Author Archives: Paul Woodward

The price of human domestication

Civilization is overrated — and often confused with culture, whose development predates civilization by tens of thousands of years.

The popular view is that once we started ploughing fields and building cities, we could rise above the needs of mere survival and start cultivating our higher faculties through art and science, and that did indeed happen — for a privileged few. For the mass of humanity however, civilization turned people into a herded animal.

We didn’t just domesticate plants and livestock but also human populations. And it turns out that like every other kind of domestication, the conditions suited to mass reproduction also serve as breeding grounds for harmful mutations.

For humans the vast majority of harmful mutations have occurred in the last 5-10,000 years with the highest concentration among Europeans.

redOrbit.com: In a world that’s more than 4 billion years old, humans have only existed for a fraction of that — roughly 200,000 years. In those 200,000 years of existence, not a lot is known about genetic mutation until we close in on the last 5 to 10 thousand years. It is within that time that researchers believe nearly 75 percent of gene mutations have occurred, making our DNA distinctly different now than it was way back when.

This finding has been calculated in new research from the University of Washington, published in this week’s issue of the journal Nature. The results, based on a genetic study of roughly 6,500 Americans (4,298 European-Americans and 2,217 African-Americans), were gleaned from studying 1 million single-letter variations in the human DNA code. These variations revealed that most of the mutations seen are of recent origin. And more than 86 percent of the harmful protein-coding mutations found occurred during the past 10 millennia. In all, about 14 percent of mutations identified were found to be harmful.

While the researchers found instances of harmful mutations, most were benign and had no effect on people, and a few more may even be beneficial. While each specific mutation is rare, the findings of the study suggest that the human population acquired abundance of single-nucleotide genetic variants in a relatively short time.

“Recent human history has profoundly shaped patterns of genetic variation present in contemporary populations,” study researcher Joshua Akey, of the University of Washington, told Business Insider in an email. “Our results suggest that ~90% of evolutionary deleterious variants arose in the last 200-400 generations.”

Akey said the expanding human growth in population has enabled DNA errors to occur more abruptly. He noted that people with European ancestry have shown the most of these new deleterious mutations because the population boom was more recent among Europeans, and natural selection has yet to remove them.

“There’s an enormous amount of recently arisen, rare mutations that’s directly attributable to the explosive population growth over the last two to four generations,” Akey told Business Week’s Elizabeth Lapatto in a phone interview.

The population of the planet has just soared beyond 7 billion, according to US Census Bureau data. That’s nearly triple the 1950 population of 2.5 billion. Such a rapid increase in population could allow unusual combinations of gene mutations to affect more people albeit remaining relatively rare, Akey said.

While some mutations are seen in the lettering of our genes, other mutations change the way the proteins made from those genes act. Some of these deleterious mutations can have negative impacts on humans’ ability to survive and reproduce, while others could be evolutionary fodder for improving the human race.

“Each generation, humanity incurs on the order of 10^11 new mutations,” Akey said. “The vast majority of these either have no phenotypic or functional consequences, or are deleterious. However, a small fraction are expected to be advantageous [sic].”

“What specific traits they may influence would just be pure speculation, but we can reasonably posit they exist and will be potential substrates for natural selection to act on in the future,” Akey wrote.

Akey added that as the population continues to balloon, so too will new mutations. The growing population makes it more likely that new mutations will be introduced, such as those linked to autism, leading to an increase in other diseases. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

The heart of Israel leaves no room for Palestine

Just hours before the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of granting Palestine the status of a non-member state, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “As prime minister, I will not allow the growth of another Iranian terror base in Judea and Samaria – the heart of the country – just a kilometer outside of central Jerusalem.”

The Israeli ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor repeated the same talking point in his speech before the General Assembly: “Israel remains committed to peace, but we will not establish another Iranian terror base in the heart of our country.”

The “heart of the country” both referred to is the West Bank — or Judea and Samaria as Zionists prefer to call it.

Netanyahu may claim to support a two-state solution, but even after what was billed as an historic declaration in his speech in 2009, Israel’s settlements have continued to expand “in the heart of the country” and that country is Greater Israel, not Palestine.

As the world — with the exception of a handful of countries bound by servile ties to Israel — spoke with one voice in support of the creation of a Palestinian state, Israel stuck up its middle finger in defiance and approved yet more settlements.

The New York Times reports: As the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to upgrade the Palestinians’ status Thursday night, Israel took steps toward building housing in a controversial area of East Jerusalem known as E1, where Jewish settlements have long been seen as the death knell for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A senior Israeli official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said on Friday that the decision was made late Thursday night to move forward on “preliminary zoning and planning preparations” for housing units in E1, which would connect the large settlement of Maale Adumim to Jerusalem and therefore make it impossible to connect the Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem to Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Israel also authorized the construction of 3,000 housing units in other parts of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the official said.

The prime minister’s office refused to comment on whether the settlement expansion — first reported on Twitter by a reporter for the Israeli daily Haaretz — was punishment for the Palestinians’ success in upgrading its status from nonmember observer entity to nonmember observer state at the United Nations, but it was widely seen as such. The United States, one of only eight countries that stood with Israel in voting against the Palestinians’ upgrade, has for two decades vigorously opposed construction in E1, a 3,000-acre expanse of hilly parkland where a police station was opened in 2008.

In Washington, a State Department official criticized the move. “We reiterate our longstanding opposition to settlements and East Jerusalem construction,” he said. “We believe it is counterproductive and makes it harder to resume direct negotiations and achieve a two-state outcome.”

Hagit Ofran, who runs the Settlement Watch project of Peace Now, called E1 a “deal breaker for the two-state solution” and denounced the decision as “disastrous.” [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

A dodgy nuclear graph

How long will it be before this dodgy graph is held up by familiar hands in front of the UN?

At the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the nuclear physicists, Yousaf Butt and Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress, write: This week the Associated Press reported that unnamed officials “from a country critical of Iran’s nuclear program” leaked an illustration to demonstrate that “Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.” The article stated that these officials provided the undated diagram “to bolster their arguments that Iran’s nuclear program must be halted.”

The graphic has not yet been authenticated; however, even if authentic, it would not qualify as proof of a nuclear weapons program. Besides the issue of authenticity, the diagram features quite a massive error, which is unlikely to have been made by research scientists working at a national level.

The image released to the Associated Press shows two curves: one that plots the energy versus time, and another that plots the power output versus time, presumably from a fission device. But these two curves do not correspond: If the energy curve is correct, then the peak power should be much lower — around 300 million ( 3×108) kt per second, instead of the currently stated 17 trillion (1.7 x1013) kt per second. As is, the diagram features a nearly million-fold error.

This diagram does nothing more than indicate either slipshod analysis or an amateurish hoax.

In any case, the level of scientific sophistication needed to produce such a graph corresponds to that typically found in graduate- or advanced undergraduate-level nuclear physics courses.

While such a graphic, if authentic, may be a concern, it is not a cause for alarm. And it certainly is not something proscribed by the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran, nor any other international agreements to which Iran is a party. No secrets are needed to produce the plot of the explosive force of a nuclear weapon — just straightforward nuclear physics.

