by publius
Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.
Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger.
The International Committee of the Red Cross said Thursday that it had found at least 15 bodies and several children — emaciated but alive — in a row of shattered houses in the Gaza Strip and accused the Israeli military of preventing ambulances from reaching the site for four days.
Red Cross officials said rescue crews had received specific reports of casualties in the houses and had been trying since Saturday to send ambulances to the area, located in Zaytoun, a neighborhood south of Gaza City. They said the Israeli military did not grant permission until Wednesday afternoon.
In an unusual public statement issued by its Geneva headquarters, the Red Cross called the episode “unacceptable” and said the Israeli military had “failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded.”
When rescue workers from the Red Cross and the Palestinian Red Crescent arrived at the site, they found 12 corpses lying on mattresses in one home, along with four young children lying next to their dead mothers, the Red Cross said. The children were too weak to stand and were rushed to a hospital, the agency said.
Charles Krauthammer: does anybody take this clown seriously? Really.
Oh yes, those “warnings”:
Robert Fisk:
There’s also this, from The Times:
Photographic evidence has emerged that proves that Israel has been using controversial white phosphorus shells during its offensive in Gaza, despite official denials by the Israel Defence Forces.
There is also evidence that the rounds have injured Palestinian civilians, causing severe burns. The use of white phosphorus against civilians is prohibited under international law.
This from Krauthammer is just awesome:
The question is whether Israel still retains the nerve — and the moral self-assurance — to win.
Yes, cause I’m sure the outcome of this is going to be some sort of “win.” Right.
Google “final solution” Palestinians, Ugh.
That’s what a “win” looks like.
A win? Maybe if they’re working for Al Qaida.
Laura:
Lovely – that’s why I always place such face in the British media. The main problem with the Times report is that WP is banned as an offensive weapon – it used to be employed as an incendiary munition, intended to burn things down, or as a particularly horrific anti-personnel weapon. The M825A1 shells use small WP-soaked felt wedges to produce a smokescreen that last 5-10 minutes. To quote from the spokesman for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: “White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use.” Again, that’s the only potential use for M825A1 shells. So much for the scandal.
Jesurgislac:
You’re quoting from the 2006 war to make a point about the current operation? Nice. And you get your information from Robert Fisk? The man whose articles are so poorly reported and full of falsehoods, that his legion of critics gave the English language the word ‘fisking’ to describe the process of comparing a columnists work to the factual record? That explains a great deal.
The ICRC will doubtless be dismissed as a bunch of dirty f–king hippies.
Anti-semitic DFH’s, at that.
Israel recognizes no moral authority outside its own borders; the U.S., unfortunately, is becoming the same way.
Btw, if white-phosphorus shells were the worst of the Gazans’ problems, they would be counting themselves lucky.
Eye ——> ball, please.
Adding this:
The United Nations says it is halting all aid deliveries to the besieged Gaza Strip. It is citing a series of Israeli attacks on U.N. staff and installations.
The announcement came shortly after the driver of a U.N. truck was killed by tank fire as he was headed to an Israeli border crossing to pick up an aid shipment.
The U.N. said the delivery had been coordinated with Israel. The Israeli army has not commented.
Spokesman Chris Gunness says aid shipments are being suspended until the safety of U.N. staff can be guaranteed.
Earlier this week, nearly 40 people were killed by Israeli mortar fire outside a U.N. school. Israel said its troops had come under fire by militants using the building for cover.
Re: White Phosphorous –
Observer is right. WP can be used in a number of ways, legally, just not deliberately as an offensive weapon. It’s not as scandalous as it might appear.
Observer, did you read all of the article in The Times?
They were careful to explain that, in certain circumstances, the use of these weapons is permitted:
The shell is not defined as an incendiary weapon by the Third Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons because its principal use is to produce smoke to protect troops. However, Marc Galasco, of Human Rights Watch, said: “Recognising the significant incidental incendiary effect that white phosphorus creates, there is great concern that Israel is failing to take all feasible steps to avoid civilian loss of life and property by using WP in densely populated urban areas. This concern is amplified given the technique evidenced in media photographs of air-bursting WP projectiles at relatively low levels, seemingly to maximise its incendiary effect.”
