| 14 January 2009, Resource : Panarmenian |
|
Enraged by the abrasive tone of Turkey’s condemnation of Israel’s attack on Gaza, Israeli officials and Turkish analysts are now raising the possibility that Tel Aviv may retaliate either by recognizing the Armenian Genocide or refusing to help Turkey to lobby against a congressional resolution on the genocide, according to the Publisher of The California Courier. “This unexpected turn of events was in response to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan’s continued harsh criticisms, accusing Israel of “perpetrating inhuman actions which would bring it to self-destruction. Allah will sooner or later punish those who transgress the rights of innocents.” Erdogan qualified Israel’s attack on Gaza as “savagery” and a “crime against humanity.” He also refused to take calls from Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and rejected a request by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to visit Ankara. While it is unlikely that Israel would reverse its long-standing refusal to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, it may decide not to accommodate future Turkish requests to have American Jewish organizations to lobby against a congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide. Ankara has long depended on Israel to act as a conduit to Washington and to American Jewish organizations who have frequently acted as a kind of surrogate lobby for Turkey in Washington. In the past, Jewish organizations have been instrumental in helping Turkey block efforts to introduce resolutions in Congress recognizing the Armenian genocide of 1915,” Harut Sassounian writes. On December 27, 2008, Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead, targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas. As of 12 January 2009, 13 Israelis and 898 Palestinians are estimated to have perished in the conflict. All but three of the Israeli casualties have been soldiers, while 333 of the Gaza casualties have been women and children. 257 children in Gaza have been killed, making up a third of Palestinian casualties. |
Category: Palestinian N.A.
Palestinian National Authority
-
THE CALIFORNIA COURIER: ANGERED BY TURKISH CRITICISM OVER GAZA, ISRAEL MAY RECOGNIZE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
-
Hamas agrees to Turkish force at border between Gaza and Egypt
Hamas is set to announce that it is willing to allow a Turkish force to deploy at Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, despite earlier insistence that it would treat any international presence along the border as an occupying force, according to a report on Tuesday. Turkey’s PM said there was a possibility that Israel would attend ceasefire talks in Egypt. (UPDATED)
Hamas would agree to a Turkish deployment of forces, because it “harbors respect to Turkey as an Islamic nation,” a Hamas source told the London-based Arabic daily Al Hayat; Israel’s Jerusalem Post reported.
Turkey has urged for the formation of an international monitoring force for Gaza and has said it is ready to participate. Turkey currently actively participates in peacekeeping missions in the West Bank city of Hebron and Lebanon in the Middle East, as well as in Afghanistan and Kosovo.
However, the details of the mission – where it would be located, what exactly it would do, who would be involved, what the role of the Palestinian Authority would be – were still being formulated. There is some talk about carving out a “neutral zone” along the border where the team would operate.
Hamas would only consent to the deployment of Turkish forces in the Strip if all of the crossings into Gaza are opened, Hamas sources told Al Hayat.
The group has resisted the idea of international monitors because it wants control of the Gaza border, and Egypt has opposed the presence of foreign forces on its soil as a violation of its sovereignty. Egypt would prefer that Fatah man the border on the Gaza side and does not believe it needs outside help to monitor its own crossing.
ISRAEL MAY ATTEND TALKS
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday Israel is also expected to join ceasefire talks in Egypt, adding this could make it closer to reach a solution.“Talks are at a better phase when compared to two weeks ago. It is distressing that there is such a negative process despite the U.N. Security Council,” he said when asked about some news reports that parties were coming closer to an agreement and that Turkish troops would ensure security of the tunnels.
“However, talks in Egypt progress at a positive direction in the past 3 days,” he was quoted by the Anatolian Agency as saying.
Turkish officials are engaged in ongoing shuttle diplomacy in the region in a bid to reach a ceasefire in Gaza.
A Turkish delegation led by Ahmet Davutoglu, chief advisor to Erdogan, met both Egyptian and Hamas officials in Cairo and Damascus.
