This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The International Significance of Gaza
Co-written by Qasim Khan
Since the recent boardings of the Turkish flotilla last week and the MV Rachel Corrie on Saturday have grabbed headlines, much has been made of the economic significance of these events. However, many notable pundits continue to claim that this situation presents much less of a concern than other tensions in the region and throughout the world. Normally we would be inclined to agree with their reasoning, but a recent Economist piece on the conditions in Gaza has forced us to question this position. It appears that contrary to its intended purpose, the shunning of Gaza has resulted in increased control and legitimacy of the Hamas government. The article is a must read, but here are a couple especially important highlights:
Initially Hamas and other militant groups, drunk on their self-claimed success in forcing Israel’s departure, sought to fight their way out with projectiles. The number of mostly home-made rockets hitting Israel rose from 281 in 2004 to 1,750 in 2008; and their range rose from a few kilometres to reach Tel Aviv’s outskirts. But stung by the ferocity of Israel’s reprisals, most lethally in the January 2009 war, Hamas reined in its fire and forced others to do likewise. So far this year 34 rockets have landed in Israel, none launched by Hamas. “Hamas is defending Israel,” chuckles an Israeli foreign ministry official.
…
Instead Hamas has turned its energies inward. With Gazans locked inside the 40km by 10km (154 square-mile) strip, the siege has given Hamas a free hand to mould the place… At first the resistance economy failed to meet people’s needs. But today, thanks to the tunnels, Gaza’s shop shelves are brimming with goods that often arrive cheaper and faster than when Israel opened the gates.
…
Humanitarian agencies, with an eye on external financing, bewail the lack of development. But their indices miss the point. Gaza is redeveloping, and Hamas is making society in its own image. Huge amounts now pass through the tunnel shafts each year, creating a new economy from which Hamas creams a handsome share of the profits to finance its rule. “The siege is a gift,” says a Hamas minister.
…
This has created stability but at the price of a reign of fear. When rival Islamists decried Hamas’s rule in Rafah, the militants stormed the mosque and killed its worshippers. When leftists protested that the tax rises hit a people already burdened by siege, they were hauled to jail. The death penalty has been reinstituted. And insensitive to comparisons with Israel, Hamas’s forces have bulldozed the homes of Gazans who had moved onto former settlement land without authorisation. A thriving political culture has been culled to a one-faction state.
Israel was put in a no-win situation regarding the recent humanitarian missions. Let the boats make it to Gaza and lose all credibility; stop the boats and become the villain. With increased Israeli backlash, (not to mention more tempered, albeit still undeniable support from the US) and increased resistance and protest efforts, this story will only continue to dominate headlines. We would suspect that we haven’t seen the last of boats, protests and resistance on an international scale either. The problem is because of its aggressive policies, Israel will continue to find itself in no-win situations, like denying entry to Noam Chomsky this week for a lecture to be given at the West Bank’s Birzeit University; it is clear that the current path is unsustainable.
Are we saying that there will be trouble in the near future? No. Very clearly this is just part of a conflict that stretches upon a much longer time horizon. But there is a very real possibility that this conflict reaches a breaking point within the next two or three years and Gaza could very well be the impetus for the ultimate breakout of the Israeli-Palestinian-Iranian-US-Oil-Restoftheworld clusterfuck of political tension, with severe global economic ramifications.
And the catalysts keep on coming. Just before the flotilla raid, Israel deployed the first of three nuclear missile submarines off the coast of Iran for a permanent nuclear presence in the area:
The submarines could be used if Iran continues its programme to produce a nuclear bomb. “The 1,500km range of the submarines’ cruise missiles can reach any target in Iran,” said a navy officer.
Apparently responding to the Israeli activity, an Iranian admiral said: “Anyone who wishes to do an evil act in the Persian Gulf will receive a forceful response from us.”
Israel’s urgent need to deter the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance was demonstrated last month. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, was said to have shown President Barack Obama classified satellite images of a convoy of ballistic missiles leaving Syria on the way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, will emphasise the danger to Obama in Washington this week.
