Israel has the veto on US policy

Israel has the veto on US policy

S P SETH

Having recently pounded and pulverized Gaza in their military operations, killing more than 2100 Palestinians, and with no visible progress to lift blockade of the Gaza Strip after the ceasefire, Israel is now turning elsewhere to annex more of Palestinian territory. This time it is the proposed construction of 2610 homes in east Jerusalem, part of the continued expansion of Israeli settlements and consequent eviction of more Palestinians. The capacity of the Israeli state to ignore all the relevant UN resolutions and the general world opinion, which regards Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem as illegal, is astounding believing that Israel is a special case over and above international law and conventions. Even its closest ally that underwrites its security and provides all the military and economic aid shows at times frustration with its wayward behavior and defiance of the Obama administration. The new tranche of settlement activity in east Jerusalem has drawn sharper criticism from the US than is usually the case. According to Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman of the US state department, “This development [of more Israeli settlements] will only draw condemnation from the international community, distance Israel from even its closest allies, poison the atmosphere not only with the Palestinians but also with the very Arab governments with which Prime Minister Netanyahu said he wanted to build relations, and call into question Israel’s commitment to a peaceful, negotiated settlement with Palestinians.”

It is rather surprising that after the collapse of the marathon peace initiative by John Kerry, US secretary of state, the US still somehow wants to believe that Israel might have some residual commitment to a peaceful and negotiated settlement of the Palestinian question. It doesn’t. Kerry expressed his despondency and frustration at the time, to the great irritation and anger of the Netanyahu government, when he said that Israel would soon face the choice between “either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens--- or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish [majority] state.” Philip Gordon, the White House coordinator for the Middle East, recently said that, “How will it [Israel] have peace if it is unwilling to delineate a border, end the occupation, and allow for Palestinian sovereignty, security and dignity?” And he added, “It cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely. Doing so is not only wrong but a recipe for resentment and recurring instability.” Most of all, as President Obama reportedly said that Israel’s decades’ long occupation of Palestine is simply “unsustainable”.

But despite strong reservations of the Obama administration about the efficacy and humanity of Israeli occupation, it still stands by Israel and tries to make excuses for it time and again. It has to stop making excuses and do something concrete to make Israel see some sense that its obduracy on Palestine is neither good for its own security and stability but also puts US relations with the Middle East in a state of continuous acrimony, if not crisis. The US, therefore, needs to approach the Palestinian question with great urgency because it alone has the necessary leverage and capacity to make Israel see sense as its chief patron and security guarantor.

But as we have seen in the last several decades that this is unlikely to happen any time soon, principally because of the enormous clout of the Zionist lobby in the United States. And its chief vehicle is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). A long article titled, Friends of Israel, by Connie Bruck in a recent issue of the New Yorker, has some interesting information about the AIPAC and its modus operandi to tilt the US political system in Israel’s favour. And for this it has a wide network at its disposal. For instance: “AIPAC has more than a hundred thousand members, a network of seventeen regional offices, and a vast pool of donors.” How does it work? Well, an important mechanism is funding the election of its chosen Congress members who are given a clear brief of what they are expected to say and how to vote on issues affecting the state of Israel. As Bruck says in her article, “AIPAC’s hold on Congress has become institutionalized.” It is difficult, if not impossible, to run for Congress without “hearing from AIPAC.” According to Brian Baird, a Congress member, “ And they [AIPAC] see us, members of Congress, as basically for sale. So they want us to shut up and play the game.” In their book, The Israeli Lobby and the U.S. Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, created quite a storm by their searing critique of AIPAC. But, by and large, the US remains steadfast in its support of Israel when it comes to the crunch. As a result, there is no need for Israel to change or adjust its position on the Palestinian question.

Despite the solid US support for Israel, there still is a view in Israel and among its supporters in the US that it is precisely the US meddling and periodic peace initiatives that are at the core of the problem. It is argued that such initiatives stand in the way of other, less ambitious, approaches to the Palestinian issue. In his article, “Israel and the US: The Delusions of Our Diplomacy”, Nathan Thrall explores this in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books. He argues that Israel’s supporters have some difference of opinion as to how best Israel’s interests might be served but they all back “the Israeli demand to place severe restrictions on the sovereignty of a future Palestinian state, with limits on Palestinian armament, border control, and airspace, as well as the presence in the Palestinian state of international security forces, Israeli early-warning stations, routes for Israeli emergency deployments, and a continued presence for some considerable period of Israeli troops.” Which, in effect, means institutionalizing Israeli occupation and give it a legal cover with the US promoting its international acceptance.