Diplomatic sources say Turkey is playing a key role in the talks because Hamas, due to its tensions with Egypt, currently has more confidence in Turkey than it does in Egypt.
According to the Israeli sources, in the current talks Turkey is acting as the mediator between Egypt and Hamas, and not between Hamas and Israel. One Israeli source said Israel’s relationship with Turkey has been set back considerably because of Erdogan’s extremely harsh criticisms of the Israeli military operations.
-
UN security council debates Gaza – VIDEO
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2009/jan/07/un-security-council
The UN security council meets in New York following the deaths of 40 people in attacks on two schools
-
Hamas and Turkey, Ankara Tips Mideast Scales,
Tulin Daloglu, January 7, 2009
Palestinian firefighters work Thursday at Hamas leader Nizar Rayan’s bombed home in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Britain’s Guardian newspaper praised him in an obituary, earning the rebuke of a Weekly Standard blogger.Israel’s operation into Gaza has brought disunity in both Europe and the Arab world. Even in this electrified environment, however, each country has its reasons and differences as to how it relates and plays its role in this conflict. And every decision has consequences. For that matter, here is a look into how Turkey plays its role.
Turkey is reacting to the developments as an interested neighbor in the region with ambitions to lead in the Muslim Middle East. Under the leadership of the Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP), Turkey has developed relationships in the region, become a candidate for full European Union membership, and is a strategic partner to the United States. Also, Ankara and Washington agreed on a strategic vision document in July 2006. In part, the agreement stated that “Turkey and the United States pledge themselves to work together … supporting international efforts toward a permanent settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, including … two-state solution.” At the time, I wrote the “shared vision document will be seen as part of an agreement between the United States and the AKP, which is likely to fuel the perception among Turks that Washington is backing the Islamists.” I also said “the debate in Turkey will focus on the document’s impact on domestic politics, not bilateral relationship.”
As skeptical as I am of the AKP’s vision, which leans toward making the country a more Islamic one, Turkey has much to offer to regional peace and stability. But for that to happen, its leadership must be able to keep a balanced approach toward both its Muslim allies and its U.S. and European ones.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party have lost an enormous opportunity over the last week. Mr. Erdogan has been hammering Israeli actions as a “crime against humanity,” and “disrespect to Turkey”; his fellow party members have called Israel “leading provocateur of global terror,” nearly shutting down the inter-parliamentary Israeli-Turkish friendship group in protest. They have almost completely ignored Hamas’ daily rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians. They chose silence where Israel was blamed to wage a war on Muslims. In fact, Mr. Erdogan believes Allah will punish Israel.
Simply, Turkish leadership lost the balance in rhetoric and in action that Ankara has worked for many years to achieve. Mr. Erdogan met with the leaders of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia – excluding Israel. His chief adviser, Ahmet Davudoglu, also met with exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshal. The speakers of the Turkish and Iranian parliaments held at least three telephone conversations in one week. But Turkish leadership had no such conversations with Washington.
While Turkey has officially taken its U.N. Security Council non-permanent member seat, Mr. Erdogan said, “We can deliver Hamas’ demands and conditions for a ceasefire to the U.N. Security Council, because Hamas has lost its trust to the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. They, however, have full trust in Turkey.” The point is, Turkey’s lack of coordination with the U.S. and Israel brings it no leverage to broker any kind of agreement in the region. “There is no Turkish mediation in this regard,” Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu-al-Ghayt said on Egyptian TV Saturday. Nonetheless, Mr. Erdogan went to the Middle East with a two-step plan calling for an immediate cease-fire and unity among Palestinian leaders. It’s fair to say that Ankara’s efforts failed. Solutions are easy to discuss but difficult to accomplish in the Middle East – and Ankara should have taken that into account.
So how does Mr. Erdogan’s latest stand serve Turkey’s national interests? U.S. sources, who ask to remain anonymous, believe that Turkey will face enormous challenges in the near future.