Jesur, et al–after 3000 rockets are fired, however ineffectively (less than 100 dead), how should Israel react? If I am not mistaken, Hamas is the government that the people of Gaza elected, who then began to execute Hamas policy, which is the destruction of the state of Israel. Now, the consequences of their elected government’s policies are producing the logical result–counterattack–and people complain?
Prior to coming to power, Hamas campaigned against Fatah, the supposed moderate in that neck of the woods. The Associated Press cited an Amnesty International report (see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916537.html) that said over 350 civilians were killed in the first few months of 2007 of the Hamas-Fatah war. The AP report went on to say, “During the clashes, militants mounted attacks from civilian apartment buildings and hospitals and targeted rival patients in their hospital beds, the London-based organization said. Militants used crowded residential neighborhoods as war zones, firing mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and bullets from civilian buildings.”
I don’t recall this site or any other on the progressive left getting too exercised about Hamas’ rise to power or the means by which it got there. Selective outrage seems to me to be at work here. Or, hypocrisy, if you like.
Surely the point is that whatever the intent when using the weapon, it is often difficult to control the end result operating in tight urban spaces, and if those tight urban spaces happen to filled with civilians, then there is a decent argument to made for abstaining from using the weapon at all. Simply put: there are burning bits of phosphorous flying around, and if it lands on your child, you couldn’t give a damn how it was intended to be used.
Given that there have already been multiple IDF deaths from friendly fire, no one should be very confident in all these assurances of unprecedented care to avoid civilian casualties (as is true in any such conflict, not just this one).
This is the nature of urban warfare – people saying otherwise are simply liars. Krauthammer is a moral coward and intellectually dishonest if he is not prepared to defend his cause by dealing with the realities instead of peddling fairy tales. But then again, we’ve known that about him for a long time.
I don’t recall this site or any other on the progressive left getting too exercised about Hamas’ rise to power or the means by which it got there.
too busy to Google to see if your recollection matches reality ?
here’s Hilzoy, in an epic post entitled Oh Dear God No: Special Hamas Edition:
I don’t think I need to belabor the obvious fact that this is a horrible outcome. It’s horrible both for the peace process and for the Palestinians and Israelis. As I just heard someone say on the NewsHour, this essentially ends the peace process, and even if, somehow, it were to recommence, it would have been set back by decades: to the point at which people were negotiating about the removal of clauses advocating the destruction of Israel from the Palestinians’ representatives’ founding documents, and figuring out whether they could talk at all. I can think of only a few good things that could come of this in the near term. For one thing, a less corrupt government for the Palestinians. For another, social services that will probably be more efficient. Those few good things don’t begin to make up for all the unbelievably bad consequences it will lead to. It’s a disaster for all concerned.
after 3000 rockets are fired, however ineffectively (less than 100 dead), how should Israel react? If I am not mistaken, Hamas is the government that the people of Gaza elected, who then began to execute Hamas policy, which is the destruction of the state of Israel. Now, the consequences of their elected government’s policies are producing the logical result–counterattack–and people complain?
This ignores Fatah’s rampant corruption which made Hamas more attractive.
This ignores the blockade on Gaza and Israel’s violations of the cease fire (over 150 incidents).
This also uses the same logic that Bin Laden uses when justifying attacks on US civilians: we voted for the US government.
also, be sure to read a few comments, too. make sure you don’t miss Gary’s prescience :
In the meantime, it’s entirely possible there will be at least temporary (but perhaps lasting many months, or even a couple of years) re-occupations, many military strikes, possibly even a war, and god knows what. I certainly hope not, and I’m not predicting that, either, but it’s certainly possible.
former regular, bob mcmanus:
Having read Gary, I just don’t see Hamas abandoning violence. They need it to control the territories and fringe groups, and need it to maintain popularity and legitimacy. And I don’t see Israel tolerating violence, or responding in a measured way, although I think that is what might be necessary to reach a peace process.
dmbeaster:
Bottom line — we are all trying to focus on the 5% of the glass that still has water in it to see if anything good can even be hoped for in this.
etc., etc.
byrningman:
Actually, I’d suggest that using WP to screen the movement of forces is, if anything, more humane when fighting on the periphery of dense urban areas. The alternative, practically speaking, is covering fire – spraying the area with bullets or shells to suppress snipers and counterfire. Like most critiques of the manner in which this operation is being run, this one fails to consider the alternatives.
