What Is Erdogan Smoking?

The Islamist-leaning jefe grande of the AKP and prime minister of Turkey, Recip Erdogan, is proving to be something of a regional loose cannon.  It is one thing to demand an apology from Israel for the badly mishandled boarding of the Mavi Marmora, but it is a far different matter to threaten war.

Make no mistake about it, the bellicose prime minister's promise/threat to provide naval cover for future "aid" flotillas headed for Gaza is the next best thing to a declaration of war against Israel.  Erdogan might not like it, but the Israeli blockade of Hamas ruled Gaza does conform with international law as well as the customs of war at sea.  That inconvenient truth has been made clear time after time, most recently in the Palmer Report.  The report severely criticized the Israelis for the conduct of the blockade but emphasized that the blockade per se was and is totally legal.

This means that any Turkish naval units convoying the "aid" vessels would be seeking to break an internationally recognized and legal blockade by armed force.  That is a pretty good operational definition of war.  Perhaps the huffing and puffing PM did not realize that as he allowed his mouth to run away from adult supervision, but if the Turkish navy shoots, the Israelis will shoot back, just as sure as it is hot as hell in Texas.

Having made the promise/threat, the AKP government now had best hope that no pro-Palestinian group will take up the offer.  Given that the "humanitarian" NGO behind the Mavi Marmora flotilla has very close ties to the government, it may be expected that at least that group, IHH, will be controllable.  But there are many other entities willing to use the specious cover of humanitarian aid convoys to embarrass Israel and, given the Erdogan commitment, perhaps start a war which will end the Zionist menace once and for all.

Certainly there are enough entities, including both state and non-state actors, which fervently desire an end to Israel.  Of these, most would be willing to manipulate a face off between Turkey and Israel into the long hoped for War of the Final Solution.  Erdogan's promise/threat darn near invites some group to do just that.

There is the chance that Erdogan was motivated not only by his ambition to recreate the Ottoman Empire in an updated form but also by an exaggerated belief that his navy could simply intimidate the Israelis into allowing the Turk protected "aid" convoy to steam unimpaired to port in Gaza.  The Turkish navy is much larger than its Israeli counterpart.  The TCG has eight former US Perry class frigates as well as more modern classes including eight MEKO vessels.  The Turks also can deploy an impressive number of smaller combatants headed by six French built corvettes.

The Israeli navy is small in comparison.  However the almost microscopic coastal defense oriented IDF naval forces include three highly competent Dolphin class submarines whose tube launched missiles constitute a serious threat to any surface opponent.  Far more importantly, any confrontation between Turk and Israeli would occur within very easy range of the Israeli land based air force.  The Turks have no credible way of countering the Israeli air threat.  Period.

Israeli air dominance means it is game, set, and match to those fighting under the blue and white flag of Israel.

Erdogan is apparently too busy contemplating his diplomatic brilliance to remember the hortatory advice which ended the sci-fi classic, The Thing, "Watch the skies!"

The Islamist PM has also overlooked the vast difference between impressing the Arab street with anti-Israeli oratory (very good) and saber rattling (which scares the hell out of the same street.)  Turkey has gained a whale of a lot of traction in the Mideast by cocking a snoot at Israel by way of words and diplomatic rupture. This does not mean the Arabs or their governments, either new or old, are hoping for a return of the Ottoman Empire under any guise.  Nor are all hands thrilled by the prospect of a new regional war whether initiated by intent or miscalculation.

The same dynamics and considerations apply to the second of Erdogan's promises/threats.  The expansive, not to say delusional, PM also declared that the Turks will guarantee the maritime commons and subsea resources against Israeli exploitation.  This is a more comprehensive commitment than the convoying of humanitarian flotillas.  At the same time, it places the Turks in a more vulnerable position by greatly enlarging the possibility of starting a war of miscalculation.  It also places Turkey in the role of regional semi-hegemon pretending that no one can drill below the water of the Eastern Mediterranean without Ankara's remit.  This is a preposterous assertion which will alienate not only the government of Cyprus but a host of others as well.

Alienation takes many forms.  And, alienation can have a host of consequences, none of which is positive from Ankara's perspective.