On the other hand, the US advocacy of a peace process where Palestine might have attributes of a sovereign state, in Thrall’s view and many other Israeli supporters, is problematic. Because: “It deprives any other third party--- whether European or Arab [and religious Zionists and ultra-orthodox Jews]--- of a meaningful part in the peace process.” He believes that, “… most Israeli voters, and many among the Palestinian elite, are quite at ease with existing conditions…” And his advice to the US government is that it should better leave the Palestinian issue alone because: “The potential benefits of creating a small, poor, and strategically inconsequential Palestinian state are tiny when compared to the costs of heavily pressuring a close ally wielding significant regional and US domestic power.” With views like this seemingly vetoing US policy on the Palestinian issue, it is no wonder that it will remain a festering sore in an already volatile Middle Eastern region.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

IS: it will be a long war

S P SETH

The world is everyday learning the scope and complexity of the situation in Iraq and Syria where Islamic State militants are apparently not deterred by the air strikes launched by the United States and its allies. While they have been contained in some places in Iraq, they have made advances in some parts of Syria, threatening the Kurdish town of Kobani starting an exodus of an estimated 200,000 Kurds across the border into Turkey. Indeed, the IS’ sudden emergence as a significant force, posing serious threat to regional stability and becoming a magnet for international jihadists, has taken much of the world by surprise, causing trepidation. In a recent television interview, President Obama admitted that the US intelligence agencies had under-estimated IS. On the other side of the equation, they had over-estimated the Iraqi army and state as capable of dealing with terrorism in all its forms. The ease with which the IS forces were able to occupy Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city with the Iraqi army making a run for their lives and abandoning the US-gifted arsenal for the IS, proves the point.

To quote Obama from his interview: “Over the past couple of years, during the chaos of the Syrian civil war, where essentially you have huge swathes of the country that are completely ungoverned [ISIL was] able to reconstitute themselves [from the shattered al Qaeda outfit it was] and take advantage of that chaos.” And: “This became ground zero for jihadists around the world”. They advanced so fast that even Erbil, the capital of Iraq’s Kurdish region, seemed within their reach, only saved by US aerial intervention. While the IS is consolidating and even, at places, strengthening its hold in Iraq, the situation in Syria is even more dire. It is a witches’ brew of terrorist activity with the IS clearly the dominant jihadi group. The US aerial bombing there seems to have, for the time being, brought together the feuding terrorist groups behind IS.

And then there are the so-called moderate rebels that are preferred US choice to fight both IS and the Assad regime on the ground. They were supposed to be vetted by the US intelligence to qualify for US military assistance because of the fear that military weapons and equipment for them might fall into militant hands. But they reportedly would now receive an estimated $500 million worth of weaponry to confront apparently both the IS and the Assad regime. This looks like US policy on the run because nothing has really changed to ensure that they would be an effective force or, for that matter, their weapons wouldn’t fall into the militants’ hands. To further add to the confusion, there is the Assad regime, which the US is committed to overthrow with the help of the secular/moderate rebels.

In the present circumstances, the Assad regime would be a natural ally of the US against Islamic State. But such tactical arrangement against IS is virtually vetoed by the US’ Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia. This is because of the larger Sunni-Shia sectarian divide in which the Syrian regime of the Alawite (Shia) sect is regarded by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchs as the Iranian dagger pointing into the heart of Sunni Arab lands. This larger sectarian power play led Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies into funneling funds and weapons into the hands of militant groups of which Islamic State has now grown into a monster threatening both Sunni and Shia regimes alike. And this is also preventing the US and Iran from cooperating fully against the common threat of Islamic State. Therefore, despite the US success in creating a broad international front against IS, including some Arab kingdoms, it is not making things any easier. Which brings home the bitter truth that air strikes by itself won’t stop IS, suggesting that combat troops would need to be deployed sooner, rather than later.

The Turkish government could play an important role to thwart IS advances, now that its parliament has approved its participation in the international coalition. But, despite all the international pressure to help the beleaguered Kurds in Kobani, just across the border, it is dragging its feet because it wants the US to undertake to simultaneously overthrow the Assad regime by putting up a no-fly zone in Syria as well as to create a security cordon across the Turkish border for Syrian refugees. At the same time, it worries that the focus on fighting IS might strengthen the Kurdish autonomy movement that Turkey has been trying to suppress over decades.