Though the image does not imply that computer simulations were actually run, even if they were, this is the type of project a student could present in a nuclear-science course. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

A desperate push to prop up Abbas

The Guardian reports: Britain is prepared to back a key vote recognising Palestinian statehood at the United Nations if Mahmoud Abbas pledges not to pursue Israel for war crimes and to resume peace talks.

Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has called for Britain’s backing in part because of its historic responsibility for Palestine. The government has previously refused, citing strong US and Israeli objections and fears of long-term damage to prospects for negotiations.

On Monday night, the government signalled it would change tack and vote yes if the Palestinians modified their application, which is to be debated by the UN general assembly in New York later this week. As a “non-member state”, Palestine would have the same status as the Vatican.

Whitehall officials said the Palestinians were now being asked to refrain from applying for membership of the international criminal court or the international court of justice, which could both be used to pursue war crimes charges or other legal claims against Israel.

Abbas is also being asked to commit to an immediate resumption of peace talks “without preconditions” with Israel. The third condition is that the general assembly’s resolution does not require the UN security council to follow suit.

The US and Israel have both hinted at possible retaliation if the vote goes ahead. Congress could block payments to the Palestinian Authority and Israel might freeze tax revenues it transfers under the 1993 Oslo agreement or, worse, withdraw from the agreement altogether. It could also annex West Bank settlements. Britain’s position is that it wants to reduce the risk that such threats might be implemented and bolster Palestinian moderates.

France has already signalled that it will vote yes on Thursday, and the long-awaited vote is certain to pass as 132 UN members have recognised the state of Palestine. Decisions by Germany, Spain and Britain are still pending and Palestinians would clearly prefer a united EU position as counterweight to the US.

Yossi Beilin, one of the architect of the Oslo Accords, writes: The cease-fire that ended the latest round of violence between Israel and the Palestinians has enhanced the popularity of the militant group Hamas. This extremist organization has become the only interlocutor for the Arab world, for the West and, indirectly, for Israel. But Hamas refuses to recognize Israel’s existence or to negotiate with Israelis. Meanwhile, the pragmatic Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party, is rapidly losing legitimacy and Israel’s recent strikes on Gaza will only weaken it further. Negotiating with Hamas may secure a lull, but Hamas cannot be a partner for peace.

If the world wants to express support for the Palestinian party that recognizes Israel, seeks to avoid violence, and genuinely wishes to reach a peace agreement in which a Palestinian state exists alongside — not instead of — Israel, it will have its chance later this week when Mr. Abbas makes his bid for recognition of Palestinian statehood before the United Nations. If American and Israeli opposition to a Palestinian bid continues, it could serve as a mortal blow to Mr. Abbas, and end up being a prize that enhances the power and legitimacy of Hamas.

Beilin claims Hamas refuses to negotiate with Israel and yet he does so in the context of Hamas’s recent negotiations with Israel — a ceasefire agreement and before that the release of Gilad Shilat in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, both deals negotiated in Egypt. Moreover, Hamas’s political leader, Khalid Meshaal, has repeatedly stated that his organization would accept the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders if this has popular support among the Palestinian people.

The real issue that Israel, the E.U., and the U.S. are up against is their unwillingness to accept the fact that Palestinian political leaders cannot be both legitimate in the eyes of the Palestinian people and subservient to Israel.

Facebooktwittermail

The White House’s rush to formalize its extrajudicial killing program

President Obama insists that his right to kill anyone anywhere is based on law, but if the legal basis for his assassination program is so strong, why would there be any need to write a “rules” on how it gets carried out? The crafting of rules after 2,500 people have already been killed suggests two things:

1. That the process through which Obama’s kill list has been developed and applied, has to some degree been ad hoc in its nature, and

2. that the legality of this program is highly contestable — in other words, that the White House’s partially drafted rule book is nothing more than a legal fig leaf.

The New York Times reports:

Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.

The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6. But with more than 300 drone strikes and some 2,500 people killed by the Central Intelligence Agency and the military since Mr. Obama first took office, the administration is still pushing to make the rules formal and resolve internal uncertainty and disagreement about exactly when lethal action is justified.

Mr. Obama and his advisers are still debating whether remote-control killing should be a measure of last resort against imminent threats to the United States, or a more flexible tool, available to help allied governments attack their enemies or to prevent militants from controlling territory.

Though publicly the administration presents a united front on the use of drones, behind the scenes there is longstanding tension. The Defense Department and the C.I.A. continue to press for greater latitude to carry out strikes; Justice Department and State Department officials, and the president’s counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, have argued for restraint, officials involved in the discussions say.

More broadly, the administration’s legal reasoning has not persuaded many other countries that the strikes are acceptable under international law. For years before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States routinely condemned targeted killings of suspected terrorists by Israel, and most countries still object to such measures. [Continue reading…]

The Guardian adds: Human-rights groups and peace groups opposed to the CIA-operated targeted-killing programme, which remains officially classified, said the administration had already rejected international law in pursuing its drone operations.

“To say they are rewriting the rulebook implies that there isn’t already a rulebook” said Jameel Jaffer, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Center for Democracy. “But what they are already doing is rejecting a rulebook – of international law – that has been in place since [the second world war].”

He said the news was “frustrating”, because it relied on “self-serving sources”. The New York Times piece was written by one of the journalists who first exposed the existence of a White House “kill list”, in May.

The ACLU is currently involved in a legal battle with the US government over the legal memo underlying the controversial targeted killing programme, the basis for drone strikes that have killed American citizens and the process by which individuals are placed on the kill list.

Jaffer said it was impossible to make a judgement about whether the “rulebook” being discussed, according to the Times, was legal or illegal.

“It is frustrating how we are reliant on self-serving leaks” said Jaffer. “We are left with interpreting shadows cast on the wall. The terms that are being used by these officials are undefined, malleable and without definition. It is impossible to know whether they are talking about something lawful or unlawful.

“We are litigating for the release of legal memos. We don’t think the public should have to reply on self-serving leaking by unnamed administrative officials.”

Facebooktwittermail

The written word — an ancient tool of oppression

The advent of writing is generally viewed in terms of its significance as a cultural advance — less attention is given to its political implications. Yet it looks like the most important function writing originally served was in the management of slavery and the regulation of society.

The BBC’s Sean Coughlan reports on efforts to understand proto-Elamite, the world’s oldest undeciphered writing system, which was used in an area that is now in south-western Iran over 5,000 years ago. The script was imprinted in clay tablets.

These were among the first attempts by our human ancestors to try to make a permanent record of their surroundings. What we’re doing now – my writing and your reading – is a direct continuation.

But there are glimpses of their lives to suggest that these were tough times. It wasn’t so much a land of milk and honey, but porridge and weak beer.

Even without knowing all the symbols, Dr [Jacob] Dahl [director of the Ancient World Research Cluster at Oxford University] says it’s possible to work out the context of many of the messages on these tablets.

The numbering system is also understood, making it possible to see that much of this information is about accounts of the ownership and yields from land and people. They are about property and status, not poetry.

This was a simple agricultural society, with a ruling household. Below them was a tier of powerful middle-ranking figures and further below were the majority of workers, who were treated like “cattle with names”.

Their rulers have titles or names which reflect this status – the equivalent of being called “Mr One Hundred”, he says – to show the number of people below him.