Of course, Netanyahu never met with Obama as the flotilla raid happened a day later. The increasingly vocal alliance between Iran and Hamas, in enmity against Israel, has extensive implications on US foreign policy. Its positioning with Israel is finding increasing fragility, due to international pressure against Israel's recent actions; meanwhile, its anti-Iran policy is at odds with further neutralization of its relations with Israel. With its own enormous problems domestically, the United States is at a critical turning point in its foreign relations regarding Israel, and the recent global anti-Israeli sentiment (which may increase as Israel rejects demands for an international probe on the Gaza flotilla raid) is putting pressure on Obama to not end up going the route of Bush 2.0 regarding Middle Eastern politics.
Political momentum is vital to furthering causes, as the anti-offshore drilling backlash to the recent BP turmoil attests to. And with anti-Israeli sentiment seeing a resurgence on the eve of recent events, further aggression from Israel will lead to a positive-feedback cycle of political death. Meanwhile, Israeli patrol killed four Palestinian militants diving off the Gaza coast today. The political ramifications of this, particularly in the global community (and thus affecting US policy), are enormous. Yet a more tempered stance from Israel would provide even more momentum for a homegrown revolution in Gaza.
And with Hamas gaining political and economic control in Gaza, time is of the essence for the United States to position itself properly. If it decides to use the Iranian support of Hamas as justification for a resurgence of American-Israeli relations, a political dichotomy will unfold in foreign relations, and Obama may be forced to go way of GWB. As Bush once said, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." And the international community will not let itself be fooled again by an aggressively militant United States presence in the Middle East. If the declining, yet still very existent, American support of Israel continues, Israel could find itself struggling for alliances and forced to increase its already aggressive policies. Either way, time is becoming a factor, and as the Economist puts it, "the Obama administration’s failure to cast a blanket veto on any deprecation of Israel is depicted in Israel almost as a betrayal," rendering neutrality/indifference not an option for the USA.
»
- 4809 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Other than this reply, I think I will stay out of the Middle East Peace Flotilla War Zone tonight.
Best to you all!
We could do a pool on the total number of junks that will be posted! That would be great fun. Too bad I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just an ignorant old hick who could care less about the whole to-do. Others would think that I should take a side or I'm a spineless clod. That should get the junks started....
Signed: Spineless J. Clod
Living in the United States, we are a little short on Palestinian versions of the Gaza crisis. (Give your opinion in this land of free speech and that’s the end of your job, à la Helen Thomas.) So now we have the Israeli view from the international establishment economic voice, The Economist; I guess I’ll wait to see if the truth seeps through somehow. I was particularly appalled by The Economist’s description of a concentration camp as a boomtown; perhaps the U.S. recession could be put to rest if we could get some tunnels to bring in loads of products at reduced prices. Just why and for what purpose were these lies repeated?
By the way, here’s an interesting note on the business practices of The Economist: Lynn Forester, Lady de Rothschild “is the chief executive officer of E.L. Rothschild, a holding company she owns with her third husband, Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild, a member of the Rothschild family. The company manages investments in the British business magazine The Economist and various enterprises in India…” –Wikipedia
+1000
you are a very smart guy JR.
isn't something like 85 percent of the people in Gaza living off of aid due to unemployment, due their most of their factories being shut down because they can not competitively export anymore?
NPR just did a decent report from from Gaza, and yes, they said, there is all sort of fresh fruit etc available at stores, but even this is far outside the affordability of the majority of Gazans...
I do buy Economist's point that Israel's attempt to choke the Hamass out of Gaza has obviously backfired and instead Hamass' power has consolidated...but it seems it is more for political reasons we are all familiar with, when your town/nation is under siege, you rally around your leaders...shoot, US rallied around W after 9/11. And no doubt Hamass is guilty of abuses and corruption.
But what I find odd is how little we see of everyday Israel and Gaza and West Bank in our MSM. Really, Israel has very special ties to US politically, many US citizens joint citizenship in Israel, including many prominent govt officials and celebrities, Israel is obviously of great geo-politcal importance, both Israel and Palestinian territories are recipients of much aid from US, the Palestinians situation is the major flashpoint between Arabs, other Middle Easterners and Muslims, and the US. And yet, I hardly ever see basic, objective reporting from the streets of Israel or Gaza. Its not hard, just show conditions, show several angles and opinions, show good and bad of various political players. But I don't even have a basic image of Tel Aviv in my mind from MSM, nothing beyond rock throwing for Palestinian Territories...shoot, why don't we see more of Israel than we do of say, Paris, aren't we better friends with Israel?
Thanks, JR. I was a long-time subscriber to the Economist and cancelled about 5 years ago when they started looking more MSM. Your post explains a lot.
