Israel's 1967 borders are indefensible!

Is the argument that is often proffered by the Likud in the Israeli Knesset and the Ultra Likud who sit on Capitol hill in Washington.

This is given as an excuse for both not moving forward and indeed in many ways moving backwards particularly in settlement building.

Where this all falls back though is a brief examinations of the facts. Firstly it is proposed that a Palestinian state be de militarised. Secondly Israel defended the 1967 borders in the 1956 Suez war (which it started) and the 1967 war (which it also started by pre-emptive strike). In the latter example it expanded it's military sphere of influence.

Israel now has an equal or better superiority in fire power over it's neighbours than it did then.

So what is the conclusion?

Israel has defended the pre 1967 borders, and in one out of two cases expanded them therefore they are clearly eminently defensible so that argument is clearly rubbish.

Israeli Election; Who won?

And this is of course the problem.

No one has any idea, nor will they for weeks, possibly months.

Who knows what horse trading will go on to form a government, what is clear is that the Israeli people would like a more stable system which they have not currently got.

Apparently though, both main protagonists are claiming a clear victory! Perhaps they should have gone to Specsavers.

The BBC has this.

Hamas in War crimes shocker!

Well it depends on what you may think the shock is.

For me it is that Channel 4 seem to have gathered some evidence of Hamas war crimes, as opposed to the fact that they commit them.

Jonathan Miller has made a few reports from Gaza, including some detailing Israel's war crimes there, but in this latest report he highlights some of Hamas', and no not the obvious ones of sending rockets over the border into civilian areas but the one of taking over civilian areas to fight Israel and shooting those who complain. (Albeit in this case non fatally).

Whilst I think that Israel is wrong in many of the things it does something that does get on my nerves is people (albeit a small number) who think Hamas are beyond reproach. Neither side frankly are.

Israel, Gaza, Hamas and the Truth!

You will not see Israel, Gaza, Hamas or the truth mentioned in the same sentence, or at least not by some one who is honest.

The fact is that there is wrong on all sides.

Yesterdays Today program had an interesting interview with both Tony Blair and Sir Jeremy Greenstock on the subject of talking to Hamas.

Then listen to the interview with Mark Regev at 7:50 on this link.

The problem we have is this:

Whilst it is true that Hamas are a nasty organisation, the fact is that Israel ignores UN resolutions of all sorts, and ignores international law all the time. I looked up the security council resolution about the 1973 Yom Kippur war once, but stumbled across the previous security council resolution which was about Israeli air force jets ordering a civilian airliner in Lebanese airspace bound for Beirut to land in Israel.

Israel is both a stranger to international law and resolutions of the UN security council. It can't claim that the latter is biased against it because the US can and will veto resolutions which it considers biased against Israel. (To be fair the the USA, quite a few proposed resolutions are).

The problem right now of course is that Hamas have "broken" a ceasefire that it and Israel where Israel has simply not met its obligations. That is no excuse for launching rockets aimlessly at any where let alone civilian areas, but there is also no excuse for Israel's continued blockade of Gaza.

When Israel wants to make peace it can. For a start, it can stop breaking international law. That would be a great start. Stop expanding settlements and stealing land. You would be surprised at how big a difference such a simple move make. It would be my preference that it did this in talks with the Palestinian Authority, as that would help the peace process more, but if Israel really does want peace (as opposed to merely saying it wants peace) then this is a minimum. Meanwhile, it seems bizarre that Israel moans about Hamas breaking international law whilst Israel has been doing it systematically for years.

A proportionate response?

Dizzy, confused by what people mean when they say Israel has responded "disproportionately" asks what is a "proportionate response".

It's a fair question, so lets look at some examples:

You have agreed a ceasefire with someone with whom you were in conflict with, but they continue an 18 month blockade, not only stifling any prospect of economic growth, but keeping the consequently unemployed near or close to starvation.

Is resuming the conflict proportionate. In particular, is it proportionate to send rockets aimlessley over the border, towards urban conerbations?

Good question.

