Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Leadership In Gaza: Craven and Dysfunctional"

Comments

January 9, 2009

Samir Awwad, Uni - Mainz, Silver Contributor (63)

I like this comment! What's this?

Thank you!

January 9, 2009

Fouad Naji Maarouf, Freie Universität Berlin, Silver Contributor (31)

I like this comment! What's this?

Why didn't anyone see what Israel did by breaking the truce through firing missiles into Gaza and killing members of Hamas and targeting other head figurs in the Palastinian comunity in Gaza. This claim that Hamas is toblame for all this is false and a lie that intends to bring international sympathy on the israeli side.
Why didn't anyone say a thing about the siege over Gaza and the contiuing of building sttelmets in the West-Bank and the occupation and distruction of palastinian farm land??
What are the Palastinians suppose to do, die in sielance, be killed like harmles sheep?
Hamas is part of the Palastinian people and are backed by them because they help their people with money and many other projetcs that attain the livelyhood of many families who would have died and desolved if Hamas hadn't helped. What did the Fatah do except stell the money and send it to their swiss bak accounts?

Why is Israel consinderd a democracy when it handls arabs who are citizans of Israel as third class people and occupies terretories of other contires? Who gives it the right to strike Iran and Iraks nuclear site when it wants? And why is the israeli militray obove all international laws and coventoins when it commits acts of terror and killing against civilians?
This is just another sign that the Israeli and jewish lobby have control over westren media that consinders itself objectiv and indepedant!!

A country that was founded by the former colonial club and the security council today
(Britain, France, USA, Russia include Germany to that) on basis of occupation and a racist zionist nationalist idea, will not be able to survive in the middle-east. Poeple there never forget injustice and insults no matter how much time passes.

January 10, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Platinum Contributor (837)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Maarouf,

The situation in Gaza is a complex one with wrongs on both sides of the conflict.

I frear that Hamas has not played the game wisely. It is true that the walls built around
Gaza amount to a kind of seige, but most everyone knows why these walls were built - because of suicide bomers sent by Hamas to attack Israeli civilians.

Snce Hamas came to power in Gaza it has done a number of things which make it an international pariah in many ways. Not only the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier on Israeli
territory, but the violent eliminination of the opposition Fatah leadership within Gaza.

Israel has apparently shut most of the border checkpoints much of the time over the past months, but Hamas has given them the perfect excuse to do so, as they continue to hold the kidnapped Israeli soldier. Hamas should do three things - recognize the right of Israel to exist to the same degree that Fatah has, release the soldier, and allow political opposition again in Gaza.

You may protest that Gava has political freedom, but murdering most of the oppostion is not what people have in mind when they think of political 'freedom'.

I would like to see the checkponts opened to Palestinians again, in fact I would prefer to see the walls torn down so that Palestinians can get jobs in Israel and earn a normal living again. But the brinksmanship that Palestinians played when they began the suicide bomb offensive has made trust very hard to come by. Many Israeli's believe that easing the checkpoints or removing walls would signal immediate resumption of the suicide bomb offensive - and they have good reason to do so! Firing the rockets into Israeli territory merely makes the point that Hamas is so poisonously opposed to Israel that they may never be a reliable partner in peace negociations.

I think that is very clear to those outside Israel and Palestine.

January 12, 2009

Florian Kuhne, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Silver Contributor (61)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mrs. Paraipan,

I agree with some of the issues you raised in your article. Questions may be raised about the whereabouts of the Hamas leadership, and of course it was clear that the Israelis would not longer accept rocketfire from inside Gaza. Because of that, Hamas may be blamed for not stopping attacks on Israel.

BUT: We need to see the whole situation and I would support Fouad by saying that the Israelian side is not interested in peace and that the "Palestine-Policy" needs to be debated. When it comes to hypocrisy, noone may point the finger toward Hamas when not pointing to Israel/USA with the other one.

Is the situation really that clear, Mrs. Paraipan? I don't know and I learned over the last days that we, save and best medically equipped over here in Europe, or even more far away, Mr. Stadler, can not even have an opinion because we dont know nothing. Our media is onesided and relays on conflict lines like "good vs. bad", "democracy vs. the reign of terror", all Hamas is said to be terrorists, all Israelis are "the good soldiers", but every day killing women and children.