And you’re right: the underlying problem is that urban warfare is a dreadful thing. Krauthammer, on the other hand, was writing about aerial bombardment, so the juxtaposition is a little unkind. To my mind, though, it simply sharpens the contrast. Krauthammer and his ilk are fools to believe that there is ever moral clarity in warfare; that there can ever be a ‘clean’ or ‘precision’ operation. But he’s not guilty of your specific critique – the targeting procedures he described were for airstrikes, while the counterexamples you give are from ground operations.
Laura:
Oh, yes, I read the story. But I find HRW more than a little disingenuous. All weapons are inhumane when used against civilians. There’s no actual evidence that WP is being used for incendiary effect, just insinuation. Even HRW uses the qualifier ‘seemingly,’ because it understands it doesn’t have a shred of evidence. What HRW actually objects to is urban combat. And they have a point. But they shouldn’t cloak their objections behind as, well, incendiary a subject as the use of WP.
“Israel must do something. This is something. Therefore Israel must do this.”
Does the question of whether Israel’s reaction is effective in promoting its own interests enter into your thinking at all, or is it all about the catharsis of seeing things blown up?
Oh, lord, another “who is more justified/moral, Palestinians or Israelis?” thread.
Because that will be so productive.
Well, I’m out of here for another couple of days again, I think.
//The United Nations says it is halting all aid deliveries to the besieged Gaza Strip. It is citing a series of Israeli attacks on U.N. staff and installations.//
UN: “I will not go in there and try to help if I’m in danger.”
//Red Cross…accused the Israeli military of preventing ambulances from reaching the site for four days.//
Israel: “You cannot go in there and try to help if you’re in danger.”
Eric:
That’s a fine point. But it’s even more important to note that Hamas did not, in fact, assume power through democratic elections. Those elections simply placed it in a power-sharing arrangement, with a great deal of authority reserved for the President of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas then seized power in a bloody fight. And it has since consolidated its power at the point of the gun, executing those suspected of ‘collaboration,’ torturing and maiming Fatah supporters, and attacking the last remaining independent clans.
The problem is that this points in two directions. On the one hand, it dispels the repugnant notion that civilian victims of this fight are receiving no more than they requested. And it calls into question the idea that, by delegitimizing or discrediting Hamas, Israel might somehow replace it. On other hand, it also suggests that mere engagement and economic development are unlikely to bring much success, either. Hamas rules in Gaza; it has destroyed the only effective opposition through brute force, and targeted key institutions of civil society. There’s no indication that it would be willing to relinquish control, nor that it views the electorate as the ultimate arbiter of power.
So where does that leave things? Fairly hopeless.
Gary, you could say the same about almost any heatedly debated issue. Of course you have the right to get tired of this particular one–I have my own list of topics I stay out of, sometimes from just lack of interest on my part, and other times for emotional reasons. I sometimes avoid religion-debating threads, for instance, because I despise the religious right, but cringe at religion-bashing and just don’t want to deal with it.
Hamas then seized power in a bloody fight. And it has since consolidated its power at the point of the gun, executing those suspected of ‘collaboration,’ torturing and maiming Fatah supporters, and attacking the last remaining independent clans.
Observer, you are leaving out key historical facts like the fact that said bloody fight was initiated by Fatah. That the US and other powers were goading Fatah into such fight, and providing aid along the way.