For example, the present Egyptian government (the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces) may be happy with the new military agreement between itself and Turkey.  It may be pleased with the prospect of joint military, naval, and air exercises to be held early next year.  But, neither SCAF nor any successor government other than one dominated by the more extreme Salifists would be thrilled by a joint war against Israel.  After all, the Egyptians are a lot closer to Israel and know from experience what that can mean if the bullets fly and the bombs fall.

Every Arab state is too preoccupied currently with internal problems to seek a war.  If a war of miscalculation would ensue after a Turk-Israeli shoot out at sea, there would be few Arabs rushing to the frontline.  The Turks would find themselves rather alone in the matter.

Erdogan (who now deserves the Joe Biden Award) has no choice in the real world now other than to back down.  Fortunately for him the walking back can be done quietly.  He and the AKP will lose a bit of street cred, but that is preferable to losing a war.

Turkey Has To Share The Blame

The ever more Islamist leaning AKP government in Turkey is also growing out of control hysterical over the Israeli commando assault on the Turkish flagged passenger ship Marmara. At the same time Ankara overlooks a ground truth, a very unpleasant ground truth.

Turkey must share responsibility for the chain of events which culminated in the deaths of nine passengers on the Marmara. While the Turks are going ballistic (as is shown by their Foreign Minister equating the actions of the fast roping commandos with the al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11), they cheerfully ignore the fact that they facilitated the spurious and unnecessary "humanitarian effort" funded in large measure by a Turkish charity, IHH, whose linkage with assorted Muslim terror practicing entities is so well known it has even been documented by a Danish research group.

Not only did the government of Turkey (GOT) facilitate the "aid" convoy and well understand the past involvement of IHH with al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others, it also refused to cooperate with Israel in diverting the flotilla to the Israeli port of Ashdod. The government of Israel (GOI) committed itself to funneling the materials from the convoy to Gaza through its land crossing points. The deal was seconded by Egypt.

Ankara nixed that ever so sane and practical alternative. It must be inferred from this decision that GOT hoped for and expected an armed and violent encounter between militants on board the Marmara and the IDF.

There is a very good reason for the Turks to entertain both the hope and the expectation. The reason is, of course, Iran. The increasingly cozy relationship between the Iranian and Turkish governments was made manifest in the role played by Turkey in the last minute deal whereby the Iranians finally accepted the six month stale proposal by the US and others of the P5+1 to stash 1200 kilos of low enriched uranium in exchange for twenty percent enriched fuel rods.

The rejection of that arrangement, which was compelled by simple reality, has been embraced by GOT as being one more outrageous attack by the US and others upon the Muslim world. Since the deal would not get through the UNSC and sanctions of an appropriately spineless sort would, Ankara had a strong motive to move the Iranian issue down the Security Council's "to-do" list.

The Israeli enforcement of its quite legal blockade of the hostile quasi-state in the Gaza Strip provided the perfect opportunity to move the Iranian sanction question down the priority list at the Security Council by one notch or more, perhaps many more. Ably assisted by the useful idiots of the West, Turkey can make one demarche after another in an ongoing campaign to stall the sanctions.

The willingness to back this play extends far beyond the elites of Western Europe and the Islamophiles of the world generally. It extends, for example, to Beijing. The Trolls of the Forbidden City were quick, very quick to condemn the Israelis. They were as fast and harsh in their criticism of Israel as they have been slow and soft in their disapprobation of North Korea in the Choenan Incident.

It is not illegitimate to posit that the Chinese will capitalize on the partially real, partially artificial revulsion that any Israeli act of self-defense seems to bring in order to preclude or at least weaken even more any sanctions which might emerge from the Security Council. Even the Russians may join this effort. While the Kremlin is not at all pleased with the Iranian obstinacy and understand the arts and crafts of both making atomic weapons and practicing diplomacy of delay, neither are Medvedev, Putin, and company eager to be seen as dancing to a tune called by the Imperialist Camp. (Oops! Bad Geek. Cold War over, Russians friends now. He meant to write, "the US, UK, France, and Germany.")

Neither are the lads of GOT overly perturbed at the fraying of its diplomatic ties with either the US or NATO. Turkey has never been a good fit in NATO as numerous times of friction over the past half century have shown. Nor is Ankara particularly enthralled with the US given the past tendency of American administrations to practice a "tilt" (in Henry Kissinger's term) toward Greece whenever the two historic enemies disagree over something (think Cyprus.)

