capital into.
For the Palestinians, and according to the Palestinian observer in the UNHRC discussions, it transpired that there was plenty of divisions among the other members of the Council, in addition to American opposition to the findings, making it impossible to get a condemnation of Israel for war crimes. Therefore, I would hazard a guess here by saying that, Mr. Abbas had to make a choice between, incurring the wrath of the Washington administration and those countries; European and otherwise, whom were against passing a motion condemning Israel for war crimes, by embarassing them, having to come out publicly to veto the report, thus, placing himslef in the position of being the obstacle to peace rather than Mr. Netanyahu, alianating as a consequence, the USA as well as Europe, while making no difference at all, to what Mr. Netanyahu may or may not do next. Perhaps Mr. abbas then would have gotten standing ovations in Palestinian quarters; including Hamas.
Or, just cut his losses in a seemingly already lost battle at the UNHRC, gain the US and the Europeans on his side by not having them embarassed to veto the findings of the Goldstone Report, throw the ball back into Mr. Netanyahu's court as the main obstacle to peace, and accept in the mean time the criticisms of the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims.
Granted, he did not make political capital out of this affair to say the least, but ultimately, the 'Rights and Wrongs' of the deferrement decision, will depend on the extent of the maturity of the Palestinian political groups; including Hamas, if they can rise up above the level of the Goldstone Report, and think of the long terms essential unity of the Palestinian people, when they sit to sign the reconciliation and unity document on the 22nd. of October in Cairo.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Goldstone: The Palestinians Worst Enemy
Obama did the Palestinians a huge favor by insisting that the Goldstone Report be "deep sixed."
Findings of the Goldstone Report make it essentially impossible for Israel or any other nation to respond with overwhelming force against insurgents operating from civilian areas. In situations like the one faced by Israel in Gaza, targeting mistakes are inevitable, mistaking civilians for armed combatants is inevitable and overreactions by soldiers in the heat of battle are inevitable. The U.S. experience is Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Russian experience in Chechnya proves the point. Moreover the fact that Israel's behavior in Gaza was referred to Goldstone for an investigation while U.S. behavior in Iraq and Afghanistan and Russian behavior in Chechnya was not renders the whole Gaza referral illegitimate.
Had the Goldstone report gained traction and been referred to the UN Security Council (where it would have been vetoed anyway) a stake would have been driven through the heart of the peace talks. It would have eliminated any realistic possibility for a Palestinian State.
Israel will never agree to withdraw from most of the West Bank and hand it over to Palestinians for their future nation if the Israelis are to be forbidden to respond to provocative actions like rocket fire that might someday emanate from the West Bank.
NATO or U.S. peacekeepers in the West Bank will never be enough to guarantee Israel’s security; the record of success of these "peacekeeping" forces in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere is not good. Israel will always insist on being able to respond militarily to rocket fire that comes from Palestinian territory. Having its hands tied by the findings of Goldstone make meaningful retaliation (and thus deterrence) an impossibility.
If Israel has to live with Goldstone's idea of what is and isn't allowed in terms of a military response, it will have no choice but to refuse to withdraw; ever.
The Palestinians can have Goldstone or someday maybe they can have a nation.
They can’t have both.
Excuse me,
but making it "essentially impossible ... to respond with overwhelming force against insurgents operating from civilian areas" is a good thing. Especially in Israel's case, where civilian areas means dense, urban areas that the population can't flee from.
You can't say, that's not a war crime, it's inevitable. So what, it's still a war crime.
What's actually impossible is the Goldstone report tying Israeli hands. Even if they complied, ran their own investigation, and found individuals guilty of war crimes, and punished them (nevah gonna happen); they would still be free to perpetrate new war crimes in the next Operation.
"What is and isn't allowed in terms of a military response" is called the laws of war. Look them up sometime.
You can't say, that's not a
No, the only thing inevitable is that people will call it a "war crime", especially if Israel is the one being accused. But these calls are either political or emotional pleas, without basis in fact or law.
