ME: the Diplomatic Game

[don]

"Hamas vs. Israel: Winning the Diplomatic Game"
by Immanuel Wallerstein

There has been a great deal of violence for about a century in the geographic zone we may today call Israel/Palestine. This zone has seen a more or less continuous struggle between Palestinian Arabs and Jewish settlers concerning the rights to occupy land. Both groups have sought juridical affirmation of their rights. Both groups have sought legitimation in competing historical narratives. Both groups have sought to solidify levels of support from their "peoples" throughout the world community. And both groups have sought to get world public opinion on their side.

The way the game has been played has evolved because of shifting geopolitical realities. In 1917, British military occupied this area, ousting the Ottoman Empire, a shift that was thereafter consecrated by obtaining a Mandate from the League of Nations for a country called Palestine. Also in 1917, the British occupying government issued what is known as the Balfour Declaration, which asserted the objective of establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine. The term "home" is unclear and its meaning has been a subject of controversy ever since. A series of decisions in the 1920s separated the Mandate into two parts. One was Transjordan (what is now Jordan) defined as an Arab state to become eventually independent. The other was Palestine west of the Jordan, to be governed differently.

In 1947, the United Nations sanctioned the partitioning of the area west of the Jordan into two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab. On the basis of this resolution, the Zionist leadership proclaimed the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. There followed a war - that is, more intensive violence that involved armed forces of states - between the new Jewish state and most Arab states, which culminated in a truce at different boundary lines than those the United Nations had proclaimed. There would be two further major wars, in 1967 and 1973. The 1973 war culminated in still different boundary lines, with Israel in de facto possession of what had been the entire area west of the Jordan.

The multiple wars changed the character and level of support both groups received. Whereas in 1947 support for Zionism still represented a minority position within world Jewry, the 1967 war and in particular the 1973 war seemed to transform attitudes and magnify the level of support, which became virtually unlimited. And whereas the three wars had all been fought by Arab states, after 1973 Palestinian Arabs sought to take political control of their struggle. Their new agency was the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), a confederation of a wide range of Palestinian movements. Its largest member movement was al-Fatah, and its leader, Yasser Arafat, became the president of the PLO.

The PLO established its headquarters in Beirut. In 1982, Israeli armed forces entered Lebanon and sought to liquidate the PLO. It worked with some Lebanese Maronite organizations who massacred circa 2000 Palestinians and Shiite Lebanese in Sabra and Shatila while the Israeli army stood by. Even an Israeli commission later condemned the moral responsibility of the Israeli commander, Ariel Sharon, who was forced to resign. Under the protection of U.N. forces, the PLO leadership left Beirut for Tunisia. The war led to the creation of a Lebanese Shiite movement called Hezbollah, which grew stronger, and forced Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in the Second Lebanon War of 2006.

In occupied Palestine itself, there occurred two Palestinian insurrections (so-called Intifadas), which Israel found increasingly difficult to suppress. All this is the background context of the current war between Hamas and Israel, which is now ongoing and likely to continue for a long time. Militarily, Hamas is no serious danger for Israel. Economically, Israel is in reasonable shape whereas the Israeli blockade has caused Gaza to suffer from acute shortages in everything. But it is in the diplomatic sphere that the struggle is primarily occurring and here the sides are more even.

Israel's position seems rather clear. It wants to use its military strength to "destroy Hamas" in the title words of the op-ed piece in the New York Times by Amos Yadlin, former chief of Israeli Military Intelligence. The Washington Post op-ed piece by Michael Oren, until recently Israel's ambassador in the United States, is blunter. Oren says to Israel’s Western friends, stay out of this and above all do not try to obtain a truce until Israel has completed its work.

Hamas's position is equally clear. Its leader, Khaled Meshal, has said that a truce is only possible if the eight-year-long blockade is lifted, for the Gazans are living "a slow death in the world's biggest prison." The steadily rising loss of lives, disproportionately of Palestinians, and the massive destruction in Gaza has led to worldwide calls for a "humanitarian truce," including a unanimous motion in the U.N. Security Council.

The diplomatic game is who negotiates with whom. Initially, Egypt (unremittingly hostile to Hamas) proclaimed the terms of a truce, after consultation with Israel and without even informing Hamas. Later, world forces sought to include Hamas by excluding Egypt and negotiating with Hamas via Qatar and Turkey. The support of this initiative by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has led to a denunciation by the Israelis of his "betrayal."

Both sides are playing for world public opinion. The Israelis count on de facto acceptance of their continued occupation of Palestine. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reaffirmed Israel's intention to maintain forever its troops on the border with Jordan and Syria and to insist on the "demilitarization" of Hamas. Hamas is counting on the slow collapse of world support for Israel. Analytically, it seems clear that, in the middle run, Hamas will win this diplomatic game. It also seems clear that the Israelis will simply dig in. Instead of cheering on the new agreement between Hamas and the Palestine Authority, with its implicit acceptance by Hamas of a two-state solution, Israel will achieve its one-state solution with a vengeance. Israel may annihilate Hamas as an organization. What they will then get of course is not a group of acquiescent Palestinians but the advocates of an Islamic caliphate, a group that does not yet have a real presence in Palestine.

3-kilometer (1.8 mile) scorched earth buffer zone underway, about 44% of Gaza

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

This was a good succinct overview of the situation.

[don]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

more often than not, graphics now turn into question marks.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

The Israelis have excelled(out of necessity) at conventional warfare.

Because if they lose once, they are doomed.

But Israel's opponents have been shifting to an irregular/asymmetric warfare model(most wars throughout history are irregular, which actually makes them more regular than regular wars).

Both Syria and Iran have reorganised their main efforts towards irregular/asymmetric warfare since they are simply unable to ever hope to win against Israel or the US in conventional conflict.

1982 was the beginning of the turning point. Israel destroyed Syria's conventional capabilities, but soon faced a growing irregular/asymmetric threat from Iranian proxies in Lebanon.

The intifadas and Lebanon 2006 were clear irregular/asymmetric conflicts.

And the current conflict is irregular/asymmetric.

Israel possesses all the technology and the precise force projection capability(albeit operated by well educated conscripts with limited experience).

Hamas possesses all of the cannon fodder, collateral damage for information operations benefit, poverty, unlimited time, and a high birth rate.

The only way out I see for Israel over a long time horizon is liquidating Hamas like Columbia liquidated Pablo Escobar's organisation when his organisation went too far. And replace with a more acceptable opponent willing to maintain an acceptable equilibrium.

While I find Israel's response rather nasty, I wonder how it will be perceived in the future in retrospect.

i recall a number of external raids conducted by Rhodesia in the 1970's into Mozambique and Zambia that were perceived in the west as Rhodesian slaughter of innocents, when in fact almost all the casualties were insurgents masked by effective information operations by insurgents and their sponsors.

i don't see that excusing Israel, but I do think it's worth noting that naive western do-gooderism-ism significantly contributed to some horrific genocide (against the black factions that lost) in places like Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

Where we have tried to help, often all we did was ultimately hurt.

The recent deification of Mandela masks a horrible deconstruction of a flawed state into an even more seriously flawed state.

We often discuss on this forum how kinetic intervention has led to failure.

We don't really seem to discuss how western naïveté, impatience, and resultant diplomatic/economic pressure has also led to some nasty failures(besides those intentional political/economic instability policies that have been discussed).

Maybe Switzerland really is onto something.

[Woodsman]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

That's the coldest realpolitik I've read anywhere in a long long time. I've read a lot of it and you may take that as the compliment I intend.

"Israel possesses all the technology and the precise force projection capability(albeit operated by well educated conscripts with limited experience). Hamas possesses all of the cannon fodder, collateral damage for information operations benefit, poverty, unlimited time, and a high birth rate. The only way out I see for Israel over a long time horizon is liquidating Hamas like Columbia liquidated Pablo Escobar's organisation when his organisation went too far."

I wish I could convince myself that it's just waxing Kissingercally but I know it's the real deal and that it's expressed with seriousness. Morally and from a perspective of history the view is unremarkable, of course. But in this instance it's so by-the-book in how it takes the doctrine to it's obvious and most logical conclusion, I can only say thanks for expressing it so convincingly and authoritatively.

This thinking dominates precisely because of the unflinching character of its logic. And we see that logic in practice daily in the news - "We tortured some folks," preceded by a headline on the Times of Israel web site asking "Is Genocide Permissible?" The author has since apologized but he exhibits the same way of thinking. Taken together, these to me are small cracks into the truth of a logic that concludes it has locked all the doors, has the final answer, settled everything and departed. It is a logic that encloses all life in the frightful consistency of a system outside of which there is nothing but self-destruction and national suicide. It leaves no place for forbearance, mercy and justice, which alone are truly serious, and worthy of being taken seriously.

When you have the most powerful "kinetic" force in history, so finely calibrated, capable of striking in real time globally and through the reaches of space, unequaled in the terrible might and sophistication of its weapons and doctrine, literally invincible, and capable of waging war on the all nations of the Earth simultaneously, unquestionably victorious, delivering violence across the entire spectrum of coercion and lethality up to the destruction of the planet a thousand times over, rendering it uninhabitable for centuries to come, and so on and so on and such...

When you use that power to liquidate a criminal gang the equivalent in size and effectiveness to the Provisional IRA; when that great power rains fire upon a people trapped by that gang in a kill zone smaller than some of its own practice ranges, I think it is an admission that they have lost faith in their own words. They admit that that they don't believe their own arguments anymore. It shows that they don't take themselves seriously even though they play at the most serious business around. And as is the fate of all the great and indispensable powers of the past, it shows that their star is waning and their time is running out.

All the powers of the Earth in the hands of moral imbeciles will amount to little benefit and I doubt if there has ever been a convocation of moral dunces quite as imbecilic as the gang that's ruled us all these many years. Is there no endeavor they embark upon that does not end in stupendous chaos and historical ignonimity?

[vt]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

So what is Israel supposed to do with tunnel attacks and missiles striking their cities? These people want to kill you.

Most Arabs are against Hamas. Would they not react like Israel if they were attacked?

If Hitler had reverted to guerrilla warfare would German cities have been spared?

If your neighborhood or home was being attacked by criminals would you invite them in to harm you?

We can raise questions about defensive tactics all day long, but when your very life or lives of families are at stake; what would you do?
If Hitler had reverted to guerrilla warfare would German cities be spared?

[Woodsman]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

If Hitler had reverted to guerrilla warfare would German cities have been spared?

Hi vt. Since you asked twice, I'll do my best for you.

German cities were not spared in any sense.

"The Prime Minister said that we hoped to shatter twenty German cities as we had shattered Cologne, Lubeck, Dusseldorf, and so on. More and more aeroplanes and bigger and bigger bombs. M. Stalin had heard of 2-ton bombs. We had now begun to use 4-ton bombs, and this would be continued throughout the winter. If need be, as the war went on, we hoped to shatter almost every dwelling in almost every German city. "
-- Official transcript of the meeting at the Kremlin between Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin on Wednesday, August 12, 1942, at 7 P.M.

They and the German civilians who lived and worked in them were directly targeted for annihilation and were not collateral damage in any sense of the phrase.

"The destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized community life throughout Germany [is the goal]. ... It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."
-- "Air Marshal Arthur Harris, Commander in Chief, Bomber Commander, British Royal Air Force, October 25, 1943 quoted in Tami Biddle, Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914-1945 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 220.

It was doctrine and policy. Just like it is now.

You seem to be asking if the deliberate mass murder of civilians on a huge scale ever justified? I'm just a man, no influence and half educated, making the best of the world that has been handed to me by the work and sacrifice of my parents and theirs. No one cares what I think and none of the people making these decisions care what you think either. If you ask me if I believe the deliberate mass murder of civilians is ever justified, I would tend towards answering "no, not ever." But as the record of history demonstrates and the news of the day confirms, the deliberate mass murder of civilians on a huge scale has and continues to be a matter of policy. It was a very specific goal of England and America in World War II, that is without question.

Another settled matter is Nazi guerrilla warfare, as was the response to it. Actually, you've hit on something there. You'd be well served by learning more about Nazi guerrilla warfare. While the effort was doomed from inception, the plans and planners would have significant repercussions across history even to this very day. In point of fact, it's absolutely relevant, only not in a way you might believe it to be.

[vt]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

Woodsman,

Thanks for the reply and detail, but it's not the question.

In conventional warfare armies try to destroy each other, but in asymmetrical warfare, as Hamas practices, they are placing missile and artillery batteries in schools, homes, mosques, and any other place civilians
are exposed.

No one is suggesting killing even one civilian is necessary, but here it is the fault of Hamas for putting the civilians at risk. Israel is not purposely trying to kill innocent Palestinians.

Yes German citizens were killed. All I said is that if Hitler was a guerrilla at the wars beginning would German cities attacked like Israel is attacking Gaza?