First, there is an understanding that “its leaders are playing a dangerous game.” Turkey’s effort in trying to mediate a peace between Israel and Syria is a different issue. But Hamas is an existential matter for Israel. Today, Egypt is more worried about Hamas than Turkey. Turkey chose a side. Turks have presented the Armenian genocide issue as an existential matter for them, as well. Israel and the Jewish lobby have supported Turkey’s efforts to defeat the numerous Armenian genocide resolutions that have been brought up in Congress over the last 30 years.
But after this recent episode, they may not be so eager to support Turkey’s efforts opposing the next resolution. In addition, although some EU countries are sending conflicting messages about Israel’s actions, Hamas is still seen as a terrorist organization. It could mean trouble for a country aspiring to join the EU to be seen as an ally of a group the EU sees as terrorists.
As these conflicts go on and these issues evolve, it’s crucial for everyone to think about how Turkey’s identity is transforming. Fatih Altayli, executive editor of Haberturk, argues that Mr. Erdogan has adopted harsh rhetoric on this matter to please his base (mahalle). But Turks must ask how big that base is. Evidently, pictures are radicalizing people in Turkey. If that is the case, if this conflict turns ordinary Turks away from a Western orientation, the repercussions will be felt in Tel Aviv, Europe and Washington.
Tulin Daloglu is a free-lance writer.
washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/07/hamas-and-turkey/
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times -
Erdogan Searches for Diplomatic Response to Israeli Invasion of Gaza
Erdogan Searches for Diplomatic Response to Israeli Invasion of Gaza
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 1January 5, 2009Israel’s ongoing offensive against Gaza has generated waves of anger among the Turkish public and Turkish political elite. Paralleling mounting street demonstrations throughout Turkey are international attempts by the country’s leaders to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis. The attacks came amid Turkey’s growing involvement in the Middle East as a significant power seeking to exert influence through nonmilitary means, including economic and trade relations, cultural exchanges, and its new-found role as a regional peace broker. The governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has successfully involved Turkey in attempts to resolve the region’s protracted problems, most importantly Israel’s entangled relations with its Arab neighbors.
When Israel launched air strikes on December 27, Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the high number of civilian deaths and emphasized Turkey’s concern that the developments might undermine regional stability (www.mfa.gov.tr, December 27). Erdogan criticized the operation and labeled Israeli aggression as an act against Turkey’s peace initiatives, noting that through this action Israel had shut the door on diplomacy. He said that any diplomatic contact with Israel was meaningless at that point and called on the United Nations to intervene to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. He also cancelled his plan to call Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to discuss Israel-Syria negotiations, because Israeli aggression was also “an act of disrespect toward Turkey” (Radikal, December 27).
Erdogan’s disillusionment with Israel can be better understood given Olmert’s visit to Ankara a few days earlier, during which they discussed the status of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Olmert asked Erdogan to revitalize the Israeli-Syria talks (www.cnnturk.com, December 23). Erdogan was preparing to play a more assertive role as a peace-broker in 2009, but Israel’s unrestricted use of force and apparent “insincerity” toward Turkey might have shattered his optimism about finding a comprehensive solution to Middle Eastern conflicts through dialogue.
In response to Israel’s uncompromising position, the Erdogan government embarked on a diplomatic offensive to mobilize the international community. Since the outbreak of the crisis, Erdogan has spoken to world leaders such as the UN Secretary-General and European politicians (Anadolu Ajansi, January 4). He went on a “Middle East tour” to consult with regional leaders and explore a common position against Israel. On the first step of his shuttle-diplomacy, he met with the leaders of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, as well as Palestinian politicians. The second step of his tour took him to Saudi Arabia. Following his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Erdogan announced Turkey’s proposal for a two-stage plan to calm tension in Gaza. The first stage would be a ceasefire supervised by international peacekeepers, including Turkish forces. The second stage would seek to find a common ground between rival Palestinian groups in order to achieve a sustainable peace in the region (www.ntvmsnbc.com, January 2; Sabah, January 3).