(Note that here I am only addressing your assertion that any forceful response at all amounts to a war crime.)
This is what most people think the "war crime" here is...that, given the circumstances (terrorists operating from densely populated urban areas) Israel responded at all. This is not the case. You cite the "laws of war" but clearly do not understand what you are citing.
The end result of your line of thinking is that Israel may not respond with adequate force to stop the attacks upon its citizens if the terrorists are operating from Gaza. A free pass for terrorists! Unless, perhaps, the terrorists kill thousands in Israel, in which case Israel may kill an equal number of Palestinians (a common misunderstanding of the principle of proportionality).
The "laws of war" do not say you can't act to stop threats to your citizens in certain circumstances, and never would. On the contrary, any elected government has the strongest obligation to protect its people.
Now, it may be your opinion that Israel used force disproportionate to that needed to stop the threat (the real meaning of the notion of proportionality, the legal principle that is really being cited here). That is debatable, and questionable, given that rockets are still being fired. However, the frequency has been greatly reduced, so it looks like the operation was largely effective in achieving it's aims.
Only if one believes that the existence of safe zones from which terrorists can fire on the innocent with impunity is a "good thing".
Any government. No government would allow it citizens to be fired upon for years without a credible attempt to stop it. Here in the US we wouldn't tolerate these kinds of attacks for eight days, nevermind the eight years that Israel did. Not even Norway, or wherever you are from, would tolerate this for so long.
Note that you are putting words into my mouth
Where exactly did I assert that "any forceful response at all amounts to a war crime"? I'm glad you eventually used the word disproportionate, we agree that's the relevant legal principal. However, in the same paragraph you say "the operation was largely effective in achieving it's aims." You know this is irrelevant to the charge of war crime, right?
Stop with the italics. Legal decisions are called opinions too. The Goldstone report contains an opinion that war crimes were committed - by both sides. It recommends Israel and Hamas conduct their own credible investigations. Are you saying that Israel should not follow this recommendation?
You know this is irrelevant
This is irrelevant to other types of war crimes, but not for the principle of proportionality.
Perhaps I misread you. When you said:
My interpretation was - If responding with overwhelming force leads to an unavoidable outcome, and you have determined that this outcome is a war crime, this leads to the conclusion that the response itself amounts to a war crime.
No, I think Israel should and in fact has been investigating (something I'm not sure if Goldstone acknowledged).
Chapter and verse
Please show me where it says that whether a response was effective or not has any bearing on whether that response was disproportional or not.
You misread. The second paragraph from the longer quote above is a separate response to a different point in your original comment.
Israel has finished an investigation and Goldstone's report says it was not credible. Otherwise, they wouldn't have explicitly asked for a new investigation by Israel.
Please show me where it says
The concept of proportionality takes into account the ratio of the force used:the force necessary to achieve the military objective. Specifically, a disproportionate action is "...an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated..." (Article 51.5(b) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions).
If the objective was attained, one could make a case that it could still have been attained using less force. If the objective was not attained, clearly the force applied wasn't excessive with regard to that needed to achieve it.
One could also make the argument that the force was misapplied, that even though the force used didn't acheive the objective, the objective could have been achieved by using less force applied differently. That is a difficult and complex case to make, because you would need to show that Israel would have most probably been able to stop the rockets if they only used different military tactics.
It is a common misconception that the principle of proportionality looks at a ratio of the injury taken:injury given.
As far as I know, Israel has investigations still open. If so, possibly it is Goldstone who has the crediblity problem.
And really, when you or I can go to YouTube and see things Goldstone says he could find no evidence of, one has to wonder.
Still waiting
"in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated..."
Anticipated, as is before the attack occurs. You still haven't shown anything that takes into account whether the military objective was obtained or achieved.
You have actually convinced
You have actually convinced me.