The GOT has taken a clear eyed (to use one of Mr Obama's favorite phrases of late) at the calculus of forces in the Mideast and Northwest Asian regions and made a choice. Ankara has opted for Tehran over Washington not only due to Muslim sentiments but, far more compellingly, because Iran is the stronger horse. From the perspective of Ankara, the sun has set on the US--and the West generally--while it is rising in the East, and in Iran more specifically.

Turkey has proclaimed itself to be a victim of Israeli "aggression" and even in one particularly egregious fit of hyperbole, "genocide." Its ForMin has demanded "solidarity" between Turkey and both Washington and NATO. It will not get the degree of "solidarity" apparently required. There can be little doubt but Ankara will seek to capitalize on this lack of all-for-one response from both the US and NATO.

GOT will become more and more obstructionist in the UN and other fora. Unless and until the Obama administration jumps clearly to the desires of Ankara, there will be no use seeking Turkish collaboration on any matter whether the nuclearization of Iran or the expanding of the arsenals of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Of course there is a possibility that the Obama administration will undertake "an agonizing reappraisal" (to use John Foster Dulles famed formulation) of American relations with both Israel and Turkey. The combination of President Obama's "Muslim outreach" program and his evident personal distaste for Israel might combine to move US policy in the direction of accommodating Turkish desires. The American support for an international investigation of the factors leading up to the deaths on the Marmara indicates this potential is not slight.

There is one upside to the Security Council's demand for an international investigation, provided such is not a replay of the infamous Goldstone Panel. Any inquiry which makes the slightest pretense of being "objective" and "transparent" as required by American declaratory policy would show the degree of culpability adhering to GOT.

The issue of Ankara's role in the Great Humanitarian Convoy would also be a litmus of any report's accuracy and objectivity. If Turkey is conspicuous by its absence in the roster of malefactors, the report would be simply Goldstone II: Prejudiced Infamy, the Sequel.

Ready! Aim! Shoot Yourself In The Foot!

Sometimes the ability of the government of Israel (GOI) to blunder is nothing less than mind blowing. The deadly confrontation between "peace activists" and the commandos of the Israeli navy is one of those times. To put the matter short, sharp, and accurate, it was a needless, counterproductive blunder which a responsible government never would have contemplated, let alone authorized.

The drama unfolded almost as slowly and compelling in its foreboding as the long, slow, majestically threatening progress of the Royal Navy to the Falkland Islands almost thirty years ago. To a person of a classical bent, the coming of the clash between boatloads of pro-Palestinian propagandists, assorted I-hate-Israel-and-Jews types, and general malcontents and the naval forces of Israel unrolled with the inevitability of Nemesis confronting the hubris laden protagonist in an Athenian tragedy.

The Turkish sponsored maritime cavalcade of unneeded "relief" and "humanitarian" supplies accompanied by terrorists, terrorist apologists, and terror tourists was intended to put GOI on the spot. An uncomfortable, no-way-to-spell-winner sort of spot. The hugely publicized international flotilla departing from points as far removed as Ireland, Algeria, and Turkey was simply bait waved in a most attractive way before GOI. The hope and prayer of the organizers of this exercise in fraudulent humanitarianism was that GOI would take the bait--preferably in the most visible and bloody way possible.

Given the resources available to GOI, there can be no doubt but the information concerning the motives and goals of the flotilla folks was available. Given the vast experience GOI has collected regarding hostile provocations, there can be no doubt but GOI understood what was at stake if the navy was sent in to block the boats and their passengers from reaching Gaza.

There must have been both information and understanding within GOI and the IDF that among the passengers there would be individuals prepared for violence. Eager to go violent should the opportunity present itself.

GOI should have known that blood would flow if Israeli forces boarded any of the vessels, particularly either of the two largest, most passenger packed ones. If ordered in, the commandos would have been entering a red ant nest. At least some of the ants would bite.

The constant warnings issued multiple times per day the past week by GOI were seen by the oncoming "activists" not as a reason to be cowed, but as one of an emboldening nature. The warnings were correctly read as signifying the Israelis would enter one or more ships violently. Those who were primed to respond violently were fully prepared, stoked up, and good to go.