The siege is a gift. Yes, of course, all sieges are gifts from the siegers to the besieged.
Just the other day I heard Robert Mugabe demanding extra sanctions for Zimbabwe, because it's actually a gift and he wants more of them.
Iran offered to escort flotillas into Isreal?
I wonder what there motivation is to do such a thing? Hopefully it is to feed the poor. Maybe it's something more..sinister?
Interestingly, unlike the rest of the world, Isreal takes GWBs idiotically-phrased advice to heart. They, in the word's of Pete Townshend, 'wont get fooled again'.
Iran escorting a flotilla to Gaza is akin to a Cuban missile crisis in the making to me, but I don't see Israeli leadership nor Iran's regime having nearly the sense JFK or Khrushchev did, after going a bit too far for comfort, both those guys had to back down the hawks in admin and Khrushchev had to blink...I see no blinking on either side on this one...over what, the Gaza blockade, yes, a bad situation for Gaza...but worth WW3?...really?...
would we consider endangering So Korea or of angering China by invading North Korea? aren't people in No Korea some of the worse off in the world. Shoot, we won't even help very poor abused people in Africa when there is little to no political/war risks. But Iran's regime, no stranger to repression, must help Gazans...this will not end well.
It's a no-brainer; they'd be stupid not to capitalize on this. Outside of the US, popular opinion worldwide is against Israels' collective starvation of the Gazans. So Iran can send some rusty tubs that aren't worth much (in case Israel seizes or sinks them) and make big points for itself on the world stage, poke a finger in the Zionist eye.
It will be very hard for Iran not to gain, and very hard for Israel to avoid looking even worse.
The unconditional political support of Isreal can push US to loose its influence as a super power. Whatever achieved after the WWII and assumed to stay as it is with a super military power may be lost in the world easily without a war.
Please see the following interesting article i came up reading today :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/glenn-becks-israel-proble_b_6...
what is more interesting is the speech of Washington in 1796:
here is an excerpt from the above link :
This is from Washington's Farewell Address of 1796, a speech so significant that it is read aloud in Congress each year on the anniversary of Washington's birthday (italics mine).
A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification....And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
I assume, in his speech , the favourite nation was Kingdom of England at that time.
Whatever he said is very true today, with a small change, this time Favourite nation is Isreal.
Yes, and once again the truth lies in the flow of money, of course.
Good post, Cbaba (love your avatar, BTW). Reminds me of Churchill's dictum that countries don't have friends, only interests.
The US is too firmly in the grip of its elites, who are either fanatical for or intimidated by Zion. It reminds me of the giant-plus-midget team in Mad Max: Thunderdome.
Zion (I object to one country's appropriation of the symbols of Judaism) will fall when the US loses the power to support it. At that point Zion will have the choice of 'lighting up' its neighbors with nukes for one last revenge (like the German V-2 rockets), or go quietly.
Thank you Goldbricker,
I tried to shine a light into American peoples hearts from founding fathers.
i liked your avatar too. I selected this to search for justice, hang them high was a good movie, it reminds me my childhood, where Clint Eastwood was the man, the justice, hanging and killing the bad guys. I am waiting to see justice, punish these financial elites, American people must be free to decide their destiny.
I agree that if US support vanishes Israel might fall, hope they choose the peace and i am sure the neighbours will accept their existence, but if they try to fight and try to nuke neighbours, it doesn't stay there...
The political significance of Gaza is that the Middle East should formally recognize Israel's right to exist. Once that unilateral action is done, political pressure can be placed on Israel. Without that unilateral action, the international community will see this as another round of a never ending game. Diplomatic words will be spoken but little action will be taken. Turkey will be drawn into an international discussion about their actions, complete with side discussions about the Armenian genocide and the likely real need of an Armenian homeland and formal recognition of Kurdistan.
It's a game. Some call it the great game while others call it BS. If Turkey wants to lead the Muslim world, they need to lead that Muslim world into the formal recognition of Israel's right to exist.
Israel already exist, a strong country, doesn't need a recognition. Turkey was one of the first countries recognized Israel, see what happened.