Maybe it was simply assumption on my part. My thinking was that if this is all based on what was anticipated beforehand, it would become extraordinarilly difficult to make a legal case for war crimes based on this principle. It becomes a matter of "what did they believe" rather than "what should they have believed" or "what actually happened".
It strikes me that the international community has ignored the "anticipated" on one side of the ratio but not the other. At least, they seem to do so when it suits them.
For instance, Israel took unprecedented steps to avoid civilian casualties (leaflets, pre-warning specific targets of attacks via phone calls, diverting missiles in flight, etc.). Perhaps they didn't anticipate Hamas to cynically exploit human shields to the extent they did. Maybe they anticipated that Hamas would stop firing rockets when they saw what was happening, which would have shortened the conflict and lessened the civilian harm considerably. Some or all of these things could have led Israel to anticipate greatly reduced civilian harm.
Considering anticipated results rather than actual results has the effect of turning what is already difficult judgement call in the best of circumstances and a politically motivated farce in the worst, into a difficult judgement call/politically motivated farce combined with the burden of proof about a party's state of mind. It makes me all the more skeptical of anyone who glibly throws around charges of war crimes. Which, I might add, includes one of the members of the Goldstone commission itself, a law professor who pronounced even before the operation was over that Israel was not acting in self defense, was in fact the aggressor in the conflict, and had committed war crimes.
Well, I still don't agree with this, but thanks?
Anticipated is not the key word to determining war crimes, I just meant to show you that your quote didn't mention objectives achieved or obtained, which is what you originally wrote about.
"Unprecedented steps to avoid civilian casualties" is an Israeli talking point, not a criteria for war crimes. If you shell an apartment building, it doesn't matter if you warn every single resident inside personally beforehand. The likelihood of killing innocent civilians is high, while the likelihood of affecting Hamas' ability to launch rockets is low. That is a disproportionate attack.
You can't say the law professor glibly threw around the charge of war crimes, just because he did so before the operation was over. There was evidence of war crimes early on. For instance, on the Palestinian side, it doesn't take an investigation to declare that Hamas' rocket attacks on civilians are war crimes.
Finally, determining who was the aggressor and who was the self defender also don't affect the charge of disproportionate response.
At the end of the day.
At the end of the day, the Goldstone Report brought nothing new. It confirmed by and large what Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch as well as respected Israeli Human Rights Organisations had said. Moreover, many independent and reputable international journalists and international civil servants have reached more or less the same conclusions as the Report, not to mention also, the document which some of us may well be aware of, that of "Breaking the Silence", in which thirty Israeli soldiers whom took part in "Operation Cast Lead"; war on Gaza said " Israeli policy emerged out of a combination of efforts, to teach the people of Gaza a lesson for their support of Hamas, and to keep IDF casualties as close to zero as possible, even if meant massive death and destruction for innocent Palestinians".
So why did the Israeli government boycott the Commissions?. In the words of Uri Avnery; 19.9.2009 " The real answer is quite simple : they knew full well that the Commission, any Commission, would have to reach the conclusions it did reach". I would add also, that the Israeli government would not have relished its Generals standing in the docks of one international criminal court or another, had the Godstone report ben taken seriously.
Personally I think, the actions of the Russians in Chechenistan, or the NATO in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or any other force anywhere else, is not a paradigm for the IDF to follow or justify its actions by. If any international body holds then accountable for their actions then all the better, but then again, there is an old Arabic proverb that says, "there is the important and there is the more important", so I guess the more important which is on the cards of the Middle East must take precedent.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Leverage on Israel
This analysis overlooks the conditional support of the Obama administration for Israel. It seems that Obama is willing to block the report as long as Israel is moving ahead with the peace process, implying that if Israel stalls, this position can be reversed.
This point was not lost on Israeli officials:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1118540.html
I therefore don't think that American support on this issue is taken for granted in Israel - it does come with a price tag.
