Mark Perry describes a SETCOM intelligence report on Hamas/Hezbollah/Fatah/Israel as “provocative, controversial -- and at odds with current U.S. policy.” After lengthy evaluation of the report, it is sad to report that intellectually, the Red Team report is an op-ed piece written by someone lacking basic knowledge the Middle East. It’s full of off the wall assumption, baseless statements, nonexistent facts and support for totalitarian and oppressive movement.
The solutions suggested are not new, insightful or useful. Furthermore, the few reasonable ideas and their precursors are not original nor are they correstly exposed. If SETCOM would have written the same report after the Armistice agreement in 1948 between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries, the recommendation would have been that in order to lower tensions, Israel has to retreat from the Negev to Tel Aviv and abandon Jerusalem altogether.
The report is said to be “provocative, controversial -- and at odds with current U.S. policy.” It indeed is at odds with the vague and badly formed US policy. Provocative and controversial it is not. Talks with Hamas have been contemplated in Israel and openly discussed by Ephraim Halevy a former head of the Mosad in the American press. No one doubts the need to unify the Palestinian forces. There is nothing controversial or provocative here. There is, however, flawed analysis, ignorance and lack of understanding of the way to achieve it; lift the siege on Gaza is a witch doctor’s cure to the problem.
Paul Krugman in NYT, July 2, 2010: “When I was young and naïve, I believed that important people took positions based on careful consideration of the options. Now I know better. Much of what Serious People believe rests on prejudices, not analysis”. One cannot think of a better description for the Red Team report.
The report finds flaws with current practices and proposes that the “U.S. role of assistance to an integrated Lebanese defense force that includes Hezbollah; and the continued training of Palestinian security forces in a Palestinian entity that includes Hamas in its government, would be more effective…” Although correct, this statement ignores the main picture. Lebanon with no separate and active Hezbollah force will be best for Lebanon; the military training is a minor point in that case. Similarly, a unified Palestinian body politics is vastly preferable to the current hostile, with two respective and hostile military wings, split into Fatah and Hamas with each controlling different geography. Especially peace wise, a unified Palestine will be able to negotiate with Israel the way Arafat did. (In today’s pogrom-like times, no one remembers Oslo, Clinton’s or even Olmert/Abbas heavy duty negotiations.)
Hamas and Fatah are two competing forces engaged in a typical internal power struggle. Fatah has just about abandoned the military option and traded it for some autonomy in the West bank, a state status as far as representatives in Washington and European countries. It is important to note that Abbas’ weakness has caused his regime to become hatefully and vociferous and totally incapable of negotiating any agreement with Israel. Olmert, for example, offered Abbas a sweet deal Abbas didn’t even consider.
Hamas develops and uses the military option against Israel. Nothing seems to appeal to Hamas to reconcile with Fatah or to give up its military option visa vi Israel. Especially, Hamas is adamant about its call to eliminate Israel. If one follows the Fatah history, it gave up the military option and the call to eliminate Israel after decades of back and forth and severe Western pressure. It should take Hamas to do the same. Even shortening this process, a somewhat likely event, we still are years before Hamas will give up the military option. Joining force with Fatah should happen before giving up the military option. The recommendation to form such a joint force soon is wishful thinking based on no known foundation.
Hezbollah originated from the Shia underclass in Lebanon and its Amal party. Opposition to Israel was a comfortable and easy way to form a Shia military force. Currently, Hezbollah is integrated into the Lebanese political system and has become the strongest party there. It maintains its separate force both as a leverage over political system in Lebanon and an excellent tool for initiative that it uses against Israel. Hezbollah avoids becoming part of the Lebanese army, which they can easily defeat, to avoid exposing itself to justified country vs. country Israeli retaliation. This is Hezbollah main advance. They hide among population and spread into civilian areas. This makes them an elusive target; it’s their strength against Israel and a major PR advantage. No foreign party has ever blamed Hamas or Hezbollah of hiding behind civilians and causing way civilian casualties. On the contrary, they always play a consensus role of the aggrieved victim in the hands of the inhumane Israeli military. In the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza out of 1500 dead none was Hamas; as amazing as this sound, this is the world’s consensus belief. The Red Team ignores these obvious facts and suggests the LFA that nobody except the Red Team is interested in.
They also criticize Israel's August 2006 war against Hezbollah as counterproductive. "Instead of exploiting Hezbollah’s independent streak ... Israeli actions in Lebanon may have had the reverse effect of tightening its bonds with Iran," the authors note. What independent streak? Israel war in August 2006 against Hezbollah was a hasty decision made by a new government; the war was run badly because both the military and the government were clueless about running such a war. As a result of the redundant and clumsy war, however, is a totally quite border since 2006. Quiet border for Israeli civilian living along it is a very important goal for as it would be for any other country. The question is, “counterproductive” for whom? Apparently, a quiet border doesn’t serve the Red Team well. The assumption that that war strengthened the already strong relationship between Iran and Hezbollah is childish. It reminds one the goon who is hit by the victim declaring after the hit: “now you got me mad.” This type of argumentation/analysis is way below par.
