Skip to main content

View Diary: Israel redeploys as it announces 7 hour Monday cease-fire (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Interesting how Egypt, Saudi Arabia, (5+ / 0-)

    Jordan, UAE are going along with Israel's actions against Hamas.  

    •  If they were smart (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Victor Ward, TLS66

      they'd institute an immediate evacuation point at Rafah and open the damn crossing.  They could have their cake and eat it too.  And Israel would still be free to engage Hamas.

      •  except Sissi is going to do nothing to help (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PeterHug, Victor Ward

        Hamas as he is still busy suppressing the MB and other dissidents.  In his view, admitting Gazan refugees would just exacerbate his own problems

        •  They wouldn't be helping Hamas (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too, Victor Ward, dcg2, Jersey Jon

          They'd be taking Hamas' hostage away from them, and leaving Israel free to pursue the fighting remnant cleanly.  They could even enlist international support to manage and care for the refugees and provide security for their stay in the Sinai.  The US and EU certainly wouldn't turn them down; Turkey, the Gulf States would jump at the chance to get involved.   All the while, they could say they're offering sanctuary from a brutal Israel's rampage in Gaza.

          •  are you suggesting bringing the Palestinians to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward

            the US or are you suggesting yet another refugee camp such as the ones we have had for over 40 years?

            •  You'll need camps to start (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Victor Ward, dcg2, Jersey Jon

              if for no other reason than to receive and provide initial care.  At that point, and this applies to all refugees from all war zones, people need to be given the choice to resettle.  That choice must come with absolutely every assurance that authorities will facilitate relocation back to their homelands should they desire to do so.  

              We know how to do this, but we always fuck up the second part because of otherwise forgettable acts of xenophobia reminiscent of and related to the undocumented immigration issue.  

              •  camps where? Sissi would never agree to (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Victor Ward

                camps in the Sinai; he already has enough security headaches there with several insurgencies operating in the area and doing sabotage from time to time.  He would view any Palestinian camp as a front for the MB and a recruiting station.  Jordan would never agree to camps since their population is already 50% Palestinian and Abdullah II would never agree to increasing that population.

                Also when you mention resettlement, do you mean Gaza?  After all, if the situation remains the same, Hamas will retool or its successor will be even more radical.  We are seeing this with the Tamil Tigers who were completely destroyed by the military (along with a lot of noncombatants) but it appears they will reemerge at some point, being funded by a generous ex-pat community

                •  Why not? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Victor Ward

                  Especially if he gets a significant infusion of reinforcements for his trouble?  Resettlement, if actually offered and implemented, will take care of the vast majority that have little desire to stick around camps.  If it doesn't, then clearly the reinforcement must be adjusted to secure the population from predation by extremist groups.  

                  Fine, let's scratch Egypt off the list or at least suspect they'll have very rigorous screening processes.  That still leaves most of the Med and of course the US.

                  I'm not even contemplating Jordan; the only place where refugees can likely get to in any meaningful amount of time and without involving Israel is Sinai.

                  •  indeed (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rduran

                    The USA and the European Union should absolutely accept more palestinian refugees.

                    As recently as 2009, the USA had a policy of not admitting refugees from the occupied territories. I don't know if this policy is still in place.

                    While the US generally doesn't accept Palestinians, Todd Pierce, a spokesman for the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, says that the Iraqi population of Palestinians falls under a different category from those in Gaza and the West Bank. Each applicant will be carefully scrutinized for terrorist ties, he adds.

                    The US reluctance to accept Palestinians is because it "doesn't want the refugee program to become an issue in its relationship with Israel," says a diplomat in the region, who requested anonymity because he is not cleared to talk to the press. But these Palestinians, he says, will be processed as refugees from Iraq.

                    Risking Israel's ire, US takes 1,350 Palestinian refugees
                    Christian Science Monitor. July 8, 2009
                    •  I think that article's a load of crap (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dcg2

                      Israel has never publicly stated anything about resettling Palestinian refugees.  In fact, it would be odd, given that their most rabid, xenophobic elements in fact support emigration of Palestinians abroad (see the latest flare up surrounding Moshe Fleigin).  