Hamas won the fight, yes, but it wasn’t a coup initiated by Hamas. It was a reaction to Fatah (with US backing and prompting) attempting to undo the results of the election.
Observer,
It’s silly to try to get drawn into quibbling over specific weapons or uses of weapons, for to do so is to buy into a bogus talking-point. It’s also a rigged game, as you have to rely on extremely unreliable data from the military in question anyway. The IDF, for example, is not even very curious about investigating its own friendly-fire incidents (“The IDF sees them as mistakes that take place in wartime and is leaving a more detailed report for when the situation calms…Such incidents are considered the curse of urban warfare”), so how seriously should we take their concern of the cause of dead Arabs?
However, I by no means want to imply that the IDF is somehow singularly wicked in this regard. My point is that the general story line of super-targeted, super-humane warfare is BS, and has been parroted by various military commanders wearing different uniforms for decades. Every time an army goes into a city we here about how great the new technology is, and maybe there is some incremental improvement, but the reality is always the same, and it’s always really ugly.
I’m not saying an army should never go to war in an urban area (although maybe I should be saying that), I’m just saying that we should be honest about what that means.
Jesur, et al–after 3000 rockets are fired, however ineffectively (less than 100 dead), how should Israel react?
MckinneyTexas: After 634 children are killed by the IDF (the total number of Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip between 2000 and November 30 2008 is 2990), how should the Palestinians in the Gaza strip react?
You tell me how you feel it’s appropriate for people to react when their children are killed by the military of a foreign state, please. I take it you are in favor of an entirely pacifist response, and if so, how do you feel about the US involvement in wars this century?
or is it all about the catharsis of seeing things blown up?
From the front page of today’s WSJ:
Moti Danino sat Monday in a canvas lawn chair on a sandy hilltop on Gaza’s border, peering through a pair of binoculars at distant plumes of smoke rising from the besieged territory.
An unemployed factory worker, he comes here each morning to watch Israel’s assault on Hamas from what has become the war’s peanut gallery — a string of dusty hilltops close to the border that offer panoramic views across northern Gaza.
He is one of dozens of Israelis who have arrived from all over Israel, some with sack lunches and portable radios tuned to the latest reports of the battle raging in front of them. Some, like Mr. Danino, are here to egg on friends and family members in the fight.
…
On another hilltop overlooking Gaza, Sandra Koubi, a 43-year-old philosophy student, says seeing the violence up close “is a kind of catharsis for me, to get rid of all the anxiety we have inside us after years of rocket fire” from Hamas.
Jocelyn Znaty, a stout 60-year-old nurse for Magen David Adom, the Israeli counterpart of the Red Cross, can hardly contain her glee at the site of exploding mortars below in Gaza.
“Look at that,” she shouts, clapping her hands as four artillery rounds pound the territory in quick succession. “Bravo! Bravo!”
Not just Israeli’s though:
On the Egyptian side of the border, across from southern Gaza, Arabs, too, were coming from miles away to watch the aerial bombardment.
“Hamas rules in Gaza; it has destroyed the only effective opposition through brute force, and targeted key institutions of civil society. There’s no indication that it would be willing to relinquish control, nor that it views the electorate as the ultimate arbiter of power.”
Hamas, or at least its more moderate factions wanted to form a unity government with Fatah. It was the United States government which wanted to instigate a civil war, though they were expecting their client Dahlan to win. The details were in an April 2008 Vanity Fair article which has been studiously ignored by most American commentators, but it was well known before then, at least if you read outside the American press–I read a blog post at A Tiny Revolution on this subject back in June 2007.
The link below is to neither, but rather to Avi Shlaim’s comment in the Guardian.
Link
DJ I was going to link to that same piece.
I would also recommend Tony Karon on the topic.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17726.htm
and
http://www.trinicenter.com/articles/2007/140607.html
I’m going to see if I can get three links in one post. All three are about the US role in sparking the Palestinian civil war last year.
