Making Gaza even worse

by Neil Robertson
11:10 am - August 18th 2009

Share on Tumblr

When Israel launched its military offensive against Hamas last year, critics of the operation made a number of important points.

First, we argued that it was a fantasy to believe these raids would do anything more than briefly reduce its ability to toss rockets into Israel, and that there would be no prospect of either destroying the group, or fatally weakening its grip over the Gaza Strip. But more importantly than that, we also insisted that it was a mistake to think Hamas’ defeat would end Israel’s security problems.

Whilst there’s always a (very slight) possibility that Hamas could implode or that the people of Gaza will eventually turn to the more moderate & cuddly Fatah, given the amount of poverty & raw despair in the territories, it’s far more likely that whatever did replace the militant group would be even more extreme, more reactionary and more likely to render peace between Israel & Palestine as impossible.

We’ve seen some evidence of that in recent days, as a deadly shootout between members of Hamas and a militant splinter group demonstrates that some of the alternatives to Hamas are even uglier.

Jund Ansar Allah, the group at the centre of the violence, has become increasingly critical of Hamas in recent months, has demanded the imposition of Sharia law and has even – and somewhat presumptuously – declared Gaza an ‘Islamic emirate’.

Whilst both these groups share the same self-defeating hatred of Israel, their ultimate aims are very different. For Hamas, the primary goal is the creation of an independent Palestinian state. For Jund Ansar Allah, it is the violent imposition of Taliban-style stone age religious subserviance. If there’s one thing the Gaza Strip doesn’t need right now, it’s a group which attacks Hamas for being too liberal.

One of the naive hopes people had about isolating Hamas was that when Palestinians were able to see how little the group was able to achieve, they would soon return their support to a group like Fatah, who Israel and the international community felt they could do business with.

Instead, the dissatisfaction with Hamas seems to be leading some Palestinians towards the more extreme factions. Jund Ansar Allah was only started in November and now claims to have over 500 soldiers. That might not sound like a lot, but it’s enough to give both Israel & Hamas significant security concerns.

I can understand, of course, the reluctance people feel about negotiating with a group which doesn’t recognise the state of Israel, but if it seems that Hamas is currently the best of an extraordinarily bad bunch, it may be better to talk to them than one day confront a much fouler beast. After all, Israel, Hamas and the United States do all have one thing in common: nobody wants to see Gaza become a stomping ground for Al Qaeda-inspired lunatics. As grounds for peace go, it’s not much, but it’s a start.

Share on Tumblr

About the author
Neil Robertson is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He was born in Barnsley in 1984, and through a mixture of good luck and circumstance he ended up passing through Cambridge, Sheffield and Coventry before finally landing in London, where he works in education. His writing often focuses on social policy or international relations, because that's what all the Cool Kids write about. He mostly blogs at: The Bleeding Heart Show.
· Other posts by Neil Robertson

Story Filed Under: Blog ,Foreign affairs ,Middle East ,Realpolitik ,Terrorism

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Reader comments

12:18 pm, August 18, 2009

1. Nick

I don’t think the existence of an even crazier organisation suddenly means Hamas MUST be spoken to. There might be independently good reasons to talk to Hamas. I mean, back in the old days, no-one could touch Hamas for Islamism. But as soon as they got to power they had to start compromising. So it isn’t about the groups themselves or the individuals. It is structural. Whoever has the current power is only going to be able to maintain a certain threshold of nuttiness. The same goes for these young up-starts.

2:40 pm, August 18, 2009

2. Neil Robertson

Oh sure, I think there are reasons for talking to Hamas which are independent of this incident, though I think that trying to achieve a Palestinian unity government (which will require some kind of reconciliation & power sharing with Fatah on the West Bank) is probably more urgent at this point.

I suppose it’s not possible to know yet whether this shows a trend towards more extremist groups openly opposing Hamas, or whether it’s an abberation which was allowed to flower because Hamas was weakened by Israel’s military actions. Sadly, I suspect it’s probably the former, but haven’t seen anything to bear that out yet.

Moving slightly off topic here, Nick, but is there a libertarian line on this topic? Most of the libertarian stuff I read on foreign policy tends to be more interested in free trade etc, and I don’t recall hearing very much about things like Israel-Palestine, or the broader topic of counter-terrorism in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

2:42 pm, August 18, 2009

3. john b

It’s no good – even setting up an Israel/Palestine thread isn’t going to distract the trolls from Hannan and the NHS. Good idea though

3:24 pm, August 18, 2009

4. Neil Robertson

It’s no good – even setting up an Israel/Palestine thread isn’t going to distract the trolls from Hannan and the NHS. Good idea though

It’s not for lack of trying; I lobbied hard to have this post titled “OMG! Exclusive! Dan Hannan, NHS, Death! Death!”, but the idea was vetoed.

1:45 pm, August 19, 2009

5. Nick

Well free trade would certainly be a good step as once the Pallestinian people had a better quality of life, they would be much more willing to negotiate some sort of end to the conflict. But thats hardly a roadmap to a solution.

The free market anarchists at Mises hold the conflict to be inevitably bound up in the logic of statehood itself and prescribe the abolition of both the Israeli state and Pallestinian state: http://mises.org/story/3285

Unfortunately, no political philosophy can offer a straightforward solution to this conflict.

11:10 pm, August 20, 2009

6. Just Visiting

It is being reported that Hamas choose to take on this insignificant splinter group, as a cynical ploy to gaining status in the west :Hamas must be middle-ground, if they fight extremists, kind of ploy.

Eg one commentator writes:

‘According to many commentators on al Jazeera, Hamas chose to finish up the “Jund” as a maneuver to lure the West in general — Great Britain and the United States in particular — into “engaging” the organization, lifting its name from terror lists and adding it to the peace process between the Palestinians and Israel. Hamas spokespersons rushed to say “we too are fighting the extremists, the terrorists as you are fighting them and pursuing al Qaeda,” which resonates greatly in Western ears,

12:43 am, August 21, 2009

7. Just Visiting

And if we are left thinking that Fatah is preferable to Hamas, this week it seemed that the Head of Fatah in Lebanon has revealed an uncomfortable position on Israel.

Munir Al-Maqdah’s interview was shown on Al-Quds TV on the 17th:

“…Fatah do not recognize the so-called State of Israel, let alone the Jewishness of this state. We do not recognize that artificial entity, the state of Israel, which sooner or later will be removed from the land of Palestine, Allah willing

…During the Al-Aqsa Intifada, it was me who provided the Brigades with money and weapons. I was among the founders of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Palestine”.

So Hamas and Fatah seem again to be united in their intention to destroy Israel -as some have bee saying for a while.

Reactions: Twitter, blogs