                      The source for the "ire" headline is an "anonymous diplomat in the region."  Depending on who you think he or she represents, you can dream up any number of reasons for why one would drop a line like that--regardless of whether or not it's true.

                    •  To be clear, it's plainly obvious (0+ / 0-)

                      that the US has a policy of not resettling Palestinians.  I suspect that has more to do with our resident xenophobes than Israel's.

                •  The Tamil Tigers (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Victor Ward

                  present a considerably different tactical problem than Hamas in Gaza, if only because the orders of magnitude gap in surface area and the obvious differences in terrain.  If Israel can effectively destroy Hamas, she only need deal with follow-on threats in urbanized region barely half the size of New York City.  Ultimately, the only long term solution is a Palestinian police force that's willing and able to tackle extremists, and that will require the lifting of the blockade.

                  But for Israel, the currently entrenched enemy will have to go first.

          •  What they seem to want (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dallasdunlap

            Is for Gazans to be so damned miserable that they turn against Hamas.

            •  If that's the case (0+ / 0-)

              then open the Rafah crossing.

              •  The line they are peddling (0+ / 0-)

                Is that Hamas is ultimately to blame for Israel's action.  So, Egypt is going to keep the crossing closed to maximize suffering in Gaza while trying to convince Gazans that things would be better if they abandoned Hamas.

                •  So give Egypt another option (0+ / 0-)

                  Now Cairo can be viewed as the saviors of the Gazan people while leaving Israel to do the dirty work.  

                  •  They'd only be viewed as saviors (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cybrestrike, dallasdunlap

                    If they intervened militarily against Israel.  That's not going to happen.

                    •  Explain how (0+ / 0-)

                      the world would fail to applaud Egypt for for generously providing sanctuary to Gazan refugees?

                      •  Egypt is not concerned with being applauded (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cybrestrike

                        Providing sanctuary for refugees allows Hamas members to slip out of Gaza and lay the groundwork for future activity.  They don't care about the humanitarian issues in Gaza so long as they can keep the militants from escaping into Egypt.  This is probably a non-negotiable point, so any alternative you come up with must address this issue.  Neither Egypt or Israel seek to kill Gazans for the sake of killing Gazans, it's just that their utilitarian calculus holds a Hamas death to be equal to several Gazan lives.

                        Sanctuary also does nothing towards making Gazans resentful towards Hamas.  

                        •  The Egyptian government (0+ / 0-)

                          is concerned with public opinion where it concerns Israel, and has to balance its confrontation with Hamas with its perceived collaboration with Israel.

                          Militants are already escaping into Egypt, so the question is whether the evacuation can proceed in a way that does not materially increase that outflow of Hamas, does not require much in the way of Egypt's expense, and still permits Egypt to say its doing something for the Gazans to its people.  All in a way that profits Sisi personally.

                          The obvious solution is to bribe the guy into letting an international force do the heavy lifting.  

                          •  And part of that solution (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cybrestrike

                            Is to keep the border closed so that Hamas is penned in.  Egypt really set this up by closing down the smuggling tunnels and making things worse in Gaza so that Hamas became desperate.

                            This entire conflict is the result of people doing rational things that make sense from their perspective.

                          •  Defeats the point of sending the force (0+ / 0-)

                            in the first place, a force sufficiently powerful that it can secure the crossing, process evacuees, secure them at evacuation centers and prepare most of them for resettlement outside of Egypt.

          •  Murdering hundreds and thousands of people (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            protectspice

            and deporting the rest is pretty much what genocide is.
               If the Israelis could force the population to leave Gaza, they would never get back in. It would eliminate the Palestinians as a people.
               I would support admitting the Palestinians to the US, if there were no other way for them to escape death. But I'm sure that the very same people who are cheering on the mass murder would also balk at admitting a large voting bloc here.