Equating of the IRA to Hezbollah is another beauty. The peace in Ireland has brought the IRA into the tent. Hezbollah is already inside the tent. Hezbollah is an important component of the Lebanese political system despite having its own active military force. The IRA was eager to achieve parity and share power with the Protestants. Hezbollah has more than parity and it shares and some in governing Lebanon. It is unclear what the British ambassador will provide Hezbollah.
The siege of Gaza is more PR than reality. Israel supplies Gaza with water, electricity and some urgent products. Still, although designed to prevent penetration of arm shipments, the siege should be lessened to allow shipment of more products in both directions. SETCOM claims that the siege "may be radicalizing more people, especially the young, increasing the number of potential recruits" for the organization. This is the oldest falsehood on the books. It is widely spread. The Palestinians had 60 years of grievance against Israel; they don’t need a partial siege to get more extreme. This media type of mindless argument reflects on the quality of the Red Team report; it’s very much an op-ed piece in the New York Time written by a person whose expertise is in anything but the conflict underhand.
In addition, the report argues that an Israeli decision to lift the siege might pave the way for reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, which would be "the best hope for mainstreaming Hamas." That’s a mysterious assumption; why would more comfort in Gaza lead to reconciliation between the factions? One is totally baffled; it’s almost like whistling passed by the graveyard.
Repeating in detail, lifting the siege will, deus ex machina, lead to Hamas's explicit renunciation of violence that would gain "widespread international support and deprive the Israelis of any legitimate justification to continue settlement building and delay statehood negotiations." The crazy settlement movement in Israel has nothing to do with “legitimate justification”; it stems from fanaticism and the universal tendency of occupiers to grab occupied land. (The US is a large settlement spread from sea to shining sea built on Indian lands; European history is replete with population movement upon occupation. My grandfather was born in Russia, my parents were born in the same small town and in Poland, I visited the Ukraine to see my parents’ town. All this time some population stayed and some moved with the new occupier. Million of Russian migrated to the Baltic nations after WWII and most of them moved back after the fall of the Soviet empire. This list is endless although in the case of Israel the world faint surprise and disgust of the “rare” aberration.)
Furthermore, before Netanyahu, negotiations on statehood took place and an agreement was rejected by Fatah and not Israel. Furthermore, the siege dates back only a couple of years. According to the Red Team, several years ago Hamas and Fatah were closer to reconciliation that of course never happened.
For reasons beyond explanation, the report sides with Hamas against Fatah. It mentions the precarious situation of Hamas activist on the West bank but fails to mention Hamas killing and executing of Fatah people in Gaza. Why? They scorn general Dayton for committing the mortal sin of speaking to a pro-Israeli group. Indeed, what was he thinking? Didn’t he know that SETCOM is in the business of associating itself with totalitarians and military juntas?
In addition, "But all Palestinians are watching the clashes in East Jerusalem, which continue to feed into the Palestinians perception the Israelis are incapable of negotiating in good faith," What clashes? There is a major dispute, but there are no clashes. Even when Israel negotiated in Oslo achieving an agreement, in 2000 with Arafat and Barak negotiate earnestly a serious proposal, then lately Olmert offered Abbas the sweetest deal possible which was rejected off hand by Abbas, the Palestinians’ perception was that Israel negotiates in bad faith. Heck, SETCOM believes so too despite the historical record. Ignorance on the part of SETCOM doesn’t help.
SETCOM makes another awful mistake. Netanyahu has been the prime minister for a little more than a year. The length of his reign is unclear. Netanyahu represents the old school of Likud that still believes in expending and grabbing land. SETCOM looks at the whole era as if Netanyahu was always there and always will. This may serve their biases, but it is far from reality.
Perry ends his article with “any Red Team report by definition reflects a view that is contrary to accepted policy, a CENTCOM senior officer told me that -- so far as he knows -- there is, in fact, no parallel Blue Team report contradicting the Red Team's conclusion. "Well, that's not exactly right," this senior officer added. "The Blue Team is the Obama administration." I would claim that a Red Team report doesn’t exist. What we have is a set of hallucinations totally disjoint from reality that will astonish any serious observer. It is very sad indeed. There is a lot of positive work the US can do in the complex of Lebanon/Israel and Palestine but SETCOM doesn’t have the slightest clue what that work is.
Obama is not the Blue Team either. His initial push for peace between Israelis and Palestinians was also misdirected. And after Netanyahu’s election as prime minister, peace became even more difficult to achieve. The main difficulty before is rather simple to describe. First pushing for peace between Israel and Abbas makes no sense; he represents, at best, only 2/3 of the Palestinians. The second major problem is a real problem no one ever discusses. Peace requires a solution to the Palestinian refugees languishing in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Without such a solution, the Palestinians will never make peace and you cannot blame them. The Red Team doesn’t mention this problem may be because they use the word peace more as a slogan than an important and complicated goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment