Tweet
WILL ISRAEL INVADE GAZA?
By Huda al Husseini
Asharq Alawsat (The Middle East)
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2 &id=12219
March 26 2008
UK
According to a Western official who agreed to speak on condition of
anonymity, the year 2008 will be one in which a number of issues will
be resolved. He said that several contentious matters will come to
light and that concerned parties will realize exactly what needs to be
done. He also added that a military clash with Hamas is highly likely.
The aforementioned official had just concluded a Middle East tour after
which he said that he believed Israel was facing a dilemma. If Israel
forged an agreement with the Palestinian Authority (PA), it cannot
be implemented since Mahmoud Abbas does not have the capability to
enforce such an agreement on the entire Palestinian society.
The source went on to say that half of the Palestinian people are
in Gaza while the other half are in the West Bank; however those who
reside in the latter are anticipating Hamas's imminent dominance of
the West Bank. "This is why I believe that Israel is between a rock
and a hard place," he said.
There is talk of a peace conference to be held in Moscow at the
end of this coming April as well as another conference that will be
held in Berlin this June. Moreover, according to my source, there
are expectations that Mahmoud Abbas will tender his resignation,
"he publicly admits to that," he said.
Following that, the Palestinians may appoint Saeb Erekat or summon
Nabil Shaath from Egypt. However, this will not change the reality
on the ground; Hamas is powerful and is gaining strength.
Meanwhile in Israel there is talk about the inevitability of invasion
- same as what happened in Lebanon in 1982. "What we have witnessed
in Lebanon in that year we will witness in Gaza - except it will be
fiercer," and added, "the political situation will change in Israel
and the Likud party will return to power. This year will be a very
eventful one."
In response to my remark that despite many military and security men
proposing negotiation with Hamas, Mossad Director Meir Dagan rejects
the idea, my interviewee said that repeated communication with Israel
has revealed that the Israeli position finds no justification for
negotiating with Hamas since the latter calls for the annihilation of
Israel. "This cannot serve as the basis for deliberations; besides,
Israel stipulates mutual recognition for negotiation with Hamas."
Furthermore, he stressed, "Hamas will not recognize any agreement
forged by Abbas, which is why it is highly likely that Mahmoud Abbas
will resign by the end of the year." And if he resigns? "From Israel's
point of view there will be no one left to negotiate with since Marwan
al Barghouti will remain in prison."
In response to my remark that there are some people calling for the
release of Marwan al Barghouti as part of the deal to release kidnapped
Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, he disclosed that there was no serious
talk of releasing al Barghouti. He said, "I have heard that [Israeli
Minister of National Infrastructure] Binyamin Ben-Eliezer is calling
for al Barghouti's release, however most military leaders believe
that if he is indeed released that he will not be moderate. He was
the one who started the Intifada; he will not be a dove but rather a
hawk. He will most definitely want to assert his presence before Hamas.
The western politician resumed talking about the possibility of Mahmoud
Abbas's resignation at the end of this year and said that if that
were to happen then all parties will reach deadlock. He elaborated,
"This is why there is international and European pressure Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to reach an agreement with the Palestinian
people. The Americans and Europeans want Israel to go back to the 1967
borders so that the three settlements, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim and
Ariel would be part of Israel but the rest of the settlements will be
dismantled. There is intense pressure from the White House on Israel;
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits Israel every two weeks
and the week in which she does not visit, Israeli Foreign Minister
Tzipi Livni heads to Washington. As for the refugees, the suggested
plan is to reach a certain 'quota'; if the agreement with Abbas is
to repatriate 50,000 to the West Bank then he must ensure that houses
are built and job opportunities are created.
With regards to Jerusalem, "American ex-president Bill Clinton's
proposal is still valid. He had proposed that the Islamic and Armenian
districts should belong to the Palestinians while the Christian and
Jewish districts would be Israel's. Al-Aqsa Mosque will belong to the
Palestinians while the Western Wall will be Israel's," and concluded,
"this solution could work out if the Islamic world backed Mahmoud
Abbas."
But what will be the fate of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon? He
answered, "Settling the Palestinians is a subject that is under
discussion. Around 60 percent of the Palestinians in Lebanon who are
under 30 years of age and who have been born in Lebanon consider it to
be their home. There had been talk about offering them the opportunity
to travel to Australia or Canada but what state would want Osbat al
Ansar to live on its land? They are staying in Lebanon and Lebanon
has changed."
The official noted that Israeli public opinion does not exert pressure
on the Israeli government to sign a peace treaty with the Palestinians
and that he had been informed that before its withdrawal from Gaza,
Israel had offered Palestinian Authority (PA) officials the opportunity
to coordinate with them so as to deter Hamas's hegemony but that
these officials had rejected the idea and said, "If we cannot agree
about Jerusalem then forget about any coordination in Gaza."