It’s possible to work out the rations given to these farm labourers.

Dr Dahl says they had a diet of barley, which might have been crushed into a form of porridge, and they drank weak beer.

The amount of food received by these farm workers hovered barely above the starvation level.

However the higher status people might have enjoyed yoghurt, cheese and honey. They also kept goats, sheep and cattle.

For the “upper echelons, life expectancy for some might have been as long as now”, he says. For the poor, he says it might have been as low as in today’s poorest countries.

If we think of writing as an observer’s record-keeping we might imagine some kind of proto-historian assuming the task of creating these first tablets, yet their content as described above makes it clear that these texts had a purely utilitarian function — they were records for the ruling class. Indeed, the creation of writing was likely one of the necessary conditions that facilitated the development and expansion of ownership.

Before the Neolithic Revolution and the first development of agriculture, as wandering hunter-gatherers, our ancestors had virtually no possessions. Without the ability to accrue personal power by being able to control material resources and stockpile food, social groupings — as can still be observed in the last remaining contemporary hunter-gatherer societies — were naturally egalitarian and cooperative.

For inequality to develop we had to stop moving around and start acquiring property and the maintenance of property required writing: a kind of spell-keeping through which an audacious idea — this is mine — could be invested in objects that lay outside the owner’s physical grasp. Writing constituted proof of ownership and the power of writing to codify inequality was no doubt enhanced by a separation between the literate and the illiterate — those who used writing and those who were used by writing.

As the record above reveals, agriculture ‘worked’ by keeping a working class on a starvation diet — fed enough to till the land and harvest the crops, but too weak to rebel against the well-fed land and slave owners. Sustained and pacified with junk food and mild intoxicants — sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

And the order which assigned bountiful rewards to a few and meager provisions for everyone else was enshrined in the written word — the representation of who owned what. Whatever could be written in stone could thereafter be treated as an unalterable fact, not subject to negotiation or easy modification.

A modern echo which also evokes a sense that a dangerous power is contained in writing is offered by the West African shaman, Malidoma Patrice Somé.

At the age of four Somé was kidnapped by Jesuit missionaries who raised and educated him. When he reached twenty, he ran away and returned to his tribal village but struggled to readjust to his native culture because he was now literate. He writes:

As an educated man I had returned [unlike the by-then-common migrant worker], not as a villager who worked for the white man, but as a white man.

It all boiled down to the simple fact that I had been changed in a way unsuitable to village life, and that transformation needed to be tamed if the village was to accept me as I was. People understood my kind of literacy as the business of whites and nontribal people. Even worse, they understood literacy as an eviction of a soul from its body — the taking over of the body by another spirit. Wasn’t the white man notorious in the village for his brutality, his lack of morality and integrity? Didn’t he take without asking and kill ruthlessly? To my people, to be literate meant to be possessed by this devil of brutality. It was not harmful to know a little, but to the elders, the ability to read, however magical it appeared, was dangerous. It made the literate person the bearer of a terrible epidemic. To read was to participate in an alien form of magic that was destructive to the tribe.

If much earlier in human evolution, language liberated imagination, yielding a world of new possibilities, writing served primarily to restrict those possibilities through the creation of laws and codified social structures. Even now, consider who wields more power with the written word: a celebrated author or a Supreme Court justice? Creative writing goes mostly unrewarded while a lawyer can earn $1,000 an hour for producing the most turgid, mind-numbing prose.

If we want to use writing but not be used by it, we must never confuse the rigid form with its fluid content. Writing solidifies language, but the power of language resides in its constant malleability. Words should be chewed, not swallowed whole.

Facebooktwittermail

The fate of the species

Charles C. Mann writes: About 75,000 years ago, a huge volcano exploded on the island of Sumatra. The biggest blast for several million years, the eruption created Lake Toba, the world’s biggest crater lake, and ejected the equivalent of as much as 3,000 cubic kilometers of rock, enough to cover the District of Columbia in a layer of magma and ash that would reach to the stratosphere. A gigantic plume spread west, enveloping southern Asia in tephra (rock, ash, and dust). Drifts in Pakistan and India reached as high as six meters. Smaller tephra beds blanketed the Middle East and East Africa. Great rafts of pumice filled the sea and drifted almost to Antarctica.

In the long run, the eruption raised Asian soil fertility. In the short term, it was catastrophic. Dust hid the sun for as much as a decade, plunging the earth into a years-long winter accompanied by widespread drought. A vegetation collapse was followed by a collapse in the species that depended on vegetation, followed by a collapse in the species that depended on the species that depended on vegetation. Temperatures may have remained colder than normal for a thousand years. Orangutans, tigers, chimpanzees, cheetahs—all were pushed to the verge of extinction.

At about this time, many geneticists believe, Homo sapiens’ numbers shrank dramatically, perhaps to a few thousand people—the size of a big urban high school. The clearest evidence of this bottleneck is also its main legacy: humankind’s remarkable genetic uniformity. Countless people have viewed the differences between races as worth killing for, but compared to other primates—even compared to most other mammals—human beings are almost indistinguishable, genetically speaking. DNA is made from exceedingly long chains of “bases.” Typically, about one out of every 2,000 of these “bases” differs between one person and the next. The equivalent figure from two E. coli (human gut bacteria) might be about one out of twenty. The bacteria in our intestines, that is, have a hundredfold more innate variability than their hosts—evidence, researchers say, that our species is descended from a small group of founders.

Uniformity is hardly the only effect of a bottleneck. When a species shrinks in number, mutations can spread through the entire population with astonishing rapidity. Or genetic variants that may have already been in existence—arrays of genes that confer better planning skills, for example—can suddenly become more common, effectively reshaping the species within a few generations as once-unusual traits become widespread.

Did Toba, as theorists like Richard Dawkins have argued, cause an evolutionary bottleneck that set off the creation of behaviorally modern people, perhaps by helping previously rare genes—Neanderthal DNA or an opportune mutation—spread through our species? Or did the volcanic blast simply clear away other human species that had previously blocked H. sapiens’ expansion? Or was the volcano irrelevant to the deeper story of human change?

For now, the answers are the subject of careful back-and-forth in refereed journals and heated argument in faculty lounges. All that is clear is that about the time of Toba, new, behaviorally modern people charged so fast into the tephra that human footprints appeared in Australia within as few as 10,000 years, perhaps within 4,000 or 5,000. Stay-at-home Homo sapiens 1.0, a wallflower that would never have interested Lynn Margulis, had been replaced by aggressively expansive Homo sapiens 2.0. Something happened, for better and worse, and we were born.

One way to illustrate what this upgrade looked like is to consider Solenopsis invicta, the red imported fire ant. Geneticists believe that S. invicta originated in northern Argentina, an area with many rivers and frequent floods. The floods wipe out ant nests. Over the millennia, these small, furiously active creatures have acquired the ability to respond to rising water by coalescing into huge, floating, pullulating balls—workers on the outside, queen in the center—that drift to the edge of the flood. Once the waters recede, colonies swarm back into previously flooded land so rapidly that S. invicta actually can use the devastation to increase its range.