As pointed out earlier, the aerial war against IS would need to be supplemented with ground warfare. But there is still no consensus about who, among the coalition partners, will contribute the ground troops. The US and its western allies contend that it is the Arab’s fight and that they should be doing the actual fighting on the ground. And indeed the Iraqi military and the Kurdish Peshmerga are engaged in the operations against IS. But the Iraqi forces, despite all their training by the US over the years and with US-supplied weaponry, have been more adept at fleeing rather than fighting, though there are recent reports that their morale has improved and things might change for the better. This would remain to be seen. The Kurdish Peshmerga, on the other hand, are said to be motivated fighters and have been doing their bit, but they lack high caliber weaponry to confront IS.  In other words, the ground forces that are supposed to take on IS militants are not battle ready yet. That would leave the US and its allies to fill the gap at some point. But President Obama has made it clear that the US wouldn’t put boots on the ground, even though he has already sent 1500 combat ready experts as advisers and trainers.

One just has to wonder what would they do new in terms of training and equipment, which was not done during the time they were in Iraq from 2003 to 2011? Would that mean that the US might, at some point, put its own troops on the ground, as it considers IS a threat to its own security? The IS might even be goading the US in that direction if its recent statement is anything to go by. The statement said in part that, “You will pay the price when your economies collapse. You will pay the price when your sons are sent to wage war against us and they return to you as disabled amputees, or inside coffins, or mentally ill…”

Whether or not the US will put boots on the ground would remain to be seen. One thing though is clear. Which is that it will be a long drawn-out war.

Note: This article was first published in th Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

Dealing with Islamic State

S P SETH

The self-proclaimed Islamic State (of Iraq and Levant) has become a living nightmare for much of the Muslim and non-Muslim world. For the Muslim world at large, it has declared war on all and sundry that do not subscribe to their version of Islam, whatever that might be. Which is why there is now growing panic among Arab kingdoms, like Saudi Arabia, that otherwise were supporting these and other militants of varying descriptions. The Shias, of course, are ISIS’s mortal enemies. The rest of the world would also, at some point, need to be subdued to the writ of the new caliphate. Of course, this wouldn’t happen soon, even the diehard among the ISIS must recognize this. But it is important to set a long-term goal of re-establishing the envisioned Islamic glory of the past. And for that it was important to declare an Islamic State with its own territory that would become the magnet for many Sunni Muslims from all over the world that feel disempowered and humiliated with western domination. And this is already clear from the fact that a good number of of ISIS’ hardened fighters are Muslims from foreign countries, feeling empowered with this new Mecca of the Islamic world.

In other words, even though IS is not as powerful as its leaders would make out to be and is highly vulnerable, but the act of its proclamation with its own territorial space stretched over large parts of Iraq and Syria, has created the image of a nest for all Muslims with deep-rooted hatred of the west and their ‘lackeys’ in the Arab world. Viewed against this backdrop there is logic of sorts behind the declaration of the Islamic State. And that would explain why it has, in a sense, supplanted the al Qaeda as a driving force for disempowered Muslims. Interestingly, this has led al Qaeda to re-energize itself by retooling jihad in the sub-continent to include India, Bangladesh, Burma, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are already in different stages of that struggle. While the al Qaeda created enough havoc, largely with its ideological inspiration, it lacked its own territorial space to draw many adherents. As a result, the al Qaeda largely became an ideological brand name for local/regional jihadis in different parts of the world. The IS wants to be a global phenomenon in its own right with its own territorial space, and take it from there.

 Whether or not IS will make much headway regionally or globally, is another matter. But it certainly has created alarm, particularly in the US, among some NATO countries, in Australia and among its Arab neighbours.  The US is leading the charge against the Islamic State (of Iraq and Levant). The strategy to deal with it is three-fold. The first is to create an inclusive Iraqi government with fair and effective representation of Sunni and Kurd communities. The removal of Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister and his replacement by Haider al-Abidi, who now heads the new government, is an attempt to create national consensus and mobilization against the Islamic State militants. The US considers it as an important step. But the two most important cabinet positions of internal affairs and defense have been left vacant to be filled at a later stage, suggesting serious differences. Therefore, as long as there is such persistent distrust, the idea of national consensus is a bit pre-mature.

