Thanks for the thoughtful analysis to the issues I was trying to raise. Part of my question comes down to the point:
What is the reason for the Qassams?
You argue that “That is their only available method to press on Israel to lift the devastating inhuman total blockade of Gaza.”
But for the Qassams to be effective in that regard, they must cause Israel some damage, or at least some pain. I don’t see that they do that. They kill so few people that they have not military effect. Israel doesn’t really care about a few civilian casualties, it cares about military casualties. Israel has proven it can absorb 10,000 Qassams without blinking.
Qassams ONLY have an effect at very rare times, like now, when they have the potential to throw an election to the opposition by embarrassing the current government. But that government is now demonstrating it has an answer to that as well: a massive invasion of Gaza has something like 90% approval in Israel.
Now Qassams BACKED by an effective guerilla force, I could understand: it puts Israel in a bind in which negotiation is the only way out. But if the Qassams cannot cause pain, and Gaza cannot extract casualties by playing defense, then where is this going?
As a strategy it starts to look like suffering nobly and wait for the world to rescue you. I can’t believe Palestinians serious believe anyone but themselves can save themselves.
The Qassams need to be backed by a more effective ground defense of Gaza, or they can’t work in their current form.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 15 2009 21:58 utc | 4

Also to take into account that it isn’t just Hamas fighting or trying to inflict casualties to the colonial non-army of baby killers. There are other smaller or even similar in size groups operating in Gaza like the Islamic Jihad (which has always been linked by the colonial propaganda intelligence sources as being more connected with Hezbollah and Iran than Hamas), secular or leftist palestinian groups or even some ex-Fatah splinter groups. However those groups are likely to have even less supplies than Hamas (as Hamas had control of the tunnels after they expelled the Dahlan gangsters).
To some extend that was also truth in the Lebanon war as when someone is bombing your towns there will always be plenty of hot blooded youngster wanting to pay back the terrorists. And Lebanon is heavely fractioned into militias of all kind. Of course Hezbollah is much better equiped and provide the bulk of the fireworks but when you reach the level of street by street fighting anybody can take a chance (and likely die, but may be it’s better to die fighting than covering on a UN school …).

Posted by: ThePaper | Jan 15 2009 22:17 utc | 6

Atzmon.
http://tinyurl.com/7acugt
Hamas is still there; its support within the Palestinian street is stronger than ever. But it is not only the Palestinian street.  Hamas’ message of defiance is spreading all over the Muslim world and beyond. Last week I was marching in London together with another 100,000 protesters. The support for Hamas was all around. It was on placards, flags, headbands and loudspeakers.  Not only is Hamas far from being defeated, its rocket launching capability seems to be unaffected. Day after day Hamas combatants manage to remind Israelis in Ashdod, Ashkelon and Sderot that they actually live on stolen Palestinian land. Give Hamas the necessary time and the ballistic message will be carried to every corner of stolen Palestine.
[snip]
The Israeli army is stuck once again.
If this is not enough, within a few days Obama is going to reside in the White House and the Israelis are not totally convinced that the new American president will blindly support their murderous strategy.
/grain of salt

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jan 15 2009 22:22 utc | 8

The Qassam was the main excuse that the brutal colonial government used to start the terrorist bombing of Gaza. Some could say that if even after three weeks Hamas is still launching rockets the effectiveness of the colonial gang of baby killers in achieving their public objectives is quite embarrasing. Just like it was when they couldn’t stop Hezbollah from sending back rockets to them.
However there is also the conspiracionist view says that the rockets are just the excuse to keep the bombing going, and partly backed by the fact that the Qassam/mortar/firework danger was and is just a lame excuse (as if they care about a few ethiopian or arabs suffering from ‘shock’ other than for propaganda purposes). Similar to those fake (in the sense that ‘no one’ is launching them) rockets fired from Lebanon the last days.
The bombing seems slated to finish just before the 20th one way or another. So anything else may be just smoke and mirrors (just like today’s ‘high profile’ killing of a Hamas minister to give the impression that results are being achieved) for the enjoyment of us little common mortals.
At this point it’s not fully clear if something will be ‘achieved’ or the situation will keep as it was before the bombing started. Can they insert Fatah operatives back in Gaza? Who is really going to keep watch of the land and sea frontier with Egypt? How effective is going that watch to be? Is the embargo really going to be lifted even if Hamas keeps control of Gaza?

