MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, July 23rd 2019 - 02:58 UTC

 

 

Gaza violence suits both Israeli leadership and Hamas

Monday, July 21st 2014 - 06:18 UTC
Full article 5 comments
Hamas’ motive for wanting a little war is obvious and urgent: it has lost almost all of its sources of funding. Hamas’ motive for wanting a little war is obvious and urgent: it has lost almost all of its sources of funding.
Netanyahu knows, on the evidence of the previous two wars, that Hamas can be battered into temporary quiescence but not destroyed Netanyahu knows, on the evidence of the previous two wars, that Hamas can be battered into temporary quiescence but not destroyed

By Gwynne Dyer - Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, said something cryptic last Friday, shortly after the Israelis began their latest round of attacks on the Gaza Strip. Condemning Hamas’ conditions for accepting a ceasefire as “exaggerated and unnecessary,” he offered his condolences “ to the families of the martyrs in Gaza who are fuel to those who trade in war. I oppose these traders, on both sides.”

What could he mean by that? Surely he was not suggesting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and the leaders of Hamas, the Islamist organization that has effective control of the Gaza Strip, have a common interest in perpetuating the current bloodbath for at least a little while longer.

Yes, he was suggesting exactly that, and he was quite right. This is the third “Gaza War” since late 2008 — they come around more often than World Cups — and each one has followed the same pattern. Some Israelis are kidnapped and/or killed; Israel makes mass arrests of Hamas cadres in the West Bank and launches air and missile strikes on the Gaza Strip; Hamas lets the missiles fly, and away we go again.

So why would Netanyahu be willing to launch Israel’s third war against the Gaza Strip in eight years? Because the nature of his political alliances with other parties on the Israeli right, and especially with the settler lobby, means that he could not make a peace deal that the Palestinians would accept even if he wanted to (which he probably doesn’t).

That’s why he was instrumental in sabotaging the Oslo Accords, the theoretical basis for a peaceful “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, during his first term as prime minister in 1996-99. Back in power in the past five years, his primary excuse for not moving on negotiations has been that Abbas could not deliver peace because he controlled only the West Bank, while the intransigent Hamas ruled the Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu knows, on the evidence of the previous two wars, that Hamas can be battered into temporary quiescence but not destroyed. He also probably realizes that if he did manage to destroy Hamas, its place would be taken by a less corrupt and much more extreme Islamist outfit that might really hurt Israel. He is just doing this, with no expectation of victory, because Israeli public opinion demands it.

Hamas’ motive for wanting a little war is more obvious and urgent: It has lost almost all of its sources of funding.

Iran stopped funding its budget to the tune of $20 million per month when Hamas sided with the Sunni rebels in the Syrian civil war. Egypt stopped helping it after last year’s military coup against Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government, and closed the tunnels under the border through which the Gaza Strip received most of its imported goods. Those imports were Hamas’ main source of tax revenue. Hamas is broke, and if it stays broke, its control over the Strip will weaken.

Whereas a war with Israel will rally the local Palestinians to its support, and if enough of them are killed, Egypt and the Gulf states may feel compelled to give Hamas financial aid.

So the only real question is how many dead Palestinians will satisfy both Netanyahu’s need to look tough and Hamas’s need to rebuild popular support at home and get financial help from abroad.

On past performance, the magic number is between a hundred and a thousand dead: Around 1,200 Palestinians were killed in the 2008-09 war, and 174 in 2012. After that — assuming that only a handful of Israelis have been killed, which is guaranteed by the fact that Israeli air and missile strikes are a hundred times more efficient at killing than Hamas’ pathetic rockets — a ceasefire becomes possible.

We already have crossed the lower threshold of that range of Palestinian deaths in the current mini-war, so a ceasefire is theoretically possible now, but both sides will probably press on for at least another few days. Then the ceasefire will be agreed, and both sides will start thinking about the next round, only a few years from now. But the dead will stay dead.

 

Categories: Politics, International.

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Be serious

    The death and destruction in Gaza is truly disturbing. I understand Israel has the right of self defence but the killing of so many women and children cannot be acceptable. Tony Blair is doing a really good job.....not.

    Jul 21st, 2014 - 07:02 am 0
  • Conqueror

    A good start point is to look at the author. Gwynne Dyer is a Canadian journalist who makes his money from writing about Arab-Israeli conflicts. Does he have an interest in keeping things going?

    Let's take a look at the historical reality. Over 3,200 years ago, the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah existed. Just where Israel is today. Except that Israel today is smaller. Was there a country called “Palestine”? Nope. Around 70 A.D. the Roman emperors Vespasian and Titus decided to “break” the Jews. Starting with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Many Jews, understandably, fled. But some kept their heads down and remained. It was then that arabs moved in. That's stealing and the Jews had no recourse. The Jews were persecuted and driven out wherever they tried to settle. Culminating in Hitler's Holocaust. After that, the world decided that the Jews had suffered enough. The land was available. Under British control but occupied mostly by nazi sympathisers. It was agreed that the Jews should have their homeland back, except by arabs. And when Israel announced its independence, FOUR arab armies attacked the very next day. No-one goes to war that quickly, demonstrating that the arabs were intent on keeping what they had stolen. But Israel was prepared. So it won that one. And international law says that what you possess at the end of an armed conflict is yours. But provision had been made for the arabs. An area called Transjordan (now Jordan). They could live peacefully in Israel or move. Some of the arab squatters didn't like that. Thus the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. How do “we” solve this? We round up the arab squatters and move them to Jordan. There's plenty of room. It might be necessary to set up a 10-mile wide buffer zone where UN troops can shoot to kill for anyone crossing east to west without authorisation. What are “palestinians”? Closest I can see is “Philistines”. Didn't David and the Israelites beat them? Why reverse history?

    Jul 21st, 2014 - 01:24 pm 0
  • Heisenbergcontext

    Such a depressing story. When Sadat and Begin signed a peace treaty in '79 I felt hopeful. When the Oslo accords were signed in '93 by Arafat and Rabin I felt hopeful, but waited for the other shoe to drop, remembering what happened to Sadat. Rabin was then also assassinated. And now the extremists are running the agenda on both signs. Sigh...

    Jul 21st, 2014 - 01:29 pm 0
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!