Pillar of Cloud

Nothing like a new war between Hamas and Israel to wake me from my blumber (blogging slumber).

Like a majority of people, I want the violence between Hamas and Israel to end. However, a ceasefire now won't necessarily achieve that goal. I don't know what will. If the current operation ends with a return to the previous status quo, where Israeli towns near Gaza would regularly be attacked without Israel doing anything about it, we might as well reach a so-called ceasefire immediately, so at least less people will be at risk in the short run.

However, if the operation can cripple Hamas and other terrorist organizations badly enough that their ability to fire at Israel is greatly reduced, and if Hamas's ability to import weapons is also crippled, the operation should continue until those goals are met. After that, a ceasefire should be reached, and every single violation of it - every shelling of a kibbutz on the border, every Qassam on Sderot, etc. - should result in significant response by Israel, and not just shooting back at the specific squad responsible. However, together with that stick, Israel should offer a carrot of restricting the blockade on Gaza to weaponry and things that are likely to be used to manufacture weapons, letting everything else in.

Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009 was a failure because it ended with a return to the situation that existed before. We should not let Operation Pillar of Defense (or as it is called in Hebrew, Operation Pillar of Cloud) end the same way.

The Shalit (Real) Deal

After more than five years in captivity in Gaza, an agreement has been finalized between Israel and Hamas to release abducted soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. I'm very glad the end of Shalit's captivity is about to come within a week. I can't say I'm excited about the price, though. One thousand Palestinians is astronomical. It isn't clear yet who exactly the prisoners are going to be, and which ones will be allowed to return to the West Bank. There was some good news about some of the people who won't be released, like terrorist masterminds Marwan Barghouti and Ahmed Sa'adat.

Another troubling aspect of this deal is the release of Palestinian citizens of Israel. If this is indeed part of the agreement, as the Israeli media has reported, then it is a very dangerous precedent. Not only should the Hamas not be able to be seen as the representative of Israeli citizens, no foreign organization or state should have such a role. Terrorists with Israeli citizenship should not be the subject of negotiations.

Having said all that, I can't help but have a stupid smirk when thinking about Gilat Shalit's imminent release and the big smiles on Noam and Aviva Shalit's faces yesterday.

Ceasfire Tonight

It has been reported that a ceasefire agreement between Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian factions in Gaza has been reached, and will take effect sometime tonight. Good. Israel carried out a measured and limited response today to the Palestinian rockets fired at us during the 24-hour period when the IDF's cannons didn't shoot into Gaza. If the terrorists stop shooting tonight, we won't need to shoot back.

Let's hope for peace and quiet in southern Israel!

A Time For Forceful Reaction

Israel has not fired on Gaza since last evening. For almost a full day (24 hours), IDF rockets have not retaliated against terrorism, despite the fact that dozens of rockets have fallen in Israeli cities and towns since the last time we fired back. Even before this one-sided ceasefire, Israel's reaction was very limited.

We are acting wisely. Hamas does not want another round of violence, despite briefly taking claim for firing rockets at Ofakim yesterday. Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees, however, want to keep fighting. Israel should give Hamas a few more hours to force the other terrorist groups to stop firing. However, Israel can't wait forever.

If, in a few hours, Israel will still be bombarded from Gaza, the IDF will have to react forcefully. Those who fire at us should be the targets, not Hamas, unless they too join the rocket launching business once again. We have the ability to bomb them relentlessly, with minimal civilian casualties, and maximum dead terrorists and maximum destruction of their ammo.

Israel-haters and bleeding hearts will automatically cry out "disproportionate response". We will have all these hours without Israeli reaction as proof that the violence is the terrorists' fault. What do they expect? That we sit quietly for days and days while we're being bombarded? That's what we've foolishly done with Sderot. We should not do it with Ashkelon, Ashdod and Be'er-Sheva.

What Palestinian State?

The new round of violence between Israel and terrorist organizations in Gaza reminds us how crazy it would be to declare a Palestinian state next month. Mahmoud Abbas wants to declare both the West Bank and Gaza as sovereign Palestine, but his government does not control the latter at all, and only partially controls the former. Such a declaration would be futile.

Gaza, in a way, is not under anyone's complete control. Hamas may rule over it, but the organization seems unable or unwilling to clamp down on the splinter groups that somehow manage to be even less reasonable than Ismail Haniyeh's band of terrorists.