A government usually makes decisions
based on its own self-interest. For the US to promote the issue of the war crime of killing civilians, of which the US is a hundred times more culpable than Israel (think Fallujah), and with an abiding US fear of international justice in this regard, it was obviously not in the best interest of the US that this issue be allowed to continue. Justice may be blind, but in the US case it isn't stupid.
The gesture has arrived.
The positive gesture which President Obama, has been asking the "moderate" Arab regimes plus the PNA to take, in order to help Mr. Netanyahu to move forward on the peace talks, has arrived with the Goldstone affair. It is usually the habit of Mr. Netanyahu to surround himself with extremists so that, he can show himself to be the only moderate one to talk to.
So now, that he has got the positive Arab gesture which he was asking for, and which President Obama was saying it is a must, what is the US president going to do, to help Mr. Netanyahu "help himself?".
khairi janbek.paris/france
It isn't just Hamas
In the 2006 elections, Palestinians had people, who usually ran and served under Fatah in the previous governments, running as independents as internal criticism that the nature of this Fatah had changed. I think we have, and continue, to underestimate the internal Fatah dissent from the Abbas leadership and what exactly it means.
I think we all assumed that he meant this in a different way than Bush did. Bush "supported" the PA. He gave them weapons and training to fight Hamas. Legitimacy via force. If Obama were trying to give other forms of legitimacy, that the PA and Abbas were his partner, he would not have abdicated so easily on the new settlement blocks being built, then pushed a denunciation of Goldstone. It is a continuation of the previous policy, under a different tone.
Words mean little when the actions the proceed from them do not support and give them force. I think Obama was given a stay of opinion. Abbas has been perceived by many as a puppet for sometime. The anger may be at Abbas, but I am willing to bet that both will suffer in Arab public opinion when this washes out.
Nobody is stopping Hamas from
Nobody is stopping Hamas from implementing what Goldstone sees as their responsibilities. They can investigate their own people and bring them to justice, and the Arabs in general and their lawyers can still try to push ahead with international prosecutions of Hamas members.
Wait...you mean that they really don't care about what Hamas did, about justice, and that this is just warfare against Israel by legal means? And we (the US) blocked that? To reiterate the blog post title - What was the Obama admistration thinking?
Ironically with Hamas.
Only last night (Paris time) Mr. David, the PNA representative- observer at the UNHRC; one Mr. Khreisha, justified in an interview with al Jazira channel, the defferemnt decision of the Goldstone Report, as being for the protection of Hamas from being put on trial also, on charges of war crimes.
khairi janbek.paris/france
dichotomization
Both sides committed war crimes. Both sides should be punished.
Today though, only Gaza is being punished in lieu of Hamas. That is, unless we are now arguing that the embargoes and bombings of Gaza are related to something else than the illegal attacks on Sderot. The problem is, punishing war crimes by this means, that is collective punishment, violates international law.
That is the point of international intervention, that sometimes those that commit wrongs don't arrest and punish those responsible for those crimes. Nations, and leaders, lose objectivity. At some point, if Israel has not assassinated them all and/or starved them all (or they are not killed in an internal war by the Fatah groups we are arming and training), those commanding and bombing Sderot should be tried for war crimes. I doubt it will be in Palestine, more likely a Western jurisdiction. And, I would even add those that intentionally stored munitions in people's homes.
At some point, those that issued the orders for collective punishment of Palestinians, and the forceful evictions (and demolition) of Palestinians from their homes for settlement building, and shootings of peaceful demonstrators and close range shooting of blindfolded prisoners by Israelis, and those using Palestinians as human shields as they secured a housing block, should also face trial for their war crimes and/or violations of international law.
Anyone being honest, knows that neither group sees their violations as war crimes and lost their objectivity a long, long time ago. And, a nation that would allow someone like Menachem Begin to be PM after his relationship to the King David Hotel bombing and Deir Yassin and multiple attacks on public transportation systems, is not one I would say differentiates well its heros from its terrorists and therefore should get an automatic pass because the neighbor is not any better. Nor, vice-versa.