Posted by: ThePaper | Jan 15 2009 22:36 utc | 10

And where do you think Mubarak takes his marching orders from? And what do you think is the fallout of Mubarak plain-to-every-arab-to-see backing of the terrorist bombings? Getting the arab populations enraged against their puppet governments looks like good preassure to me.
Do you think that launching Qassams to Egypt would be effective?Would be of any use keep arguing and scheming with a regime that hates you and is always attempting to backstab your efforts? Remember that Hamas is the palestinian brand of the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition to Mubarak’s regime, and that it won power by democratic elections (they can identify quite well with the palestinian collaborators of Fatah and don’t want to repeat their mistakes). How do you expect Hamas to preasure such government? Mubarak likely fears Hamas, by their example on the arab population, much more than the colony does (same for the Saudis fearing Hezbollah and their iranian backed effectiveness).

Posted by: ThePaper | Jan 15 2009 23:16 utc | 12

I really cannot analyze this battle in military terms. In fact, I don’t think those are the proper terms at all. This is but one short one-sided battle in a long campaign of extermination. The resistance is brave, but if the Israelis wanted they could bomb the entire strip flat as a pancake.
The outcome of this battle will have nothing to do with miltary performance. What is important is the terms of the ceasefire, the theatre of world opinion and the number of governments who are forced by their people to forswear Israel. Until that begins to happen, until the tide begins to turn, we are no better than the voyeuristic Israelis overlooking Gaza in their plastic lawn chairs with their picnic lunches.
This is really about people, not bigboy toys.

Posted by: Malooga | Jan 16 2009 0:11 utc | 14

I have a non-frivolous suggestion. Having read Fisk’s piece in the Independent (linked in comments to the last post), it is clear that the anti-semitic label still carries weight for some journalists and may, in fact, cause them to hesitate before writing opinion pieces.
In the past, anti-semitism was real, and it was nasty. Now, however, Jews in America have little to fear : indeed, compared to Muslims, quite the opposite.
Perhaps because of this, the ADL in particular have extended the definition of anti-semitic, not to include Palestinian people as might have been hoped and justified, but to include any criticism of Israel. In other words, it has entirely lost its original meaning, yet this slur has retained its potency.
So this change in definition must be challenged, and the charge of anti-semitism must be turned on its head.
My suggestion is the printing and wearing of millions of t-shirts all bearing on one side the message :
‘PROUD TO BE ANTI_SEMITIC’
and on the other :
‘REMEMBER GAZA’
‘REMEMBER JANIN’
‘REMEMBER DEIR YASSIN’
Any t-shirt makers out there?

Posted by: Fred | Jan 16 2009 0:26 utc | 16

The logic of violence has produced the desired result for both sides. Both sides win. Hamas revels in the death and destruction. Not a small portion of Israelis do as well. Our right is orgasmic over it.
It’s 40 or 60 years to late for the Palestinians to adopt non violence as it’s main weapon. The only one which would have worked.

Posted by: rapier | Jan 16 2009 1:23 utc | 18

Lysander – Thanks for the support. You explained the ideas I’ve been trying to get at, but much more concisely and eloquently.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 16 2009 1:48 utc | 20

To correspond with us about your e-mail address on the listserv, write . Thank you.
Commentary No. 249, Jan. 15, 2009
“Chronicle of a Suicide Foretold: The Case of Israel”