You don't know Turkish history, what you know about what happened 100 years ago is wrong and falsified. There is no Armenian Genocide, its a big lie. Yes Armenians were killed,(not more than 200,000, even though they claim 2 million-never mind their whole population was less than a million) its very sad, nobody can deny that, but they stabbed the Turks from their back while Ottoman Empire was in war with Russia,Turks lost 2 Million soldiers in the Russian war then they have to defend their home against Armenian revolt. Armenians tried to use the weak situation and divide the Empire and create an Armenia, got help from foreigners, got weapons, and start to kill Turks, killed close to 40,000 civilians, revolted in 40 different cities, joined with Russian forces and fight against Ottoman Turks. Does it look like Jews in Germany ?.. It has no resemblance with Nazi Genocide at all. Yes there was Armenian homeland in Turkey, but after living in peace for 600 years with Turks you should ask yourself what the hell has happened and Armenians were forced to leave their homeland. Besides this has happened in Ottoman Empire 100 yrs ago, not in the new Republic which was born in 1923 from ashed of old fallen empire .
There are so many thing to write here but here is some education for you first:
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/
Turkey doesn't want to lead the Muslim world. 80% of the secular Turks hates Erdogan. This is only Erdogan's wildest dream, his last attempt before losing power, his support is 20% and hopefully this Evil man will lose the elections next year. But he is right about defending flotilla incident, Turkish citizens rights, trying to use this incident to get more voters support in next years elections.
the other day i commented on these stories being irrelevant. i got creamed by readers that want to read about israel on here.
so fine, i'll respond to this article. let's focus on one comment amid this utter ramble.
". The problem is because of its aggressive policies, Israel will continue to find itself in no-win situations, like denying entry to Noam Chomsky this week for a lecture to be given at the West Bank’s Birzeit University; it is clear that the current path is unsustainable."
the more direct way to rephrase this , thereby clarifying israel's position, and doing my best to make sense of this muddled nonsense article, is to say that by 'aggresive policies', he is referring to the policies of upholding a state , ensuring its existence.
israel is a colonial outpost unique in its demography and in its origins, amongst nations in the mmiddle east. its very existence requires an 'aggresive policy' . its called sovereignty. this requires controlling borders. in a land where all your borders are constantly being challenged or threatened by your neighbors (for whatever reasons) , a nation is going to require aggresive border to defense to maintain sovereignty. why does no one every ask...what would have happened to the nation of israel had is lost any of the wars it fought in the last 50 years.
the answer is obvious. it would have ceased to exist. thus, israel's very existence is a show of agression. alas, nationhood is never an easy thing.
the problem of gaza and the occupied west bank is that , if the west bank (where most palestinians live) is ever to transform an autonomous state , it will want a highway connection with gaza. such a high way will cut israel in half. so an autonomous gaza can never be a part of the west bank. that is to say gaza and the west bank will always be separated by physical land that is controlled by israel. although a similar situation exists where alaskan cotoniguity with the u.s. is compromised by canada, the u.s. and canada are friendly neighbors, whereas israel and the west bank palestinian government are not (nor does the west bank government even control that government now controlling gaza)
also, no one lives in alaska. i believe there are nearly as many people in gaza as in alaska. it is a dense urban prison the size of a few manhattans. the problem here is that gaza will NEVER fit into a 2 state solution, but only a 3 state solution. a 3 state solution is impractical and unlikely to ever be stable. thus, gaza is likely to be a target for israeli aggression so long as both israel and gaza exist.
Israel already cuts West Bank to pieces with highways span from Israeli settlement to Israeli settlement and Palestinians are restricted from these roads. Yes, if you show up with the force of international law to takeover peoples land, and then, against international law run native people from their villages via massacres, and then against international law, you take more land from neighboring nations and occupy these lands, and then systematically settle your people on these lands you took...yes, lo and behold, you will have to be aggressive to defend yourself as you do these things.
Usually, people do not let you take your land and settle it peacefully, and even if they accept legally sanctioned land grab, they will tend to get really annoyed when you take over even more land and then start to systematically populate it. Usually some forceful persuasion is needed to steal and usually people will hold a grudge even after you have won with your might.
Take this to an extreme, a slave owner had to be aggressively vigilant against slave revolts, this is truth. The fact, that violence was needed to protect the slave owner and keep slaves in line, did not make the slave owner's actions moral. Likely, the slave owner would have had less to worry about if he was not enslaving other people.
m
It is interesting how you could ignore history lessons and how the current Israli leadership can be blinded by their own brand of fundamentalism...