At the regional level, countries like Saudi Arabia and Gulf kingdoms that have been funneling aid of all sorts, and through different channels, to Sunni militants in Iraq and Syria will have to seriously reconsider their options. The US is organizing an Arab coalition for effective action against IS. This coalition of Arab countries will take appropriate action against IS, though the specifics of what that action might be are still not clear. These countries are coming to realize that Islamic State is a serious danger to their political stability because, first, their espousal of the so-called caliphate would suggest a dominant political and religious Centre with Baghdadi as the new caliph; and, two, if Saudi Arabia were, for instance, to go on the offensive against IS in some form of collaboration with the US, it might create serious domestic/regional backlash from the sort of extremist constituency that IS represents and Saudi Arabia has been nurturing. Saudi Arabia has generally encouraged Sunni militant orthodoxy, and suddenly to turn against that when these militants of the IS brand feel empowered, is not likely to go well with its sympathizers and adherents in the birthplace of orthodox Islam.

While the US is seeking to represent IS as an enemy of Muslims and non-Muslims alike and rally international and regional forces in a common cause, this has the potential at some point of time of appearing as an anti-Muslim crusade. By rallying Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, the US seeks the legitimacy of the Muslim world against this particular brand of Islamic militancy, learning lessons from former president Bush’s disastrous Iraq war that, at times, appeared like a global crusade against Islam. This time, the US is keen that any expanded military action should have a specific and narrow focus on IS (in Iraq and Syria). And that it has the authorization of Iraq’s new supposedly inclusive government. The whole idea is to make it legitimate at the national, regional and international levels to the extent possible. At home in the US, opinion polls suggest overwhelming support for action, short of, it would seem, combat troops. At national level in Iraq, the Sunnis and Kurds are not satisfied with the composition of the new Shia-dominated government, which looks more like old wine in new bottles. The inclusivity argument is, therefore, is bit of a stretch. As for broad regional support, it is likely to vary with the success or otherwise of the US-led project against IS.

One might ask: what exactly is the objective of the US-led coalition? President Obama has said, “Our objective is clear, and that is to destroy ISIL so it is no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States.” Apparently, this is the optimum goal, which has no time limit. A more modest goal, as Obama said at another time, is that a coalition force led by the US might “continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities, where it is a manageable problem.”  And that seems to be the guiding principle behind the international and regional coalition that was broadly laid out in his recent speech to the nation. There is, of course, a lot of confusion about dealing with IS. While Obama has ruled out putting combat troops on the ground, Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is of the view that air strikes alone will not do the job.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@aol.com.au

     

Islamic State

Islamic State

S P SETH

In a world plagued with multiple crises, the self-proclaimed Islamic State (of Iraq and Levant) has emerged as another lightening rod for a region that is already facing quite a few fires. Its rapid advance through Mosul and threatening Erbil at one point, the capital of Iraq’s Kurdish region, has sent shock waves bringing the US back into Iraq to contain this new threat. Indeed, the new Islamic army didn’t have to do much by way of fighting to occupy Mosul, because the Iraqi forces simply fled abandoning much of their American weaponry and equipment as a helpful contribution for the ISIL forces. The advancing forces also helped themselves to the vast treasury left behind. And the orgy of killings by the ISIS continued with gruesome pictures of those executed put on social media sites. While the enemy was advancing, the Iraqi political establishment was undecided, at that point of time, about who will govern the country. The elections held on April 30 had returned Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s party as the single largest group but nowhere near a majority to form a government. He will soon be replaced as Prime Minister by Haider al-Abadi.

Why has the Iraqi situation reached this critical point? The starting point, of course, was the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which simply opened up a Pandora’s box that refuses to be put together. The situation got even more complicated when the Maliki Government played divisive sectarian and ethnic politics, targeting Sunnis and being distrustful of the Kurds. Even though Maliki had suffered greatly under Saddam Hussein and spent many years in exile in Iran and Syria, as Prime Minister he was largely practicing his former tormentor’s politics of fear and terror against his presumed enemies, the Sunnis. The tribal Sunni coalition forged with American support and involvement against al Qaeda in Iraq, that eventually killed its leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroyed much of its structure, was allowed to dissipate under Maliki as he didn’t want to share power with the Sunnis. In other words, Maliki was a paranoid leader keen to centralize power under his control and his faction of the Shiite community. However, considering all the fault lines of Iraqi politics of sectarian and regional divisions, it was probably expecting too much of any Iraqi leader to create and lead an inclusive Iraq. Iraq was and remains a fractured state. Maliki simply made an already difficult situation worse.

