Government, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Society, United Nations, United States

Israeli/Palestinian conflict: A need for restraint…

MIDDLE EAST

Intro: It must surely be in the interests of both sides in this missile strewn battle not to let their actions spiral out of control

In the first three days of its air offensive against the Palestinian militant group Hamas – to which Islamic Jihad is affiliated – the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) struck more than 780 targets in Gaza, including leaders of the organisation, rocket-launchers and missiles which have been deliberately hidden and concealed among the territory’s civilian population.

In response, Hamas has been firing hundreds of its own rockets at Israel from shifting launch-sites in the Gaza Strip.

What makes this latest outbreak so terrifying in the endless tragedy of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the extraordinary intensity of both the provocation from Hamas, and the response from Israel: Hamas for the first time in years has been directly targeting Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. As a result, nearly three million people in these cities have been forced into bomb-shelters over recent days.

In the past week, Hamas rockets have also been fired at targets as far away as Hadera and Haifa in northern Israel, and at the heavily-protected Dimona plant where Israel’s nuclear weapons are made and assembled.

Hamas’s military wing, the Army of Al-Qassam, has only been able to display such ambition because it has recently added a formidable new weapon to its armoury of more than 11,000 missiles – a clutch of Syrian-made M-302 rockets with a range of 100 miles. Before now, the maximum range of their rockets had been in the region of 50 miles.

With this dramatic escalation in Hamas’s ability to strike deep into Israel, the IDF is poised for a ground invasion of Gaza.

It is no understatement to say that the inevitable bloodshed and carnage that would follow such a development could inflame tensions throughout the Middle East, especially if Hamas manages to incite a general Palestinian uprising or intifada.

****

Given the horrific chaos that already exists in Syria and Iraq, it is little wonder that world leaders are deeply anxious and calling for restraint on both sides.

Ever since the Israeli state was created in 1948, and carved out of land that used to be Palestine, there has always been a sense of grievance among Palestinian Arabs, many of whom were dispossessed when Jewish settlers moved in.

Although 1.7 million Palestinian Arabs still live in Israel, huge numbers left their land and moved to Gaza – a strip of territory 25 miles long by seven miles at its widest – which is now home to 1.5 million people and one of the most densely populated areas on Earth.

Whatever the rights and wrongs – and there are wrongs on both sides – it is perhaps understandable that their descendants feel resentment towards Israelis who live on land they believe is rightfully theirs.

This resentment has resulted in continual attacks on Israel by Palestinians, and the latest cycle of violence started after Hamas kidnapped three Israeli schoolboys on June 12 in a bid to boost its popularity among Palestinians in the run-up to elections in less than six months time.

The militant group coldly murdered its teenage captives – possibly in panic after discovering they were not Israeli soldiers who could be used as bargaining chips to swap for released Hamas prisoners.

Even President Mahmoud Abbas, who governs the Palestinian Authority in coalition with Hamas, reluctantly condemned the atrocity – although cynics said this was to ensure continued US and EU financial aid.

But in swift retribution, Israeli vigilantes kidnapped a Palestinian teenager and killed him. He was almost certainly burnt alive, for it has been reported that soot was found in his throat and lungs.

The Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu condemned the vigilante killing in the strongest terms, saying those responsible for the crime would be met with the full weight of the law.

Nevertheless, the Israelis felt so violated by the callous murder of their own three teenagers, that Netanyahu had to act in response to his people’s demands that something had to be done to smash the Hamas terrorist network.

Yet, this was almost certainly what the ruthless strategists of Hamas had cynically intended. For incurring the wrath and anger of Israel is a vote-winning move for them – particularly since they now possess their new long-range missiles to hit back with. Indeed, as soon as Israel launched its revenge offensive, the Syrian made M-302 missiles were wheeled into action – even though Hamas does not have proper guidance systems. As a result, some of the rockets either ended up in the sea or exploded harmlessly in open countryside.

How many of these long-range missiles Hamas have in total is not clear, but it is likely to be in the low tens. Most likely they came from Iran.

A blog on the IDF website recently suggested a ship carrying them was intercepted by Israeli commandos in March in the Red Sea, off the African coast. It stated that the ‘Iranian weapons’ on board were ‘destined for Gaza terrorists’. The ship was due to drop them off in Sudan, from where they would be delivered overland to Gaza via Egypt.

The Israelis, too, have brought into action their own state-of-the-art weaponry – not least their extraordinarily effective US -financed Iron Dome defence system. This instantly detects any missile launch from Gaza, and computers in a command truck calculate the trajectory and target destination, enabling a Tamir interceptor missile to destroy the rocket high in the air.

The ingenuity of the Iron Dome is that it can work out if the missile is likely to hit a populated area, in which case it is demolished. If it is heading for the countryside or the sea, it is left to explode.

****

In Hamas’s last massed rocket assault, in 2012, Iron Dome had an 84 per cent success rate against 426 incoming missiles. This partially explains why, despite missiles being fired by both sides, there have been no Israeli deaths so far, compared to more than 85 Palestinian fatalities.

While IDF warplanes and drones pound Hamas targets, Netanyahu has called up 40,000 reservists to signal to Hamas that he is serious about a ground incursion into Gaza.

Mr Netanyahu will be reluctant to send in his ground troops, however, because the civilian casualties will be considerable. He will not want to risk such action being broadcast across the world with howls of anti-Israeli sentiments flowing back.

Netanyahu has to tread a very fine line. While many of his people are desperate for revenge against Hamas, he will not want to wipe them out altogether. If he did so, he might open the way for another and more extreme terrorist group to take over. It is known that a branch of the brutal and elusive militant group ISIS – which is causing Iraq and Syria to run with blood, having declared its own caliphate in northern areas of the two countries – already has an outpost in Gaza.