A Tiny Revolution link
Tony Karon
Vanity Fair article
Eric:
Saying that it was ‘initiated by Fatah’ omits just as much. Fatah initiated the violence; Hamas turned it into an all-out civil war. Over the days that followed, it became eminently clear that Hamas had been prepared for such a fight, but that Fatah was not. I don’t think one can credibly claim that Fatah was trying to “undo the results of the election”; a more plausible reading would be that an attempt to intimidate Hamas and reassert the pre-eminence of Fatah badly backfired, because Hamas was prepared for an all-out fight and Fatah was just maneuvering for position.
But really, does it matter? I didn’t accuse Hamas of launching a coup or of initiating the violence, for exactly this reason. I simply pointed out that when the elections were held, Palestinians were voting for the PLC. They understood full well that Abbas would remain as President, with sweeping powers; in fact, that reassurance probably emboldened many to lodge their protest votes. The results of that election left Hamas as the largest faction within the PLC, but not in control of the PNA as a whole, particularly not of its security apparatus.
Hamas seized power in a bloody fight. If you want to argue that it was provoked, or somehow justified in doing so, go right ahead. But it doesn’t alter the fact that it derives its power from its superior force of arms, and not from elections. Since that fight, it has consistently failed to engage in negotiations aimed at reconciliation; most Palestinians, polling shows, ascribe a far greater degree of blame for the impasse to Hamas than to Fatah. And that holds true even among Gazans.
Having come to power through force of arms, Hamas seems singularly unlikely to relinquish its authority without a fight. And that, I think, is a problem for all involved.
four young children lying next to their dead mothers
Jesus.
This being the third thread since the Israeli-Hamas conflict, I never got around to weighing in on the other two. In the first, “An Eye For An Eye Makes the Whole World Blind,” I agree with Bernard Yomtov’s comments throughout and also support Israel in general.
But the reason I say “in general” is that the current level of violence, devastatingly detailed in the WaPo story, is killing and wounding far too many innocent women and children.
I suppose another title for this thread could have been: “When Is Enough Engough?”
I say we reached that point a few days ago.
I side with the Red Cross here.
Kristof makes the point in today’s NYTimes thatit was Israel itself who engineered Hamas’ rise to power.
“But really, does it matter? ”
Well, yes it does. If you portray Hamas as the only villain in the Palestinian civil war, then it matters that the US helped instigate and supported a corrupt Fatah warlord. Hamas isn’t innocent either–they shocked Palestinians with their brutality in that war, but there is blame on both sides, and there’s also a pretty considerable amount of blame that traces back to the US. But somehow many American commentators feel comfortable talking solely about Hamas’s crimes.
Saying that it was ‘initiated by Fatah’ omits just as much. Fatah initiated the violence; Hamas turned it into an all-out civil war.
I’m sorry, but the distinction you are looking to draw here is illusory. Fatah initiated a violent campaign to suppress Hamas and undo the results of the election. How that differs from a civil war is for the threaders of needles to finagle.
Over the days that followed, it became eminently clear that Hamas had been prepared for such a fight, but that Fatah was not.
True, despite the US’ backing.
I don’t think one can credibly claim that Fatah was trying to “undo the results of the election”; a more plausible reading would be that an attempt to intimidate Hamas and reassert the pre-eminence of Fatah badly backfired, because Hamas was prepared for an all-out fight and Fatah was just maneuvering for position.
That is a very strained argument. Wafer thin.
But it doesn’t alter the fact that it derives its power from its superior force of arms, and not from elections.
It derived its power from elections. This was deemed unacceptable to the US. The US tried to undo those results, and in the process, Hamas has extended its reach in Gaza.
The US has consistently worked against re-unifying Palestinian leadership. Hamas does not oppose this, it just opposes it on Fatah’s terms. Not the same thing. It is not Hamas that is blocking those negotiations. That is simply not true. The US and Israel have opposed them, and have pressured Fatah into a similar position (though Fatah hasn’t needed excessive pressuring).
Having come to power through force of arms, Hamas seems singularly unlikely to relinquish its authority without a fight. And that, I think, is a problem for all involved.