What I really do not understand is the point, Israel is making. What will they earn? Nothing. When they back out of Gaza, the situation will not have improved. But more than thousand people will be dead. And Hamas will have gained thousands of new supporters. In my view, the only way to stabilize relation to the people in the Gaza strip is to leave through supplies at the border, leave through medicine, food, all the things they really need! Only then there will be a chance to break the power of Hamas.

Otherwise (and I need to say that), Israel is comitting hundredfold homicide. I mean, believe youre in that tiny area and you cant get out and a heavy armed army is firing thousands of rockets a day while not helping the citizens with badly needed medicine, food and other supplies. Israel takes hostages as well as the Hamas does and that need to be said when talking about hypocrisy. Israel is best friend with the most hypocritical player in the world...

January 12, 2009

Florian Kuhne, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Silver Contributor (61)

I like this comment! What's this?

Oh, I forgot:

Related Material:

File under: Seitun, potential Israelian War Crime
http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE50851M20090109
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/07/gaza-israeli-attack-school-ne...

File under: Israel using White Phosphorus, "a permissible use in principle under international humanitarian law (the laws of war)"
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/10/israel-stop-unlawful-use-whit...

Greetings, Florian

January 12, 2009

Marie Claude

I like this comment! What's this?

so if Hamas is so right, then why its TV channel has just been forbidden by France, cause it was likely to launch propaganda among our surburb cities, (they know how to play with feelings of guiltiness, but they are the ones that put their children ahead into the conflict and in front of the cameras, when it happens that they are inadvertally killed), where idle youth is subjected to commit racist reprehension on our jewish community, not alone in France, but the EU's too.

Hamas is playing a political part for our beloved Iranians, and displaying the conflict all over the western countries is their agenda !!!

Will Obama be fooled by their game ?, at the moment, he hasn't major cards in his hands like Bush had with Kadhafi, (plus Kadhafi was in feeble position comparatively to the Iranians)

I am afraid that the Iranians hold us altogether, they will make the pressure until they get what they want from the new american administration : being the major player in the ME, though count also that this will not be the end of their business, each time they'll need to press on us, they'll activate one of their tools there, be HBZ, be Hamas, be their shia militias in Irak and their purchased and protected Talibani in Afghanistan

One day, we'll have to "finish" the job, that the Israeli can't all by their own, reduce Iran malicious Mullahs to "surrender", now, imagine with what arms ????

January 13, 2009

Marie Claude

I like this comment! What's this?

the guerilla "quadrillage" operated by Hamas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI1q3etFX2k&eurl=http://corner.natio...

would you think that there are new "little hitler" that want to get a life and not dangerous ?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k5D3nHrIjpQy15UnoB

the problem with lots of people, is that they are mixing the WW2 context image and the actual context : what is different ? the war techniques, in WW2, you were expectig panzers armadas, where only armies were involved, while in the nowaday conflict it’s a cities guerillas, that means that the surburbs could become like multi micro Gaza conflicts, and guess, with multi civilian victims, besides, I don’t think that we already have the infrastructures to fight guerilla wars in the streets, but this will become our major worry for the next years

January 14, 2009

Lior Petek, University of St. Gallen, Platinum Contributor (191)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Kuhne,

I disagree with your assertion that Israel will gain nothing from its current military operation in the Gaza Strip. Rather Israel’s operation “Cast Lead” has the potential of either dealing a severe blow to Hamas’ physical infrastructure (trained fighters, weapons and tunnels) or deterring future rocket attacks by Hamas into Israel. There are two major empirical arguments to back up my assessment.

One was excellently summed up by Luttwak in his article “In Spite of Defiance, Hamas Faces Defeat” in The Wall Street Journal on January 9 (see “Global Must Reads”). There he argues that despite proclaiming victory after the war with Israel in the summer of 2006 Nasrallah has refrained from firing rockets into Israel to support Hams as he is now deterred by a consequent Israeli military reaction.

The other one is the severe blow that was dealt to terrorist organizations in the West Bank as a result of operation “Defensive Shield” in 2002 (and subsequent Israeli military actions) that was triggered by a huge increase in suicide bombings. As a result, carrying out attacks inside Israel operating out of the West Bank has become almost impossible for terrorist organizations.

So taking those two empirical arguments into consideration, my assessment is that operation “Cast Lead” can indeed lead to increased security for Israel and its citizens in the long run.

January 14, 2009

Bernhard Lucke, BTU Cottbus, Platinum Contributor (224)

I like this comment! What's this?

Blaiming the Hamas leadership oversees that - from their perspective - they had no other "choice" to oppose the Israeli and their occupation policies (which include: the continuous construction of illegal settlements, the bulldozing of Palestinian houses, the murder ("targeted killing") of Palestinian leaders, the random humiliations at the checkpoints, and so on).

From the Israeli perspective, there was also no other choice, because they can of course not tolerate the firing of rockets and other terror acts. And it is true that the operation may at least restore deterrence, providing a short-term pacification.

If this pacification is successful, it may open the way for another round of peace talks, and we must hope that they will be successful this time. For an analysis of the reasons of failure of the last one, see http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_...

Israel is trapped by its settlements in the areas which were conquered in 1967: unable to dismantle them, a real "two-states" solution is practically impossible because the Palestinian state would depend on Israel in every aspect. Apart from that, there was always a threat from radicals, which now culminates due to the failure of the peace talks. A one-state solution would better fit conditions on the ground, but make Jews a minority.

In my opinion, somebody really supportive of the Israeli case should try everything to improve the situation of the Palestinians. They are stateless, basically rightless, and constantly terrorised by the Israeli settlers. Interestingly, the terrorists don't find recruits among the Israelis Arabs (those Palestinians conquered and not displaced in 1948, who have nearly the same rights as Jews). This tells something about the roots of terror.

Rumors say that after the failure of the peace talks, Sharon intended to displace the Palestinians of the West Bank to Jordan. As this plan was opposed by the western allies, he decided to make their life so full of harrassments that they would leave "voluntarily". I could imagine that there is a grain of truth in these rumors. For example, the separation wall which is so often hailed to have stopped terror certainly did not serve this function, since it is unfinished and full of gaps. It served only one purpose: making life most difficult in Palestine, since it criss-crosses Palestinian territory, cuts people from their land, and further empowers dispossions and settlement growth. The West Bank is quiet because it is still controlled by Fatah, but it can't be a surprise that Hamas won the elections, and I do not wonder that many Palestinians see terror as the only remaining strategy for their claims.

When Sharon decided to dismantle the settlements in Gaza, I and many friends expected that this was only a straigthening of the front (like in south Lebanon), since the area was costly to govern and control. By the way, rockets were fired from Gaza even when it was Israeli occupied. However, we hoped that if the Gaza retreat worked, it could become a positive example for the rest of Palestine. Our hopes were gravely disappointed, and I am afraid that the necessary dismantling of other illegal settlements is now most unlikely. What we learn is that an unilateral policy does not succeed.

Peace was very close in 2000. We can only mourn.

January 14, 2009

Lior Petek, University of St. Gallen, Platinum Contributor (191)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Kuhne,

Considering your second comment I have to say it is pretty amazing that you decry hypocrisy in your first comment only to resort to it in your second one.

Talking about Israeli war crimes, the first two sources you quote talk about “potential” – not “actual” – Israeli war crimes. You also fail to emphasize pivotal statements in those sources that refute your argument of Israeli war crimes like “Human Rights Watch is unable to conduct full independent research” and “A witness told the New York Times that he saw a Hamas militant whom he identified as Abu Khaled Abu Askhar near the school right before the attack. The witness said he was there because he was responding to calls for volunteers to pile sand near the school at the time to "help protect the resistance fighters"”.