      •  So if they evacuate on their own... (5+ / 0-)

        ...Israel and the US can pretend like it really isn't ethnic cleansing. Convenient.

        •  And there you have it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward, debedb

          Gazans have to stay under the threat of fire because some guy half way across the world has a weird notion that rescuing refugees is facilitating ethnic cleansing.

          Israel has a track record of doing nothing when hundreds of thousands of Gazans attempt reentry.

          •  "Rescuing refugees." (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            protectspice, cybrestrike

            Nice name for it. It makes it all sound so antiseptic, so sterile, so... humanitarian. Frank Luntz would approve.

            •  Well, you can continue calling it "genocide." (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              debedb

              It's not like your side hasn't debased that term enough for one month.

              •  Well, it is genocide. (3+ / 0-)

                "Your side" as you refer to it, is debasing only themselves.

              •  Small but telling point of reference. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybrestrike, Pilsner
              •  Once again: (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybrestrike, IndieGuy, protectspice

                Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
                Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
                "Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

                (a) Killing members of the group;

                (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

                (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

                (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

                (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

                http://www.preventgenocide.org/...

                •  Once again, that definition (0+ / 0-)

                  bears no resemblance to the conflict in the occupied territories.

                  •  rrduran - It's undeniable that the Israelis are (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    protectspice

                    checking off a through c.
                      And Israeli leaders and opinion makers are constantly obsessing about Palestinians (and Berbers and Ethiopians) having too many kids and worrying about what to do about it.

                     More than 8400 Palestinians have been killed by Israel since 2000. Although there have been 1700 Israelis killed in the early part of the century, since 2008 the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians either in war or terror incidents has been in double digits.
                      The Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza is 4.1 million.
                       The population of Bosnia-Herzogevina prior to the mid-1990s war was 4.4 million.
                       During the war, the Serbs killed 8000 and forced 25,000 to flee. This is universally recognized as genocide and Serbian leaders have been brought to the Hague for it.
                      Israel has killed more people and force hundreds of thousands from their homes. Please explain why Israel isn't held to the same standards as the Bosnian Serbs.

                    •  It's quite deniable, because it's fucking bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                      Israel has never sought to "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."  That Israel even has to say so is offensive.

                      To that end, Israel has fought and continues fight wars thrust upon it by vicious and genuinely genocidal--if incapable--enemies.  

                      To the extent her operations result in "killing members of the group" or "inflicting serious bodily or mental harm, Israel has conducted herself with greater care for civilian life than damn near every other fighting country in the world today.  In the space of 94 years, fewer Arabs have died or suffered injury in combat with Jews than Iraqis killed and maimed in just ten years of war.  No matter how you feel about that boondoggle, no one is seriously accusing the United States of genocide.

                      The notion that Israel has "[d]eliberately inflict[ed] on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in par" is a flat out lie.  It's also an extremely stupid lie, given that its arithmetically impossible for the excess mortality and injury due to Israel's operations in any conflict to have come close to meeting that standard.

                      To date, the only convictions for the crime of genocide in Serbia
                      pertain to the Srebrenica campaign, and prosecutors established intent because the fuckers repeatedly insisted that's precisely what they were after (along with emphasizing the point with a number of comorbid war crimes).  They went from house to house, rounding up men and boys, and under orders putting bullets in their heads.  So don't give me this bullshit about how Israel behaves just the same--that's a fucking lie.

                      Israel is held to the same standard as the Bosnian Serbs, and no serious observer would draw a false equivalence between the two.  Just as no one would accuse the United States of genocide for her incalculably damaging actions in Iraq.