Anyone being honest, knows
I have always seen this as a specious bit reasoning, aimed at the demonization of the "other", regardless of whether it is directed at Israeli leaders, Palestinian, American founding fathers, Nelson Mandela, or others. And how this relates to the current discussion is beyond me.
Specifically, I saw nothing wrong with Arafat being leader of the Palestinians and never thought, regarding the fact that he had used terrorism in the past, that it reflected badly on them for choosing him. What was problematic and did reflect badly on them was the fact that Arafat had quite obviously never given it up.
Three questions:
1) Does Israel still control the Egyptian border?
2) Is Israel embargoing Gaza because of past behavior, or to prevent future arming and attacks? Which is to say, is Israel doing this to punish Gazans for past war crimes, something I tend to doubt, or are they doing it to prevent future attacks on the Israeli civilian population?
3) Do you understand the concept of porprotionality in warfare; and how do you suggest Israel stop Hamas from firing rockets at Israeli civilians? Do you understand Israel has not only a right but an obligation to stop this?
Though the questions..
are not directed at yours sincerely, but they are interesting enough to warrant attempting to answer them. The answer to question 1): NO, Israel doesn't control the Gaza-Egypt border. Hamas does.
Question 2): I think the issue requires some clarification. Gaza is being embargoed not only by Israel but almsot by everyone in the international community; including the Arab and Islamic worlds, because the PNA has been acknowledged internationally as the legitimate authority on Palestinian lands, and Mr. Abbas as its presidnet. In 2007 [if I remember correctly], Mr. Abbas dismissed the government of Hamas, and appointed a care-taker government under prime minister Salam Fayyad. Hamas lost the legitimacy of being a governing entity, but refused to budge. This led to the embargo.
Question 3): I think personally, this is a very difficult question to tackle. Of course there are such instrument like, the rules of war, international legality, independent and international commissions and what have you, but as far as one is concerned, the proportionality issue seems to fall under the categories of just/unjust wars, and defensive/offensive wars. Eventually, I think in popular minds, proportionality/disproportionality, like the other two categories I mentioned, has become intrinsicly linked to, which party we happen to like, and which party we happen to dislike more.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Thanks, Janbekster. The
Thanks, Janbekster. The answers are appreciated. I tend to agree with your answer to 3), but of course this is not a basis for making a legal distinction such as "war crimes", which is supposed to be a distinction based on laws and not emotion.
Here is another question, put out for general consideration:
It is a hypothetical situation in which 3 conditions exist.
1) Israel knows the exact amount of force needed to stop the rocket attacks.
2) That minimum amount of force, if applied, will cause twice the number of human casualties and twice the amount of infrastructure damage as did Operation Cast Lead.
3) We can stipulate that Israel will do their utmost to minimize casualties to civilians and civilian infrastructure, but the result will still be as described in 2).
Is it a "war crime" if they go ahead with the operation?
re-Israeli war crimes.
Absolutely correct Mr. David, the experts use a different methodology to reach conclusions, than say; the media or even a lseser mortal like yours sincerely. Actually, the whole subject of war crimes to myself specifically in this case, is like walking on soft eggs, because I am unfortunate enough to say that, the rules of what constitutes a war crime are not as clearcut to me, as might appear to others.
Of course one is neither a lawyer nor a legal expert in any dimension, but I remember one or two things about politics. For instance, does the International Criminal Court [ICC] have jurisdiction to put Israeli commanders and their Hamas counterparts in the dock?, especially that [I have been out of the loop for many years now]I do not racall Israel ever ratifying the ICC Treaty, and Hamas as an "independent" organisation defies any legal category.
Certainly, the UN can by-pass all this and set up its own prosecution body, or alternatively, refer the whole matter to the ICC, but that requires a Security Council unanimity, which I am afraid will take us back to square one.