The state of Israel proclaimed its independence at midnight on May 15, 1948. The United Nations had voted to establish two states in what had been Palestine under British rule. The city of Jerusalem was supposed to be an international zone under U.N. jurisdiction. The U.N. resolution had wide support, and specifically that of the United States and the Soviet Union. The Arab states all voted against it.
In the sixty years of its existence, the state of Israel has depended for its survival and expansion on an overall strategy that combined three elements: macho militarism, geopolitical alliances, and public relations. The macho militarism (what current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert calls the “iron fist”) was made possible by the nationalist fervor of Jewish Israelis, and eventually (although not initially) by the very strong support of Jewish communities elsewhere in the world.
Geopolitically, Israel first forged an alliance with the Soviet Union (which was brief but crucial), then with France (which lasted a longer time and allowed Israel to become a nuclear power), and finally (and most importantly) with the United States. These allies, who were also patrons, offered most importantly military support through the provision of weapons. But they also offered diplomatic/political support, and in the case of the United States considerable economic support.
The public relations was aimed at obtaining sympathetic support from a wide swath of world public opinion, based in the early years on a portrait of Israel as a pioneering David against a retrograde Goliath, and in the last forty years on guilt and compassion over the massive Nazi extermination of European Jewry during the Second World War.
All these elements of Israeli strategy worked well from 1948 to the 1980s. Indeed, they were increasingly more effective. But somewhere in the 1980s, the use of each of the three tactics began to be counterproductive. Israel has now entered into a phase of the precipitate decline of its strategy. It may be too late for Israel to pursue any alternative strategy, in which case it will have committed geopolitical suicide. Let us trace how the three elements in the strategy interacted, first during the successful upward swing, then during the slow decline of Israel’s power.
For the first twenty-five years of its existence, Israel engaged in four wars with Arab states. The first was the 1948-1949 war to establish the Jewish state. The Israeli declaration of an independent state was not matched by a Palestinian declaration to establish a state. Rather, a number of Arab governments declared war on Israel. Israel was initially in military difficulty. However, the Israeli military were far better trained than those of the Arab countries, with the exception of Transjordan. And, crucially, they obtained arms from Czechoslovakia, acting as the agent of the Soviet Union.
By the time of the truce in 1949, the discipline of the Israeli forces combined with the Czech arms enabled the Israelis to win considerable territory not included in the partition proposals of the United Nations, including west Jerusalem. The other areas were incorporated by the surrounding Arab states. A large number of Palestinian Arabs left or were forced to leave areas under the control of the Israelis and became refugees in neighboring Arab countries, where their descendants still largely live today. The land they had owned was taken by Jewish Israelis.
The Soviet Union soon dropped Israel. This was probably primarily because its leaders quickly became afraid of the impact of the creation of the state on the attitudes of Soviet Jewry, who seemed overly enthusiastic and hence potentially subversive from Stalin’s point of view. Israel in turn dropped any sympathy for the socialist camp in the Cold War, and made clear its fervent desire to be considered a full-fledged member of the Western world, politically and culturally.
France at this time was faced with national liberation movements in its three North African colonies, and saw in Israel a useful ally. This was especially true after the Algerians launched their war of independence in 1954. France began to help Israel arm itself. In particular, France, which was developing its own nuclear weapons (against U.S. wishes), helped Israel do the same. In 1956, Israel joined France and Great Britain in a war against Egypt. Unfortunately for Israel, this war was launched against U.S. opposition, and the United States forced all three powers to end it.
After Algeria became independent in 1962, France lost interest in the Israeli connection, which now interfered with its attempts to renew closer relations with the three now independent North African states. It was at this point that the United States and Israel turned to each other to forge close links. In 1967, war broke out again between Egypt and Israel, and other Arab states joined Egypt. In this so-called Six Day War, the United States for the first time gave military weapons to Israel.
The 1967 Israeli victory changed the basic situation in many respects. Israel had won the war handily, occupying all those parts of the British mandate of Palestine that it had occupied before, plus Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and Syria’s Golan Heights. Juridically, there was now a state of Israel plus Israel’s occupied territories. Israel began a policy of establishing
Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.
The Israeli victory transformed the attitude of world Jewry, which now overcame whatever reservations it had had about the creation of the state of Israel. They took great pride in its accomplishments and began to undertake major political campaigns in the United States and western Europe to secure political support for Israel. The image of a pioneering Israel with emphasis on the virtues of the kibbutz was abandoned in favor of an emphasis on the Holocaust as the basic justification for world support of Israel.
In 1973, the Arab states sought to redress the military situation in the so-called Yom Kippur war. This time again, Israel won the war, with U.S. arms support. The 1973 war marked the end of the central role of the Arab states. Israel could continue to try to get recognition from Arab states, and it did succeed eventually with both Egypt and Jordan, but it was now too late for this to be a way to secure Israel’s existence.
As of this point, there emerged a serious Palestinian Arab political movement, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was now the key opponent of Israel, the one with whom Israel needed to come to terms. For a long time, Israel refused to deal with the PLO and its leader Yasser Arafat, preferring the iron fist. And at first, it was militarily successful.
The limits of the iron fist policy were made evident by the first intifada, a spontaneous uprising of Palestinian Arabs inside the occupied territories, which began in 1987 and lasted six years. The basic achievement of the intifada was twofold. It forced the Israelis and the United States to talk to the PLO, a long process that led to the so-called Oslo Accords of 1993, which provided for the creation of the Palestinian Authority in part of the occupied territories.
The Oslo Accords in the long run were geopolitically less important than the impact of the intifada on world public opinion. For the first time, the David-Goliath image began to be inverted. For the first time, there began to be serious support in the Western world for the so-called two-state solution. For the first time, there began to be serious criticism of Israel’s iron fist and its practices vis-à-vis the Arab Palestinians. Had Israel been serious about a two-state solution based on the so-called Green Line – the line of division at the end of the 1948-1949 war – it probably would have achieved a settlement.
Israel however was always one step behind. When it could have negotiated with Nasser, it wouldn’t. When it could have negotiated with Arafat, it wouldn’t. When Arafat died and was succeeded by the ineffectual Mahmoud Abbas, the more militant Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006. Israel refused to talk to Hamas.
Now, Israel has invaded Gaza, seeking to destroy Hamas. If it succeeds, what organization will come next? If, as is more probable, it fails to destroy Hamas, is a two-state solution now possible? Both Palestinian and world public opinion is moving towards the one-state solution. And this is of course the end of the Zionist project.
The three-element strategy of Israel is decomposing. The iron fist no longer succeeds, much as it didn’t for George Bush in Iraq. Will the United States link remain firm? I doubt it. And will world public opinion continue to look sympathetically on Israel? It seems not. Can Israel now switch to an alternative strategy, of negotiating with the militant representatives of the Arab Palestinians, as an integral constituent of the Middle East, and not as an outpost of Europe? It seems quite late for that, quite possibly too late. Hence, the chronicle of a suicide foretold.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]

