Politics Gaza

a clip on the changed/changing geo-political situation in the region, especially with respect to egypt:


Will the Arabs speak up for Gaza? - Inside Story - Al Jazeera English


which, btw, just signed an hefty loan from the imf today.
i'm sure these things are unrelated.

 

Having not defended or condoned Israel's latest action or more appropriately, over-reaction, my only point throughout has been that responsibility for Israeli/Hamas tensions and culpability are not as sharply defined as some might suggest.

 

i have been arguing from the history of the situation. i'm not a particular fan of hamas, but i nonetheless think that israel has fundamentally misplayed the situation over the past 6 years and has produced the opposite outcomes from what the siege was intended to do. the idea was to undermine support for hamas by creating conditions that made it impossible for them to govern--that is, to provide basic services. to lay siege is a form of collective punishment for the outcome of a democratic election. and the strategy has backfired. now that fact is being used in a remarkably stupid and brutal manner by netanyahu for electoral purposes. the situation is such that hamas does not have to be angels and israel is still at fault for creating the conditions that resulted in this state of affairs. even in the shorter run, israel has fucked it up---a hallmark of bibi's political career, btw. killing jibari was a cynical and stupid move. it's hard to imagine another motive than to provoke the kind of response that could be used to justify the response we've been seeing.

and then, on top of all that, there is the simple fact of israeli colonialism.

hamas is not a swell organization, but in gaza they are the direct result of israeli actions...

the cease fire brokered between israel and hamas before the former murdered the jibari had, in the main, held.

the worrying undercurrent in all this is that bibi saw in it a chance to build another case for belligerence directed against iran. but even that is bullshit, given the brutal, inhumane conditions imposed by 6 years of siege---without even factoring in the consequences of the last massacre israel decided to undertake 4 years ago. it seems reasonable to argue that such support as iran as provided--which seems pretty minimal, particularly when balanced against israel's overwhelming military superiority in terms of technology for vaporizing people---has been a direct result of the siege driving gaza's supply system into the tunnels that run from sinai. that's not to say that without them there'd have been no weapons---but it is reasonable to think that had israel not chosen to force gaza into this kind of underground network in order to get basic supplies in to the civilian population that it would have been a whole lot easier for the israelis to monitor the situation. (of course, this also gets to the post-mubarak situation in sinai and the fractures that have occured in the area etc...which seems another matter...)


were the siege not in place, i could see a more diffident approach to understanding this situation---but it is in place.

 

just to say this because the way i'm focused in these posts may make it seem otherwise: i would prefer to see a viable independent palestine that can co-exist with a viable, independent israel. there seems to me little point in thinking of an alternate reality based on somehow altering 48. but the consequences of 67 seem to me very different: almost nothing about them seem good. i dont see a way to the end above within the present framework. it seems to me that the only way to achieve an actual peace--which no doubt will not be perfect---is for the israelis to take on the settlements. i have no illusions about what that'll entail. the united states has entirely abdicated any pretense to being a broker in this process, so perhaps the best thing would be for the imperial power to be cut out of an actual, meaningful process.

what's obvious is that palestinians in gaza and the west bank have no reason the believe in any of the conventional political processes that have been set up to now. none. that is the origin of much of the violence that's happened. that'll continue to be the origin. behind that is the simple fact of israeli colonialism and american complicity in its construction and maintenance. so hillary clinton shows up in israel. who really gives a shit? it's not like the united states is anything remotely like a mediator. look at what they just did in the security council. the history of american action in that context has had the effect of delegitimating the un in this situation. way to fucking go. the stupidity of american policy in this region is astonishing.

 

Gaza ceasefire announced in Cairo | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

does this mean hamas can go from heavy rocket attacks back to just periodic rocket attacks?

 

I dont know that any people can flourish if they choose to defiantly flaunt the conventional political processes. Has such a strategy ever succeeded? It might offer short term anger release; it wont bring about long term social and economic stability.

But what might help is the role of the new Egyptian government in the process. It will be a test for all sides.

 

I think we all know that what a large group of people 'chooses' is a nebulous sort of thing. I don't think the Palestinians 'chose' to be denied their basic human rights.

 

They freely elected the militant Hamas over the more conciliatory Fatah.

 

By that logic, the Israelis deserve rockets for electing leaders unsympathetic to the Palestinians.

 

A bit of a stretch, but I would grant you that Likud has support from the illegal settlements and the more extremist elements among minor parties that serve in the coalition govt.

We dont diaagree on the denial of basic rights of the Palestinian people.

I believed the best way forward for the Palestinian people is to work through the established conventional processes.

 

I don't see how it's a stretch. I think it's extremely logical.
No, Israeli 'civilians' are not launching rockets into the Gaza Strip.
But if that's the only recourse they had in their power, knowing what we know, are we expected to believe that they wouldn't?

I think what is at hand is one of the most perverse ironies in all of history.

 

well, first off---again---i'm pleased about the cease fire and i hope that it holds.

secondly...there is no reason for palestinians to trust the negociation process so long as the united states dominates it. no-one in their right mind takes the united states as neutral in this, so they're in no position to conduct negociations. it's well past time that the united states figured this out. or changed in a fundamental manner their policy approach toward israel. personally, i think the second is the better option.

third...you're joking about fatah, right? i suppose if you put aside the actually existing history of israeli attempts to pulverize the pa you could argue that. but when reality is included, the idea that fatah has any credibility is a bit of a stretch.

again--the ascendancy of hamas in gaza is a direct result of israeli colonial policy. if the israeli right---which is responsible for this---was serious about anything beyond continued domination---and they aren't---then they would...o i dunno...lift the fucking siege of gaza. if the israeli right wants a serious peace process--which they don't---lifting the siege would be a necessary first step. the united states cannot broker such a deal because the united states backed the siege. the idiocy of this in policy terms is astounding.

