Fuel For Peace
Who is willing to die for diesel ? There is an extreme crisis in the Gaza strip and at the Rafah crossing from the Gaza strip to Egypt. *Finally* Israel is allowing food, bottled water, and medical supplies to enter the Gaza strip. However, they refuse to allow fuel in (claiming they are worried that Hamas will seize it). This is a crisis as Hospitals are running on backup generators and about to run out of fuel. Yesterday The UN Relief and Works Administration, said they had fuel for 3 or 4 days.
The problem can not be solved by inspections at the crossing (determining that a truck is full of diesel and not say TNT) since it concerns where the fuel goes after entering the Gaza strip. It seems clear it will be necessary to have the fuel escorted by guards who are known not to be friendly with Hamas. I think this is a wonderful opportunity.
Israel can demand that armed guards who have orders to actually fight Hamas fighters if necessary are in the Gaza strip (no need to invade – come bearing diesel, gasoline, and methane). Given the crisis, Hama will have to accept this. They will lose their monopoly on legal violence in Gaza.
I think that Israel (among others) would benefit if this program became very large brining diesel for the Gaza power plant and for water pumps and aid truck refilling stations. The point (for Israel) is that all these places would have to be out of Hamas control with some other armed group guarding them.
I add Israel will want (demand) that someone broadcast what is happening (with a cell phone with the camera on will do) so they can detect fraternization with Hamas and cut off the supply (with you know bombs).
OK so who will watch the diesel ? A natural candidate would be Palistinian National Authority Police (you know the guys who lost a fight with Hamas in Gaza over a decade ago). Here they are coming bringing diesel under terms where their presence is required (and does not imply seizing power on behalf of Israel — yet). Another possibility would be Egyptian soldiers. General Al Sisi reliably hates Hamas (the blockade of Gaza is a joint Israeli-Egyptian operation. He is a ruthless dictator who overthrew a democracy, but you work with the allies you have not the allies you want. He is already very involved in Rafah crossing negotiations and just enjoyed hosting a huge international summit. So long as he is sure there is no risk that Egypt will accidentally annex Gaza (which he wants like he wants a hole in his head) I think he (and his subordinates) are an option.
I think that the real effort has to be to build an alternative to Hamas with money (lots of money (compared to the Gaza strip’s minimal GDP but pocket change for the EU or the Gulf Petrostates). I am not as confident that there is any way to overcome the Palestinian National Authority’s current reputation and now thinking of a new nongovernment organization (with staff selected for stated hostility to Hamas).
To go on a tangent, I note that US military policies based on giving dollars has worked while spending 100 times as much on US forces hasn’t. The US and UK conquered Afghanistan largely by suggesting that the Taliban were no longer the side was winning and also by giving money to local warlords. The US saved what seemed (to me) to be a desperate situation in Iraq by paying Iraqui Sunni rebels to swithc sides and become “the SOns of Iraq” in the Anbar awakening (now not just for Anbar). This was appeasement. This was paying tribute to adversaries so that they stop killing us. This worked.
But right now the more urgent crisis and opportunity is the need for diesel not dollars.
I support a tanker truck of Troy strategy to get armed opponents of Hamas into Gaza.
I don’t see at all that “(g)iven the crisis, Hamas will have to accept this.” The crisis was the plan.
@Eric,
Sadly, yes. That’s the plan of all terrorists. And Israel, it seems, is taking the bait.
“this” is quite specifically the delivery of diesel fuel to Hospital’s emergency backup generators. It is not Israeli terms for ceasing to bomb. The crisis involving bombs deaths and (if Hamas got really lucky as it did) a ground incursion was the plan.
Hamas (not Israel Hamas) blocking fuel so generators stop generating and ventilators stop ventilating and Palestinians suffocate is the the plan.
Israel is not putting Hamas on the spot of either accepting non-Hamas guards guarding the diesel or letting Palestinians die. I say Israel is missing an opportunity (to save lives and screw Hamas)
The idea is fine; whether such a plan would be acceptable to Israel or Palestinians is the question, but trying would be helpful to both.
Israelis would accept if if they weren’t militaristic hawks blinded by rage (Israel is currently run by knee jerk hawks who are currently blinded by rage).
It is good for many Palestinians. It is designed to be very bad (in the medium and long run) for those Palestinians who run Hamas and who currently have a lot of power, which they will lose if groups hostile to them, but sympathetic to other Palestinians in the Gaza strip deliver aid.
That means the out of touch corrupt unpopular Palestinian NationalAuthority of the ruthless mass murdering dictator Abdel Fattah El-Sisi.
You fight Hamas with the Arab adversaries of Hamas you have not the Arab adversaries of Hamas you want.