If Palestinians insist that both the West Bank and Gaza must become part of the State of Palestine simultaneously, then Palestinian independence will have to wait until Gaza is no longer ruled by terrorists unwilling to recognize Israel. That might take a few decades, if not eternity. A "West Bank now, Gaza can join later" approach seems much more realistic. Unfortunately, the Palestinians themselves reject the idea, claiming that Israel is trying to put a wedge between the two parts of the Palestinian people (ignoring the fact that it is the Hamas and Fatah who are responsible for the split).

With this kind of behavior, the Palestinians can kiss their dream of independence goodbye, at least for the foreseeable future.

The Second Gaza Flotilla

Pro-Palestinian solidarity activists from around the world are preparing for the adventure of a lifetime. The so-called Freedom Flotilla II will set sail for the Gaza Strip this week. Fortunately, the most extreme faction of the first flotilla, the Turkish IHH, has decided not to participate and will not send the Mavi Marmara for a replay, probably because of pressure from the Turkish government. So now, those who are left on the different boats are mostly well-meaning people who don't fully understand that they're trying to enter a territory controlled by a terrorist organization (and who in their right mind would try to do that?), and that they are playing into the hands of said terrorist organization, Hamas, rather than helping the Palestinian civilians of Gaza in any way, shape or form.

As for Israel, I'd rather it decided to inspect the boats for weapons and then let them continue on their way. That doesn't seem to be the policy. The second best approach would be to drag the boats to Ashdod without boarding them at sea. That would definitely minimize the chances of violence erupting.

Netanyahu the Rejectionist

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made sure today that France will vote in favor of a Palestinian State at the UN next September. He rejected the French offer to hold a peace conference, despite the fact that Mahmoud Abbas has already accepted it. Netanyahu's explanation was that he can't negotiate with a government that includes Hamas, and neither can he accept a negotiation based on the 1967 lines.

First of all, despite the reconciliation agreement, Hamas is not yet in the government. Secondly, Israel should continue negotiating with the Fatah representatives in the Palestinian government, and just not talk to the Hamasniks. Also, even if Netanyahu opposes the 1967 lines, he should say "okay, we'll negotiate in France, but not based on any preconditions".

The Future of the Blockade

In today's Haaretz, Shlomo Avineri says Israel should be happy that Egypt opened up the Rafah crossing, and he thinks this should mean the end of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. We'd no longer have any responsibilty toward Gaza, since we would no longer control all its borders, its airspace and its waters. We will close our border with the Strip, but passage of people and goods in and out of the territory via the Egypt-Gaza border, the sea and air would be unhindered. Israel's relations with Gaza would be like its relations with Lebanon: nobody passes the Israeli-Lebanese border, but Lebanon isn't under blockade.

This would not be a threat to Israel, he says. Weapons and terrorists have been streaming in through the tunnels anyway, so the situation would not be any worse. He even thinks it would be better politically. Any new Free Gaza Flotillas won't be able to complain about a blockade that has been lifted, and if they just reach Gaza without a problem, they would barely get any attention.

Avineri's claims are worth considering. He has some very good points, but I still have a few concerns about this scenario. First of all, while it is true that weapons flow into Gaza right now, I fear that without the blockade, the volume of arms smuggling would increase, and larger, more sophisticated weapons which can't be brought in through tunnels would now become available to the Hamas.

Second of all, if we don't control Gaza's airspace, we might be opening the door to 9/11 style terrorism. Major Israeli cities are very close to Gaza, and planes can enter Israel and crash into buildings before fighter jets could be launched to intercept them. Airplanes would be much more lethal than the Gazans' current arsenal of rockets.

Unless security experts tell me my fears are unfounded, I'd rather we alleviate the blockade by allowing the free flow into Gaza of people and goods, under our inspection at our own border checkpoints and out at sea (in other words, board flotillas, inspect them and then allow them to reach Gaza as long as there are no weapons on board). Yes, we'll still look like the bad guys, but I'd rather live with bad PR than die with a public opinion triumph.

UN Recognition and Hamas

Other than the issue of refugees, which I addressed in my previous post, I have another major problem with the idea of unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State at the United Nations. Mahmoud Abbas totally ignores the issue of Hamas control of Gaza in his NY Times op-ed.

Fatah and Hamas have recently reached a tentative agreement to share power. However, there is no guarantee it will ever be implemented, nor is it clear who would recognize or be willing to deal with a Palestinian government which includes Hamas. Hamas's militiamen would retake Gaza the second Fatah did something they didn't like, or if they lost an election, which they would immediately claim was rigged.