The tact being taken is that Israel is at fault and Hamas blameless? Hamas placed the civilians at risk, not Israel. Most Arab leaders would agree.

[Woodsman]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

Have a great weekend, vt.

[vt]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

And you too.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

That's the coldest realpolitik I've read anywhere in a long long time. I've read a lot of it and you may take that as the compliment I intend.



I wish I could convince myself that it's just waxing Kissingercally but I know it's the real deal and that it's expressed with seriousness. Morally and from a perspective of history the view is unremarkable, of course. But in this instance it's so by-the-book in how it takes the doctrine to it's obvious and most logical conclusion, I can only say thanks for expressing it so convincingly and authoritatively.

This thinking dominates precisely because of the unflinching character of its logic. And we see that logic in practice daily in the news - "We tortured some folks," preceded by a headline on the Times of Israel web site asking "Is Genocide Permissible?" The author has since apologized but he exhibits the same way of thinking. Taken together, these to me are small cracks into the truth of a logic that concludes it has locked all the doors, has the final answer, settled everything and departed. It is a logic that encloses all life in the frightful consistency of a system outside of which there is nothing but self-destruction and national suicide. It leaves no place for forbearance, mercy and justice, which alone are truly serious, and worthy of being taken seriously.

When you have the most powerful "kinetic" force in history, so finely calibrated, capable of striking in real time globally and through the reaches of space, unequaled in the terrible might and sophistication of its weapons and doctrine, literally invincible, and capable of waging war on the all nations of the Earth simultaneously, unquestionably victorious, delivering violence across the entire spectrum of coercion and lethality up to the destruction of the planet a thousand times over, rendering it uninhabitable for centuries to come, and so on and so on and such...

When you use that power to liquidate a criminal gang the equivalent in size and effectiveness to the Provisional IRA; when that great power rains fire upon a people trapped by that gang in a kill zone smaller than some of its own practice ranges, I think it is an admission that they have lost faith in their own words. They admit that that they don't believe their own arguments anymore. It shows that they don't take themselves seriously even though they play at the most serious business around. And as is the fate of all the great and indispensable powers of the past, it shows that their star is waning and their time is running out.

All the powers of the Earth in the hands of moral imbeciles will amount to little benefit and I doubt if there has ever been a convocation of moral dunces quite as imbecilic as the gang that's ruled us all these many years. Is there no endeavor they embark upon that does not end in stupendous chaos and historical ignonimity?

I just reckon everyone is fooling themselves if they think this will end peacefully.

On one side there is an urban insurgency forcibly led by a group(HAMAS) with the intended endstate being the destruction of Israel.

On the other side is a nuclear armed state born from the ashes of genocide with a marketing arms the envy of Saatchi and Saactchi.

Maybe it's worth folks' time reading up on the destruction of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka with the support of China(as China is growing in influence in the ME and likely with Israel over time). That was an incredibly bloody, but equally decisive conflict that received limited coverage in the west. Maybe if as the US disengages and China takes an increasing leadership role in the region the risk of a regional Sri Lanka could rise? Who knows. All just speculation.

I would also reckon it's worth watching a film called "The Act of Killing".

I think most people will have great difficulty trying to rationalize a very insightful film.

Particularly the part about how can one group of people slaughter another group of people with genuinely no emotional/psychological repercussions?

Easy.....if you consider killing the other folks to be no different than killing roaches or rats.

And that's where I try to emphasize my time with Westerners.

Trying to deprogram them from their naive and utopic thinking.

Many westerners seem to possess a belief that humanity has evolved in parallel with technology.

We simply haven't. To think otherwise, that we have evolved beyond our baser wants/needs/actions is incredibly naive and dangerous.

We are cavemen with computers.

A book I find a useful reference for what's happening in Israel/Palestinian Authority is David Kilcullen's "Out of the Mountains".

Nothing earth shatteringly new, but quite useful for current/future urban insurgencies.

The only thing I know for sure that works is that for every hour I spend on this horrible stuff, I try to spend 2 hours with my kids playing outside in the sun and watching Spongebob Squarepants.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

Another settled matter is Nazi guerrilla warfare, as was the response to it. Actually, you've hit on something there. You'd be well served by learning more about Nazi guerrilla warfare. While the effort was doomed from inception, the plans and planners would have significant repercussions across history even to this very day. In point of fact, it's absolutely relevant, only not in a way you might believe it to be.