So why doesn't Israel withdraw from the West Bank and hand it over to
the international forces? My source said that he had pondered this
before and drawn the conclusion that Israeli's experience with the
international forces in southern Lebanon was a bad one whereas in
Sinai and in the Golan there had been no trouble because Egypt and
Syria are committed to the treaties with Israel.
To illustrate his point that the Palestinian police is weak, he said
that it Nablus, for example, the Palestinian police work the day
shift and the Israeli police work the night shift. "This means that
there is major security problem," he said
Much of the interview was focused upon Israel's consideration of
invading Gaza particularly after Israel officially rejected Hamas
leader Ismail Haniyeh's suggestion that he was ready to discuss
appeasement. According to my source "If Israel negotiates with
Haniyeh then it would simply be undermining Abu Mazen's status and the
Palestinian public believes that Hamas is the foundation of governance
- not Abu Mazen."
He added, "Israel is examining the idea of invading some areas in Gaza
- but not occupying them. There are presently studies being conducted
to assess the damages. Ideas are more focused upon partial invasions,
such as the northern part of the Gaza Strip, in addition to identifying
a buffer zone to put an end to the missiles."
The official stated that in this case, "Camps located in the middle,
such as al Boraij, al Nosairat and al Shate'e will be highlighted
and the number of civilian casualties will rise. Hamas realizes this
dilemma that Israel is facing."
According to my source, the situation today reminds him of the
situation in Lebanon at the end of the 1970s when the south transformed
into 'Fatah Land' in which the Palestinians used to 'arrest' the
Lebanese in the south and launch Katyusha missiles into Israel and
hide. During that time Israel executed an operation in 1978 but failed.
"This is why there was a need for a comprehensive invasion in 1982," he
said, "this is also why it seems that the only solution to the problem
in Gaza is a military one. There might be a Palestinian interlocutor
and a deliberations course; however, Hamas's presence means that there
can be no real hope for a full Palestinian recognition of Israel. That
is why the sentiment in Israel is that there is no solution but to
invade Gaza. There is support for military intervention and there is
a prevalent understanding of the price to be paid."
The Western politician also disclosed that the war with Hezbollah
and the upheaval in Gaza appears to have changed the Israeli
position; the left-wing is nonexistent and the Meretz party, which
was more left-inclined than the Labor party, is no more [now known
as Meretz-Yachad and headed by Haim Oron]. Kaidma will not win the
upcoming elections and Benjamin Netanyahu will be the next Israeli
prime minister. This indicates that Israeli public opinion has shifted
towards the right - not the centre, he said.
The official added that the right-wing advocates an iron fist in
dealing with Palestinians and Hezbollah, "I have feeling that after
the July [2006] war Israel will not engage in a war that is longer
than four days - this was the case in the latest operation in Gaza."
But what about the Egyptian role? "There is communication between
Egypt and Israel, and between Hamas and Egypt. However, there is no
Egyptian mediation to conclude a deal. I have heard about that there
is communication between State Security officials in Egypt and the
Daghmash family [notorious clan in Gaza] that abducted Shalit and
there is also talk of releasing some of the captives."
What about the Israeli warning addressed to Syria and the fact that
the former holds the latter responsible for all operations carried
out by Hezbollah? "Such actions are aimed and deterring Syria since
it is the party that supplies Hezbollah with arms from Iran and also
covers up for it and provides safe havens for its elements - such as
the case with Emad Mughniyeh."
He added: "It appears that Israel wants a location [to target] and
if Hezbollah were to take any action then Israel would shell that
location. It does not want to inflict civilian or economic damages
in Lebanon again. Israel needs a responsible government, thus if
anything happens near the Israeli borders or if any crisis erupts
by the Israeli-Lebanese border, then Syria will be the one to pay
the price. Syria has informed been informed of this through indirect
channels and the message has been clearly relayed."
But why would there be a change in the situation, as opposed to what
happened in 2006? "Because any involvement in southern Lebanon will
be prolonged and would necessitate an invasion, whereas if a crisis
were to erupt by the northern borders no invasion of Syria would take
place but locations within it will be attacked," he said.
He concluded: "They remember former Syrian President Hafez Assad in
Israel well. President Assad used to nod his head and Hezbollah would
immediately execute his orders. As for Bashar Assad, the situation
has been reversed and the relationship between Damascus and Hezbollah
has changed. In the Middle East, they also remember Abdullah Ocalan,
Hafez Assad and Turkey."