        •  Palestinians (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IndieGuy, notagain, cybrestrike

          kinda have an issue with evacuating.  Historically, they fear they won't be able to return

    •  The Arab states (4+ / 0-)

      Aren't intervening on behalf of Hamas mostly because Israel is digging a deeper and deeper hole all on their own.  Cynically, they anticipate Israel will emerge out of this greatly weakened, with Israel's key alliances also weakened.  They are skeptical of Israel agreeing to any substantive negotiations, and they expect a weakened, humbled Israel will be the result of this misadventure.
      Never think they are supporting Israel because they aren't intervening.  Of course they are going along with Israel's self inflicted damage.  

      •  Bizarro World (4+ / 0-)

        The Israelis are going to come out of this weaker and that's why the Arab nations aren't giving more than lip service to support Hamas?

        I'm not seeing it.

        The Egyptians hate Hamas because they backed the Muslim Brotherhood - they're happy to seem them killed.

        The PLO/Fatah, have wanted revenge on Hamas since they were overthrown in Gaza - they're pleased to see Hamas hurt.

        Hamas' leadership is being killed, its tunnels destroyed and its arsenal degraded.

        Hamas is backed by Qatar snd Iran - enemies of the Saudis, Jordanians and most of the Gulf States.

        Menwhile, the Israeli public has pulled together to back more and more aggressive operations as they've learned of the tunnel networks, the size of the rocket arsenal and the plans for mass attacks on civilians that was supposed to occur at Rosh Hashanah.

        So, I think your "logic" is completely off.

    •  Why is it interesting? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Proteus7, too many people

      These nations have had an undeclared peace with Israel for decades, including military and economic cooperation.

      Progressive, Independent, Unitarian, Vermonter.

      by Opinionated Ed on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 05:03:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting how 4 countries ... (4+ / 0-)

      that are recipients of US largesse and have leaderships fearful of Arab Springs and Islamist movements are trying to stay on our good side. Golly, I wonder why.

      Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

      by edg on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 05:06:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you just post this same comment over and over (4+ / 0-)

      hoping someone will eventually find that the US satraps are aligned with Israel, a US ally, interesting?

    •  They want to see Hamas destroyed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sandbox, IndieGuy, cybrestrike

      Egypt especially.  Just look at what they've been doing with the Rafah border crossing and smuggling tunnels.

    •  Egypt is under a military dictatorship under (5+ / 0-)

      Sissi who overthrew Morsi.  The military is very antagonistic to the MB and has arrested 100s of its members.  Jordan is a monarchy.  There are around 3M Palestinians in Jordan or about 50% of the current population.  King Abdullah II is very concerned about an influx of more Palestinians into his kingdom: http://www.economist.com/...  and http://www.al-monitor.com/...  He is OK with anything except more Palestinians in his country.

      Saudi Arabia is a theological monarchy that represses not only its own people but also Shia' minorities in neighboring countries.  Saudi meddling in the ME is at least partially to blame for the current messes in Libya, Syria and Iraq.

      UAE are currently in the Saudi orbit or sphere of influence so they rubber stamp Saudi stances more or less.

      So why have Qatar or Turkey not signed on with the Israeli actions?  I think Turkey is the only Muslim country mentioned which has an elected government, if you exclude Gaza

    •  one a military dictatorship, another is a monarchy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike

      a third is a theological monarchy and the last is under the sway of the third and all rely on the US for largesse.  Their rulers also fear the Arab Spring.
      Better question is to ask why Qatar or Turkey have not signed on?

    •  What else can they do? The Arab countries have (0+ / 0-)

      made statements, and Egypt's military dictator is into a drive to crush the Muslim Brotherhood.
         And Israel's genocidal campaign isn't aimed at just Hamas. It's murdering thousands of civilians.

    •  They're all close US allies (0+ / 0-)

      So it's hardly surprising. They're also all dictatorships, so it's hardly surprising they'd go against the wishes of their people.

      Also, the ceasefire appears to have been broken already, unfortunately. Israel bombed a house and killed an 8 year old. Although it was right at the beginning and attacks have been reported to be down, which is a good sign. Not clear if it was a retaliation according to Israel or just an attack that happened after the ceasefire.

      No War but Class War

      by AoT on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 08:05:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site