In the wake of the operation, GOI has protested that its troops were met with steel bars, knives, and, at least some firearms. The GOI and IDF spokesmen have stated that their threatened troops used "crowd dispersal methods, including live fire."

Duh!

How drearily predictable. Troops abseil from helicopters in hours of darkness. Troops are met with immediate low scale violence, clubs and knives rather than automatic weapons and RPGs. Troops respond in self-defense. "Activists" die. Outrage erupts from Tehran to Europe. Israel gets big, very black eye in global media and the hordes of politicians and opinion molders for whom Israel has become the blackest of black hats.

Hamas wins. Hezbollah wins. Even the hapless Palestinian Authority wins. On the margins, Iran wins; Syria wins: Islamists everywhere win.

Wow! GOI made one shrewd move here. Right on the heels of being branded by 188 countries as a sort of nuclear brigand, Israel now looks as if it has once more adopted the role of Goliath while the role of poor, little, ole David goes to the minions of Hamas and their external supporters.

Game, set, and match to the bad guys.

One has to wonder what sort of mental pathology infected the presumably mature, intelligent, and responsible members of GOI and the senior ranks of the IDF. Did they really, really believe that so much lethal hardware would be smuggled into Gaza among the air conditioners, aspirin, generators, and one-size-fits-all burkas as to present a threat to Israel?

Of course there were warlike stores on board the humanitarian fleet. Even if weapons were conspicuous in their absence, the cement and other building supplies would more likely go to the construction of bunkers for Hamas' security forces than for civilians displaced during Cast Lead.

Or, did the Deep Thinkers and Grand Strategists of GOI really, really convince themselves that Israel would suffer such a blow to its credibility should the "activists" make it to Gaza as to so embolden Hamas and other Islamist jihadist groups as to be the equivalent of a major defeat in the battle for public opinion throughout the world? Is the current situation somehow preferable? Is it more in keeping with the national and strategic interests of Israel that GOI and the IDF be portrayed as a collection of blood drenched thugs interchangeable in all respects with the Waffen SS?

An unfortunate ground truth is that public opinion in Europe and even the US has shifted slowly but with increasing speed away from Israel and to the Palestinians. The shift commenced during the First Intifada when TV cameras gave fine images of Palestinian kids confronting M-16 toting IDF personnel. The shots of the IDF shooting real bullets or Shin Bet operatives conducting beatings moved opinion to the side of the Palestinians.

There is an even more unfortunate ground truth acting in tandem with that of opinion shift. In recent decades the image and not the substance, the appearance rather than the reality is the critical factor in war and diplomacy as it is in domestic politics.

The realities of the First or Second Intifadas matter nothing as compared to the images conveyed, the perceptions manipulated by these images, and the actions forced on governments by the collective impact of the perceptions. GOI must be aware of this as its members must know perfectly well the imperatives contained in the twin ground truths mentioned.

Even if the collective memory of GOI is too short to recall the two Intifadas, it must comprehend the impact of Operation Cast Lead. The compelling justifications for this legitimate act of self-defense including the supine reaction of the UN to repeated GOI requests for action count as nothing against the images and perceptions captured, manipulated by forces quite hostile to Israel.

Regardless of its military or political successes, Operation Cast Lead was a disaster for Israel in the most critical venue, that of public perception and opinion. The same calculus applies to the IDF descent upon the "humanitarian flotilla."

The reality that those on board landed the first blow or fired the first shot does not matter in the slightest. Nor does it matter in the least that the commandos fired in self-defense or to rescue comrades captured by the "activists."

All that matters is the existence of ten, or fourteen, or sixteen corpses. The cadavers of those "activists" unfortunate enough to be in the impact zone are the symbols of victory. Victory for Hamas and its ideological ilk.

The sorrow and pity in this latest defeat for Israeli interests is found in its quite unnecessary nature. Unlike Operation Cast Lead, there is and can be no compelling justification (unless an atomic bomb, or, less impossible, a flask of anthrax is found on board one of the ships) for the assault and its predictable results.

As the sequelae of this defeat are played out in the weeks and months to come, GOI must keep in mind the reason for any and all negative effects. Any gangrene which sets in for the national and strategic interests of Israel will be the result of a self-inflicted wound.