A commentator (Jonny Mac) on Dizzy's thread cites (or at least claims to) international law on the subject (as if anyone takes any notice, or indeed ever has) and says thus:

To assess proportionality, military lawyers weigh the strategic importance of the objective against (a) the risk of casualties (especially civilian) and the likely level of those casualties and (b) the steps that will be taken to minimise those casualties.

Well lets look at that:

The strategic objective is to lift the blockade. Looks reasonable to me. No one would tolerate living under such a total blockade, not the United kingdom, The United States of America, Israel, nor indeed Dizzy or Iain Dale. So we have a reasonable strategic objective.

So lets move to how many casualties, civilian or otherwise. Compared to those who may well have died of poverty in the Gaza strip, very few. The weapons used, whether home made or Russian Grad missiles are so inaccurate that if you wanted to hit a barn you would have to be in it. They are "mostly harmless". That does not mean they don't or can't kill, it just means that if you launched 100 of them you would be very lucky to kill anyone, either civilian or military.

What are they doing to limit civilian over military casualties? Toughy that one. They don't have either the range or accuracy in any weapons system to have any meaningfull effect on that. Not only that, the affect on death rates within Israel is slight compared to things like road traffic accidents. You can't really do more to limit civilian casualties than to make the deaths you cause insignificant. Where the rocket attacks do score highly though is that they do cause widespread terror and economic damage. This causes political pressure.

Hmm.. So the action may well be proportionate. What is more.. it may actually result in the lifting of the blockade!*

So is Israel's actions proportionate?

Well, their objective seems to be to stop the rocket attacks. This is because they cause political pressure. It has to be said that like lifting the blockade on the Gaza strip, this is not an unreasonable thing to do.

You do have to wonder though, if they could not both agree to stop pissing in each others tents they could avoid a lot of suffering. Alas politics there does not work like this.

So what should they do? What equipment do they have that could deal with the problem, that is the rocket attacks (other than the obvious stopping the blockade) that could limit casualties, particularly civilian ones.

The obvious one is of course using pilotless drones to watch for rocket crews and despatch them before (preferably) they fire. It would be similar to what we did with the IRA when we stationed SAS squads where the IRA were going to turn up, and making them (obviously armed members of the IRA on a mission) pay.

That would be proportionate.

I do get fed up with Israel claiming that anyone else would do the same. It is certainly true that many would, but history shows that whilst we in the United Kingdon have tried it, we found it does not work and so have sought more effective and less bloody methods.

*Hamas managing to cause a deal that lifts the blockade on Gaza whilst Israel squeazes the West Bank ever tighter will be the death knell of a moderate Palestinian authority. That would also end the possibility of peace. Some cynics may wonder if that is not the long term objective of some on the Israeli side. It is of course taken for granted that that is the aim of Hamas.

Israel sends tanks into Gaza

Israel has sent ground forces into Gaza.

Its at times like this that it is useful to address some important questions;

Who broke the ceasefire?

This seems a bone on contention in some corners, though many point the finger at Hamas. Some point the finger at Israel. Neither is of course true, as the ceasefire was never implemented. In particular there has been no lifting of the economic blockade which has lasted since June 2007, with only sporadic openings of the border for very limited supplies with no provision for Gaza to get any exports out.

Who will win?

Well, who knows. It depends on who sets the victory conditions. In 2006 Hezbollah "won" in many ways, certainly many in Israel felt they did not come out of it victors. Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has gained much cudos.

In this war, we have to be clear that Hamas are no Hezbollah, but then Gaza is difficult terrain because it is small, and so limited places for Israeli forces to go. In short it makes large land mines easier as well as ambushes.

Having said all that if Hamas can still launch missiles into Israel (I would class that as a certainty, they are home made and can make it from the farthest corner of Gaza into Israel) then some will count that as a victory for Hamas.

Some other points of note:

Hamas is an organisation that owes its early days to Shin Bet. They saw it as a bulwark against the secular PLO and Fatah. You would have to laugh at Israel having to kill a monster of its own creation if it did not involve so much death and destruction either side of the border.

The BBC has this.

War in Gaza

I have to say that this article by Iain Dale on the subject reads a bit like a press release from the Israeli embassy.

For example at one point Iain writes this:

The media seem to think these rockets are fairly harmless. They are not.