By Huda al Husseini
Asharq Alawsat (The Middle East)
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2 &id=12219
March 26 2008
UK
According to a Western official who agreed to speak on condition of
anonymity, the year 2008 will be one in which a number of issues will
be resolved. He said that several contentious matters will come to
light and that concerned parties will realize exactly what needs to be
done. He also added that a military clash with Hamas is highly likely.
The aforementioned official had just concluded a Middle East tour after
which he said that he believed Israel was facing a dilemma. If Israel
forged an agreement with the Palestinian Authority (PA), it cannot
be implemented since Mahmoud Abbas does not have the capability to
enforce such an agreement on the entire Palestinian society.
The source went on to say that half of the Palestinian people are
in Gaza while the other half are in the West Bank; however those who
reside in the latter are anticipating Hamas's imminent dominance of
the West Bank. "This is why I believe that Israel is between a rock
and a hard place," he said.
There is talk of a peace conference to be held in Moscow at the
end of this coming April as well as another conference that will be
held in Berlin this June. Moreover, according to my source, there
are expectations that Mahmoud Abbas will tender his resignation,
"he publicly admits to that," he said.
Following that, the Palestinians may appoint Saeb Erekat or summon
Nabil Shaath from Egypt. However, this will not change the reality
on the ground; Hamas is powerful and is gaining strength.
Meanwhile in Israel there is talk about the inevitability of invasion
- same as what happened in Lebanon in 1982. "What we have witnessed
in Lebanon in that year we will witness in Gaza - except it will be
fiercer," and added, "the political situation will change in Israel
and the Likud party will return to power. This year will be a very
eventful one."
In response to my remark that despite many military and security men
proposing negotiation with Hamas, Mossad Director Meir Dagan rejects
the idea, my interviewee said that repeated communication with Israel
has revealed that the Israeli position finds no justification for
negotiating with Hamas since the latter calls for the annihilation of
Israel. "This cannot serve as the basis for deliberations; besides,
Israel stipulates mutual recognition for negotiation with Hamas."
Furthermore, he stressed, "Hamas will not recognize any agreement
forged by Abbas, which is why it is highly likely that Mahmoud Abbas
will resign by the end of the year." And if he resigns? "From Israel's
point of view there will be no one left to negotiate with since Marwan
al Barghouti will remain in prison."
In response to my remark that there are some people calling for the
release of Marwan al Barghouti as part of the deal to release kidnapped
Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, he disclosed that there was no serious
talk of releasing al Barghouti. He said, "I have heard that [Israeli
Minister of National Infrastructure] Binyamin Ben-Eliezer is calling
for al Barghouti's release, however most military leaders believe
that if he is indeed released that he will not be moderate. He was
the one who started the Intifada; he will not be a dove but rather a
hawk. He will most definitely want to assert his presence before Hamas.
The western politician resumed talking about the possibility of Mahmoud
Abbas's resignation at the end of this year and said that if that
were to happen then all parties will reach deadlock. He elaborated,
"This is why there is international and European pressure Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to reach an agreement with the Palestinian
people. The Americans and Europeans want Israel to go back to the 1967
borders so that the three settlements, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim and
Ariel would be part of Israel but the rest of the settlements will be
dismantled. There is intense pressure from the White House on Israel;
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits Israel every two weeks
and the week in which she does not visit, Israeli Foreign Minister
Tzipi Livni heads to Washington. As for the refugees, the suggested
plan is to reach a certain 'quota'; if the agreement with Abbas is
to repatriate 50,000 to the West Bank then he must ensure that houses
are built and job opportunities are created.
With regards to Jerusalem, "American ex-president Bill Clinton's
proposal is still valid. He had proposed that the Islamic and Armenian
districts should belong to the Palestinians while the Christian and
Jewish districts would be Israel's. Al-Aqsa Mosque will belong to the
Palestinians while the Western Wall will be Israel's," and concluded,
"this solution could work out if the Islamic world backed Mahmoud
Abbas."
But what will be the fate of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon? He
answered, "Settling the Palestinians is a subject that is under
discussion. Around 60 percent of the Palestinians in Lebanon who are
under 30 years of age and who have been born in Lebanon consider it to
be their home. There had been talk about offering them the opportunity
to travel to Australia or Canada but what state would want Osbat al
Ansar to live on its land? They are staying in Lebanon and Lebanon
has changed."
The official noted that Israeli public opinion does not exert pressure
on the Israeli government to sign a peace treaty with the Palestinians
and that he had been informed that before its withdrawal from Gaza,
Israel had offered Palestinian Authority (PA) officials the opportunity
to coordinate with them so as to deter Hamas's hegemony but that
these officials had rejected the idea and said, "If we cannot agree
about Jerusalem then forget about any coordination in Gaza."