Who knows, maybe reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah before the September vote at the UN is good for Israel. I hope less countries would be willing to create a new independent state with terrorists in its government.

Osama Dead, Not Everyone Happy

It's a great day. Osama Bin Laden is dead, and that makes me happy. I don't believe in hell, but for his sake, I hope I'm wrong.

Of course, some people aren't thrilled about this, probably because they fear Osama's fate will be their own one day. Hamas, for instance. How we'll be able to talk to a Palestinian government that includes them, I have no idea.

Cast Lead 2

Will the recent violence on the Gaza border escalate even further than it has? Perhaps. Islamic Jihad has had the audacity to fire rockets not only on towns in the close vicinity of Gaza, but also on Ashkelon, Ashdod and Be'er-Sheva. When that happens, I tend to think it is time to teach the terrorists a lesson, so that these major cities will not become areas where rocket fire is routine.

The question is whether or not the "routinization" of Grad rockets falling on Be'er Sheva and Ashdod can be avoided in another way. It might be. We should try to have a cease fire, giving Hamas the responsibily of enforcing it in Gaza. If that doesn't work, and after three or four days rockets are still falling on the Israeli side of the border, bomb the shit out of them.

More Islamic Rules in Gaza

Hamas has banned women from smoking nargilas (hookahs/water pipes). This is a new addition to existing rules against women:

"Gaza women are forbidden from riding motorcycles with their husbands; women are forbidden from getting haircuts at male hair salons; women are forbidden from walking on the beach without a male family member's accompaniment; and they must wear the hijab and full-length dresses to courthouses, schools, universities."

Does anybody still really believe that Hamas isn't as much an Islamic fundamentalist organization as Israelis think it is?

Gilad Shalit and Bowe Bergdahl

Sometimes, visiting blogs I don't agree with can bring up interesting information. On a visit to Mondoweiss, I learned that Congress has passed a resolution calling for the release of Gilad Shalit. The writer of the post, Jeffrey Blankfort, asks when was the last time Congress passed a resolution referring to an American soldier. He has a point.

Congress is trying to show support for Israel by calling for Gilad Shalit's release, and I have no problem with the resolution. But Congress should have also called for the release of captive American and allied servicemen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One commenter on Mondoweiss had this to say:

How about someone important publicly asking Mike Oren, with an eye toward embarassing that robo-likudist, if the Israeli Knessett has any plans to introduce a resolution calling upon the Talibanists in Afghanistan to release PFC Bowe Bergdahl?

That's actually not a bad idea at all. The Knesset should thank Congress by reciprocating and calling for the release of all captured US soldiers. Sure, the Taliban won't listen to Israel, but neither is Hamas listening to Congress. These would be American and Israeli unhelpful (but unharmful) non-binding resolutions in support of each other's captive soldiers.

In a way, I think the US's approach towards its M.I.A's is much healthier than Israel's. Here people call 23-year old Gilad Shalit "the child of us all" and press the government to agree to all of Hamas's demands, including the release of the worst, most dangerous terrorists who are certain to return to plotting attacks against civilians. "What if it were your son being held captive?" supporters of the deal ask Prime Minister Netanyahu (one could just as well ask "What if it were your son killed by a terrorist released in the deal?") Civilians are willing to risk dying at the hands of a released murderer in exchange for Shalit, forgetting that it is the job of soldiers to protect civilians, not the other way around.

Americans don't know who Bowe Bergdahl is. He is being held captive by the Taliban. Nobody is thinking of swapping hundreds and thousands of Taliban terrorists for him. If the Taliban wants to gain something from his capture, its demands need to be modest, or they will not be met by the Obama administration. In the Shalit case, though, Hamas knows it can increase its demands because it just might get its way thanks to public pressure. Netanyahu's steadfastness on this issue is one of the very few policies of his that I support.

"Happy" Anniversary

Today is my blog's 7th birthday. More importantly, it is the 43rd anniversary of the Six Day War (or of Day 2 of 6, to be exact). The war itself was justified, as was taking control over the territories we conquered. It was the colonization and the idea that we'll never leave that were the problem.

At the time, we didn't have any negotiating partners in the Arab world. The Arab League's summit in Khartoum in August 1967 declared "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel", and vowed to continue fighting for the destruction of the Jewish State. If the Israeli leaders of the time had been smart, they would have created a Palestinian autonomy right then and treated the people of the West Bank and Gaza much better than the Jordanians and Egyptians had treated them. They'd rebuild their lives and their economy until the Palestinians would be stable enough to have their own state.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened and we're still in control of the West Bank, and a band of terrorists is in control of Gaza. Despite everybody knowing what the solution should be, nobody seems to be honestly working toward that solution.