This is not nearly as definitive as you claim: either in premise or conclusion.
From the Vanity Fair piece:
Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)
But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.
Even some neocons were aghast at the attempted coup:
Within the Bush administration, the Palestinian policy set off a furious debate. One of its critics is David Wurmser, the avowed neoconservative, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, a month after the Gaza coup.
Wurmser accuses the Bush administration of “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.” He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,” Wurmser says.
The botched plan has rendered the dream of Middle East peace more remote than ever, but what really galls neocons such as Wurmser is the hypocrisy it exposed. “There is a stunning disconnect between the president’s call for Middle East democracy and this policy,” he says. “It directly contradicts it.”
Observer: ad hominems are always helpful and constructive. What didn’t you like about the article specifically? Pouting “But it’s by Robert Fisk!” isn’t too enlightening. What were the errors?
I agree with Bernard Yomtov’s comments throughout and also support Israel in general.
But which Israel? The Israel that capitalised on the end of the Cold War, the draining of Soviet support for certain Arab states and the collapse of the oppositionist front in the wake of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in order to seek a lasting peace on the basis of a two-state solution? Or the reactionary Israel that assassinated Rabin for attempting such a thing, won most elections since, and has basically run the country into a strategic cul-de-sac — thus jeopardising its long-term security to a far greater extent than its enemies could dare hope?
Sharon, Netanyahu et alia are to Israel what Dubya Bush is to the USA: supposed tough guys who prove to be the greatest menaces to their own country’s interests.
I have a question about the blockade of Gaza. I have looked around but I can’t find the definitive answer. Does Israel blockade the entire border of Gaza? Including the Egyptian border?
What you need to google on is the Rafah Border Crossing, Sebastian, but in summary, the answer’s yes. The barrier along the Gaza-Egypt is physical, a concrete and steel wall that was caused to be built by PM Rabin – you may also find it useful to look up the “Israeli Gaza Strip barrier”. It is literally physically impossible for the Gazans to reach Egypt without breaking down or tunnelling under an extremely strong, extremely high wall, and according to international treaty (which so far – except recently, with the agreement/under the supervision of the Red Cross – the Egyptian government has honored) it is Israel that controls this barrier, not Egypt.
“But which Israel?”
Well, byrningham, not to be smart, but if you read Bernard’s comments in the “An Eye for An Eye” thread, which I referenced and in which he comments throughout the hot debate of that post, you’ll get a pretty good idea.
The question was rhetorical.
if you read Bernard’s comments in the “An Eye for An Eye” thread, which I referenced
Also, the thread to which you directed byrningman, being well over 50 comments in length, is severely broken.
byrningham: I wondered as much — right after I hit the “post” button.
Jes: Having read as much as I could when it was first posted, I was able to skim through it again before I referenced it.
“Does Israel blockade the entire border of Gaza? Including the Egyptian border?”–Seb
Jes answered this, but I’m not sure she’s completely right, My impression is that Egypt does control its border crossings with Gaza, but they pretty much defer to what Israel wants. The Egyptian government (along with others) doesn’t like Hamas and probably wants them to fail. But I haven’t gone googling to find the articles I’ve read about the Egypt/Gaza border.
There are the tunnels though, which the Gazans use to smuggle in both necessary items and also, presumably, weapons.
When I first read Krauthammer’s column (in my local paper, for goodness’ sake), I was struck by the following passage, as well as those cited by others:
The grievance? It cannot be occupation, military control or settlers. They were all removed in September 2005. There’s only one grievance and Hamas is open about it. Israel’s very existence.
“There’s only one grievance”???? On the very same op-ed page there were three other articles, from different perspective, all of which acknowledged at least some of the many grievances the Gaza Palestinians suffer.
I believe that someone can support Israel’s policy in general, and even in this particular crisis, without resorting to complete political and moral obtuseness.
That “someone” is apparently not Charles Krauthammer.