In the midst of these initiatives, Turkey appears to be seeking ways to bridge the divisions among Arab countries as well. While some Arab countries tend to feel that Hamas has the main responsibility for the collapse of talks with Fatah and are seeking to isolate it because of its alleged connections to Iran, Turkey is arguing against its isolation (Referans, December 30). At a time when Hamas is also coming under international criticism for sparking Israeli aggression, Erdogan defended the organization by saying that “agitation does not come from Hamas; rather, Israel has created fertile ground for this agitation.” Referring to a June 2008 deal brokered by Egypt, he maintained that “Hamas complied with the six-month long ceasefire. Yet, Israel did not lift the embargo. The people of Gaza are living in an open prison.” Erdogan went on to add that “Turkey could sponsor Hamas’s conditions for a ceasefire at the UN Security Council [UNSC], because Hamas’s trust in the Palestinian authority and Egypt has been shaken” but it still had full confidence in Turkey (Yeni Safak, January 3; www.cnnturk.com, January 4).
Here, Erdogan had in mind Turkey’s new role as a non-permanent member of the UNSC, which it assumed this month. However, the United States’ threat to veto any resolution to halt Israeli attacks, as reflected in the January 3 consultation meeting of the SC, will not make it easy for the Erdogan government to use this avenue for supporting Palestinian interests. It is also important to note that Erdogan has repeatedly emphasized Turkey’s willingness to work in tandem with Egypt as a defender of the Palestinian cause.
At the same time, Foreign Minister Ali Babacan met with his counterparts. He phoned the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, himself a Turk, and arranged an emergency meeting of the OIC Foreign Ministers (www.mfa.gov.tr, December 28). The final communiqué of the OIC meeting held on January 3 strongly condemned “the ongoing barbaric Israeli assault on the Palestinian people in Gaza” and proposed a number of measures to mobilize the international community to relieve the suffering of Palestinians and end Israel’s attacks (www.oic-oci.org, January, 3). Similarly, Turkey also urged the Arab League’s foreign ministers to work toward a ceasefire and facilitate reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.
The start of Israel’s ground offensive despite these efforts raises questions about the future of Turkish-Israeli relations. In response to a question, Erdogan had earlier said, “Inter-governmental relations cannot afford emotions. Yet, injustice cannot be permitted either. If there is oppression, we cannot support it. We seek to solve it through talks” (Zaman, January 2). Given Israel’s lack of interest in “talks,” on the one hand, and Turkey’s pro-Hamas position and exclusion of Israel from its diplomatic initiatives, on the other, it will be interesting to see how Erdogan will advocate Palestinian rights in international forums and whether Turkish-Israeli cooperation can survive the storm.
https://jamestown.org/program/erdogan-searches-for-diplomatic-response-to-israeli-invasion-of-gaza/
-
The Invasion of Gaza: “Operation Cast Lead”, Part of a Broader Israeli Military-Intelligence Agenda
by Michel ChossudovskyURL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11606The aerial bombings and the ongoing ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli ground forces must be analysed in a historical context. Operation “Cast Lead” is a carefully planned undertaking, which is part of a broader military-intelligence agenda first formulated by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001:
“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)
It was Israel which broke the truce on the day of the US presidential elections, November 4:
“Israel used this distraction to break the ceasefire between itself and Hamas by bombing the Gaza strip. Israel claimed this violation of the ceasefire was to prevent Hamas from digging tunnels into Israeli territory.
The very next day, Israel launched a terrorizing siege of Gaza, cutting off food, fuel, medical supplies and other necessities in an attempt to “subdue” the Palestinians while at the same time engaging in armed incursions.
In response, Hamas and others in Gaza again resorted to firing crude, homemade, and mainly inaccurate rockets into Israel. During the past seven years, these rockets have been responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis. Over the same time span, Israeli Blitzkrieg assaults have killed thousands of Palestinians, drawing worldwide protest but falling on deaf ears at the UN.” (Shamus Cooke, The Massacre in Palestine and the Threat of a Wider War, Global Research, December 2008)
Planned Humanitarian Disaster
On December 8, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was in Tel Aviv for discussions with his Israeli counterparts including the director of Mossad, Meir Dagan.