Will last week's flotilla fiasco push the Israeli and Palestinian governments in the right direction? I doubt it. Things will probably get much worse now. Israel is on a collision course with Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to be considering "breaking the siege" in person, with Turkish navy ships protecting him. Nothing good can come of this.

This was quite a pessimistic post, but let's end it on a lighter note:

Alleviate the Gaza Blockade, Don't Lift It

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was too defiant in his public statement yesterday, but he certainly was right about one thing - letting ships sail to Gaza freely would create an Iranian port on the Mediterranean Sea. Do all those demanding that Israel lift the blackade not realize that such a move would amount to giving Hamas a free pass to arm itself with thousands of missiles a day, or do they just not care?

Much of our policy is foolish. While we already do transport a lot of stuff into Gaza,  the list of items we don't allow into the territory seems quite random. Supplies without any military purposes should be allowed in, as should people who are not suspected terrorists. This isn't a free flow of people and goods, but it is a freer flow.

And by the way, Israel took the cargo from the "freedom flotilla" and loaded it on trucks. They're now stuck at the border with Gaza, because Hamas is the one who won't let it in. What the hell is up with that?

More on the Flotilla Fiasco

As more information comes in, it is clear that there were some armed activists on the main ship that was raided by Israeli commandos today. There are reports that not only were the soldiers attacked with clubs, sticks and knives, they were also fired at. A few soldiers are in the hospital with gunshot wounds, and others with broken bones. One soldier was tossed off a deck and somehow survived.

Some people on the "Free Gaza" flotilla were true, albeit naive, peace activists. Some, on the other hand, were "provocation activists" and terrorists. I do believe that most of the peace activists didn't know that the provocation activists were armed, and I feel sorry for the real peaceniks who were killed or injured. I don't feel sorry for anyone who shot at the soldiers. If they were truly peaceful, they should have used passive resistance, as they had announed they would do.

There were reports that all armed activists were Arabs. It wouldn't surprise me if they were all Hamas militants who joined the flotilla for a chance to shoot Israeli soldiers, rather than to raise awareness or bring aid to Gaza.

Earlier today, I talked to an Arab Israeli friend and was surprised by how shocked he was by today's incident. Jewish Israelis are dismayed and worried about the implications of the high death toll, but his feelings seemed to go beyond that. He saw this as the end of any glimmer of hope for peace, which seems to me like quite an overreaction. Yes, the death toll is horrible, but it is just one incident, and most of the dead (and perhaps none - we don't know yet) aren't even Palestinians. I think that part of his reaction stemmed from reports that are now known to be false, that Sheikh Ra'ed Salah, the head of the Northern faction of the Islamic Movement was either critically injured or dead. Turns out Salah, one of the most radical leaders of the Arab citizens of Israel (he has called for an Intifadah within Israel to protect Al-Aqsa), is alive and well and ready for more anti-Israel provocations. I hope the fact he's still around will make Arabs in Israel feel a little less anxious.

"Freedom for Gaza" Has Another Meaning

Amira Hass has an interesting piece about an unsuccessful march organized by a coalition of leftist groups, unrelated to George Galloway's Viva Palestina. You can read it either in Hebrew or English.

Some of the parts I found most interesting:

"One large group set up under the United Nations Development Program's offices. "In our presence here, we are saying that we are not casting the blame on Egypt. The responsibility for the shameless and obscene Israeli siege on Gaza rests squarely with our own countries," explained one of the organizers.


This sounded like an answer to an accusation voiced mostly by supporters of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah: With Hamas encouragement, international especially Arab popular pressure is being directed at the wrong address - Egypt, rather than Israel. Some of the organizers said they were indeed under the impression that Hamas was not at all interested in demonstrating at the Erez crossing into Israel, which is almost sealed, but rather at the Rafah crossing into Egypt."

[...]

"On Monday evening, the demonstrators learned that, at the request of the president's wife, Suzanne Mubarak, 100 people would be allowed to enter the Gaza Strip. Many saw this as a way of breaking the demonstrators' solidarity and lessening the pressure on Egypt. In the end, on December 30, about 80 people set out on buses, including several journalists who were not affected by the dilemma.


