Are Israeli Gaza operations undermining Abbas?

[BPSCG]

that would show the stark comparison between gaza and the west bank. show the world that israel does not seek to destroy the Palestinian people.

If the world doesn't already know that, then the world is stupider than a bag of wrenches.

 

[charles brough]

NPR reported this morning that Abbas has been losing support in the West Bank secondary to his criticism of Hamas at the beginning of the Gaza operations and ongoing suppression of protests against Israeli actions, that have turned into protests against his government:

If Abbas's popularity continues to erode, I wouldn't expect new elections any time soon. Fatah, Israel, and the US do not wish to risk a repeat the Hamas victories in Gaza.

I suppose no one should be surprised that war strengthens the forces of extremism and weakens the forces of moderation. It would be ironic if Israel's crushing of Hamas in Gaza led to their takeover of the West Bank.

Interesting news! But what if Israel crunches up Gaza under its military boot so well that it can impose Abbas on the Gaza Palestinians---a sort of puppet government? My impression was that Fata itself was manipulated into control of the West bank by Israel.

 

[geni]

Interesting news! But what if Israel crunches up Gaza under its military boot so well that it can impose Abbas on the Gaza Palestinians---a sort of puppet government?

No. Best we can tell there is no significant Fatah network left in Gaza so fatah would be unable to rule the place whatever happens.

 

[charles brough]

No. Best we can tell there is no significant Fatah network left in Gaza so fatah would be unable to rule the place whatever happens.

I just read elsewhere that the war on Gaza has undermined support for Fata in the Westbank as Westbank Palestinians commensurate with their brothers and their suffering in Gaza.

Of course, I can be wrong and the Israelis might not be unable to set up their own puppet government in Gaza, but lets see. The outcome of this will be interesting. . .

 

[gdnp]

Seems to leave the options in Gaza:

1) Israel reoccupies long term--not likely
2) Israel leaves and weakened Hamas returns to power--I don't think Israel will put up with this without and agreement to stop the rockets and without agreement from Egypt preventing Hamas from rearming. This may be the preferred Israeli solution as it achieves their immediate security objective and keeps the Palestinian leadership fragmented. Plus, they can continue to stall negotiations on an overall settlement on the grounds that they won't deal with Hamas
3) Hamas routed, Fatah retakes control--unclear whether this would be accepted by the Gaza population, or seen as Israeli puppets.
4) Control turned over to international authority, such as the UN--Not sure any side would agree to this
5) Hamas banned as political party, new elections in Gaza--begs the question on how enough stability can be achieved to hold new elections. And runs the risk that a new group of radicals will take control.

I'm not really sure what Israel's end game is here. Presumably they thought about an exit strategy before they went in. I just don't know what their ultimate objective was: stopping the rockets, deposing Hamas, or both.

 

[Texas]

Seems to leave the options in Gaza:

1) Israel reoccupies long term--not likely
2) Israel leaves and weakened Hamas returns to power--I don't think Israel will put up with this without and agreement to stop the rockets and without agreement from Egypt preventing Hamas from rearming. This may be the preferred Israeli solution as it achieves their immediate security objective and keeps the Palestinian leadership fragmented. Plus, they can continue to stall negotiations on an overall settlement on the grounds that they won't deal with Hamas
3) Hamas routed, Fatah retakes control--unclear whether this would be accepted by the Gaza population, or seen as Israeli puppets.
4) Control turned over to international authority, such as the UN--Not sure any side would agree to this
5) Hamas banned as political party, new elections in Gaza--begs the question on how enough stability can be achieved to hold new elections. And runs the risk that a new group of radicals will take control.

I'm not really sure what Israel's end game is here. Presumably they thought about an exit strategy before they went in. I just don't know what their ultimate objective was: stopping the rockets, deposing Hamas, or both.

I think option 2 is the most likely and achievable with option 3 a possibility. Option 4 is the most dangerous. I think Israel would accept it but any international force would quickly face the same conditions in Gaza as we did in Iraq leading to an insurgency against the IF. Given the confined area it could lead to very large losses of international troops.

 

[Doctor Evil]

Option 3 is NOT a possibility unless Hamas publicly agrees to it. Otherwise the Fatah would be seen as Israeli puppets. Similarly, option 5 is not realistic. Who will decide to ban Hamas? And on what authority.

 

[gdnp]

Option 3 is NOT a possibility unless Hamas publicly agrees to it. Otherwise the Fatah would be seen as Israeli puppets.

And Hamas would never agree to this.

Similarly, option 5 is not realistic. Who will decide to ban Hamas? And on what authority.

The PA could ban Hamas for violating the peace. Whether the Palestinians would stand for it remains to be seen.

 

[ddt]

1) Israel reoccupies long term--not likely

Very unlikely.

2) Israel leaves and weakened Hamas returns to power--I don't think Israel will put up with this without and agreement to stop the rockets and without agreement from Egypt preventing Hamas from rearming. This may be the preferred Israeli solution as it achieves their immediate security objective and keeps the Palestinian leadership fragmented. Plus, they can continue to stall negotiations on an overall settlement on the grounds that they won't deal with Hamas

Hamas may be weakened, and Israel may even accomplish to remove the more advanced rocketry. But the Qassams are home-made from simple materials, and you'd need small arms at least for a police force, and you can't ban out smuggling 100%.

3) Hamas routed, Fatah retakes control--unclear whether this would be accepted by the Gaza population, or seen as Israeli puppets.

Methinks the latter.