I think this part of the discussion has since jumped threads, but on this, Jes is absolutely and entirely wrong. Israel does not blockade the southern border, nor is pressure from Israel mostly responsible for the Egyptian stance. There is indeed a wall built by Israel, but it has been maintained and repaired by Egypt, which very much wants it to stay in place.
When Israel withdrew, it handed over control of the checkpoints along the southern border under a carefully negotiated agreement. Egypt controls its side; the PA controls the other side; and European monitors were put in place to ensure that weapons and other contraband weren’t smuggled in through the checkpoints. When Hamas seized control in 2007, the PA was forced out, and the monitors left. When Israel announced its blockade, so too did the Egyptians.
The issue is this. Part of the reason for the Israeli blockade was an effort to foist responsibility for Gaza back on to Egypt. From its invasion of Gaza in 1948, Egypt controlled the area, governing it until 1967. (Well, pretty much. At first it was nominally the “All-Palestine” state, governed by proxy; then it was placed under direct military government; and Israel briefly conquered it in 1956.) The Israeli strategy was to place pressure on Egypt to respond to the plight of the blockaded Palestinians by increasing the flow of supplies through Sinai, which would ultimately put responsibility for the economic viability of Gaza on the Egyptians.
Egypt wants no part of Gaza. It loathes Hamas, and fears its own Muslim Brotherhood, which represents the prime threat to Mubarak’s regime. It could, were it so inclined, open that border wide, but it’s as eager to see Hamas isolated as anyone else -isolated, above all, from the Egyptian people. And it fears that if it becomes the economic lifeline for Gaza, it will become responsible for it. On the other hand, popular opinion within Egypt is strongly sympathetic to the Palestinians, and it doesn’t want to be seen as complicit in the Israeli blockade. So it has turned a blind eye to the smuggling. That keeps it in compliance with its commitments to the international community, and allows through a trickle of supplies, without fostering real dependence.
The problem with this solution is that Egypt is ignoring all the smuggling. There are two sorts of tunnels in Rafah – those operated commercially, and those operated by Hamas. No one really minds the former, although the ‘taxes’ leveled by Hamas gunmen on their operators provide them with significant revenue. But the latter are at the heart of the present violence. Egypt doesn’t want to get involved in shutting tunnels of any kind, because of the inevitable protests that would ignite. It’s one thing to seal a border and sit passively behind it; something else again to dynamite tunnels. So most of the current peace proposals involve a third party force, probably European, with a mandate of some sort to either police the tunnels themselves or to force the Egyptians into compliance. Egypt doesn’t mind that as much – it doesn’t really like the tunnels, and it’s politically easier to let the Europeans be responsible for shutting them down.
Nothing’s ever simple in that region, huh?
I admit Wikipedia often annoys me and frequently gets things mildly to very wrong, but it’s not often that they get things as exactly and completely reversed as you seem to be asserting, Observer.
I have to admit, I refreshed my memory of the details of Rafah Border Crossing protocols at Wikipedia, and it bore out what I recalled: this crossing – the only one from Gaza to Egypt – was managed by Israel until 2005 (to be precise, it was under the control of the Israel Airports Authority).
The EU was then supposed to be responsible for the crossing (to be precise, the European Union Border Assistance Mission Rafah), but in practical fact, Israel was able to and did close the crossing at will – HRW reports confirm that between 2005 and 2007, Israel shut down the crossing far more often than it was open.
After Hamas won the election in 2007, the crossing has been permanently closed.
I agree that if Egypt wanted they have the capacity to open up the Gaza border – any government with access to ordinary demolition/military capacity could open it up. The EU could return to the Rafah Crossing – technically, we are still responsible for keeping it open. But laying equal blame on Egypt or on the EU for not acting against Israel?
I agree that perhaps the EU should have set itself up in formal opposition to Israel the first time Israel closed down the Rafah Crossing after September 2005, and made clear that the Crossing would stay open regardless of Israel’s objections.
But should Egypt break agreements made with Israel in order to let Gazans trade freely with the outside world? That seems problematic for a nation neighboring on Israel which validly wants to stay at peace with Israel, not get into a war because Israel does not wish the Gazans to have economic independence.