“Operation Cast Lead” was initiated two days day after Christmas. It was coupled with a carefully designed international Public Relations campaign under the auspices of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.
Hamas’ military targets are not the main objective. Operation “Cast Lead” is intended, quite deliberately, to trigger civilian casualities.
What we are dealing with is a “planned humanitarian disaster” in Gaza in a densly populated urban area. (See map below)
The longer term objective of this plan, as formulated by Israeli policy makers, is the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands:
“Terrorize the civilian population, assuring maximal destruction of property and cultural resources… [T]he daily life of the Palestinians must be rendered unbearable: They should be locked up in cities and towns, prevented from exercising normal economic life, cut off from workplaces, schools and hospitals, This will encourage emigration and weaken the resistance to future expulsions” Ur Shlonsky, quoted by Ghali Hassan, Gaza: The World’s Largest Prison, Global Research, 2005)
“Operation Justified Vengeance”
A turning point has been reached. Operation “Cast Lead” is part of the broader military-intelligence operation initiated at the outset the Ariel Sharon government in 2001. It was under Sharon’s “Operation Justified Vengeance” that F-16 fighter planes were initially used to bomb Palestinian cities.
“Operation Justified Vengeance” was presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.
“A contingency plan, codenamed Operation Justified Vengeance, was drawn up last June [2001] to reoccupy all of the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip at a likely cost of “hundreds” of Israeli casualties.” (Washington Times, 19 March 2002).
According to Jane’s ‘Foreign Report’ (July 12, 2001) the Israeli army under Sharon had updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority, force out leader Yasser Arafat and kill or detain its army”.
“Bloodshed Justification”
The “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda. The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.” Israeli military operations were carefully timed to coincide with the suicide attacks:
The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001, emphasis added)
The Dagan Plan
“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after General (ret.) Meir Dagan, who currently heads Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.
Reserve General Meir Dagan was Sharon’s national security adviser during the 2000 election campaign. The plan was apparently drawn up prior to Sharon’s election as Prime Minister in February 2001. “According to Alex Fishman writing in Yediot Aharonot, the Dagan Plan consisted in destroying the Palestinian authority and putting Yasser Arafat ‘out of the game’.” (Ellis Shulman, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: a Secret Plan to Destroy the Palestinian Authority, March 2001):
“As reported in the Foreign Report [Jane] and disclosed locally by Maariv, Israel’s invasion plan — reportedly dubbed Justified Vengeance — would be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians. (Ibid, emphasis added)
The “Dagan Plan” envisaged the so-called “cantonization” of the Palestinian territories whereby the West Bank and Gaza would be totally cut off from one other, with separate “governments” in each of the territories. Under this scenario, already envisaged in 2001, Israel would:
“negotiate separately with Palestinian forces that are dominant in each territory-Palestinian forces responsible for security, intelligence, and even for the Tanzim (Fatah).” The plan thus closely resembles the idea of “cantonization” of Palestinian territories, put forth by a number of ministers.” Sylvain Cypel, The infamous ‘Dagan Plan’ Sharon’s plan for getting rid of Arafat, Le Monde, December 17, 2001)
From Left to Right: Dagan, Sharon, Halevy
The Dagan Plan has established continuity in the military-intelligence agenda. In the wake of the 2000 elections, Meir Dagan was assigned a key role. “He became Sharon’s “go-between” in security issues with President’s Bush’s special envoys Zinni and Mitchell.” He was subsequently appointed Director of the Mossad by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in August 2002. In the post-Sharon period, he remained head of Mossad. He was reconfirmed in his position as Director of Israeli Intelligence by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in June 2008.
Meir Dagan, in coordination with his US counterparts, has been in charge of various military-intelligence operations. It is worth noting that Meir Dagan as a young Colonel had worked closely with defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on Palestinian settlements in Beirut in 1982. The 2009 ground invasion of Gaza, in many regards, bear a canny resemblance to the 1982 military operation led by Sharon and Dagan.