Posted by: Malooga | Jan 16 2009 2:07 utc | 22

Israel’s Free Ride Ends January 14, 2009 by The Guardian/UK

Slowly, though, something is changing. As Israel pulverises Gaza, questions and doubts about Israeli policy are becoming more prominent in the American media. The failure of the war in Iraq and the attendant discrediting of neoconservatism has opened up new space in the American conversation. With the American right dejected and weakened, there’s less pressure on the press to display the kind of boorish one-sidedness that self-congratulatory conservatives like to call “moral clarity”. Israel’s disproportionate retaliation in Gaza is increasingly recognised as both brutal and, in all likelihood, ultimately futile. In destroying Gaza, Israel is also destroying the American taboo that has ensured the country such unstintingly favourable media coverage.
On December 31, CNN took on the contentious question of whether Israel or Hamas broke the ceasefire, precipitating the current fighting. First, the network aired a clip of the liberal Palestinian legislator Mustafa Barghouti saying: “The world press community or media community is overwhelmed with the Israeli narrative, which is incorrect. The Israeli spokespersons have been spreading lies all over. The reality and the truth is that the side that broke this truce and this ceasefire was Israel. Two months before it ended, Israel started attacking Rafah, started attacking Hamas and never lifted the blockade on Gaza.” Ordinarily, TV journalists would follow such a clip – if they even aired it in the first place – with one of Israel making its case, and would stop at that, leaving an audience already predisposed against the Palestinians to sort out the truth. Instead, anchor Rick Sanchez did something that should be commonplace, but sadly is not: he endeavoured to find out who was right.
“And you know what we did? I’ve checked with some of the folks here at our international desk, and I went to them and asked: ‘What was he talking about, and do we have any information on that?'” said Sanchez. And he reported that his sources confirmed that Barghouti was right.
Since then, questioning and outright condemning Israeli actions have become increasingly common in the establishment press. On January 8, the op-ed page of the New York Times ran three opinion pieces critical of Israel. “When it is shelled by its neighbour, Israel has to do something,” wrote columnist Nick Kristof. “But Israel’s right to do something doesn’t mean it has the right to do anything.” Last week, a new issue of Time magazine appeared, its cover showing a star of David behind rows of barbed wire and the headline “Why Israel can’t win”. The extremely conservative Wall Street Journal opinion page ran a piece by George Bisharat with the headline “Israel is committing war crimes”. “Israel’s current assault on the Gaza Strip cannot be justified by self-defence,” it began. “Rather, it involves serious violations of international law, including war crimes. … Hamas fighters have also violated the laws of warfare, but their misdeeds do not justify Israel’s acts.“

