FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

One of the big questions about the US plan to create a Palestinian state controlled by Fatah is, of course, “what about Hamas?” Fatah is not strong enough militarily or politically to take on Hamas, and Hamas is not going away by itself.

I’ve argued that the apparent contradiction implies that the plan isn’t serious. But what if I’m wrong, and it is for real? How would such a plan deal with Hamas?

DEBKAfile has an idea, and it isn’t pretty. But it accounts for a lot of things that have been said by PM Olmert, President Bush, and others, and it fits the the way that the US has tried to accomplish similar goals in other places.

The suggestion is that the IDF will be permitted to invade Gaza — but only to a limited extent. Of course, DEBKA presents it as inside knowledge, and maybe it’s just a guess. But I hope they’re wrong:

1. Israeli forces must limit their invasion to two or three strips abutting the Gaza-Israeli border of the 365 sq. km square Hamas-ruled territory on Israel’s southwestern border…

2. The IDF must operate only in sparsely-populated areas and desist from actions that may cause extensive Palestinian civilian casualties.

3. The IDF will not capture the main cities, e.g. Gaza City, Rafah and Khan Younes.

4. After clearing captured areas of Hamas, Jihad Islami and other Palestinian terrorists, the Israeli army must pull out and hand the cleansed territory to the forces of the Palestinian Authority [PA] chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Israel must enable the passage of those forces from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip and allow them to establish military bases for launching their offensives to recapture the entire Gaza Strip, thereby reversing Hamas’ success in forcing their retreat six months ago…

It was … proposed in Bush’s talks in Ramallah and Jerusalem that the Israeli Air Force and artillery provide support for the Palestinian takeover of the Gaza Strip, a tactic the US army employs for local forces in Iraq.

— DEBKA, ‘Israeli Military up in Arms over Bush-Olmert Plan for Major Operation in Gaza on Behalf of… Palestinian Authority’

DEBKA suggests that PM Olmert has agreed to this plan. But it would be a disaster of the first order if it were to be carried out.

First, from a tactical point of view, it will not work. The IDF will “break its teeth” against the elaborate fortifications built by Hamas in Gaza since the takeover, and will suffer significant casualties until they are overcome. But they will not be able to pursue and destroy the Hamas forces, who will simply escape to the West or lose themselves in the cities! So what will Israel have bought at a high price?

Second, the PA forces are not any more likely to fight effectively against the highly motivated Hamas than they were last year. Many of them are sympathetic to Hamas, most if not all are former (or present) members of terrorist militias such as the al-Aqsa Brigades, and all of them consider Israel a greater enemy than Hamas. Many of their US and Israeli-supplied weapons will end up in Hamas hands.

Third, the plan places the IDF in a role of fighting for one side in a Palestinian civil conflict, instead of defending Israel against her enemies.

Finally, if the PA does not defeat Hamas (which it won’t), then what? DEBKA writes,

If a military campaign succeeds in gaining control of parts of Gaza on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, peace talks will resume with Abbas’ standing much enhanced. But if the results are mixed, like in the 2006 Lebanon War under Olmert’s direction, the Palestinian leader will drop Israel and the United States like hot coals, turn coat and seek an understanding with Hamas for a re-united front against Israel.

We must also keep in mind that an Israeli invasion of Gaza, even a limited one, is likely to provoke Hezbollah to heat up the northern border. It will not be advantageous for the IDF to be tied down to supporting a protracted struggle between the PA and Hamas when this occurs.

All this and more is obvious to the IDF’s officer corps. I cannot imagine but that many officers would resign before they would carry out orders to, in effect, send their men to die for the PA. The result could be a crisis for the Israeli government and the IDF.

Technorati Tags: Israel, IDF, Gaza invasion, Bush, Hamas, Palestinian Authority

Israel is certainly one of the few nations of which it can be said that there is no “glass ceiling” for women. In addition to having had a woman Prime Minister, Israel has women in some of the top positions in government today.