Well, no, they are fairly harmless, just look at the number fired compared to actual casualties and damage.

They are weapons of terror.

This on the other hand is bang on. They certainly are weapons of terror though by no means as terrifying as the weapons that the Israelis use.

Now lets get this clear, no matter what you think of the rockets, and how effective they are, it is clearly ridiculous to keep firing them, especially during a ceasefire. It is also clear that Israel can't actually sit on its arse and watch the fireworks. Mostly harmless rockets are not always harmless, they do kill and injure from time to time, even if it is more luck than judgement which has led them to the target.

Iain then goes on to say:

People blame Israel for the terrible state of living standards in the Gaza Strip. They are wrong. Hamas is to blame for keeping its people in abject poverty. Israel handed over the governmental administration of the Gaza Strip in 2005 to the Palestinian Authority.

Cobblers. Gaza is a large prison camp where the inmates may have complete control, but have no control over the borders* or airspace so they can't get the local economy going and sell produce to either Israel or the outside world.

The other point is that Israel is the author of its own troubles here. Iain says that Hamas is funded by Iran, which is true, but its major benefactor is much closer, in Israel. Israel helped Hamas in the early 1980's as a counter balance to Fatah and the PLO and since 2000 has relentlessly bombed Fatah and Palestinian Authority security infrastructure because it claimed that they were not doing enough to reign in Hamas. Well, since then Hamas have been able to take over, so well done Israel, you have helped Hamas yet again.

The Israelis are now doing roughly the same thing again, which is to bomb the security infrastructure. Civilians are dying which is wrong, but it seems at a rate of 1 civilian to 3 Hamas "security" people, so there is a bright side.

Iain also seems to confuse Hamas with the Lebanon's Hezbollah. Lets be clear, Hamas are no Hezbollah. They have not got the men, training, armament or fighting ability of Hezbollah.

It also has to be pointed out that whilst Israel's bombing in Gaza is disproportionate it is clear who started this. The word on the street in Gaza apparently is that the average Palestinian knows this also, which is clearly bad news for Hamas as they will become about as popular as a rattle snake in a lucky dip. They are also stopping the wounded being treated in Egypt, citing having to make up lists of the wounded! (I thought you just looked at someone, and if they had less than a full set of limbs and/or were bleeding profusely they were wounded and so should be sent for treatment). That will not play well either.

The BBC also has this.

*They do have control over the tunnels.

Middle East Cease fire Number 9,994 Declared!

Diplomats hailed the declaration of a new ceasefire in the Israeli Arab conflict, between Israel and Hamas in Gaza brokered by the Egyptians.

This is potentially very good news as it lifts the overly harsh sanctions on Gaza that some regard as collective punishment whilst also lifting the rocket barrage on southern Israel, which whilst always ridiculous, almost always of no actual significance causes terror and death.

The question is, now it has just come into force, has it been broken yet.

The BBC has this.

Gordon Brown to face massive rebellion over EU treaty

Apparently, according to today's Telegraph, which is not as yet available online, Gordon Brown may have up to 120 MP's rebelling against the EU constitution/treaty unless there is a referendum.

When the report comes online I will link to it.

Interesting. Gordon Brown has already had more rebellions in his first month as PM than all others put together since the war, and he has only had one month or parliament sitting.

Could make politics interesting, though I suspect that Gordon will twist the odd arm or two.

Result in Lebanon's by elections

Members of the Lebanese parliament who support the government, and are anti Syrian seem to have a higher death rate that those of the opposition.

3 have been assassinated so far, reducing the governments majority.

There have been 2 by elections today to replace Pierre Gemayel, a member of the cabinet, and member for Metn shot dead, and Walid Eido, member for Beirut's second district.

In the latter al-Amin Itani has won a landslide victory for the ruling coalition.

However in Metn the position is less clear. Michel Aoun of the Free patriotic movement claimed victory for his candidate Dr. Camille Khoury, however this is disputed by the Phalange party and its candidate ex-President Amin Gemayel, father of the murdered Pierre.

Until a few late ballot boxes were opened Gemayel was clearly in the lead.