Israel And The Zimbabwe Model

In a world of perfect justice, the Arabs would prevail in the conflict over Palestine. Or, in this hypothetical just world, there would be a secular state in the region in which adherents of all religions could coexist in political and economic harmony.

The impossibility of a Jewish "national homeland" existing in an Arab context was well understood by the founders of the Zionist Movement more than a century ago. Regardless of public pronouncements over the decades preceding the independence of Israel, the private position was clear: Only a clear and permanent Jewish majority could assure the permanence of the Jewish state.

And, make no mistake about it, despite the European socialist background of the first generations of Zionists and Israelis with its post-Enlightenment legacy of the secular oriented, multi-religious state, the goal was always the formation of a Jewish state in which the levers of power would remain for all time firmly in the hands of Jews. Adherents of other religious traditions would be tolerated but kept firmly in a minority position.

As David ben-Gurion wrote (privately) some seventy-five years ago, there were two problems which would confront the Jewish state in perpetuity. The first was the numerical inferiority of the Jewish population in comparison with the Arab Muslims of Palestine and surrounding areas. This problem would exist even if every Jew in the world returned to the Homeland--a clear impossibility then or now. The second problem was the "violent nature of Islam."

Ben Gurion correctly identified the ground truths of Islam. It was a totalistic belief system governing every aspect of human existence both personal and collective. It was immune to compromise except in the most narrowly defined tactical manner. Finally, it calls for violence against the non-believer generally and the Jew in particular.

Of course it would have been impolitic in the extreme to have made this position in a public forum. Ben Gurion and others of the founding generation relied on the Arabs to do the job for them. To reject compromise as in the myriad partition plans. To resort to violence whether in the riots of the late Twenties and Thirties or in the military misadventure of the Arab states upon Israel's declaration of independence.

It was not surprising that the Zionists and Israelis alike resorted to a form of ethnic cleansing. Before 1948 this was accomplished through the purchase of land and the removal (with the full cooperation of the British Mandate authorities) of the tenant farmer population. With the coming of the War of Independence, violence and threats of violence were employed to remove Arabs from the territory of the borning state.

With a degree of stupidity and arrogance which almost boggles the mind of the retrospective observer, the Israeli efforts at population removal were encouraged and assisted by the various Arab States which assumed without any basis in reality that their forces would speedily drive the Jews into the sea and the displaced population could return. The Arab leaders were wrong and thus share responsibility in creating the Mother of All Palestinian Problems--the fate of the refugees and their descendants.

None of this was just or fair or ethically justified in an absolute way. But, history shows to a nauseating extent that neither fairness nor justice are often observed conditions in the human experience. It is also fair and accurate to say that the two problems highlighted by Ben Gurion still exist.

Israeli Jews still hold the short end of the demographic stick. That end would be made even shorter should Israel agree to some sort of "law of the return" for either the refugees of the earlier wars or their descendants. Likewise it would be shortened if Israel were to reestablish an occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israelis do swim in a very hostile sea.

The hostility is not only that of Arab nationalism which rose in parallel with the Zionist movement in the wake of the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire. Arab nationalism is and has been alive and well for nearly a century now. And, the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are in no way immune to its inherent appeal.

Arguably nationalism is not the only or even the most important force at work in the irredentist position of the Gaza and West Bank population. The pride of place rightfully belongs to where Ben Gurion put it--Islam.

Ben Gurion was right on both of his points. And Israelis, even those of the most peace and justice loving persuasion know it. They are perfectly well aware of what would happen even in the event of a peaceful solution to the current hostilities.

Admittedly the probability of a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resides closer to the realm of myth than the cold world of reality. But, assume for the moment that it comes to pass, that a plan along the lines of that put forth by Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Arab League were to be put in place.

The Saudi plan includes a "right of return" clause. Now assume that a fraction of those eligible under its provisions come back to homes and lands in Israel.

Reside in Israel. Work in Israel. Vote in Israeli elections.

That's where the Zimbabwe model comes into play.

Consider it for a moment or two.

When Robert Mugabe and his guerrilla force outlasted the political will of the isolated white minority regime in Rhodesia and took power, the economic base of the country was the export oriented, white owned agricultural sector. For nearly two decades the efficient agricultural sector and the equally white agricultural support businesses kept Zimbabwe in both food and foreign exchange.