In the aftermath of the Israeli war on Hizbullah, the Israel military command decided on the strategy of overwhelming force in its operations, in order to minimise its casualties. But to do that in an area considered as having the highest population density per square Kilometer in the world; like Gaza, and where there are independent accusations of Hamas having blurred the lines between what is military and what is civilian, it is really very hard to answer your good self's questions this time.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Awaited Counter-Gesture.
One has no particualr admiration for the current Palestinian leadership in the West bank and Gaza, indeed one believes the Palestinian people deserve a far better leader. Since President Obama has managed to pressurise for the deferrement of the Goldstone report, we have to see I suppose, what pressures he can impose on Israel, for a counter-gesture in kind for himself as well as the Palestinians and Arabs. Perhaps, it is far too harsh an assessment, to accuse him of abdication over the settlements issue, yet.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Hypocrisy and Double Standards thy name is USA
Israel violates international law as expounded by the Security Council and the International Court of Justice and goes unpunished. But the Palestinian people are punished for having democratically elected a regime unacceptable to Israel, the US and the EU.
The Western industrial nations have divided the world between the Privileged and the Unfortunates. The Privileged are allowed to commit any violent action, including murder. The Unfortunates are not allowed to defend themselves and must either succumb to dictates or, in one simple word: perish. This situation allows criminal states like Israel to coerce and bully other states and other peoples and even blackmail the entire world. It allows Israel to bomb Tunis, Baghdad, Syria and threaten to bomb the Egyptian Aswan Dam and then tell the helpless victims “hit me back if you dare.”
U.S. officials never speak about the Israeli nuclear threat to Muslim nations because, according to their view, Arab and Muslim nations do no have the right to live in security. Only Israel and the U.S. do.
Democratically elected?
So called "democratic" Palestinian elections ended up with massacre, which now called "Battle
of Gaza", when 118 people were killed and more than 550 wounded during the
fighting.
"Human Rights Watch accused both sides with violations of international
humanitarian law, in some cases amounting to war crimes. The accusations
include the targeting and killing of civilians, public executions of
political opponents and captives, throwing prisoners off high-rise apartment
buildings, fighting in hospitals, and shooting from a jeep marked with "TV"
insignias.The International Committee of the Red Cross has denounced attacks
in and around two hospitals in the northern part of the Gaza strip."
BTW anybody in UNHRC wishes to investigate those crimes?
Vichy
well, it was expected... all the money and privileges being poured onto PA have turned them into a Vichy government.
Amira Haas is quite right on this one - Hamas is the only legitimate representative of Palestinians, thanks to the efforts of US and Israel.
re-Vichy.
If all the money and priviliges poured into the PA has turned it into a Vichy, then is it possible that all the money that comes Hamas's way from its backers, has turned it into the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian poeple?. Thanks to Iran, Hizbullah, and Bunyat-i-Mustazaffin?. Really I am just curious.
khairi janbek.paris/france
impacting the unity talks...
Funny I said under the unity talks that this would like impact their outcome.
It was not long before what was being said as common parlance hit the press.
Abbas has had little favor in the Arab world. Most media refer to him as a puppet and this has perpetuated that image. It makes him look impotent, and that is a cause for shame in this society.
Now, Hamas is talking of leaving the talks, or at least that is what the Jerusalem post says.
This is the problem of trying to base FP on propaganda or your wish of how a situation is and how you want it to be perceived, instead of on what is really there.
My morning reads were fairly disheartening.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254861891833&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=107227
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8294689.stm
This comes as no surprise to
This comes as no surprise to those that have been skeptical of these reconciliation talks. If it wasn't this, they would have found some other rationalization to torpedo the talks. How long has this charade been going on now? How many other times have they been close to a deal and then Hamas found some excuse to back out?
I know, this time it's different. Until next time, when that time will be different. And the time after that, and after that...