supporting links in the article

Posted by: annie | Jan 16 2009 2:17 utc | 24

Or just more efficient ways of being evil…

Posted by: David | Jan 16 2009 2:37 utc | 26

malooga
he’s a tough old fucker, mr wallerstein

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 16 2009 3:04 utc | 28

I think we spent more energy on analyzing Israel’s motives than what Hamas is looking for. Bill in his post #4 and #9 has really looked at Hamas’s game plan in depth. I will try to build the case from Bill’s above referred posts.
Qassams really don’t do anything because there is nothing to back them up militarily but Qassams provide a major negotiation point for Hamas. Israel has built a vicious case against Qassams to win over the public opinion battle within Israel but that also hamstrings the Israel leadership. Failure to get a deal that stops the Qassam firing would not be a victory for the Israeli government. The election politics in this war is an undeniable fact. So Qassam is a big bargaining chip that can be dangled before Israel to get a better deal.
I don’t know how qualified I am to discuss this and I hope others would help me out here.
Hamas in its political outlook maybe an anti West organization as it wants to promote Islamic values and the Islamic way of life which differs enormously with the Western values. However, throughout its history, Hamas has never shown to have strong Anti-American sentiments or has NOT shown any substantial interest in pursuing rhetorical battles against the US. We also have some evidence that Hamas was helped by Israel in the past. This basically means that there is some room to maneuver for Hamas, Israel, and the US in improving relations.
In Egypt as we all know the main opposition is not some nationalist movement but a religious somewhat fundamentalists’ movement that too has had some relations with the US in the past. So the possibilities are that the Ikhwan itself would not take the struggle to a level where the Mubarrak regime is seriously challenged.
So we reach a situation where all main parties are either close to the US or have the capacity to cut a deal in the area that pleases the US. Now assume that the new Obama admin wants to deal with the moderate Israelis instead of Natayan Yahoo at the top. Now we mesh this with the major push by the moderate parties in Israel to win elections. We come to the conclusion that perhaps the Obama admin was complicit in allowing the Israel to attack Gaza to ensure election victory for the moderates.
What is in there for Hamas which is taking the heaviest losses? Perhaps a deal with Israel and Egypt that allows them to have open borders, lifting of blockade, humanitarian aid and, perhaps funds to rebuild Gaza.
I know I am a little too pragmatic here but looking at the history in the area, most of the diplomatic successes in the area have followed some bitter battles in different parts of the Middle East. Recapture of Sinai to Oslo agreements and other small agreements or concessions have come after some blood was shed.
The Hizbullah established itself in Lebanon after the 2006 war and now there isn’t any likelihood that its powerbase in Lebanon would be challenged by any group in the area including Israel.
So what if the final solution is three states instead of the two or two state with one in Gaza only!
I am open to all criticism.