But, finally, to keep his kleptocratic hands on the levers of power and depending upon the "democratic process," Mugabe ousted the white farmers. The result was both obvious and immediate.

White flight. Loss of agricultural productivity. Loss of foreign exchange. Finally, in just a handful of years Zimbabwe went from plenty to poverty. Starvation stalked a land which had formerly been a net food exporter of note.

The early Zionists were scared to death of democracy. They feared and resisted any move to place the original Palestine Mandate with the United States in accurate apprehension that the US would insist on installing a reasonable form of democracy which would of necessity assure that the Arab majority would hold power.

That fear is just as alive and well today with the Israeli population. If anything the frightful example of events of the past decade in Zimbabwe have stoked the fear. It is utterly inconceivable that Israel will ever accept any sort of peace which dilutes the Jewish majority.

This means that the Arab population of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip have few options beyond accepting that they have been (as they continuously and loudly and correctly) assert the recipients of injustice. The injustice is inherent to the efforts not simply of the visionaries of the Zionist movement and the guilt over the Nazi slaughter afflicting the West in the aftermath of World War II.

It exists as well as a result of the overly ambitious nationalism of Arabs throughout the region. It exists as well as a direct result of the basic tenets of Islam and the interpretations placed upon these by a vast and terrible legion of clerics.

Just or not, fair or not, the reality remains, Israel will not go away. It is a large, potent and determined "fact on the ground." In a real sense, the people of Israel have no choice. They are not about to get on boats and leave. They will not sit with folded hands and allow themselves to be slaughtered.

Neither will they commit a slow suicide by democracy in action, allowing an Arab majority to vote for a local version of the Zimbabwe model. The combination of demographics and democracy has been seen too well and too long to be allowed. The Saudi initiative is and always will be dead on arrival.

The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have to decide if they have killed and been killed enough so that nationalistic ambitions powered by Islamist rhetoric have run on too long and with too little result beyond blood in the streets. They will have to decide if the better course of action for themselves and their children is a Forever War or a peace which will allow some sort of future better than martyrdom operations without success.

The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip will have to decide which parts of the Quran should be observed more fully. The verses which celebrate life and progress or those which focus on death and killing.

No one else can make the decision. No Syrian, no Egyptian, no Iranian can make the choice. Neither can any Israeli. Not even President Obama can make the choice. Only the men and women of Gaza and the West Bank are able to decide.

Suffering from the historian's occupational disease--cynicism--the Geek bets hair they will make the wrong one.

Hanging On To The Tiger's Tail

As tanks and infantry move into the Gaza Strip, Israel has well and truly grabbed the tiger by his tail. The problem now is hanging on long enough to achieve a useful (from the Israeli perspective) outcome.

While there is no doubt that the IDF and the Government of Israel (GOI) have both repented of and learned from the debacle of the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, the operation into the Gaza Strip will be a dans du merde for the guys at the sharp end. It won't be a walk in the sun for the million or so Israeli civilians living within range of Hamas launched artillery rockets. The Geek doesn't envy what will come for any of them in the next few days or weeks.

In addition to the risks of combat in urban terrain against a very defiant, very, very well motivated and literally suicidal opponent, GOI and the people of Israel alike face the real potential of terror at home. Over and beyond those self-evident hazards, GOI must contend with the near universal reprobation of governments and well-meaning folks throughout the world, particularly in the West.

As the Geek has reviewed the tenor of protest against GOI for its air campaign, he has been struck by how much of it exonerates Hamas from all responsibility for the lives and well-being of the citizens under its domination and control. The utter lack of consideration for Hamas having chosen to launch and continue a slow motion war against Israel is nothing short of astonishing. Almost as mind boggling is the continued harping by Ban ki Moon and others of High Mind about the "humanitarian crisis" for the 1.5 million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip.

There is no argument with the contention that the civilians of the Strip are in the midst of a genuine humanitarian crisis. There is also no arguing against the fact that the crisis is not of Israeli manufacture.

The crisis is of domestic origin. The crisis today as in the past has been the result of deliberate decision, carefully crafted policy by the local government.