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-end-to-attacks-in-a-blunt-telephone-call-to-begin.html
August 13, 1982
REAGAN DEMANDS END TO ATTACKS IN A BLUNT TELEPHONE CALL TO BEGIN
By Bernard Weinraub
Chronology of Crisis
About 6 A.M. (midnight Wednesday, New York time) – Israelis begin bombing west Beirut. As raids continue, Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Shafik al-Wazzan, tells Philip C. Habib, the special American envoy, that the talks cannot continue.
2 P.M. (8 A.M., New York time) – The Israeli Cabinet meets. A message from President Reagan arrives, expressing ”outrage” and, reportedly threatening to halt the Habib mission. The Cabinet decides to end the raids and order new ones only if they are ”essential.”
4 P.M. (10 A.M., New York time) – President Reagan tries for hour to call Mr. Begin but cannot get through.
4:50 P.M. (10:50 A.M., New York time) – King Fahd of Saudi Arabia calls Mr. Reagan.
5 P.M. (11 A.M., New York time) – A new cease-fire goes into effect in west Beirut.
5:10 P.M. (11:10 A.M., New York time) – Mr. Reagan reaches Mr. Begin for 10-minute telephone call.
5:40 P.M. (11:40 A.M., New York time) – Mr. Begin calls President Reagan to say that a ”complete cease-fire” had been ordered.
WASHINGTON – President Reagan expressed ”outrage” to Prime Minister Menachem Begin today over Israel’s latest bombing raids in west Beirut, saying the attacks had resulted in ”needless destruction and bloodshed.” It was the sharpest statement by Mr. Reagan since the start of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon nine weeks ago.
Larry Speakes, the deputy White House press secretary, said Mr. Reagan had been ”shocked” by the Israeli attacks on west Beirut. Mr. Reagan voiced his feelings directly to Mr. Begin, according to Mr. Speakes.
Mr. Speakes said the Israeli action had threatened the efforts by Philip C. Habib, the special American envoy, to end the fighting in Lebanon and arrange for the withdrawal of the 6,000 to 9,000 Palestinian guerrillas trapped in west Beirut. In the last 48 hours, Mr. Habib’s peace plan seemed on the verge of success….
ltr:
If the US really, really wants to stop Israel, cut off weapon supplies, move the ships in the Mediterranean a few hundred miles away, etc. Give only humanitarian supplies.
Josh Paul, the former director of congressional and public affairs at the department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.
“This Administration’s response – and much of Congress’ as well – is an impulsive reaction built on confirmation bias, political convenience, intellectual bankruptcy, and bureaucratic inertia. That is to say, it is immensely disappointing, and entirely unsurprising. Decades of the same approach have shown that security for peace leads to neither security, nor to peace. The fact is, blind support for one side is destructive in the long term to the interests of the people on both sides. I fear we are repeating the same mistakes we have made these past decades, and I decline to be a part of it for longer.”
Former State Department official reasons for resigning over ‘lethal assistance’ to Israel are ‘unbelievable’ msn.com.
There is zero doubt in my mind that your approach will not stop Israel. US aid to Israel is $3 billion a normal year. Israel doesn’t need it.
Explaining why he let 20 (now 34) trucks into Gaza the dread defense Minister Yoav Galant said the US insisted and Israel need US planes.
First letting some trucks in is not like calling of the land offensive (which he also says is definitely 100% going to happen). Second, in fact Israel does not need piloted planes made in the US which are obsolete (especially the F35s and F22s).
In any case, proposing an alternative approach which might actually work would support efforts to convince Israel with threats to withdraw support if they kill too many Palestinians (which threat should be made at least in private and under the heading of that’s what the Pope said and Biden goes to Mass every Sunday — you know how religious some people are).
Robert:
That sounds like a next in line. Oops, one too many today, we will reduce it by one (or more) tomorrow.
On one of your latest posts. I suggested and along the lines of what you suggested is economic assistance to The Gaza to minimize the influence of Hamas. Still, Israel has to be forced to allow Gaza’s economy to grow instead of limiting it.
“Building an alternative to Hamas”: Hamas was built as an alternative to the PLO. Didn’t work that time; unlikely to work this time.
The PLO as a group which accepted Israel and with which Israel could make peace worked OK (in terms of not killing 1400 Israelis plus only getting into suicide bombing to keep up with Hamas) . They still exist.
A strategy based on determination to avoid a peace treaty at all costs is likely to have high costs. I do not propose sticking with Netanyahu or his strategy.
Jack:
Hamas was built as an alternative to the PLO.
[ Astonishing, but correct. The need all this while, however, was to have supported development in Gaza and the West Bank while protecting against all violence. ]