At midnight, about 12 hours after leaving Cairo, we arrived at a hotel in Gaza. There the first surprise awaited us: A Hamas security official in civilian dress swooped down on a friend who had come to pick me up for a visit, announcing that guests could not stay in private homes.

The story gradually became clear. The international organizers of the march coordinated it with civil society, various non-governmental organizations, which were also supposed to involve the Popular Committee to Break the Siege, a semi-official organization affiliated with Hamas. Many European activists have long-standing connections with left-wing organizations in the Gaza Strip. Those organizations, especially the relatively large Popular Front, had organized lodging for several hundred guests in private homes. When the Hamas government heard this, it prohibited the move. "For security reasons." What else?

Also "for security reasons," apparently, on Thursday morning, the activists discovered a cordon of stern-faced, tough Hamas security men blocking them from leaving the hotel (which is owned by Hamas). The security officials accompanied the activists as they visited homes and organizations.

During the march itself, when Gazans watching from the sidelines tried to speak with the visitors, the stern-faced security men blocked them. "They didn't want us to speak to ordinary people," one woman concluded."

[...]

"In meetings without the security men, several activists got the impression that non-Hamas residents live in fear, and are afraid to speak or identify themselves by name. "Now I understand that the call for 'Freedom for Gaza' has another meaning," one young man told me."

 

The "Tape for Prisoners" Deal

The Israeli government has agreed to release twenty female Palestinian prisoners, aged 15 to 42, in exchange for a recent one-minute video recording of Sgt. Gilad Shalit, proving he's alive and showing what his physical and mental health status is, more or less. Hopefully, this is the first stage before a deal with Hamas where Shalit himself is exchanged for prisoners, and not just a recording of him.

I have mixed feelings about releasing prisoners for a tape. On the one hand, I believe Palestinian prisoners should be exchanged for live Israeli prisoners, and not just for a sign of life. If these 20 prisoners are counted as a down payment for the release of Shalit, then this will be less of a negative precedent.

There is also a question of how dangerous these prisoners are. Remember, women can be as dangerous as men. What they have done to land them in prison worries me less than what they might still do. In fact, some of those who have only attempted to murder Israelis may want to try again more than those who have already killed people. Unfortunately, I am unable to make such assessments on my own.

The Arab Initiative and Hamas

It has long been my view that Israel should have responded favorably to the Saudi Initiative, not by agreeing to all its details but by starting negotiations with the Arab League, with the Initiative recognized as the Arabs' starting point. As it turns out, that wasn't Saudi Arabia's intent. In an op-ed in the New York Times on September 12, Prince Turki Al-Faisal summarized the Saudi stance in the title, "Land First, Then Peace". The Arab demands are not negotiable. They are preconditions.

I had read the op-ed piece when it came out, and was reminded of it again when Shlomo Avineri wrote a critical op-ed piece about it in yesterday's Ha'aretz (here in English or Hebrew). Here is his final paragraph, which I agree with:

"The initiative should not be ignored, because it includes an Arab declaration of willingness for peace, but its meaning should not be mistaken. At this stage it is not calling for negotiations, but rather unconditional acceptance of the Arab position, and that is also its main stumbling block."

This reminded me of the discussion I've been having over at Gert's blog surrounding a recent interview Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London, conducted with Khaled Meshal in The New Statesman. Hamas's stance towards peace negotiations with Israel is strikingly similar, if not absolutely identical, to the one Al-Faisal presents in his op-ed as Saudi Arabia's position, and indeed the whole Arab League's. First, leave all territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem, and only then will we talk about peace. So, Hamas and Saudi Arabia have the same basic ideas about peace with Israel, yet the former is considered radical and the latter is considered moderate?

Hamas and the rest of the Arab world have to understand that withdrawal and the creation of a Palestinian state is the final step of the peace process. There can be no further claims after this.

Rooting For Hamas

I never thought I'd ever side with Hamas on anything, but that's just what happened this weekend. The Muslim terrorist organization which controls Gaza confronted an Al Quaeda-linked group, Jund Ansar Allah (Soldiers of God's Companions), after the group's leader declared Gaza an Islamic emirate under his control. Hamas killed this leader, Abdul-Latif Moussa, and other members of the fringe group.

Had Jund Ansar Allah not existed, Hamas would have to invent it. It's a great way to show the world that everything is relative. Sure, Hamas is a group of radical Islamic terrorists, but compared to Al Quaeda, they're like Switzerland.

Okay, not quite Switzerland...