So the American Jewish Congress produced a simple ad, showing three of them, and submitted it to feminist flagship Ms. Magazine (slogan: “More than a magazine — a movement”) .

American Jewish Congress ad rejected by Ms. Magazine

From an AJ Congress press release, here is what happened:

When Director of AJCongress’ Commission for Women’s Empowerment Harriet Kurlander tried to place the ad, she was told that publishing the ad “will set off a firestorm” and that “there are very strong opinions” on the subject − the subject presumably being whether or not one can say anything positive about Israel. Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal failed to respond to a signed-for certified letter with a copy of the ad as well as numerous calls by [AJ Congress President Richard] Gordon over a period of weeks.

A Ms. Magazine representative, Susie Gilligan, whom the Ms. Magazine masthead lists under the publisher’s office, told Ms. Kurlander that the magazine “would love to have an ad from you on women’s empowerment, or reproductive freedom, but not on this.” Ms. Gilligan failed to elaborate what “this” is. [my emphasis]

She doesn’t need to elaborate. We already know that there are some segments of the political spectrum where Israel is anathema. But Ms. Magazine does write about Israeli women from time to time. A search of feminist news briefs comes up with

• Women arrested for praying improperly at the Western Wall
• Israeli women who meet with Palestinian women in peace groups
• Will Israeli women get combat roles in the army?
• A rabbinical court issuing a decree that married women may not stay out past midnight

Palestinian women are covered too. In addition to the articles about peace groups (which usually blame Israel for the violence), there is one about a female Palestinian filmmaker. There is an interview with Queen Noor of Jordan, who disapproves of honor killings (and blames Israel for the violence), but nothing about beatings and murders of ‘scandalously’ dressed women by Islamist fanatics in Gaza, or women forced to become suicide bombers. One would think that there is plenty for “the movement” to become outraged about.

Technorati Tags: Ms. Magazine, Israel, American Jewish Congress

After separate meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas today, President Bush said the following:

…both sides need to fulfill their commitments under the road map…

I reiterate my appreciation for the Arab League peace initiative. And I call upon the Arab countries to reach out to Israel, a step that is long overdue.

He appreciates it. That is different from approving of it or calling for its implementation. But it is something more than ignoring it and a lot more than rejecting it. Mr. Bush also mentioned the initiative positively in his speech of July 2007.

As you may remember, the Arab League (or Saudi) peace initiative calls for 1) Israel to withdraw from all territories captured in 1967, 2) a ‘just’ settlement of the refugee problem in accordance with UN Resolution 194 and which is agreeable to the refugees’ host countries, and 3) the creation of a Palestinian state in the territories with its capital in East Jerusalem.

In return, Israel will get a peace agreement, the Arabs will “provide for the security of all states in the region”, and Israel will get “normal relations”, whatever they are (they are not ‘recognition’).

The Saudi and Egyptian understanding of the proposal is that Israel will get nothing until all three conditions have been met, and that there is no room to negotiate anything except how it will be implemented.

I’ve analyzed this proposal in detail in my post “The Arab initiative, as it stands, is a document of surrender“, so I won’t go into detail here.

It appears hard to reconcile Mr. Bush’s stated desire for both sides to meet their “roadmap obligations”, which seem to include the Palestinians taking action against terrorism, with a plan that requires the Arab side to do absolutely nothing until Israel has given up everything they want.

Unfortunately the roadmap calls for Israel to do concrete things (dismantle outposts, remove roadblocks, and withdraw from certain areas) and for Palestinians to “undertake” and “commence” to do things. They are not required to actually achieve anything. The requirements will be fulfilled as soon as the State Department, the Quartet, or whomever, decides that they are. So this doesn’t really contradict the Arab League initiative.

Mr. Bush concludes as follows:

No agreement and no Palestinian state will be born of terror…

The establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it. And it will enhance the stability of the region, and it will contribute to the security of the people of Israel.

