Hamas’s Chances

[Jefferson23]

Nathan Thrall

Nathan Thrall is an American writer, journalist, and Middle East analyst. He is currently a Jerusalem-based Senior Analyst with the Middle East & North Africa Program of the International Crisis Group covering Gaza, Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Thrall

The current war in Gaza was not one Israel or Hamas sought. But both had no doubt that a new confrontation would come. The 21 November 2012 ceasefire that ended an eight-day-long exchange of Gazan rocket fire and Israeli aerial bombardment was never implemented. It stipulated that all Palestinian factions in Gaza would stop hostilities against Israel, that Israel would end attacks against Gaza by land, sea and air – including the ‘targeting of individuals’ (assassinations, typically by drone-fired missile) – and that the closure of Gaza would essentially end as a result of Israel’s ‘opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods, and refraining from restricting residents’ free movements and targeting residents in border areas’. An additional clause noted that ‘other matters as may be requested shall be addressed,’ a reference to private commitments by Egypt and the US to help thwart weapons smuggling into Gaza, though Hamas has denied this interpretation of the clause.

During the three months that followed the ceasefire, Shin Bet recorded only a single attack: two mortar shells fired from Gaza in December 2012. Israeli officials were impressed. But they convinced themselves that the quiet on Gaza’s border was primarily the result of Israeli deterrence and Palestinian self-interest. Israel therefore saw little incentive in upholding its end of the deal. In the three months following the ceasefire, its forces made regular incursions into Gaza, strafed Palestinian farmers and those collecting scrap and rubble across the border, and fired at boats, preventing fishermen from accessing the majority of Gaza’s waters.

The end of the closure never came. Crossings were repeatedly shut. So-called buffer zones – agricultural lands that Gazan farmers couldn’t enter without being fired on – were reinstated. Imports declined, exports were blocked, and fewer Gazans were given exit permits to Israel and the West Bank.

Israel had committed to holding indirect negotiations with Hamas over the implementation of the ceasefire but repeatedly delayed them, at first because it wanted to see whether Hamas would stick to its side of the deal, then because Netanyahu couldn’t afford to make further concessions to Hamas in the weeks leading up to the January 2013 elections, and then because a new Israeli coalition was being formed and needed time to settle in. The talks never took place. The lesson for Hamas was clear. Even if an agreement was brokered by the US and Egypt, Israel could still fail to honour it.

in full: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n16/nathan-thrall/hamass-chances

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. Pity the White House refuses to understand this.

Fuck congress. They are incapable of reading words with so many letters, like ceasefire, compromise, negotiation, or concession. Besides, the tea bagger dictionary banned those words.

[Jefferson23]

2. We're the enablers, have been for a long time...shameful. n/t

[bemildred]

3. +1. nt

[appal_jack]

4. This is a smart & well-researched article

This is a smart & well-researched article, but the author does try to play both sides of the coin on behalf of Hamas. He claims that Hamas had honored its side of the 2012 and earlier cease fire agreements, but also admitted that

For many Palestinians, Hamas has once again proved the comparative effectiveness of militancy. Tunnels, which have been central to its successes in the current fighting, have been the source of attacks against Israelis in Gaza since well before Israel’s 2005 withdrawal. Hamas points to a series of tunnel-based attacks, including a deadly December 2004 explosion underneath an Israeli army post in southern Gaza, that helped precipitate Israel’s pullout. Since the fighting in Gaza began this summer, Israel has not announced a single new settlement and has expressed willingness to make certain concessions to Palestinian demands – achievements the Ramallah leadership has not been able to match in years of negotiations. The outcome of the fight will help determine the future path of the Palestinian national movement.

Essentially, he concedes that Hamas' 'ceasefire' never included a halt or even slowdown to building-up its most effective attack strategy against Israel: the construction and use of tunnels, even into Israel's recognized 1967 territory. Also, he tries to play fast and loose with the rockets themselves, conceding that Hamas has had police powers

strong enough in Gaza to exercise a near monopoly on the use of force.

yet he claims (with no evidence cited) that the current hostilities escalated when

militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity.

How exactly do a group of random, unaffiliated 'militants' assemble, stockpile, and launch missiles without the knowledge or consent of the party that has "a near monopoly on the use of force" in the territory? It's a shame that Nathan Thrall feels the need to distort the record so heavily in a (failed) effort to absolve Hamas of responsibility for the violence. His valid points about Israel's own broken promises and escalations (maintaining the closure of Gaza after the 2012 ceasefire, etc.) would carry more weight if the author was not so intent on carrying water for Hamas when there is no rational reason to do so.

Still, compared to some of the propagandistic-pro-Hamas-dreck that gets posted here at DU, this is a worthwhile read, with points that anyone interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict should consider.

k&r,

-app

[Jefferson23]

5. I don't see how he is carrying water for Hamas, the tunnel expansion is different from the

never ending settlement expansions in Israel during that same time frame?

Intent is telling, I would agree, and there is no trust, but the facts remain about
who kept to the cease fire and received nothing in return. The author could have
linked the reports regarding ISIS claiming responsibility on the kidnapped/murdered
teens but since when does having control mean Hamas has control a 100% of the time?

I appreciate your response and your recommendation that others read it..thank you.

[kayecy]

6. Well?.......Comments/corrections by friends of Israel would be welcome.......n/t

[King_David]

9. That would be unusual here,

[bemildred]

7. Justifying Israel’s Slaughter in Gaza

Refers to the OP.

Applying a familiar label or phrase can be a substitute for good analysis, or for any analysis at all. The application activates a set of presumptions associated with the label or phrase while brushing aside any other relevant facts that may contradict those presumptions. The current conflict in Gaza has stimulated a surge in application of such rote phrases to one of the belligerents: Hamas.

Besides the familiar label of “terrorist group,” which ignores other dimensions of Hamas as well as ignoring who is applying most lethal force against civilians, there also is the catchphrase that Hamas is “dedicated to the destruction of Israel.” It is not just the Israeli government that keeps uttering that phrase, or even commentators seeking to justify Israel actions; one sees it in mainstream press in what are supposed to be objectively reported articles.

In assessing the validity of the phrase, let us set aside some related issues that also are very important in assessing what is going on today in the Gaza Strip. One concerns the origin of this conflagration, which began when the Netanyahu government seized upon a kidnapping and murder in the West Bank, blamed it (falsely, we now know) on Hamas, launched large-scale raids and arrests, including detentions that reneged on a previous agreement with Hamas, and applied lethal force both in the West Bank and along the Gaza Strip that killed at least nine Palestinians — all before Hamas fired a single rocket or sent a single fighter through a tunnel in this round of fighting.

A second concerns how the slaughter of innocent civilians has reached wholesale proportions far beyond what can be justified by even the most nefarious intentions imputed to the adversary or by excuses about difficulties of targeting in close quarters.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/03/justifying-israels-slaughter-in-gaza/

[Jefferson23]

8. That's a keeper, thank you for the addition.

No one in power is acting in a bold manner to push this occupation to it's end
to leave the Palestinians with a viable state.

Some of the wisest and most thoughtful people with experience on this conflict
have spelled it out as clear as they possibly can yet as they go to print
with all their thoughts, the massacre continues.

[bemildred]

10. Yes. nt