In the old days, Gazans suffered because of Fatah's willingness to use civilian misery and death as a weapon against Israel. Now, it the result of Hamas' even more truculent approach. Hamas is a government of gunsels. It shot its way to power. Then it shot its own people as well as seeking to kill Israelis with rockets, mortars, IEDs, and suicide bombers. Now it hopes to "win" by assuring that so many die in the Strip that the High Minded, Lofty Thinking people in the West will apply sufficient pressure on GOI that the IDF is forced to let go of the tiger's tail.

As numerous previous posts demonstrate, the Geek is not an automatic supporter of GOI policies and practices. Neither is he in favor of the seemingly reflexive support offered to Israel by successive American administrations and Congresses.

This in no way obviates the necessity of acknowledging the onus of responsibility which must be placed on the Arab Muslim population of the Palestine region. The leadership of Fatah, like that of Hamas, acted without regard to the long term best interests of the people who propose to live in an independent country called "Palestine." The leaders of the Arab Muslim population of the disputed region missed the bus on too many occasions to list here--they habitually turned their backs as the bus passed by.

Hamas and other groups and governments have pursued assorted agendas with only one feature in common--the destruction of Israel. In the process, they have callously, cruelly used the hopes and fears, the bodies and lives, of the Arab-Muslim population. They have acted so as to pile the corpses of their own people, their own co-religionists, in heaps almost beyond measure. They have acted in concert with clerics of similar mind to warp Islam, to accentuate the most loathsome features of that religion into a psyops weapon to further the patterns of violent intolerance, absence of forgiveness, ruthless authoritarianism, and endless fear what the world now knows all too well as Islamism and jihadism.

The actions of these self-serving agenda riders have not only caused the local people but the rest of the world pain and misery, war and death, which could and would have been avoided absent these power-lusting pursuers of an impossible dream. Further, their actions, their words, have shredded any legitimate claims Islam may make to being the "religion of peace and tolerance."

Hamas and others from the same mold have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and a far worse crime for which they cannot be indicted before any human court--a crime against the spirits and faith of one and a half billion Muslims.

Even now Hamas will avoid a fair fight with the IDF. The gun thugs of Hamas whose training videos have been posted proudly will do whatever they can to hide and shoot from behind the cover of women and children. Hamas will stoop undoubtedly to the level of using women and children as suicide "volunteers."

All of this will be done in the hope and belief that the resulting carnage will compel the High Minded Lofty thinkers of the UN, the EU and the US to force GOI to call IDF off, to force the IDF to drop the tiger's tail.

When--not if--when that happens, Hamas will be more legitimate. It will be more in power. It's voice will ring louder in the halls of power throughout the Mideast.

This necessarily means that other entities such as Hezbollah and the sponsor of both Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran, will gain authority in a region and a culture where strength is prized above other characteristics. Iran will gain vis a vis the "conservative" states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

At the same time Israel will be weakened. Its people will be at greater risk. Far afield GOI and the IDF will be seen as bluffers as well as bullies.

Worse, the human race will be the loser. Terror and violence will be emboldened. Islamists and jihadists will be encouraged. The war on terror will continue. The bodies will stretch beyond Mumbai, New York City, London, Madrid. Only the dead will be unafraid.

One can only hope (and pray if so inclined) that the High Minded, Lofty Thinking will not be as potent an ally as Hamas calculates. The Geek is a historian. Cynicism, the occupational disease of the historian, prevents him from being optimistic.

He hopes he is wrong. But, he won't bet the ranch on it.

Don't Go Postal Anymore--Go Muslim!

It used to be that when someone went a little funny and shot up a passel of coworkers or even total strangers, he was said to have "gone postal." Moving along with the times the Geek suggests with his normal absence of modesty that the term du jour must be "(to) go Muslim" v.tr, meaning to employ lethal force against the unarmed and unsuspecting for irrational or totally abstract and subjective reasons.

Tripping around the various Islamist/jihadist websites as well as sites maintained by governmental or quasi-governmental entities in assorted Muslim countries, the Geek has received the clear impression that there is a huge number of young and not-so-young Muslims who desire very much to become residents of the Land of the Dead. There is only one obvious proviso. Each and every one of these candidates for corpsedom insists upon the opportunity to kill people, preferably but not necessarily infidels and apostates.