So why doesn't Israel withdraw from the West Bank and hand it over to
the international forces? My source said that he had pondered this
before and drawn the conclusion that Israeli's experience with the
international forces in southern Lebanon was a bad one whereas in
Sinai and in the Golan there had been no trouble because Egypt and
Syria are committed to the treaties with Israel.
To illustrate his point that the Palestinian police is weak, he said
that it Nablus, for example, the Palestinian police work the day
shift and the Israeli police work the night shift. "This means that
there is major security problem," he said
Much of the interview was focused upon Israel's consideration of
invading Gaza particularly after Israel officially rejected Hamas
leader Ismail Haniyeh's suggestion that he was ready to discuss
appeasement. According to my source "If Israel negotiates with
Haniyeh then it would simply be undermining Abu Mazen's status and the
Palestinian public believes that Hamas is the foundation of governance
- not Abu Mazen."
He added, "Israel is examining the idea of invading some areas in Gaza
- but not occupying them. There are presently studies being conducted
to assess the damages. Ideas are more focused upon partial invasions,
such as the northern part of the Gaza Strip, in addition to identifying
a buffer zone to put an end to the missiles."
The official stated that in this case, "Camps located in the middle,
such as al Boraij, al Nosairat and al Shate'e will be highlighted
and the number of civilian casualties will rise. Hamas realizes this
dilemma that Israel is facing."
According to my source, the situation today reminds him of the
situation in Lebanon at the end of the 1970s when the south transformed
into 'Fatah Land' in which the Palestinians used to 'arrest' the
Lebanese in the south and launch Katyusha missiles into Israel and
hide. During that time Israel executed an operation in 1978 but failed.
"This is why there was a need for a comprehensive invasion in 1982," he
said, "this is also why it seems that the only solution to the problem
in Gaza is a military one. There might be a Palestinian interlocutor
and a deliberations course; however, Hamas's presence means that there
can be no real hope for a full Palestinian recognition of Israel. That
is why the sentiment in Israel is that there is no solution but to
invade Gaza. There is support for military intervention and there is
a prevalent understanding of the price to be paid."
The Western politician also disclosed that the war with Hezbollah
and the upheaval in Gaza appears to have changed the Israeli
position; the left-wing is nonexistent and the Meretz party, which
was more left-inclined than the Labor party, is no more [now known
as Meretz-Yachad and headed by Haim Oron]. Kaidma will not win the
upcoming elections and Benjamin Netanyahu will be the next Israeli
prime minister. This indicates that Israeli public opinion has shifted
towards the right - not the centre, he said.
The official added that the right-wing advocates an iron fist in
dealing with Palestinians and Hezbollah, "I have feeling that after
the July [2006] war Israel will not engage in a war that is longer
than four days - this was the case in the latest operation in Gaza."
But what about the Egyptian role? "There is communication between
Egypt and Israel, and between Hamas and Egypt. However, there is no
Egyptian mediation to conclude a deal. I have heard about that there
is communication between State Security officials in Egypt and the
Daghmash family [notorious clan in Gaza] that abducted Shalit and
there is also talk of releasing some of the captives."
What about the Israeli warning addressed to Syria and the fact that
the former holds the latter responsible for all operations carried
out by Hezbollah? "Such actions are aimed and deterring Syria since
it is the party that supplies Hezbollah with arms from Iran and also
covers up for it and provides safe havens for its elements - such as
the case with Emad Mughniyeh."
He added: "It appears that Israel wants a location [to target] and
if Hezbollah were to take any action then Israel would shell that
location. It does not want to inflict civilian or economic damages
in Lebanon again. Israel needs a responsible government, thus if
anything happens near the Israeli borders or if any crisis erupts
by the Israeli-Lebanese border, then Syria will be the one to pay
the price. Syria has informed been informed of this through indirect
channels and the message has been clearly relayed."
But why would there be a change in the situation, as opposed to what
happened in 2006? "Because any involvement in southern Lebanon will
be prolonged and would necessitate an invasion, whereas if a crisis
were to erupt by the northern borders no invasion of Syria would take
place but locations within it will be attacked," he said.
He concluded: "They remember former Syrian President Hafez Assad in
Israel well. President Assad used to nod his head and Hezbollah would
immediately execute his orders. As for Bashar Assad, the situation
has been reversed and the relationship between Damascus and Hezbollah
has changed. In the Middle East, they also remember Abdullah Ocalan,
Hafez Assad and Turkey."