Israel does not need a bloody campaign of attrition, with all the negative publicity that would give rise to.

It is particularly concerned about neighbouring Jordan, a volatile country where local support for ISIS is growing and which is having to combat the terrorist group on its border with Iraq.

For its part, Hamas is under pressure, too. Its paymasters and chief weapons suppliers, Iran and Syria, are preoccupied with other matters – not least ISIS.

And the advent of the new Egyptian quasi-military government of President Sisi, who is hostile to all Islamist organisations, has led to a shutdown of the underground tunnels that Hamas uses to move arms and goods into Gaza from neighbouring Egyptian Sinai.

Iran has now cut off the $14million it gives Hamas each month because of the organisation’s backing for the Sunni rebels in Syria.

It must surely be in the interests of both sides in this missile strewn battle not to let their actions spiral out of control.

 

Standard
Britain, European Union, Iraq, Middle East, Politics, Society, United Nations, United States

Former diplomats lead calls for Tony Blair to be axed as Middle East Peace Envoy…

TONY BLAIR

Intro: An open letter led by ex-diplomats, and signed by thousands more, calls for the former British Prime Minister who went to war on a lie and based on a false prospectus to be axed as Middle East peace envoy

Related reading:

THREE former UK ambassadors to the Middle East have joined a new demand and are campaigning for Tony Blair to be removed from his role as Middle East ‘peace’ envoy.

Signatories to an open letter, led by Mr Blair’s former ambassador to Iran Sir Richard Dalton, describes his achievements in the region as ‘negligible’, criticising his money-making activities and accuse him of trying to ‘absolve himself’ of responsibility for the crisis in Iraq.

Other former diplomats lending their weight to the letter are Sir Oliver Miles, Britain’s ambassador to Libya when relations were severed after the death of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, and Christopher Long, ambassador to Egypt between 1992 and 1995. Joining more than 4,000 signatories are human rights barrister Michael Mansfield QC, former London mayor Ken Livingstone and former Conservative prisons minister Crispin Blunt.

The letter has been organised by the makers of Respect MP George Galloway’s film The Killing of Tony Blair. It has been deliberately timed for this week’s seventh anniversary of Mr Blair’s appointment as envoy on the Middle East for the ‘quartet’ of the UN, the EU, Russia and the US, and is addressed to John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, and to the EU’s ‘foreign minister’.

It argues that Mr Blair’s 2003 invasion of Iraq is to blame for the rise of “fundamentalist terrorism in a land where none existed previously” and that he should be removed from his position.

The letter says: “We are appalled by Iraq’s descent into a sectarian conflict that threatens its existence as a nation, as well as the security of its neighbours. We are also dismayed at Tony Blair’s attempts to absolve himself of any responsibility for the current crisis by isolating it from the legacy of the Iraq war.”

It is alleged that Mr Blair ‘misled the British people’ by suggesting Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Qaeda. It adds: ‘It is a cruel irony for the people of Iraq that perhaps the invasion’s most enduring legacy has been the rise of fundamentalist terrorism in a land where none existed previously.

‘We believe Mr Blair, as a vociferous advocate of the invasion, must accept a degree of responsibility for its consequences.’

Criticising the former prime minister’s business interests, the letter alleges that his ‘conduct in his private pursuits also calls into question his suitability for the role’, and accuses him of ‘blurring the lines between his public position as envoy and his private roles at Tony Blair Associates and the investment bank JPMorgan Chase’.

The letter adds to growing calls for Mr Blair to stand down. In the last few days the former foreign secretary Lord Owen criticised Mr Blair for his claims that the 2003 invasion was not a factor in the current unrest in Iraq. “Tony Blair should no longer be allowed to speak for the EU on the Middle East, and someone else found for helping Palestine without his past record and crusading messianic fervour,” he said.

A spokesman for Mr Blair said: ‘These are all people viscerally opposed to Tony Blair with absolutely no credibility in relation to him whatsoever. Their attack is neither surprising nor newsworthy… They include the alliance of hard Right and hard Left views which he has thought against all his political life. Of course he completely disagrees with them over the Middle East.’

People are being urged to support the call for Mr Blair to be removed by signing the petition at www.change.org.

Standard
Africa, Britain, Government, Human Rights, Legal, Society, United Nations

Tackling rape in war through international law…

INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOL

For as long as wars have been fought, rape and sexual violence have conventionally featured in them. Men running amok with guns will always be hard to control; that the level of rape and sexual assaults in conflict zones haven’t fallen since 1945, when the Nuremberg trials decried it as a crime against humanity, points to the stubborn depravity of man. The difficulties of bringing perpetrators to justice have proven to be complex with the process often described as being an “uphill task”.

This week, a global summit has begun in London with the arch objective of changing perceptions. Participants to the symposium whose aim it will be to change the narrative are faced with a steep and problematic issue. Within the last two decades alone hundreds of thousands of women have been victims of serious sexual assault. The British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, a leading figure at the summit, acknowledges the difficulties the summit is addressing and has said that, if anything, sexual violence is getting much worse.

Mr Hague is not mistaken, though, when he says there are measures which can be taken to limit the scourge of sexual crimes. Whilst, of course, it will never be eradicated, recent studies portray a more nuanced picture of rape’s prevalence in times of war. Although the levels of rape are notoriously high in the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, a survey of all African conflicts between 1989 and 2009 concluded that only 26 per cent of armed groups were reported to have been engaged in sexual violence.

In addressing the hugely difficult issue of what can be done to make soldiers on the front lines think twice, an International Protocol is to be launched to standardise the kind of evidence needed for a case to be brought to court. This will lead to more convictions. And it will also hold commanders legally responsible for the behaviour of their troops. A change in the law to this effect will make it much harder to get away with rape.

Standard