In the 1930s, Solenopsis invicta was transported to the United States, probably in ship ballast, which often consists of haphazardly loaded soil and gravel. As a teenaged bug enthusiast, Edward O. Wilson, the famed biologist, spotted the first colonies in the port of Mobile, Alabama. He saw some very happy fire ants. From the ant’s point of view, it had been dumped into an empty, recently flooded expanse. S. invicta took off, never looking back.

The initial incursion watched by Wilson was likely just a few thousand individuals—a number small enough to suggest that random, bottleneck-style genetic change played a role in the species’ subsequent history in this country. In their Argentine birthplace, fire-ant colonies constantly fight each other, reducing their numbers and creating space for other types of ant. In the United States, by contrast, the species forms cooperative supercolonies, linked clusters of nests that can spread for hundreds of miles. Systematically exploiting the landscape, these supercolonies monopolize every useful resource, wiping out other ant species along the way—models of zeal and rapacity. Transformed by chance and opportunity, new-model S. invictus needed just a few decades to conquer most of the southern United States.

Homo sapiens did something similar in the wake of Toba. For hundreds of thousands of years, our species had been restricted to East Africa (and, possibly, a similar area in the south). Now, abruptly, new-model Homo sapiens were racing across the continents like so many imported fire ants. The difference between humans and fire ants is that fire ants specialize in disturbed habitats. Humans, too, specialize in disturbed habitats—but we do the disturbing. [Continue reading…]

While Mann’s long essay is duly cautious about the future because we do indeed have a great capacity to mess things up, he notes major strides in human progress — such as the widespread abolition of slavery in the nineteenth century — which he sees as an indication of our capacity for enlightened change.

I have a less sanguine view. On that specific point, the abolition of slavery, it’s worth noting that it coincided with the industrial revolution and the growth of capitalism. The more skills workers require, the less practical it becomes that they are enslaved, but this is a matter of expedience — not the liberation of human potential.

As fewer and fewer people are required to operate machines, the need to control their behavior has not diminished. The control of human hands has been supplanted by the control of human desires. The enduring fact remains: throughout the world, small groups of people exert enormous power in shaping the lives of the rest of humanity.

Because of this division, it is very hard for the controlling elite to grasp the idea that ultimately we face a common fate. There is too much historical evidence supporting the view that however much misery might prevail in the world, it will always be possible for those with sufficient resources to insulate themselves from every new peril. By the time it becomes inescapably evident that this cannot always be true, it will already be too late.

Facebooktwittermail

Netanyahu unintentionally boosts Palestinian statehood bid

If the assault on Gaza was conceived as a demonstration of a war-making prime minister’s strength as he approaches an election, Benjamin Netanyahu’s drop in the polls already indicates how big a failure Operation Pillar of Cloud quickly became — the damage to Israel’s standing will only continue.

The next big “threat” Israel faces will come in the UN where the Palestinian Authority will shortly press its bid for recognition as a non-member state. Israel is threatening to punish the Palestinians, but politically, Mahmoud Abbas cannot afford to yet again buckle to Israeli and American pressure and thus Israel’s allies now perceive the collapse of the Palestinian Authority as a more imminent danger than the symbolic move at the UN.

Ma’an reports: The European Parliament on Thursday adopted a statement expressing support for the Palestinian bid for UN recognition as a non-member state next week.

In the aftermath of the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, the parliament agreed a statement stressing “peaceful and non-violent means are the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

The parliament said in connection to this goal, it supports the bid championed by leaders in the West Bank, and “considers this an important step in making Palestinian claims more visible, stronger and more effective.”

The resolution called on European Union countries to reach agreement over their position on the bid.

Haaretz reports: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during her talks in Israel this week not to take any extreme actions in response to the Palestinian move in the United Nations for recognition as a non-member state. Clinton said such steps against the Palestinian Authority could bring about its collapse. The Palestinians are planning to ask the United Nations General Assembly to vote on upgrading its status from non-member entity on the symbolic date of November 29.

The day after the cease-fire with Hamas took effect, Israel is preparing for the next crisis with the Palestinians, which is scheduled for six days from now. November 29th is the anniversary of the United Nations vote on accepting the Partition Plan in 1947, which led to the founding of the Jewish Sate. It is also the United Nations’ International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

The Palestinians are expected to have the support of at least 150 of the 193 UN members for their bid. Israel is particularly worried about the upgraded status, since it would allow the Palestinians to also ask for membership in the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and then bring cases against Israel, such as for construction in the settlements. In an attempt to deter Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Israel threatened to respond with various punishments against the PA.

Clinton met with Netanyahu Tuesday night in Jerusalem. Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman also were present. The focus of the meeting was on the attempts to achieve a cease-fire in Gaza, but the issue of the Palestinian UN proposal was also discussed.

On Wednesday morning Clinton visited Ramallah and met with Abbas. Clinton asked him to reconsider the UN bid, or at least postpone it until after the Israeli elections. But Abbas sounded determined not to put off the UN vote, both in his meeting with Clinton and in a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon a short time later. Abbas told Clinton “the train has already left the station.” Abbas told Ban that if Israel punishes the Palestinians the day after the UN vote, “I will invite Netanyahu to the Muqata in Ramallah and I will give him the keys and go home,” said a Western diplomat.

Facebooktwittermail

Gaza ceasefire declared

A ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza was due to go into effect at 2pm Eastern, 9pm local time. With a de facto end to the siege — the Rafah border will now stay open — Hamas can reasonably declare victory.

Following is the verbatim English text of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza that was reached on Wednesday with Egyptian mediation. The text was distributed by the Egyptian presidency.

Agreement of Understanding For a Ceasefire in the Gaza Strip

1: (no title given for this section)

A. Israel should stop all hostilities in the Gaza Strip land, sea and air including incursions and targeting of individuals.

B. All Palestinian factions shall stop all hostilities from the Gaza Strip against Israel including rocket attacks and all attacks along the border.

C. 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 and procedures of implementation shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire.

D. Other matters as may be requested shall be addressed.

2: Implementation mechanisms:

A. Setting up the zero hour for the ceasefire understanding to enter into effect.

B. Egypt shall receive assurances from each party that the party commits to what was agreed upon.

C. Each party shall commit itself not to perform any acts that would breach this understanding. In case of any observations Egypt as the sponsor of this understanding shall be informed to follow up.

The Guardian reports: The agreed truce was mediated by Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi and his spy chief Mohamed Shehata after days of talks and frantic shuttle diplomacy involving regional leaders, UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon and Clinton.

Clinton had been engaged in talks with Netanyahu in Jerusalem and Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah before flying to Cairo to meet Morsi.

President Obama also intervened during a tour of Asia to call both Israel and Morsi to encourage them to find a solution.

After the announcement Obama called the Israeli PM to commend him for agreeing to the Egyptian proposal, and to promise to seek funding for a joint missile defence programme.

The agreement appeared to consist of nothing more than a simple truce and failed to address other security issues, let alone the longer-term question of reviving a long-moribund peace process.

However, an Israeli government source said that following the ceasefire agreement, an “ongoing dialogue will start within 24 hours covering underlying issues of concern to both parties”.

They include the further relaxation of border restrictions and targeted assassinations.

On borders, he said: “These restrictions were imposed in the framework of hostilities.” In the absence of hostilities, they may no longer be necessary.

Targeted assassinations, he added, were “an irrelevant question”. “If they are not attacking us, we don’t need to shoot them.”

Two other issues to be discussed in further talks were the re-arming of militant groups and the Israeli-imposed buffer zone inside the Gaza border. “The buffer zone was only introduced in the framework of hostilities,” the source said.

Facebooktwittermail

How the ‘imminent’ Gaza ceasefire unravelled

Peter Beaumont reports from Cairo: As frantic diplomatic efforts continued to secure a ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, which saw the US secretary of state, Hilary Clinton, arrive in Cairo on Wednesday vowing to work to find an end to the latest conflict, details of the stumbling blocks in the negotiations began to emerge.

On Tuesday evening, despite the continuing violence, an imminent ceasefire appeared certain to many close to the negotiations.

One diplomat who attended an event in Cairo with a number of prominent Islamist politicians was assured a truce “was in the bag” and went to sleep expecting to wake to news of a ceasefire.

But what happened in the period between when Egypt’s president, Mohamed Morsi, and a senior Hamas spokesman indicated a truce would be in force by Tuesday night is instructive of the profound problems that lie ahead in attempting to secure a meaningful long-term ceasefire.

According to those familiar with the negotiations being mediated on the Egyptian side by Morsi and General Mohamed Shehata, head of Egypt’s General Intelligence Directorate, talks had originally focused on a two- to three-stage ceasefire.

The first stage was to have been what is known as a “temporary lull” or tahdiya in Arabic followed by a hudna – a truce or calming period which it had been hoped would set the scene for a longer-term agreement on issues relating both to the blockade of Gaza and assassinations of Hamas figures on one side and Israeli security demands regarding rocket fire on the other.

During Tuesday afternoon and evening that process began unravelling as both sides came under internal pressure to achieve what has proved so difficult before: to come to a comprehensive settlement in one go. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail

A message to Tel Aviv

For several years, Israeli leaders and the public at large have nurtured the illusion that the state’s national security policies, the construction of the so-called “security fence” (better known as the Apartheid Wall) and other counter-terrorism mechanisms have made Israel safe. In reality, the Wall could not possibly have achieved that purpose — it has never been completed — moreover its actual purpose has always been somewhat transparently political as it carves into Palestinian territory.

The obvious fact is that the lull in violence since 2006 inside Israel has had as much to do would the choices of would-be attackers as it has had with the effectiveness of Israel’s efforts to thwart attacks. Indeed, the more extreme the Jewish state becomes, the more vulnerable it will be to violent reactions generated inside its own population. An ethnocracy in which 25% of the population are treated as second-class citizens inevitably ends up sacrificing freedom in the name of security.

As for today’s bus bombing, one of the most obvious conclusions to draw is that attacks on Gaza cannot continue without provoking a backlash from the West Bank. Israel’s leaders are foolish to imagine that they can politically profit by dragging out the process of reaching a ceasefire agreement.

Facebooktwittermail

How to end terrorism

Ending terrorism is much easier than most people realize. All it requires is a change in language and from that can follow a change in perceptions. That doesn’t mean adopting some kind of Obama-speak euphemism like “violent extremism” but rather an objective and descriptive term that has explanatory power.

“Terrorism” connotes random acts of violence conducted by evil, nihilistic people. As such, the problem of terrorism is reduced to the need for its eradication. But trying to eradicate terrorism is like trying to eradicate a disease without identifying the virus that causes it.

If instead of talking about “terrorism,” we talk about “political violence,” the term immediately demands consideration of the political motives which lie behind such acts of violence.

If Western governments and Israel continue to insist on referring to Hamas as a terrorist organization, they do a disservice to their own citizens and hold up a conceptual barrier that obstructs political changes — changes that would not be as difficult to effect as most people imagine.

Ed Husain writes: When I visit Jerusalem and the West Bank, I frequently ask young Arabs about their views on Hamas. In almost every discussion, Christians and Muslims alike refuse to label Hamas as a “terrorist” organization. When I raise criticism of Hamas and its targeting of innocent civilians, my comments never register. The responses are some variation of “Israel has taken over our lands and killed thousands of Arab civilians over the years. Hamas is only resisting occupation and fighting for our rights.”

I hear similar sentiments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even non-Arab Pakistan. Al-Jazeera Arabic gives prominence to the popular Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has repeatedly called suicide bombings against Israelis not terrorism, but “martyrdom.” He argues that since Israelis all serve in the military, they are not civilians. Even children, he despicably argues, are not innocent. They would grow up to serve in the military. Qaradawi is not alone.

I can name tens of Muslim clerics, important formulators of public opinion in a region dominated by religion, that will readily condemn acts of terrorism against the West, but will fall silent when it comes to condemning Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Put simply, support for violent resistance against Israel among Arab and Muslim-majority countries — including allies of the United States such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia — remains popular.

Hamas benefits from that support. From radical Iran to moderate Tunisia, Hamas’ Prime Minister Ismail Haniyyeh was welcomed by vast cheering crowds during visits this year.

In a new Middle East, where popular opinion matters more than ever before, to demand that people condemn Hamas is a political nonstarter. It won’t happen. Israel’s talk of Hamas terrorism has failed to convince the Muslim and Arab masses. And worse, the label of “terror” loses its importance when entire populations, essentially, see nothing wrong with Hamas’s violent activities.

In short, Israel’s strategy has failed to win Muslim hearts and minds. In the long term, it cannot continue to rely on military superiority and Western support in the face of popular hostility. Israel is a nation in the Middle East, and it needs to find a home and place among its increasingly democratic neighbors. The old ideas of “we do not talk to terrorists” are not only strategically futile, but also untrue.

In order to secure the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, Israelis (in both official and unofficial capacities) negotiated with Hamas. In spite of the Netanyahu government’s bluster about refusing to deal with Hamas now, securing a cease-fire involves doing exactly that with the help of Egypt’s new Islamist government.

In the past, Israel refused to talk with the PLO and Yasser Arafat, and in 1988, despite Israel’s intransigence, the United States opened a dialogue with the PLO and thereby helped steer the organization to its nonviolent politics today. Similar examples abound in recent history from South Africa, where Margaret Thatcher once called the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela terrorists, to Northern Ireland’s Sinn Fein.

In short, when the political calculations shift, the actions of terrorists are altered. Lest we forget, George Washington was labeled a terrorist by the British. But that label carried little weight amid his support base in America.

Facebooktwittermail

The safer Israel is, the more dangerous it becomes

When it’s the season for Israelis to slaughter Palestinians, Barack Obama likes to go on vacation.

In 2009, as Israel rained down bombs and missiles on Gaza, the president-elect relaxed on the beaches and played golf in Hawaii. This time the Nobel Peace Prize winner has found time for rejuvenation in the tranquil ambiance of Mynamar’s Buddhist temples.

Whatever fears Israelis may have had about the president’s re-election have all been duly pacified. Indeed, his popularity in the Jewish state has probably never been higher.

In Haaretz, Chemi Shalev writes:

Obama’s response to Operation Pillar of Defense has been impeccable, from an Israeli point of view: sympathetic, supportive and understanding. The right-wing Zionist Organization of America tried to salvage some remains from Obama’s alleged anti-Israel animus by complaining that he hadn’t “personally” condemned Hamas, but even that grievance lasted only 24 hours after Obama stated his position on-camera during the first leg of his tour of Asia.

If there’s been any “daylight” between Israel and the U.S., it has been only a small sliver. Obama has upheld Israel’s right to self-defense and has refrained from any outright criticism of the assault on Gaza, even after an entire 12 member Palestinian family was wiped out as a result of an erroneous air force attack. He has remained steadfast in his support for almost a week, surprising many of his right-wing critics and dismaying some of his supporters on the left.

True, Obama has been urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to refrain from a ground assault, but most Israelis, including Netanyahu himself, share Obama’s apprehension that such a development would inflict much heavy casualties on both sides, inflame the volatile Arab world and possibly expand the conflict to other arenas. In this regard, Obama was simply preaching to the converted.

More importantly, Obama is also the beneficiary of Israel’s starry-eyed love affair with its Iron Dome anti-missile system, which has enjoyed spectacular success in protecting Israeli citizens from Hamas missiles. The ingenious Israeli development, which could potentially change the ground rules of modern warfare, was bankrolled by the Obama Administration to the tune of $274 million, with over $600 million pledged for the next three years.

Obama has expressed his commitment to Israel’s security with such insistence it appears to be a priority of no less importance than his duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, the idea that Israel’s security serves American interests is viewed within Washington’s establishment as an axiomatic truth and a pillar of global peace. Like many religious beliefs it is held unquestioned in the absence of any supporting evidence. In the six decades of its existence, Israel’s security has grown inexorably yet from its inception this has remained a state in near-perpetual war.

Yousef Munayyer writes:

For decades, the ideas put forward by Ze’ev Jabotinsky in his 1923 essay “The Iron Wall” have shaped the way that many Israelis have approached their relationship with the Palestinians. Jabotinsky, the ideological forefather of Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing Likud party, believed that it was naïve to think that the native Arabs would ever accept what he identified as “Zionist colonization.” Thus, he concluded, the only way that the Zionist project could succeed was through the use of force—“an iron wall which the native population cannot break through.”

What has transpired in Gaza over the past several days, and what has transpired in Palestine over the last century, has proven Jabotinsky and his modern day protégés both right and wrong. They are right to believe that the native Palestinian Arabs will not give up their right to the land or to full equality; they are not simply going to go away. But they are wrong to believe that this challenge can be solved by force.

Over the course of a twenty-three-day campaign four years ago, Israel embarked on operation “Cast Lead” to end projectile fire from Gaza. Then, fourteen hundred Palestinians were killed and thousands more were wounded, most of them civilians. Gaza was devastated, and Hamas was temporarily weakened, as its leadership was aggressively targeted for assassination. (Thirteen Israelis died, too.) Yet the resistance was not broken; this time, projectiles reached Tel Aviv.

What is most disturbing is the way that the Israeli leadership has taken to seeing this not as a failure, but as a lifestyle. In Israel, they talk of “mowing the lawn” in Gaza, a callous idiom used to refer to the periodic bombardment of a besieged territory in the hopes of reducing the capacity of militant groups every few years. Each time they “mow,” however, they sow seeds of hatred for the next generation. How successful, morally or militarily, is a war whose repetition is planned?

If success is measured by the ability to prevent future wars, then Israel’s wars have clearly all been failures.

But where is the evidence that Israel has ever believed it could exist in peace? On the contrary, if wars might have once seemed to be a regrettable necessity for a nation that sees itself existing in a sea of enmity, war-making has indeed become part of the Israeli lifestyle. And thanks to America’s commitment to Israel’s security, this lifestyle is one which involves ever diminishing risks.

As the Instagram pictures circulating among young Israeli soldiers attest, the prospect of heading to Gaza provokes more glee than fear — and with good reason. During Operation Cast Lead in which 1,400 Palestinians lost their lives, after 20,000 Israeli soldiers entered Gaza just six were killed by enemy fire.

'We're coming for you gaza!'

For the world’s most militarized nation, the strength and invulnerability that has derived in large part from the unfettered supply of U.S. aid and U.S. commitment to ensuring Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge has provided the physical buttress to a religious conviction: that Israel is protected by God.

Ariel Siegelman, the Israeli-American soldier who features in the video above, writes:

After the Second Lebanon War, we learned some very valuable lessons. We learned that we had been living in an imaginary world and that the most dangerous type of war is the one that you call peace. We learned that we are not in fact in a ‘peace process’ at all. We are at war.

Today the question is still asked, ‘But how do we WIN?’ And that is another question coming directly from a Western mindset. There is no such thing as winning in this new kind of war. The war is ongoing, with periods of more violence and periods of less violence, during which the enemy regroups and plans his next attack. When we feel the enemy is getting strong, we must be prepared to make preemptive strikes, hard and fast at key targets, with viciousness, as the enemy would do to us. Only then can we acquire, not peace, but sustained periods of relative calm.

The lesson from Operation Cast Lead has been that Israel has no need to destroy Hamas or even prevent rocket fire from Gaza. All it needs is sustained American support — support which Obama duly provided without hesitation upon the launch of Operation Pillar of Cloud — and once every few years a new generation of Israelis can go through a rite of passage in which they are anointed as the newest members of the state’s warrior caste. Such rites of passage will remain popular among the participants and the Israeli public at large so long as Israel’s military continues to improve its ability to inflict pain without sustaining pain. Thus, while Israelis overwhelmingly support the current assault on Gaza only a minority favor sending troops in on the ground.

What American commitment to Israel’s security has done is not to protect a vulnerable state in a dangerous neighborhood, but rather to empower a sense of divinely ordained invulnerability: the sense that Israel can strike its enemies with impunity.

The successful testing of its defensive shields, rather than merely ensuring that Israelis can live without fear of attack, will inevitably lower the threshold for Israel’s own acts of aggression. The safer Israel becomes, the greater the threat it poses to everyone else.

Facebooktwittermail

Hamas, Gaza, and the Arab Spring — an interview with Mark Perry

Ismail Haniyah and Khaled Meshaal

No one in Washington has a better understanding of Hamas than Mark Perry. He’s been in communication with the Palestinian resistance movement’s leadership for much of the last two decades.

As bombs rain down on Gaza we are again reminded of the ruthlessness with which Israel controls and takes away the lives of Palestinians, but at such a juncture there seems to be all the more reason to try and understand Israel’s nemesis in Gaza. This morning I posed a few questions to Mr Perry that, at least to my mind, seem to have been left out from much of the analysis of the current conflict.

Paul Woodward: As the latest Israeli assault on Gaza has unfolded, there has been a considerable amount of speculation about how this plays into Benjamin Netanyahu’s political calculations as he approaches elections in Israel due to take place in January. Much less has been said about the political contest currently taking place inside Hamas. Can you describe that contest and talk about how this might have affected the choices being made by the Hamas leadership inside Gaza?

Mark Perry

Mark Perry: The Hamas leadership has been embroiled in a difficult internal debate that is both ideological and personal. On the one side is Ismail Haniyah and his Gaza allies, who believe that the movement should align itself more closely with Iran and take a harder line on reconciliation with Fatah. On the other side is Khaled Meshaal, the head of the movement, and his political allies. Meshaal has a more internationalist vision — and one that takes account of the shifts inside the Arab polity, and inside the movement itself.