I should issue a Reality Inversion Alert over this comment! The actions of the leaders and people of Palestine have made it abundantly clear that they do not deserve a state. They have created no functional governing institutions besides clans and gangs, they have taken billions in aid without building any economic infrastructure, they have been consistently dishonest about their goals, and their preferred means of achieving them has been terrorism.

The establishment of the Palestinian state and concomitant withdrawal of the IDF from the territories will be disastrous for the security of Israel and for the stability of the region, because the process is being approached backwards: they are being given arms, money and ultimately sovereignty before they have developed the basic institutions of civil society, and while a powerful and highly disruptive faction — Hamas — is totally ignored.

If Mr. Bush’s actual goal were peace and stability, then he would approach it by taking steps to discourage the Palestinian belief that they can and will reverse the outcome of the 1948 war — rather than embracing the Arab League initiative, which promotes it.

Technorati Tags: Bush, Israel, Palestinians

President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert held a joint news conference in Israel yesterday. Here are some excerpts from Mr. Bush’s statements and my comments. You can read the full text, including PM Olmert’s remarks, here.

PM Olmert with Presidents Bush and Peres

PRESIDENT BUSH: It’s essential that people understand America cannot dictate the terms of what a [Palestinian] state will look like. The only way to have lasting peace, the only way for an agreement to mean anything, is for the two parties to come together and make the difficult choices. But we’ll help, and we want to help. If it looks like there needs to be a little pressure, Mr. Prime Minister, you know me well enough to know I’ll be more than willing to provide it. I will say the same thing to President Abbas tomorrow, as well.

As if the application of pressure can be symmetrical! Pressure Mahmoud Abbas all he will, Mr. Bush cannot cause him to control Hamas or give up his demand for right of return. Can he even stop the terrorism his own al-Aqsa brigades and disarm all the gangs associated with Fatah? Maybe that should be a first requirement, before anything else.

In the rest of my trip I will be talking about the opportunity for Middle Eastern peace, and remind people in the neighborhood that if they truly want to see two states living side by side in peace, they have an obligation, Arab leaders have an obligation to recognize Israel’s important contribution to peace and stability in the Middle East, and to encourage and support the Palestinians as they make tough choices.

Why did he use the strange phrase “recognize Israel’s important contribution to peace and stability in the Middle East”? Why not just say recognize Israel as a legitimate state in the Middle East?

We also talked about Iran. Iran is a threat to world peace. There was a recent intelligence report that came out that I think sent the signal to some that said perhaps the United States does not view an Iran with a nuclear weapon as serious — as a serious problem. And I want to remind people, Mr. Prime Minister, what I said at the press conference when I discussed that National Intelligence Estimate. I said then that Iran was a threat, Iran is a threat, and Iran will be a threat if the international community does not come together and prevent that nation from the development of the know-how to build a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Bush no longer says that he will not permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Now it’s the job of the “international community”.

A country which once had a secret program can easily restart a secret program. A country which can enrich for civilian purposes can easily transfer that knowledge to a military program. A country which has made statements that it’s made about the security of our friend, Israel, is a country that needs to be taken seriously. And the international community must understand with clarity the threat that Iran provides to world peace.

Quite right, as I wrote in my post, “The NIE: Read past the first line“. So why did the Bush Administration approve of the clear signal sent by the release of the NIE with its deliberately misleading implication that Iran was not a nuclear threat?

And we will continue to work with European countries, Russia and China, as well as nations in this neighborhood, to make it abundantly clear that — the threat that Iran poses for world peace.

But in effect, you already told them the opposite.

Let me remind you what the NIE actually said…So no matter how you might have interpreted the NIE, I interpreted it to mean you better take the Iranians’ threat seriously.

Then why was it released in the form that it was?

…I have always told the American people that I believe it’s incumbent upon the American President to solve problems diplomatically. And that’s exactly what we’re in the process of doing. I believe that pressure — economic pressure, financial sanctions — will cause the people inside of Iran to have to make a considered judgment about whether or not it makes sense for them to continue to enrich or face world isolation.

The US will not attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons by non-diplomatic means.

(more…)