The result is key, as the government needs to retain its majority and elect a new president in December. However whilst the pro western governing coalition has a simple majority in parliament, it does need two thirds of the MP's to turn up to make the vote corate. There will be more political trouble ahead.

For more see The Beirut Daily Star here for Metn and here for Beirut's second district, whilst the BBC has this.

Hamas decree Alan Johnston to be released

I do not usually comment on the Levant because I grew up there and have some strong but in my view well informed views, but I notice that comenting in the area tends to attract some loonies.

I did predict in the very early stages that Hezboulah would "win" in the Lebanon in the sense of achieving their primary objectives (In warfare you do have to understand that victories come in all sorts of shapes and forms) but with no enthusiasm. That said if I thought Israel was going to win, I would have predicted it with the same level of enthusiasm.

It appears that Hamas have "won" a military victory in Gaza. That surprised me, and I have to say I wonder where their new equipment came from. I don't think they will fair quite so well in the west bank, and very much hope I am right.

However we move on to the kidnapping of Alan Johnston.

I grew up in Beirut. (I was 2 months old when my family moved there). I was 5 or 6 when the civil war started and 8 when we left. I can tell you now that I never felt in an personal danger. Neither did my family, in the sense of "being a target". Rather obviously any of us could have been caught in crossfire or by a stray shell or Israeli bomb. The risks were there, but NO ONE wanted to harm US as European and indeed British citizens (the same applied to Americans) deliberately.

Broadly speaking the same ethic applies in the West Bank and Gaza strip though it also extends to Israeli citizens on human rights missions. The Palestinians want people there reporting what is going on, and what is more the day is brighter with a foreigner. I know this myself from personal experience as my family were invited to Southern Lebanon before the civil war kicked off to visit the Shia farmers of the south and the Palestinian refugee camps.

They want their story out there and they want the human rights activists there to protect them when they go about their daily business by just being there.

This all begs the question of who kidnapped Alan Johnston and why?

Well it seems to be a marginalised clan, but one with enough guns to make a mess, and a very real one, should someone try to face them down. They are not as far as I can work out all that politically affiliated in the way most of the clans are. nevertheless they still hold Alan, and it has been obvious since before say one to any party (including both Hamas and Fatah) that kidnapping Alan was a very bad move.

Fatah and Hamas know which clan have Alan, as do the Israelis. They don't know where with sufficient certainty otherwise he would have been freed by now.

Well Hamas has effectively decreed he should be released. What they are saying if that in Gaza, they have whipped all of Fatah's clans, and unless you free Alan, and we know who you are, you are next.

Hamas, like Hezboulah can play politics to their audience very well. This will go down well on the street.

I hope Alan is freed, and last month would not be quick enough for me, but I do fear for the future of the region where I grew up.

The BBC has this.

Olmert and Abbas meet to please Rice

Apparently Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas have met to discuss the nature of a Palestinian state.

The BBC has an optimistic report here, whereas Ha'aretz carries a more battle hardened and cynical viw here based on a closer relationship with the protagonists.

In essence it is of course big news that these two have met, however they have met after considerable pressure from the US, and clearly the Palestinians feel that the Israelis are just going through the motions to tick the right boxes to keep the Americans happy.

That said, maybe Ha'aretz or the Palestinians are wrong?

The facts are these.

The Palestinians are tired.

The Israelis are tired.

The USA needs a solution.

So where is the problem? Most Palestinians and Israelis could agree on 98% of the solution tomorrow, in somewhat less than 35 minutes!

The problem is of course the significant minority on both sides who want it all.

Israel and Syria 35 minutes away from peace?

Well according to Bill Clinton in an interview with the London based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. Regrettably their website does not yet carry the interview, but Ha'aretz carries a report here.

Apparently peace could be close bar the influence of Iran. Well, they were close in 1998, the reality was a few hundred yards of shoreline on the Sea of Galilee.

However what I found interesting in the Ha'aretz report was Bill Clinton's take on why the Israeli Palestinian peace process got nowhere. According to Clinton Yassir Arafat trusted Yitzak Rabin, and his assassination caused the problems.

I look forward to reading the interview when it is online.

Update 13:28

Anthony has very kindly posted a link to the story in the comments.

the Interview is fairly brief but interesting. You can find it here.