With regards to the third source you quote concerning the alleged Israeli use of white phosphorus you again fail to point out that it is only believed (!) to be illegal by HRW: “Human Rights Watch believes that the use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas of Gaza violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life.” It is a mere opinion and legal interpretation of HRW. Why don’t you quote other sources like the International Red Cross that states that “'IDF white phosphorus use [is] not illegal'“:

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866575577&pagename=JPost/JP... />
So while there is absolutely no evidence of Israeli war crimes as of yet, it is obvious that Hamas has been committing war crimes such as the deliberate targeting of civilians in Southern Israel. In fact, Hamas is said to commit six-fold war crimes! See “Law professor: Hamas is a war crimes 'case study'”:

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866576202&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

To conclude, it is indeed a “good vs. bad” and “democracy vs. the reign of terror” situation and to claim that there is a legal and moral equivalence between Hamas’ military actions and the Israeli ones is rather the hypocritical position and not the other way around.

January 15, 2009

Oliver Hauss, -, Gold Contributor (117)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Lior Petek,

I must say I find your arguments somewhat lacking, mostly because you argue within your own set of definitions, be it of war crimes or of "good vs bad". The fact that someone says he saw someone first of all is evidence of nothing -human perception being unreliable as it is. Second, even if the perception was correct in this case, it doesn't make the issue "harmless". Protocols to the Geneva conventions show pretty clearly that the international community expects to consider the ratio between possible gain and damage done. Now Israel conveniently refused to sign said protocols, but that doesn't mean that these standards aren't the ledger the international community should judge by.

What definitely IS hypocritical is your pointing at Hamas war crimes, as if war crimes commited by Hamas would exonerate anyone else.

Your "empirical evidence" actually is none. The fact that military action at one location causes a shift of activity away from that location is a non-issue and a no-brainer. It says nothing about the long-term success of such measures. The IDF can continue to run from one hotspot to the next as long as they want, when they reach one end of the country, they will be able to start over at the other. What the empirical evidence actually shows is that in several decades, military means did not solve the problem.

Not the least, military means, in the form of the destruction of the Gaza infrastructure, provided a great deal of incentive to support Hamas to begin with. If this issue is to be solved, then only by showing the average Palestinian on the street that Israel is not the enemy, Hamas is.

You don't do that by bombing one of the most densely populated areas - or the UN, for that matter.

It's funny that you speak on the one hand of "good vs. bad", on the other, you speak of hypocrisy if people hold the side you claim to be the good guy to higher standards than the one you claim to be the bad guy. You have to make a decision - to want to have both is in fact just what you accuse others of: hypocrisy. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want to be rooting for the good guy, hold him to the standards of a good guy.

January 16, 2009

Florian Kuhne, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Silver Contributor (61)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Petek,

I consider your remarks to that sources I put on as kind of right, they maybe seem to show only one side of the war. But, as Mr Hauss said, one argument of the at least western international community and above all in the United States is that Israelian actions are to be tolerated, or Israel needs our support, because of it is "the only democracy" down there in the Middle East. Away from Libanon, which is a democracy too, I think of Israel not that much as a functioning democracy with (only to name the last ones) elections in 2001, then new elections in 2003 because the Labor Party pulled out, then Sharon pulling out in 2005 and elections in 2006, now new elections because the Prime Minister is accused of corruption. A functioning democracy to me is something else.

But, to come back to the point: If we say we support the activities of Israel because it is our "democratic friend" or because of any other relationship, dont we need to have a sharp look on what our friend does? In the former remarks and still I dont want to justify neither Hamas nor Israelian actions. But I mean that there are international standards and both sides have to comply with them.

January 16, 2009

Jeffery Allen Richard, lawyer/contributor, Silver Contributor (41)

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. Kuhne -
Assembling a stable parliamentary coalition is a strange metric for determining whether a state is a "functioning democracy." For example, by your standards neither Belgium, Italy nor Canada (!) would count as functioning democracies. I think by any reasonable standards, Israel is a functioning representative democracy (universal suffrage, comparatively free and transparent elections, etc); unlike Lebanon, Israel does not have confessional distribution of its legislative seats.

My own grim prognosis is that until groups like Hamas and Hezbollah - and more importantly, their paymasters in Iran, Syria and elsewhere - are willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel's continued existence, this conflict will continue to erupt in fits and bursts. Although I think Israel had no reasonable alternative but to use military force in response to the ongoing attacks against Israel's civilian population, the current offensive can only act as a short or (optimistically) medium-term deterrent against a resumption of hostilities by Hamas. Ultimately, it is up to Damascus, Riyadh and most importantly Teheran to end this conflict by recognizing Israel's existence and negotiating with it to establish a long-term settlement. I'm afraid that day is a long way away.