Posted by: Hoss | Jan 16 2009 7:22 utc | 30

I think b has is finger on the best explanation. Especially regarding the rockets. The Israeli security walls have unwittingly led to the use of these rockets as a very attractive lure for Hamas to exploit, in sucking the Israeli’s into concessions. The Israeli population, evident in their rabid support of this operation, and after their failure in Lebanon in 2006 must be feeling very paranoid about their long term viability. This is underlined by the ability of Hamas to overcome all their efforts, at least symbolically (because of the evident ineffectiveness of the rockets tactically) by continuing to fire the rockets. In the current political moment in Israel, their leaders have unwittingly seized upon the paranoia growing in their population as a means to gain favor at the ballot box and have chosen to one up each other in retaliation toward Hamas which has snowballed into the rabid genocidal madness we now see in Gaza. Hamas, has no other way of bringing Israeli behavior into the high court of world opinion except to provoke into stark relief what is normally the grinding business as usual in the territories. In their ability to continue with the rocket fire they have suckered Israel into amplifying their regular behavior into a violent shriek that the rest of the world can not hardly ignore. And has opened up the ugly pandora’s box of questionable association, complicity, graft, manipulation, and guilt upon the other countries and their relationship with Israel that otherwise would be kept under the carpet and glossed over as a matter of routine. Now that Israel has taken the bait and resorted to massive war crimes and genocide, the taint of responsibility and accessory has now crept into all the other governments associated with them, and are beginning to produce not only an accurate portrayal of how/who broke the ceasefire, but what perhaps is necessary to move forward toward an equatable settlement.If as Clausewitz said “war is politics by other means” Hamas has moved the ball much in their favor, and Israel is on to another humiliating defeat. Again by their own hand.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 16 2009 8:52 utc | 32

rgiap: “people are making connections between what is happening to gaza to their own continually crumbling conditions”
Yes, I think the future is being cast in stone.

Posted by: Rick | Jan 16 2009 9:33 utc | 34

Final victory will not go to the one handing out the greatest punishment but to him who can absorb the most.
The holocaust Jews refer to is when 60 Million people , of which 6 million were Jews , were killed. They have consigned the other 54 million people to history. This was before the Iraq war, the Vietnam war, the Korean war. In fact it was in the first half of the last century.
The perpetrators were hanged. The same should happen to to-days perpetrators. They should be arrested anywhere they go in the world. Like the Serb leaders.
The brand name holocaust has been handed to the people of Gaza
The holocaust to-day is Gaza where war crimes with illegal weapons have murdered and maimed over 3000 people. After the cease fire Israel was the first to break it as they did in most other cases. Gaza reacted with a few harmless rockets that killed no-one. We would do the same. It is called pride.
Moshe Yaalon Israelli Chief of Staff in 2002 said “The palestinians must be forced to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated People”
Boycott and picket all stores who sell israeli goods and all goods and services of all child murder supporters.

Posted by: boindub | Jan 16 2009 13:10 utc | 36

The weakest review of hamas I have ever read online.
Facts taken out of author butt…
Reminds me the reports from Iraq by Hussain’s Informational minister 🙂
Check out guys and have some fun http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

Posted by: James | Jan 16 2009 19:37 utc | 38

@james – facts? any fact?
Of course not not these passing trolls or troll never support their contentions with fact. In the interests of brevity since MoA threads are long and multi-paged nowadays, I reckon that these entirely opinion based assertions with no attempt to assemble any fact to support them, since that would take both intellect and time. Trollers don’t have the one and they are using the other to shit on the next blog, so their posts should go the way of the rest of the spam that infects threads here from time to time.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 16 2009 21:39 utc | 40

b,
you would be clearer on this than me but it would seem to me if they cannot enter into the hearts of cities & towns/villages in gaza – that tell us they are either being fought ferociouslly or they have made a decision not suffer those kind of losses – but it appears to me from the intense bombing in the last three days especially by the sea – that in fact they desired to enter those spaces but can’t
i’m dpeaking as much about political costs as well as military tho i agree with bill that given the totality of involvement by the idf it does not bode well for them
what is very clear however – is that the loss of human life will turn out to be two or three times the number we have been given

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 16 2009 23:29 utc | 42