 

It is a stretch to suggest the freely elected Likud party is as authoritarian as the freely elected Hamas.

Likud does not restrict opposition parties, shut down opposition press, prevent public opposition gathering....

 

but likud relies upon generating (and funding--remember the history of mossad funding of hamas?) & perpetuating that idea of israel is continually under some basic existential threat in order to benefit from the political consequences of that.

because the dominant media in the united states seems to not understand that there is an israel not identical with likud, that horseshit constitutes conventional wisdom.

 

Israel and the PA/Fatah were closer to a deal (2000 Camp David) than anyone thought possible....then Araft killed it (after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize). A deal that gave the Palestinians nearly all of the West Bank and Gaza (with the exception of a few existing Israeli settlements) and left for further discussion the issues of East Jerusalem and repatriation.

Agreed.

But getting back to working within the established conventional process, I believe that is the best way forward for the Palestinian people, whom I support.

In part, it is a PR war and neither side gives a fuck about outside opinion, other than Hamas playing to Mideast allies and Likud playing to US Jews and fundamentalists. The difference is that Israel does not need that support outside of the US. It has the weapons, the economy, $billions in US aid, etc to do without.

On the other hand, Hamas needs, or would certainly benefit from, support outside the region and you dont get by lobbing missiles every day for six years into Israel and strapping bombs to the bodies of young men and women. If they want to sacrifice their youth, put them on a hunger strike in a town square in Gaza City and let the world watch that kind of peaceful martyrdom.

History is full of examples of how passive resistance works when challenging a bigger and better equipped enemy.
--- merged: Nov 21, 2012 at 7:33 PM ---

So does the Republican Party and Fox News but neither is relevant to the authoritarian nature of Hamas.

 

you know, redux, i would like to agree with you. i really would. i would much prefer that non-violent forms of action were still a viable option in this context. i would like to be able to sit on my couch and think: you know, the objective of being able to live a decent life for the palestinian people could be best advanced through non-violent actions. but not even ghandi thought that possible in this situation. and that is the fault of israeli policy--and american support for it even at its most extreme. i wish it were otherwise. but it isn't.

and i would rather the situation were such that a coherent peace process seemed something other than a pretext for the advancement of the interests of the far right in israel. i would rather that the settlements did not keep expanding despite the protestations that the contrary is the case. i would rather that it were possible for anyone to believe in israeli good faith. but it isn't. the settlements keep going up. the colonial apparatus triggered by the settlements keeps operating. there is no reason---at all---to believe in israeli good faith. and that is the problem. at least were the israelis to stop the expansion of the settlements in the west bank, things might be otherwise. but they don't. that, sadly, is reality.

with gaza, there is no basis to even start believing that a conventional political process is meaningful with a 6 year siege still in place.

you reap what you sow. were you in the situation of the palestinian people, i don't doubt you'd be long past belief and would entertain the idea that violence, no matter how hopeless, at least registers the fact you exist.

but this speaks to the limits of my own pacifism, really. there are situations in which i can't but endorse violence. this is one of them. but the responsibility for that violence lay with the colonial power, not with the fact that the colonized who find themselves driven to a place where no other option seems to lead to an amelioration of even the most basic demands for dignity are more than a sham. the powerful need to change their shit---the israelis at the least have to lift to siege and stop expanding the settlements. the united states needs to grow a spine an oppose actions that originate with the israeli ultra-right. how likely is that to happen?

you reap what you sow.

===

i've been thinking about this more...i suppose that, when it comes down to it, one's views are linked to quite personal things. i have a friend who's palestinian and lives in the west bank. when we talk, he doesn't really want to dwell on the bigger situation--it's given, it's intractable. he wants to talk about making music, about writing. so that's mostly what we do. and i understand that, i think.

sometimes i try to put myself in his place. i wonder what i would do. i confess that i do not know---my temperment would be an impediment to violence, i think. but i would understand it.

maybe that's at the bottom of the divergence here. when one tries to really understand a situation that's not one's own, there's the question of accumulating information and trying to make sense of it at one level--but then there's another, much more personal, that has to do with where you project yourself through that information. that's the basis from which you try to think out what you might do. because it seems to me a way to give dignity to what would otherwise be abstractions, functions of data, empty variables.

when i undertake the same thinking on the israeli side, i end up thinking i would align with peace now or some parallel organization and be working to undermine this insanity. i have another friend who was in the idf but who identifies on the political left--and another who lived for a long time in israel and did a lot of militant work on the left. which goes back to an earlier point: i happen to know about the israeli left as a function of experience and happenstance, really. so none of how i think about this situation is about some israel in general---its about particular political choices made by particular groups of people for particular reasons. it is really unfortunate that the israeli right is as dominant as it is, and equally that this is the perspective most in the united states unwittingly see as that of israel as a whole.

 

But how is that working out for the Palestinian people?

Do you think they beat Israel into submission? I think not.

With a more passive , political approach, they can possible get world opinion on their side, particularly in a global news environment. I dont know that would sway the hard line Israelis; it might sway the Israeli people to voter out their war hawks.


===

I think we only differ on the level of culpability and the best way to move forward in the interest of both sides.

 

I like how the Gaza situation is progressing.

There can be no doubt that the global political climate has changed massively from 40 years ago. The same applies for 10 years ago. Many politicans are yet to get in gear with changing perceptions.

As a result of Israel's outdated bullish behavior, it is only shooting itself in the foot. Doing these things, making nonsencial statements and providing outlandish defenses while behaving both excessively and in bad faith, it will sooner than later find out that the rules of the game are changing.

In any way, the long-term prospects of the Palestinian state are looking good.