The disagreement surfaced in August of last year when Hamas signaled its disapproval of Bashar Assad’s handling of the Syrian uprising by refusing to mount demonstrations among Palestinians in Syrian on his behalf. The movement then moved its headquarters from Damascus. Mr Haniyeh took exception to this decision and criticized the politburo for their actions. Then, in February, Meshaal and Haniyah had a confrontation over Haniyah’s decision to travel to Tehran to show “solidarity” with the “Axis of Resistance.” Meshaal attempted to dissuade him from making the visit. Haniyah attended the conference, but his subsequent visit to other Arab capitals, was not a success. They signaled their disapproval of his views, allowing him to meet with only minor officials.

Haniyah also strongly disagreed with Meshaal’s handling of the reconciliation negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas. Meshaal took a more moderate line with Fatah than his Gaza colleagues, believing the continued divisions between the two movements could become permanent — and fatal to the Palestinian national cause. Haniyah accused him of making unilateral decisions without seeking consensus among his colleagues.

While it’s difficult to know exactly how this has played out on the ground in the recent crisis, Haniyah and his allies have worked to strengthen their claims of being the most credible leaders of Palestinian resistance — a claim that has been enhanced by Israel’s recent offensive. Ironically, or perhaps not (especially for those of us who follow this kind of thing), Israel singled out for assassination a Hamas leader in Gaza who was closer to Meshaal’s vision than Haniyeh’s. That is to say: Israel’s assassination strengthened Hamas’s radical wing. But then, perhaps, “they shall have wars, and pay for their presumption.”

Woodward: With the Muslim Brotherhood now in power in Egypt, why has the border with Gaza remained mostly closed?

Perry: I have a tentative and unsatisfactory answer. The Sinai is a security mess for Egypt’s new government, their economy is in crisis, the salafist current remains remarkably resilient, the Gaza leadership remains unpredictable and the last thing that President Morsi needs is a fight with Israel. Morsi is not Mubarak, he supports the Palestinian cause. But just now, he prefers quiet. He gets that by controlling the border, not throwing it open. And without stability, Egypt’s economy will be finished — and so will he.

Woodward: Qatar just promised to invest $400 million in Gaza. It looks like that probably won’t be enough to even cover the cost of the damage from Israel’s latest airstrikes. As much as the Qataris along with Hamas’s other nominal allies might voice their support for the Palestinian resistance, do you think the latest violence will make it more difficult for Hamas to secure financial support?

Perry: Hamas has made its choice. It had to choose between Assad and the Syrian people, and it chose the Syrian people. It had to choose Iran’s money or its own principles, and it chose its principles. It did this long before Qatar came to its aid. This is not the hallmark of a radical group bent on violence and terror. It is the sign of a mature political movement that represents the best interests of the Palestinian people.

We need to recognize what has happened in the Arab world — both within Arab governments as well as inside its most important political movements. The Arab Spring has taken hold, top to bottom, through all of these societies. Hamas’s leadership, to their credit, has responded to these changes by adopting policies in line with the views of the vast majority of their people: for accountability and transparency. This is not a perfect organization led by charm school graduates, but it is capable of making rational and politically mature decisions.

This pragmatism and maturity is not a secret to other regional leaders. Khaled Meshaal is welcome in Ankara, Cairo and Doha — where his views are solicited. Israelis read his speeches and talk to his followers: by arresting them in order to do so. I believe that he, and the people around him, hold the key to resolving the longest standing and most intransigent conflict in the region.

In Iraq, our senior military commanders determined that we could “not shoot our way to victory” and shaped a political opening to the insurgency. In so doing, we extracted ourselves from a divisive, bankrupting and spirit sapping war. Why not do that now? We can maintain our strong support of Israel, but we should not allow them to hold our interests in the region, and our friendship with badly needed Arab allies, hostage to their decisions.

My belief is that, when this crisis subsides, Arab governments will throw money at Hamas.

Woodward: Having severed its ties to Syria, how much support does Hamas still get from Iran?

Perry: The shift away from Iran has been significant. The last monetary support that Hamas received from Iran was in March. The movement then announced that they would not be a party to any future Iranian-Israeli conflict.

You hear all the time that Hamas is an Iranian proxy. It’s not true. And it’s not true when it comes to Hamas’s rocket arsenal. I am very skeptical of reports about Hamas’s capabilities. Let’s not kid ourselves, compared to Israel, their weapons are primitive. Hamas has reportedly received Fajr 3 and Fajr 5 rockets from Iran smuggled through the Sudan. I assume the reports are reliable, but even so Hamas has no more than 70 to 100 of them, and probably fewer now.

No one is denying that a rocket fired from Gaza is lethal. But the idea that Hamas is specifically targeting Israeli civilians with these rockets is preposterous. The rockets have no sophisticated guidance systems, but are cobbled together in Gaza workshops from parts received elsewhere, stuck into tubes and then “fired in the general direction” of Israel.

Woodward: Beyond the goal of survival, what do you think Hamas’s aims are right now?

Perry: To retain and strengthen its position as the premier Palestinian political movement. But its moderate leadership knows this can only be done by successfully forging a reconciliation agreement with Fatah, while recognizing the finality of the Arab Spring — which has swept aside governments that failed to reflect and meet the needs of their people. Khaled Meshaal and his allies inside of the Hamas political bureau know that without increased transparency, and a free, fair and open exchange of ideas among and between its younger and aspiring supporters, the vision of a free Palestine cannot be met.

Woodward: Do you think that the Hamas leadership in Gaza are currently acting in the interests of the local population?

Perry: No.

Woodward: Are missiles aimed at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem advancing Hamas’s cause or are its military and political wings currently undermining each other?

Perry: Supporters of Palestinian freedom should not allow their beliefs to blind them to the realities of Palestinian politics. A police state is a police state: whether it is enforced by Abu Mazen’s American trained NSF [National Security Force] in the West Bank, or Hamas gunmen in Gaza. I am not a Palestinian and have no say in how Palestinians choose to govern themselves. But that they have a right to govern themselves is not in question. Free, fair and open elections, the right to dissent, freedom of speech and the right to petition your leaders for a redress of grievances are not American ideas, but universal principles. Abu Mazen needs to open his jails. So too does Ismail Haniyah.

Critics of that position will respond that my views do not take into account the vicious and ongoing oppression of the Palestinians by Israel — or the continuing siege of Gaza imposed by a ruthless Israeli leadership that vowed, openly, to put the people of Gaza “on a diet.” They’re wrong. I have seen the suffering first hand. But the “freedom can wait until the revolution is won” crowd are the same people who support Bashar Assad. A right postponed is a right denied. It is not a contradiction to support the right of the Palestinian people to defend themselves while advocating that their leaders recognize and respond to their needs.

Are Hamas’s military and political wings undermining each other? Ironically, again, Israel’s latest operation has actually accomplished the impossible — it has stitched together a divided leadership and people around a common cause. Abu Mazen, Ismail Haniyah, Salam Fayaad and Khaled Meshaal have different strategies for gaining Palestinian freedom. But when it comes to defending their own people, those divisions and differences disappear. As they have now.