Will Haider al-Abadi be able to do a better job of uniting Iraq’s fractured politics and society? A hopeful feature in this respect is that his selection was welcomed by both the United States and Iran separately. In the short term, therefore, there is likely to be much talk of a united government with better representation for the Sunnis and Kurds. An ‘inclusive’ government will mean more US military and humanitarian assistance, and greater Iranian support (of all sorts) for the new political order. But, considering the deep-rooted sectarian, regional and ethnic fault-lines, such unity is unlikely to hold for long. The sectarian violence seems to have its own momentum.

A hopeful by-product of ‘inclusive’ politics, if it works, is that it might help to detach Sunni tribes and other Sunni groups from the brutal Islamic State, as happened when they helped the US military to suppress the al Qaeda in Iraq in 2006 and 2007. Whether or not it will happen is a matter of conjecture and hope. But increased American involvement, being canvassed increasingly by powerful figures in the US after the beheading of an American journalist, is likely to contain the threat from the Islamic state. It seems to be already happening in northern Iraq with intense US aerial bombardment. A combination of Kurdish pesh merga (military) forces on the ground, supported by stepped up US aerial strikes, is producing results for the time being at least. They have, for instance, retaken the Mosul dam from the IS forces.

In any case, the potential for the self-proclaimed caliphate is rather limited. There is much talk of great economic resources at its disposal and looted weaponry helping its onward march. But, over an extended period, any state entity would need to create a governing structure with recurring revenues and ability to engage in trade with other countries like, for instance, to sell oil from its captured oil fields and refineries. And that would be quite daunting for the Islamic State under constant attack and international isolation. Which doesn’t mean it will cease to be dangerous. It will certainly continue to be a magnet for jihadists of all sorts within Iraq and Syria as well as radical Muslims from abroad.

An important question is how best to create regional consensus on the issue? For Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies, including Turkey, the over-arching regional issue has been and is the sectarian divide between the Sunnis and Shias, the latter identified with Iran’s ambitions to carve out a powerful role. And this has been the driving force behind them helping jihadist groups of all sorts. But with the Islamic State and the caliphate becoming a potent threat, these Gulf kingdoms might have to rethink their entire strategy. A militant expansionist Islamist movement, committed to spreading its own version of Sunni Islam under the overarching umbrella of caliphate, is as much a danger to Shia Iran as it is to Sunni monarchies in the Gulf. The US would very much want the broadest regional consensus and a united front to stem the rising tide of the IS. But will it be possible to bring together Shia Iran and the Sunni Arab states of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf kingdoms to fight this menace? It doesn’t seem likely, considering their history. And it is these contradictions that might give enough political space to the new Islamic State to maneuver.

In the US-led international response to the ISIS militancy, the Kurdish region of Iraq is understandably getting much more attention by way of humanitarian and military assistance. The humanitarian situation of the Yazidi people of the Sinjar region, under siege by the IS forces, seems improved. But other minorities are now being targeted. And the threat to Erbil, the capital of the Kurdish region, appears to have been contained after the US aerial bombing. But such US commitment to Kurdish security is likely to create resentment among the Shias. In the larger regional context, any strengthening of Kurdish autonomy in Iraq will have spill on effects, over time, creating pressure for a regional Kurdish homeland. In other words, there are multilayered fault lines in Iraq and the region.  And this could work to the Islamic State’s advantage.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

Israeli terrorism

S P SETH

Whether or not there is a ceasefire, Israel wants to continue the massacre in Gaza. Of course, there is the excuse/justification that Israel is simply exercising its right of self defence against incoming rockets fired from Gaza by Hamas and other associated groups. But there are only two Israeli civilians killed from rocket firing, while the Israeli bombing, at the time of writing, has killed over 1800 Gazans (and rising). And 80 per cent of those killed are civilians, many of them women and children. In other words, Israel is using the civilian population as ransom to crush the resistance movement spearheaded by Hamas. Undoubtedly, most Gazans and other Palestinians share the aspiration to become masters in their own homeland.  Who wouldn’t when your territory is besieged from all sides and the people are confined to a vast prison-like existence with all movements of humans and goods dependent on Israel’s mercy? And there is no hope in hell of any redemption, unless the world wakes up to the Palestinian misery.  By and large, the Arab world and the larger international community have abandoned the Palestinians. This is what Israel wants.  Every time it pounds the Palestinians in Gaza and/or West Bank, its narrative presents itself as the victim and much of the world seems to buy it.