At the end of the British Protectorate in Palestina, the Mandate British authorities instituted a naval blockade to stop the influx of Hebrew refugees on the lands bought by the Jewish Agency.
A ship forced that naval blockade, was boarded by British troops,clashes followed ( no deaths though...admirably crediting the British soldier discipline.
The ship was towed to Haifa and all the passengers were deported back...to Germany!! The Name of that ship was Exodus 1947.
The PR success that that ship story brought to the cause of Israel greatly enhanced the recognition and the birth of the State of Israel with the United Nations.
It is clear, at least to me, that the current leadership of Israel does not have anything to do with the dream of Ben Gurion and the social ideals that were the cornerstones of Israel's foundation..
But that they could forget their own history and fall headlong in a PR disaster, and with such a poor fire discipline of the troops...that is surprising.
What was with the last comment from this transmission? I hate to guess that it was somewhat of a threat? If so, how dare he! If not, I did not get the reference to 9/11.
This article is a weird rehashing of what can be found in the NY Times. Let's stop dancing around these subjects like they are a stock market ticker where we watch the trend and comment on the happenings moment to moment. The fact is
- Kissinger created the "right to exist" concept. And now we have to banter about this vague phrase like it is a IED we are playing frisbee with.
- Making Palestinians accept the "Israel's right to exist" is BOUND in A VIEW OF THE WORLD meaning
- they must be contrite and accept the rights of a "state" - wait states can't have rights?
- does that mean they must accept the "right" of the Jewish people to have an appropriated land, Wait so they must accept the idea of a the "right" of the state being an exclusivist Jewish state, so that other groups do not have the same rights or privileges?
- Does acknowledging the above mean they must give up the "right of return", surely it would?
- Does acknowledging the above mean they accept the borders, as defined by whom?!
- Kissinger wants war with Iran, and even goes around discussing theories about whether it is is a nation or a "cause", with the purpose of the cause an existential threat because it does not "recognize Israel's right to exist". It is not really veiled much more than that.
Acting like the players behind the scenes are going to be influenced by the court of public opinion and that somehow the agenda is debated on the terms you stated here is an utter joke. "Time is of the essence" or "neutrality not an option" - someone has to call you out on this.
This article is either the leftovers for a fluff piece in the mainstream media or the author is a complete sophmore (in high school).
Here’s the conclusion of the latest editorial by Justin Raimondo on the Israel-US relationship in light of the flotilla incident: “The ‘special relationship’ is a poisonous and deeply dysfunctional relationship, which benefits one party at the growing expense of the other. Sooner or later it will end, but how? With an open break, perhaps even a violent conflict – remember how Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen refused to rule out shooting down an Israeli jet crossing Iraqi airspace en route to Iran? Or, more probably, with a covert Israeli action of some sinister sort? In any event, you can be sure that Washington greatly fears the answer to that question.”
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/06/06/our-enemies-the-israelis/
In short, America, someday, will stand, because it has to…
JR, Israel's puppetry in Western governments and media is something to behold, but the show is getting tired, and the audience fidgety.
Here's a sampler of US politicians selling their people for 30 pieces of silver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqpqPF2z9Dw
The reason this situation in the ME will come to a head is because of US support for Isreali crimes. Isreal is the enemy US, not it's friend. Thankfully US citizens are slowly starting to work this out.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/06/06/our-enemies-the-israelis/
Can we have more quotes from GWB please "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." He had such a way with words, such a brilliant man!
GWB - You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are ones you have to concentrate on.
DIVORCE !!!!!!!!!,
see , easy , !!!!!
when you divorce the isrealis you dont get to split the assets though, they take the lot and leave you in ruin!
The average crooked congressman is well aware of this.
I accept that deal. Where do I sign.
distractions no longer hold sway,
the sheeple are awakening whether
they want to or not
Heh, Noam Chomsky circa 2010,
Muslim Israelis and Palestinians know he's a useful idiot, 85%+ of Jewish Israelis know he's an idiot.
I appreciate the presepctive given in this post.
DOES EVERYBODY ELSE HAVE THE RIGHT
TO EXIST WITHOUT BEING MANIPULATED
OR TREATED LIKE CRAP BY THE
" ISRAELIS "
" THE CHOSEN PEOPLE "
" THE MASTER RACE "
" THE NON-SEMITIC NAZIS
OF THE MIDDLE EAST "
DIVORCE