Demolition? It’s not as if Egypt doesn’t have the keys. It’s been opening up the crossings sporadically over the past few days to allow aid in, and casualties out.
Egypt has been perfectly clear on this issue. It is the position of the Egyptian Government that the agreement stipulated that Force 17 (the presidential security commandos of the PA) needs to be present for the crossings to be operated. No Force 17, no crossings. And where is Force 17? Hamas says that if its members get anywhere the crossings, they’ll be killed. They’ve also announced that they consider the EU monitors to be legitimate targets.
So the first problem is that Hamas doesn’t want PA-controlled forces running the crossings. The second is that Hamas doesn’t want third-party monitors at the crossings. The third is that Egypt doesn’t want to accord Hamas any measure of diplomatic recognition, and so it doesn’t want Hamas forces operating the crossings. But, as we’ve seen this week, Egypt is perfectly capable of opening and operating the crossings on its own.
Not every problem in the region is the fault of the Israelis. It’s entirely possible that, if Egypt tried to throw the border wide open, Israel would intervene. But given that Egypt has manifested no desire to open the border at all, that’s a moot point. What keeps that border closed is Egypt’s antipathy toward Hamas, and its fear of a stronger link between Sinai and Gaza.
How far is Egypt willing to go? There are conflicting reports on the wires. But some stories indicate it might be willing to accept an armed foreign force, and even some Hamas monitors at the border crossing, if that meant keeping the flow through Rafah to a trickle. The overriding priority for Egypt is ensuring that Gaza doesn’t become a dependency; everything else takes a back seat.
(On a side note, you omit to mention why Israel blocked the Rafah crossing. Prior to June 25, 2006 it was closed once. On that day, Hamas forces crossed into Israel and abducted an Israeli soldier. After that, Israel routinely blocked the EUBAM monitors from doing their jobs.)
“…because Israel does not wish the
GazansHamas to have economic independence.”Fixed.
Here are some recent statements from the UN. I feel I should mention that the item I’m going to link to includes a very distressing photo of a dead child. Here are the details of the UN statements:
At least 30 people were killed in the Zeitoun district of Gaza after Israeli troops repeatedly shelled a house to which more than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated by the Israeli military, the UN said today.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), said in a report it was “one of the gravest incidents since the beginning of operations” against Hamas militants in Gaza by the Israeli military on 27 December.
OCHA said the incident took place on 4 January, a day after Israel began its ground offensive in Gaza. According to testimonies gathered by the UN, Israeli soldiers evacuated about 110 Palestinians to a single-storey house in Zeitoun, south-east Gaza. The evacuees were instructed to stay indoors for their safety but 24 hours later the Israeli army shelled the house. About half the Palestinians sheltering in the house were children, OCHA said. […] The OCHA report does not accuse Israel of a deliberate act but calls for an investigation. (from The Guardian).
I have the impression that this is the same area in which the children lying beside the bodies of their dead mothers, discussed in the original post here at ObWi, were later found, because the article goes on to say that “Rescuers from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society said they were able to reach the area on Wednesday only after being allowed safe passage by Israel.” Also the Guardian article mentions that many members of the “Samouni family” died and an article on the children rescued by the ICRC on the BBC website names Fatima al-Shamouny as the mother (injured but still alive) of two children found by the ICRC
four days after the emergency services said they began trying to reach the neighbourhood.
They were among 30 people Palestinian Red Crescent workers said they evacuated from Zeitoun, a south-eastern suburb of Gaza City, on Wednesday.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said the paramedics found “shocking” scenes of wounded people huddled together in houses among dead bodies, weak after having had no food or water for several days. […]
It is not clear if Sameh and Ahmad were in that particular house – it may be that the unconscious Fatima was initially thought to be dead – but she says she and her toddlers were among those who had a long wait for help. […]
The details of exactly what happened at the Shamouny family compound are still sketchy.
Survivors have told the BBC that 26 of the extended family’s 65 members died in Israeli military operations.