Gaza: Winners and Losers

As of today the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel, negotiated by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, appears to be holding. (The only violation has been the killing of a Gazan farmer by an Israeli soldier. Hamas reaction was relatively muted. They seem to want to give peace a chance.) As in any armed conflict, it is difficult to say that anybody won when almost 200 people were killed on both sides. That said, it is possible to point out some winners and losers.
Winners:
Hamas: In any conflict such as this in which the power equation is so unbalanced, the weaker side wins by not losing and the stronger side loses by not winning. Hamas in Gaza was able to absorb over 1500 airstrikes and live to fight another day. Hamas’ popularity, both in Gaza and the West Bank has soared. Their strategic objectives of stopping the bombing raids, stopping the targeted killings and easing the blockade of Gaza have been agreed to in the cease fire agreement. It remains to be seen whether or not Israel will implement the agreement. If not, we may be back in the same mess a few weeks from now. Hamas’ political capital in the region has also been enhanced by statements of support and by numerous visits by ranking Arab officials.
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi: Morsi’s key role in brokering the ceasefire agreement has raised his personal status and as well as that of Egypt.
Iran: Iran’s game changing supply of longer range weapons and missile technology to Hamas has helped to cement this relationship. In addition, Iran had a chance to watch the much vaunted Israeli “Iron Dome” missile defense system in action and to better assess its strengths and weaknesses. In the event of an Iran-Israel conflict, this information will certainly be helpful to the Iranian military.
Losers:
Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu: The last thing that Netanyahu needed two months before an election was to have his arm twisted into agreeing to a ceasefire agreement that is enormously unpopular with the Israeli population. A snap poll conducted shortly after the cease fire was announced showed that 70% of the respondents disagreed with the decision to sign the cease fire agreement and supported a ground war in Gaza.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas: The U.S. supported Abbas was completely sidelined during whole process. His standing among Palestinians, already low has plummeted.
To be determined:
President Obama and Hilary Clinton: While this is based on speculation on my part, it is hard for me to imagine that Netanyahu would have agreed to this ceasefire without some serious pressure from the U.S. Obama’s adroit handling of the relationship with Morsi and Clinton’s persuasion of Netanyahu (I would love to know what she said.) may bode well for U.S. relationships in the Middle East. Time will tell.

Technorati Tags: Gaza Conflict,Middle East

War crimes in Gaza

This week the investigative report on the Gaza War requested by the United Nations Human Rights Council was released. The investigating commission, chaired by South African judge and prosecutor Richard Goldstone, found that there were violations of Human Rights Law and war crimes perpetrated by both Israel and Hamas. The report recommended that the case be submitted to the International Criminal Court for possible prosecution.
Since neither Hamas nor Israel are signatories to the ICC treaty, the referral would need to be made by the UN Security Council. Israel is counting on the US with its veto power to prevent this from happening. With this in mind, Israel has begun a diplomatic and public relations blitz.
They have accused Goldstone of being biased against Israel and complained that the commission only interviewed Palestinians and selected Israelis. This is a little disingenuous as Goldstone is a Jew and Israel refused to neither cooperate with the investigation nor allow the commission to interview Israeli officials.
Israel has also complained that the report contains more criticism of Israel than of Hamas. This might be expected on the ground of proportionality. During the three week war 1450 Palestinians, mostly civilians were killed while 13 Israelis, including 3 civilians, were killed. The claim that Hamas rocket fire threatened Israeli civilians and thus justified the war raises the larger question, unaddressed in any forum, of what rights to resist are available to a weak people faced with a brutal occupation and overwhelming military capability.
Israel’s diplomatic case with the US is raising two issues. One is that if Israel is held to account for its behavior is Gaza, the US might be held to account for its behavior in Iraq and Afghanistan. The other issue is that any limitations on military action would adversely affect the so called “war on terror”. Both of these issues might have resonated more with the Bush administration that the Obama administration.
If the report ends up in the Security Council, a likely outcome, the US will face a difficult dilemma. Do they support Israel and veto any referral to the ICC and send the message that it is business as usual? Does international law only apply to weak third world countries in Africa and the Middle East such as Sudan? Do western, first world, colonial powers get a pass? Or do they allow the complaint to go forward and risk a further split with Israel and the anger of the Israel lobby in Washington?.