—

Mark Perry is a Washington-based author and reporter. His most recent book is Talking To Terrorists. His forthcoming book (Basic Books, 2013) is a study of the relationship between President Franklin Roosevelt and General Douglas MacArthur. Perry served as an unofficial advisor to PLO Chairman and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat from 1989 to 2004.

Facebooktwittermail

Obama backs Israel’s use of disproportionate force in Gaza

Reuters reports: U.S. President Barack Obama said on Sunday he fully supported Israel’s right to defend itself and called for an end to the firing of missiles into Israel by militants inside Gaza in order for a peace process to go ahead.

“There’s no country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders,” he said. “We are fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself.”

If the right of self-defense is not being exercised, it is recognized as a universal principle that applies to individuals and states, including Israel. But when President Obama expresses his support for Israel’s right to defend itself at this time, the principle cannot be divorced from the means through which it is being applied. Only those who choose to obscure the facts speak about Israel’s rights without questioning its methods of defense.

When ‘self-defense’ is used as a license for the use of disproportionate force, the transition has been crossed from defense to aggression and those who voice their support for Israel’s right to defend itself become accessories to Israel’s crimes.

The Institute for Middle East Understanding has put together a useful fact sheet on Israel’s use of disproportionate force which makes clear that this is a doctrine that guides Israel’s military operations — not merely the outcome of unpredictable escalation in the heat of conflict.

Since November 14, when Israel assassinated Hamas leader Ahmed Jabari, further escalating an already bloody week that began with the killing of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy during an Israeli raid on November 8, at least 52 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including at least 16 civilians, ten children among them. During the same period, three Israeli civilians have been killed in southern Israel.

This disparity in civilian casualties is representative of a historic pattern, with a disproportionate number of Palestinian and other Arab civilians killed and wounded in virtually every phase of the conflict since Israel’s creation in 1948.

Although Israeli officials stress that the Israeli military carries out “surgical strikes” and goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, evidence documented by human rights organizations shows that Israel has repeatedly and deliberately used disproportionate force – a war crime – as a tactic to kill enemy fighters, minimize the risk of injury to Israeli soldiers during military operations, and to establish “deterrence.” In recent years, the Israeli military has formulated this as the “Dahiya Doctrine.”

To put the casualty figures of the current violence into context, the IMEU offers the following fact sheet on Israel’s use of disproportionate force and an overview of Palestinian and Israeli casualty figures since the First Intifada.

FACT SHEET: THE “DAHIYA DOCTRINE” & ISRAEL’S USE OF DISPROPORTIONATE FORCE

  • A central tenet of Israeli military policy is “deterrence.” This is embodied in the so-called “Dahiya Doctrine,” which dictates the use of overwhelming and disproportionate firepower and the targeting of government and civilian infrastructure during military operations. It received its name from the Dahiya neighborhood of Beirut, a stronghold of Hezbollah, which Israel destroyed almost completely during its assault on Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
  • In October 2008, Gabi Siboni, Director of the Military and Strategic Affairs Program at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a quasi-governmental think tank with close ties to the Israeli political and military establishments, published a policy paper entitled “Disproportionate Force: Israel’s Concept of Response in Light of the Second Lebanon War.” It stated:

    ‘With an outbreak of hostilities [with Hezbollah], the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate to the enemy’s actions and the threat it poses. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes.

    ‘Israel’s test will be the intensity and quality of its response to incidents on the Lebanese border or terrorist attacks involving Hezbollah in the north or Hamas in the south. In such cases, Israel again will not be able to limit its response to actions whose severity is seemingly proportionate to an isolated incident. Rather, it will have to respond disproportionately in order to make it abundantly clear that the State of Israel will accept no attempt to disrupt the calm currently prevailing along its borders. Israel must be prepared for deterioration and escalation, as well as for a full-scale confrontation. Such preparedness is obligatory in order to prevent long term attrition.’

[Continue reading…]

Dahiya, Beirut, before and after Israel's 2006 carpet bombing.

Issandr El Amrani writes: The Obama administration is asking regional powers to help restrain Hamas but they won’t restrain Israel. It claims to be for de-escalation but will not urge it. De-escalation might work if on one side the Arabs and Turkey use their influence on Hamas to end the rocket fire, and on the other the Europeans and Americans use their influence in Israel to end its missile, bomb and aircraft attacks and urge them not to carry out ground operations that would make this even more deadly.

It’s not even a question of changing their position towards Hamas. It’s a question of making it clear that a ground invasion will lead to the same catastrophic results as during Cast Lead and will further sour the regional scene the interests of all concerned.

But this ever-more-disappointing president can’t even bring himself or his advisors to say they would oppose such a development or urge Israel to forego ground operations.

Pathetic — and a signal to the Egyptians, Turks and others that there is no business to be done with this administration.

Facebooktwittermail

Rocket fire from Gaza could destroy Israel — in 4 million years

During the 2008-2009 war on Gaza, Michael Oren, now Israel’s ambassador to the US wrote that Gaza rockets and mortars being fired at southern Israel were “more than a crude attempt to kill and terrorize civilians — they were expressions of a genocidal intent.”

Phan Nguyen has crunched the numbers in order to figure out how long it would take for that genocidal intent to be realized, based on the current rate of fatalities caused by projectiles launched from Gaza. Admittedly, Nguyen opts for a maximal definition of genocide — the elimination of the entire Jewish population of Israel — but based on the current ratio of rockets and mortars fired and fatalities, it would require 4,477,714,286 attacks, and 4,477,714 years.

The fact is, over the last twelve years an average of two Israelis a year have been killed by rocket and mortar fire. Whatever the risks of premature death might be for most Israelis, being killed by militants in Gaza is probably the least among them.

Facebooktwittermail

Obama gives Netanyahu green light to continue airstrikes on Gaza

CNN reports: The major concern of the United States in the current Israeli-Hamas conflict is a potential Israeli ground incursion into Gaza, U.S. officials said Friday.

That would be a disastrous escalation that could trigger a larger conflict, a senior U.S. official told CNN.

“Escalation is what we are concerned about. We don’t want it to escalate to the point where Israel feels it has to take additional action, specifically ground force action,” the official said.

So, if Israel continues bombing and in response, rockets continue being fired from Gaza, President Obama will not be too concerned. He will no doubt periodically insist that Israel takes care to avoid killing civilians, but the line he has drawn is no ground troops. Kill the enemy without risking the lives of your own troops — this seems to be the Obama doctrine. It looks like Netanyahu might be quite happy to oblige with that particular external constraint.

Matthew Bell, Middle East Correspondent for the BBC, asked Amos Yadlin, who was head of Israel’s defense intelligence from 2005-2010, whether Israel will send ground troops into Gaza.

listen to ‘Will #Israel send ground troops into #Gaza? ’ on Audioboo

Ynet reports: In discussions held between Home Front Command Chief Major-General Eyal Eisenberg, regional commanders and heads of local authorities in the center and in the south, authorities have been instructed to prepare for a seven-week period of combat as part of Operation Pillar of Defense and to prepare emergency supplies, accordingly.

Facebooktwittermail