Continuity: From Sharon to Olmert
Olmert and Sharon
It is important to focus on a number of key events which have led up to the killings in Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”:
1. The assassination in November 2004 of Yaser Arafat. This assassination had been on the drawing board since 1996 under “Operation Fields of Thorns”. According to an October 2000 document “prepared by the security services, at the request of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, stated that ‘Arafat, the person, is a severe threat to the security of the state [of Israel] and the damage which will result from his disappearance is less than the damage caused by his existence’”. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001. Details of the document were published in Ma’ariv, July 6, 2001.).
Arafat’s assassination was ordered in 2003 by the Israeli cabinet. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. Reacting to increased Palestinian attacks, in August 2003, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared “all out war” on the militants whom he vowed “marked for death.”
“In mid September, Israel’s government passed a law to get rid of Arafat. Israel’s cabinet for political security affairs declared it “a decision to remove Arafat as an obstacle to peace.” Mofaz threatened; “we will choose the right way and the right time to kill Arafat.” Palestinian Minister Saeb Erekat told CNN he thought Arafat was the next target. CNN asked Sharon spokesman Ra’anan Gissan if the vote meant expulsion of Arafat. Gissan clarified; “It doesn’t mean that. The Cabinet has today resolved to remove this obstacle. The time, the method, the ways by which this will take place will be decided separately, and the security services will monitor the situation and make the recommendation about proper action.” (See Trish Shuh, Road Map for a Decease Plan, www.mehrnews.com November 9 2005
The assassination of Arafat was part of the 2001 Dagan Plan. In all likelihood, it was carried out by Israeli Intelligence. It was intended to destroy the Palestinian Authority, foment divisions within Fatah as well as between Fatah and Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas is a Palestinian quisling. He was installed as leader of Fatah, with the approval of Israel and the US, which finance the Palestinian Authority’s paramilitary and security forces.
2. The removal, under the orders of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005, of all Jewish settlements in Gaza. A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated.
“It is my intention [Sharon] to carry out an evacuation – sorry, a relocation – of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements…. I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza,” Sharon said.” (CBC, March 2004)
The issue of the settlements in Gaza was presented as part of Washington’s “road map to peace”. Celebrated by the Palestinians as a “victory”, this measure was not directed against the Jewish settlers. Quite the opposite: It was part of the overall covert operation, which consisted in transforming Gaza into a concentration camp. As long as Jewish settlers were living inside Gaza, the objective of sustaining a large barricaded prison territory could not be achieved. The Implementation of “Operation Cast Lead” required “no Jews in Gaza”.
3. The building of the infamous Apartheid Wall was decided upon at the beginning of the Sharon government.
4. The next phase was the Hamas election victory in January 2006. Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections. This was part of the scenario, which had been envisaged and analyzed well in advance.
With Hamas in charge of the Palestinian authority, using the pretext that Hamas is a terrorist organization, Israel would carry out the process of “cantonization” as formulated under the Dagan plan. Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would remain formally in charge of the West Bank. The duly elected Hamas government would be confined to the Gaza strip.
Ground Attack
On January 3, Israeli tanks and infantry entered Gaza in an all out ground offensive:
“The ground operation was preceded by several hours of heavy artillery fire after dark, igniting targets in flames that burst into the night sky. Machine gun fire rattled as bright tracer rounds flashed through the darkness and the crash of hundreds of shells sent up streaks of fire. (AP, January 3, 2009)
Israeli sources have pointed to a lengthy drawn out military operation. It “won’t be easy and it won’t be short,” said Defense Minister Ehud Barak in a TV address.
Israel is not seeking to oblige Hamas “to cooperate”. What we are dealing with is the implementation of the “Dagan Plan” as initially formulated in 2001, which called for:
“an invasion of Palestinian-controlled territory by some 30,000 Israeli soldiers, with the clearly defined mission of destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian leadership and collecting weaponry currently possessed by the various Palestinian forces, and expelling or killing its military leadership. (Ellis Shulman, op cit, emphasis added)
The broader question is whether Israel in consultation with Washington is intent upon triggering a wider war.
Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage of the ground invasion, were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population. Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon “it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)