Marwan Barghouti to be freed?

It has to be said this is somewhat of a surprise. Marwan Barghouti was and still is a popular leader amongst the Palestinians, and is a pragmatist who speaks both Arabic and Hebrew.

He was a senior Fatah figure and connected to the Tanzim militia before his arrest by Israel in 2002. He ended up being sentenced to 5 life sentences for 5 murders.

Many suspected at the time that he would never serve anything like that length of time, because he was and still is far too important for the peace process. He is one of those politicians that the Palestinian public trust without being the wild eyed loons of Hamas.

However in the process of negotiating the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit, Marwan has been mentioned as a show stopper. If Hamas don't get the one man who could in terms of political popularity destroy them released then there is no deal.

It takes a while to get your head around that. Had Marwan Barghouti not been in prison there is no doubt he would have been campaigning and there would have been no Hamas led government.

However what he can do is talk to people who disagree with him and find ways forward and areas of common ground. That could be invaluable in the Middle East.

The problem is of course that he is the enemy of all those who never want peace, and both sides are littered with those.

What is interesting is that the Telegraph article that mentions it describes Marwan Barghouti as the West Bank Mandela. Haaretz has this.

Israel accepts Arab peace plan as starting point!

Well, at least Ehud Olmert has not dismissed it out of hand.

The Saudi's proposed a peace plan back in 2002, which has now been put back on the table (The BBC has this). In outline the proposal is that Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, (Well actually land it controlled, Israel's borders have not actually been set by Israel as far as I am aware), that East Jerusalem be the capital of a Palestinian state and that there be a fair an just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem along the lines of UN Resolution 194.

According to reports in Haaretz and the BBC it looks like this could lead to a regional peace conference. It seems that it may be the case that US and Egyptian pressure has brought Israel to the table, though it also has to be said that the public mood there may have also played a part.

Sean Thomas, journalist and novelist has been traveling and has in fact been on both sides of the Israeli/Lebanese border has just come back from Israel. In this report he quotes a Tel Aviv civil servant and hardcore Zionist as saying:

'For the first time', he told me, 'I wonder if we will survive. Now I think the only hope is peace. Just give us someone, anyone, to talk to. We are desperate for a solution.'

When people are fed up with fighting I suppose they talk, and when you want to talk, you need to talk to your enemies.

The shame of it all is this if what Count Folke Bernadotte was trying to achieve between 1947 and 1948 when he was assassinated, all those years ago, and yes although not publicly offered the 2002 peace plan was in essence on the table then.

I forgot to mention that whilst Saudi Arabia may well be able to bring the whole Arab world with them no one has a clue as to what Iran is going to do. Iran is after all not an Arab country.

Scarlett refuses Blair this time!

There is an interesting article in today's Guardian here, which says that John Scarlett, former Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee responsible in part for the dodgy dossier, and now head of MI6 does not endorse the government line that continuing the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into Saudi Arms deals would damage security cooperation.

Oh gosh!

Well the man has his Knighthood, so why would he? Seasoned observers will remember comment, particularly after the Butler report, that Scarlett was too easily Lent on because he could still move up, and so should never have been Chairman of the JIC.

Well, it now appears he does not want another promotion and recognises that Blair is history as well.

Just nice to know that someone who would sell his soul to Tony Blair is still prepared to deliver a well placed kick when the man is down!

Update 14:25

I note from this story on the BBC that Tony Blair has defended his position of the Saudi fraud scandal.

I was most amused by this quote:

Asked if the secret intelligence services knew - at the time the probe was dropped of any specific threat by the Saudis to cut intelligence links with the UK, Mr Blair said: "I won't get into discussing the intelligence aspect of this.

What? You mean like producing some sort of dodgy dossier for public discussion? MI6 not helping you out so you don't want to talk about intelligence any more? Git!

but then we have this comment from Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats:

But Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "If these reports are true, they seriously undermine the government's case for ending the investigation into allegations of corruption involving BAE and Saudi Arabia.

"In particular they undermine the reliability and credibility of the prime minister who publicly took responsibility for the decision and publicly sought to justify it."

What? The Prime minister hasn't got any credibility left to undermine surely?