Why do you suppose Hamas is so keen on pushing Goldstone, given that it accuses them of the worst kind of war crime? Might it have something to do with that fact that they don't feel threatened by it, given the politicized millieu in which it will be considered?
re-Impacting the Unity talks.
The way I see it Ms.? Tess, is that the manner in which Mr. Abbas and his spokespeople tried to justify the Goldstone affair, alianated him form the rank and file of Fateh as well as, from many of its leadership. The whole issue really, boils down to the fact that, Bibi had made the return to the peace talks, conditional on withdrawing the support to the Goldstone discussions. Neither the US nor Mr. Abbas wanted to have more difficulties put in the way of returning to the peace negotiations. Hence the deferrement of the Report until next spring.
Within Hamas, there are differences on whether to sign the Palestinian unity document in Cairo or not. One side is saying that the organisation has to rise above such differences, and concentrate on the higher ideal of pursuing Palesitnian unity, which is more important for the future of the Palestinian cause, than dwelling on such differences, while the other side, is saying that, any unity, with what Mr. Abbas has done in order to return to a futile peace process, will only mean a Palestinian unity on his terms. Now, one is unaware of where the Egyptian position is, when it comes to the deferrement of the Goldstone Report, but I am sure both sides in Hamas must be aware of it, therefore, if they feel that Egypt is supportive at least implicitly, of Mr. Abbas' position, and they do not go to Cairo to sign the deal, my only guess is that, they will risk a big breach with Egypt, which in all likelihood will throw Gaza into a far worse isolation than it suffers now.
All in all, in my view at least, I don't think it is very easy for Hamas to take a decision on the Unity Agreement, and my only penny's worth of wisdom would be to say, that Hamas may well ask for a postponement of signing the deal, but whether Cairo will accept that or not, is another matter.
khairi janbek.paris/france
The Egyptians are saying..
that it is currently not possible to carry on with the Palestinian reconciliation talks, and that the issue of the reconciliation document may well be postponed for several weeks.
khairi janbek.paris/france
If anything should affect the unity talks...
is the statement made in the Israeli press today, by Mr. Avigdor Lieberman, whom was quoted saying; inter alia, that there was no chance of reaching a comprehensive peace deal with the Palestinians for many years, while at the same time, in an an expression of sanity, HM King Abdullah IInd.
addressing the Israeli public in an interview with Ha'aretz warned that Israel, should disvow the iluusion that the status quo can be prepetuated, and that all are sliding into the darkness.
For more than a decade, one came to the conclusion that, neither the Arabs alone, nor the Israelis will be able to reach any peace agreement over the Palestinian question. I still feel that; if at all possible, the USA should impose its own vision of peace on the area, carrying a big stick at times, and the bag of goodies at other times, without caring for charges of interference or what have you, and then just go ahead and penalise the side which is being obtrusive to the US vision of peace.
khairi janbek.paris/france
I still feel that; if at all
I share your sympathies, but given the history and the actors, I am doubtful that the only repercussions we would face is charges of interference.
Reality also suggests, as nice as an end to the conflict sounds, if the terms are imposed without the sides agreeing, there will still be outstanding claims and therefore the conflict will continue.
Nobel Prize.
I suppose with his newly acquired Prize and all, which he seems to have gotten on intentions rather than on achievements, President Obama might as well try to justify accepting it.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Washington Post/Ephraim Sneh
I had to smile, reading Mr. Ephraim Sneh in the Washington Post; today, suggesting that President Obama should invite both Bibi and Abu Mazen to Washington, impose his peace plan on them; a peace plan resembling that of former President Clinton, and the side which rejects it, should loose the US support, and if both sides reject it, then President Obama can erase the whole peace issue from his own agenda. I guess, Mr. Sneh shares my pessimism regarding the Arabs and Israelis ever being capable of reaching an agreement on their own. Mind you I am flattering myself by saying this.