What I find interesting about German "Werewolf" guerilla efforts is the contrast between the abysmal failure of the program compared to the near legendary success of German conventional warfare operations.

Maybe it's a cultural thing.

Just like it strongly appears to be in the Middle East, where Arab/Palestinian cultures seem to be abysmal failures in conventional warfare, but show far greater potential in irregular/asymmetric warfare.

But I use the word potential rather than success as they seem to still be in the early stages of "crawl, walk, run, fly".

From an Israeli perspective, I'd be building/funding a proxy force to supplant HAMAS that would be more acceptable. Much like in Columbia and Mexico with the cartels....some form of quid pro quo or homeostatis...might be a successful strategy

From a Palestinian perspective, flashmobbing 50,000 unarmed Palestinian women and children to the Israeli border to bait them into killing innocents might be a successful strategy.

Time to go watch Spongebob with the kids.

[Woodsman]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

What I find interesting about German "Werewolf" guerilla efforts is the contrast between the abysmal failure of the program compared to the near legendary success of German conventional warfare operations.

The success came after the war. Unrepentant Nazis like Kopp, Skorzeny and Gehlen succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, really.

[Woodsman]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

My compliments to Mr. Gunness for maintaining his humanity in spite of every inducement to the contrary.

Chris Gunness, a spokesman for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees, succumbs to his emotions during a live interview with Al Jazeera. Gunness was being interviewed about an attack on a UN school shelter in which at least 15 people, mostly women and children, were killed. Gunness says 'What is happening in Gaza, particularly to the children, is an affront to the humanity of all of us'
http://www.theguardian.com/world/vid...nterview-video

"...a Government official, tears streaming down his face, burst into the dismal dining-room crying: 'Guernica is destroyed. The Germans bombed and bombed and bombed.'

[lakedaemonian]

Re: ME: the Diplomatic Game

The success came after the war. Unrepentant Nazis like Kopp, Skorzeny and Gehlen succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, really.

The stay behind networks will likely reveal bits and pieces of European Cold War history as time passes, but not likely for quite some time unless a Wikileaks/Snowden/Mitrokhin/Stasi Archive recovery sized gold mine is put in the cloud.

We could debate it all day, but we don't know the limit or extent of it. But I think it's safe to say such networks, built fir legitimate purposes, wound up being used outside of their original scope for both outside the box benign(perceived) and clearly malignant purposes.

In terms of strategic unconventional warfare shaping operations, I would think tactics, techniques, and procedures have developed well beyond the simplistic use of condoned shadow networks turned clandestine thugs.

Kopp was one, and would appear to have been let down easy(intelligence sources, underground/auxiliary networks often don't work out).

The Gehlen network was too good to be true unfortunately. With no photographic visibility behind the Iron Curtain in early post WWII Eastern Europe, no HUMINT networks, and limited SIGINT the Gehlen network on a silver platter was too good to pass up.

With what's happening in Ukraine today, it's worth mentioning Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic States all had anti communist insurgencies opposing Soviet power consolidation. In Ukraine it lasted into the early 50's. A couple million were displaced, tens of thousands of casualties resulted.

The offensive and defensive unconventional warfare campaign history conducted throughout Europe and on its fringes by US/allies and Soviets/allies from 1945 until the fall of the Warsaw Pact still has yet to be written(and unfortunately we are now clearly deep into volume II in real time).

I would consider myself to be a reasonably well educated amateur student of irregular/unconventional warfare and part time practitioner and I've only recently become privy to the fringes of a very small but exceptionally important slice of that 1945-89 history. But there's just nothing in open source on it. It's like a black hole.

It's probably the most important component of it, and it's without question the least known with practically zero in open source.

The Cold War(just the European and fringes story) was a pretty nasty less than conventional war we really have limited big picture understanding of and is incredibly relevant to us at this moment.

I don't have a problem with it at the theoretical level. There are bad people(and/or opposing nation states/blocks) whose interests oppose those of me and mine.

But at the practical level I am less than confident that sufficient strategic leadership and benign oversight exists to control it for the better good.

i think there is a distinct need for such capabilities at times, but not without robust, resilient, and effective checks and balances. Which don't exist. Or if they do, we don't trust them.

Ultimately, my thoughts on the likes of Gladio are that it was something approximating crawl/walk on the unconventional warfare continuum and that today capabilities would be more akin to run/fly.