What is this narrative? Essentially, it preys on the holocaust visited on the Jews and other pogroms they were subjected to when they lived in Europe. And the stereotypes created about them, reproduced also in the United States, have been a part of the mainstream European literature and culture. Its culmination by way of a ‘final solution’ under the Nazis, and European and American indifference to their plight, finally persuaded these countries to salvage their conscience by creating a ‘homeland’ for these people. And since the Zionist movement wanted to ‘reclaim’ their ‘homeland’ in Palestine, it didn’t seem a difficult proposition as the Palestinians were among the most powerless people in the world. Which would explain why the creation of the state of Israel got the stamp of approval from the UN Security Council. Against this backdrop of victimhood in which, incidentally, the Palestinians had no role to play, the state of Israel emerged as a ‘heroic’ tale of a people managing to return to their ‘lost’ land. And when this story had supporters among almost all members of the Security Council, it was not difficult to see how it became an ‘acceptable’ narrative.   

The problem, though, was that the people of Palestine didn’t want to be displaced and replaced from where their forefathers had lived forever. They, therefore, put up strong resistance and their consequent struggle, backed by some of the Arab countries, only resulted in greater misery. Israel, created and nurtured with US support, money and weaponry, proved too powerful for the Arab coalition. And in the six days war of 1967, Israel exponentially expanded its occupied territory, leading its defence minister Moshe Dayan to declare that Israel is now an empire. Since then this basic fact that Israel is an occupying power acting at will and constantly altering ground realities, is a constant. Notwithstanding the Oslo agreement of 1993 creating a framework for a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian issue, and subsequent efforts in that direction-- the recent one by John Kerry whom the Israeli government found so annoying--, Israel simply doesn’t want a political solution that will accommodate Palestinian aspirations. The entire façade, over the years, of a political solution is a gimmick to drag on the process to a point where it becomes pointless and fruitless. Israel wants total capitulation, with an acceptance of an even deeper state of apartheid than exists today. Better still, they would like to make the Palestinians’ existence so miserable that they would just exit their homeland like many did before.

Just look at what they are doing to Gaza.  Gaza is a vast open-air prison with its 1.8 million people as prison inmates, surrounded on all sides by Israel. Some Israelis have, at times, urged that it be reduced to ‘stone age’ or simply flattened. And at best, its residents should be kept at a bare subsistence level to keep them  occupied with their sheer survival. But the problem is that despite periodical flattening of parts of their territory and mass murder of their people from Israeli bombing and missile attacks, they still haven’t submitted to Israeli terror. Egypt sought to bring about a ceasefire on Israeli terms, which amounts to total surrender on Gaza’s part. In essence it would mean the demilitarization of the Gaza strip under Israeli control.

But Hamas hasn’t been willing to go so easily, and has kept up its barrage of rockets falling in Israel but without causing any real damage, while Israeli bombing is killing people on an industrial scale. Watching women and children in cries of despair is heart rending. But Netanyahu reportedly described them as the “telegenic corpses” of the Palestinian children. How sick! But the Israeli narrative, however grotesque and cruel, still is that they are bombing and killing Gazans as a defensive measure. And that is not the end of it. Its ground invasion is intended to destroy, according to Israel, the network of tunnels that are, in some ways, Gaza’s alternative lifeline. Israel wants to destroy the entire infrastructure that makes Hamas continue its resistance.

And Egypt under Sisi, like his predecessor Hosni Mubarak, is facilitating this task with even greater enthusiasm. Some of its journalists, working for the state-controlled media, reportedly are even appreciative of Israeli efforts to eliminate Hamas. Indeed, the defeating silence of the Arab world on the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip is a sad reflection on its state of affairs in the wake of the so-called Arab Spring. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies have no love lost for Hamas, regarded as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Which, in turn, has been banned as a terrorist organization in Egypt, with its entire leadership in prison and many of them sentenced to death or long prison sentences. Saudi Arabia is right behind the Sisi regime in its crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. Against this backdrop of politicking within the Arab world targeting Muslim Brotherhood, it is not entirely surprising that the Hamas finds itself so much isolated. And Israel is getting away with murder and mayhem. Still, Israeli forces might find the going hard to pacify Gaza Strip as even the inveterate Israeli warhorse Ariel Sharon found when he finally withdraw Israeli occupation and settlements from there.   

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au