January 17, 2009

Oliver Hauss, -, Gold Contributor (117)

I like this comment! What's this?

I actually don't think the "paymasters" are that relevant. They need someone to listen to them or at the least tolerate their sending agents to do the deeds on their own. That wouldn't happen if a)there was sufficient prosperity that these funds aren't needed and b)the population itself was convinced Israel is actually a good and amicable neighbour. Unfortunately, the Israeli governments have been doing their best since the death of Rabin to ensure that neither a) nor b) is given. As for your suggestion that recognition and negotiation was a long way away, it certainly is as long as military means are the method of choice of interacting. But the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 has just been reaffirmed. It's when people start heaping precondition upon precondition before they are actually willing to talk with each other that things go nowhere fast. One certainly won't hear a recognition if one does his best to hold one's ears shut.

January 20, 2009

Lior Petek, University of St. Gallen, Platinum Contributor (191)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Hauss,

I absolutely agree with you that in ius in bello there is the principle of military necessity and proportionality. Yet this is exactly why it is your arguments that are “somewhat lacking, mostly because you argue within your own set of definitions, be it of war crimes or of "good vs bad"” as the discussed case of soldiers who are being fired upon and return fire to the source – even if the source is surrounded by or near civilians – in order to save their lives exactly corresponds to the principle of military necessity and proportionality.

In addition I fail to understand your “shift of activity” argument. So you actually try to argue that there was no terrorist activity and security threat to Israel in Southern Lebanon before Hamas was practically destroyed in the West Bank in 2002-2004 and likewise in the Gaza Strip before Israel managed to deter Hezbollah in 2006? And that once Hamas in the Gaza Strip is deterred from attacking Israeli civilians with rockets all of a sudden Hamas in the West Bank will stop being virtually destroyed and Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon will cease to be deterred? This is ridiculous! Besides, your “shift of activity” argument actually implicitly supports my empirical arguments as you agree that terrorism in the West Bank is at a low and that Hezbollah is deterred.

Finally, I fail to see why the “good guy” should be held to higher standards than what is legally required from him. After all, everybody is equal in front of the law and I do not know of different sorts of iura in bello for “good guys” and “bad guys”. In fact, you are engaging in an inversion of causality as the question of who is the “good guy” and who is the “bad guy” cannot be answered before looking at their compliance with ius in bello.

January 20, 2009

Lior Petek, University of St. Gallen, Platinum Contributor (191)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr. Kuhne,

There we go again with your hypocrisy! You claim, on the one hand, that Israel is not a “functioning democracy“ – Mr. Richard has already unmasked your pseudo-criterion for a “functioning democracy” – and, on the other hand, you argue that Lebanon is a democracy. So you actually say that a country, where political opponents get assassinated (most prominently, Hariri), constitutes a democracy? A country, where a militia (i.e. Hezbollah) that resisted the disarmament mutually agreed upon by all Lebanese militias representing all of Lebanon’s ethnical groups at the end of the civil war can start a war without the consent of the government (i.e. the war between Hezbollah and Israel in the summer of 2006) and can blackmail the government to nullify an unpleasant decision and to grant it veto power in future governmental decision-making by letting out its gunmen to paralyze the whole capital city (i.e. when Hezbollah wanted to create its own communication infrastructure in Lebanon and the Lebanese government forbade it)? Face it: Lebanon is at best a failing state!

As to your “But I mean there are international standards and both sides have to comply with them”:

I absolutely agree with you. Yet that is exactly why I consider your position hypocritical. You would be more consequent and credible if you actively criticized Hamas’ actions (not just passively by saying “I don’t want to justify […] Hamas […] actions”) as it is obvious that Hamas is committing war crimes, whereas it is absolutely not obvious that Israel is committing such. Why is it so hard for you to actively condemn Hamas? Your avoidance of it seems very telling to me.

RSS

Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

January 8, 2009 | 16 comments | Print | E-Mail Your Opinion

Leadership In Gaza: Craven and Dysfunctional

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Poll

Should the EU take Guantanamo detainees as requested by the Obama administration?