4) Control turned over to international authority, such as the UN--Not sure any side would agree to this

Who will provide troops for that? And where do you want to station them?

5) Hamas banned as political party, new elections in Gaza--begs the question on how enough stability can be achieved to hold new elections. And runs the risk that a new group of radicals will take control.

What prevents the Hamas politicians from forming a new party with a fancy name and running again. How about "Change and Reform", does that sound nice?

I'm not really sure what Israel's end game is here. Presumably they thought about an exit strategy before they went in. I just don't know what their ultimate objective was: stopping the rockets, deposing Hamas, or both.

Did they have one? We've heard a different story about their objectives every day.

Frankly, I don't think Israel had/has clear objectives. I think it's more a case of the politicians grabbing the opportunity to show the voters they care and do something about it, but that they never really had a clear idea what this operation should accomplish. And the opportunity was ideal: the end of the ceasefire, the upcoming elections and the US having an outgoing president. Note how in the first week of the campaign, the polls showed a 50% increase for Labour.

I think the outcome is (2) above. And in a year time, we're back at square one.

 

[FireGarden]

Hamas may be weakened, and Israel may even accomplish to remove the more advanced rocketry. But the Qassams are home-made from simple materials, and you'd need small arms at least for a police force, and you can't ban out smuggling 100%.

In fact, the destruction of Gaza is going to require the import of so many building materials that there will be plenty of opportunity to pilfer from non-smuggled goods.

As for explosives...
In the 1970's the IRA used ammonium nitrate and sodium chlorate:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1972/may/11/northern-ireland

They both do the same thing: provide oxygen.

It's not necessary to take the sodium chlorate from herbicides. We made potassium iodate at school. It was very easy.

We used a method similar to that indicated at wiki for sodium chlorate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_chlorate

That will provide the oxygen for whatever is used to burn. I think the IRA used sugar. Wiki says "when mixed with sugar it has explosive properties".

So that's how tough it is to keep explosives out of the hands of groups like Hamas. All they need are water, salt and electricity. And then something which burns and can be finely powdered.

 

[gtc]

In fact, the destruction of Gaza is going to require the import of so many building materials that there will be plenty of opportunity to pilfer from non-smuggled goods.

Hyperbole.

 

[egslim]

Is it possible that Abbas is betting that Israel will destroy Hamas's leadership and the remaining Gazans will be ready to sue for peace with Israel?

Suppose someone invades the US and wipes out the country's politicians and top-bureaucrats. Do you expect the American people to surrender, or will some of them form a resistance and try to rebuild their government?

Suppose they only kill Republicans, will that cause all Americans to flock to the Democrats?

Same for Gazans. It is basic human nature to oppose change forced upon you by outsiders.

As usual, Israel has to make all the concessions. Hamas or Abbas have to make no concessions.

That's because Israelis actually have something to concede. Palestines do not. Which is why it's much easier to recruit suicide bombers from slums than from nice and comfy middleclass neighbourhoods.

 

[charles brough]

Very unlikely.

Hamas may be weakened, and Israel may even accomplish to remove the more advanced rocketry. But the Qassams are home-made from simple materials, and you'd need small arms at least for a police force, and you can't ban out smuggling 100%.


Methinks the latter.


Who will provide troops for that? And where do you want to station them?


What prevents the Hamas politicians from forming a new party with a fancy name and running again. How about "Change and Reform", does that sound nice?


Did they have one? We've heard a different story about their objectives every day.

Frankly, I don't think Israel had/has clear objectives. I think it's more a case of the politicians grabbing the opportunity to show the voters they care and do something about it, but that they never really had a clear idea what this operation should accomplish. And the opportunity was ideal: the end of the ceasefire, the upcoming elections and the US having an outgoing president. Note how in the first week of the campaign, the polls showed a 50% increase for Labour.

I think the outcome is (2) above. And in a year time, we're back at square one.

Hamas is still firing rockets even while being pounded by Israel. If that continues and Isreal stops, Hamas achieves what would be, in the Muslim world, a moral victory. That is important and would be humiliating to Israel. It would not help the government in the election unless the fighting goes clear through the voting.

 

[Ziggurat]

Suppose someone invades the US and wipes out the country's politicians and top-bureaucrats. Do you expect the American people to surrender, or will some of them form a resistance and try to rebuild their government?

Suppose they only kill Republicans, will that cause all Americans to flock to the Democrats?

Same for Gazans. It is basic human nature to oppose change forced upon you by outsiders.

Unless you are claiming that its goals (the destruction of Israel) are shared by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza, the comparison is... illogical. And if you're claiming that this is the goal of the majority of Gaza residents, well, that's pretty much a justification for a genuine state of war. Furthermore, and perhaps more fundamentally, I very much would expect that eliminating our leadership WOULD cripple our ability to fight back - whether or not we wanted to or did, we would find ourselves unable to do so nearly as effectively.

That's because Israelis actually have something to concede. Palestines do not.

Sure they do: they can stop launching rockets into Israel.

But you ignored that possibility, perhaps because you know what you may not acknowledge: Israel has no "partner for peace". Those with the power to stop launching rockets will not negotiate in good faith, and those who might negotiate in good faith do not have the power to stop the attacks.

Which is why it's much easier to recruit suicide bombers from slums than from nice and comfy middleclass neighbourhoods.

Suicide bombers are frequently recruited from other than the poorest of the poor. The 9/11 hijackers are a perfect example that poverty isn't a requirement. The primary ingredient needed is hatred, not desperation.