In short, these Legions of Wannabe Cadavers want to "go Muslim" on the world--starting with Israel and (surprise! surprise!) the United States.

Say it ain't so, Joe. Say it ain't so! (The Geek is addicted to the use of ancient slang and cliches. It's his particular historian's disease.) Tell us that "going Muslim" isn't compatible with the doctrine and sacred writings of the "religion of peace and tolerance."

Sadly, no one who has read the Koran or the Hadith can make that claim with a straight face. Unless, of course, he is practicing the Approved by Islam behavior of lying in order to protect the religion and its believers.

Beyond even the slightest shadow of even the most hallucinatory doubt, Islam is the most death oriented, violently intolerant religion ever conceived by the warped mind of man. (Or delivered by an angel agent of the Most High, if you prefer that approach.)

The Quran and the other authoritative writings which form the base of Islam surpass by orders of magnitude any other similar materials ever encountered by the Geek when it comes to celebrating and commanding the shedding of blood. The same is true with respect to the virtually pornographically vivid depictions of the torments of hell.

It's almost as if a slasher flick had become a major religion.

Beyond that, Islam, in sharp distinction with all other major religions, has no brief with the word or concept "forgiveness." Arguably, the notion of forgiveness, forgiveness of one's self as well as others, is an absolutely fundamental requirement of the human condition.

Unarguably, without an emphasis upon forgiveness no religion can claim to foster either peace or tolerance. Without forgiveness there can be no escape from hatred, bitterness, fear and the need for the false power of revenge.

It isn't pushing the point to assert that without drinking deeply of forgiveness a person cannot be truly alive. Without forgiveness as a central tenet of belief, the believer is already living in the Land of the Dead.

Looking over the sweep of Islamic history one cannot help but notice that the Muslim peak of accomplishment in all fields of human creativity and progress ended almost a thousand years ago. Since then Islamic societies have been in what can be termed charitably a stasis.

The stasis has been caused by the nature of the religion itself. It does not celebrate life. No. It tolerates existence. It warns non-stop of the perils of hell and the delights of paradise. It is a faith of rules and authority which pays only passing lip service to the capacity of the individual to be other than the object of authority, the plaything of the deity.

Only in Islam is the will of the deity constantly and sincerely invoked to allow or forbid any human action. Islamists and jihadists always and repeatedly add the qualifier, "if Allah wills" whenever they make a pronouncement or undertake an activity.

Of course, to be a Muslim means to be a slave of Allah. Being a Muslim implies a willingness to submit not only to Allah but to any cleric who claims to understand and speak the true understanding of the true will of Allah. This absolves the individual of all personal responsibility for his actions while assuring him that by doing his (deadly) duty to the will of Allah as filtered through the mind and mouth of the cleric he will avoid hell and gain paradise.

Not only is Islam lacking in forgiveness, filled to overflowing with hatred and a will to kill, rigidly authoritarian, it has another central feature which condemns it to being the religion of the Land of the Dead. That feature is fear.

Every candidate for the MOS of interrogator who passes through one or another of the American military schools teaching the arts and science of getting prisoners to talk learns several techniques. One of those is called in short-hand form, "fear-up." Islam is the religion of chronic, persistent "fear-up." While other religions including Protestantism have passed through phases of "fear-up" as a centrality of their dogma, only Islam has it front, center, and continuous.

Fear of hell. Fear of not doing the will of Allah. Fear of being seen or characterised as an apostate. Fear of not being a full, proper, and complete slave.

What a burden this must be. How much better to seek a way out of the fog of perpetual fear and gain the rewards of eternity through one glorious, split second act. How much better to "go Muslim" on approved enemies of the One True Faith.

Even if one does not sign the martyrdom seekers pledge card, a Muslim can still vicariously "go Muslim" by joining in that favorite outdoor sport of the massive demonstration where chants of "death to" and "to hell with" are the order of the day. Even if an individual lacks that certain something necessary to strap on the suicide vest or shoot an AK at some school kids or throw acid in the face of an unveiled woman, a believer can still join in with shouts of damnation to the infidels, death to the apostates and, by so doing, gain a moment's respite from fear.

Fear, authoritarianism beyond the wildest dreams of Soviet Commissars, violent intolerance and a total lack of forgiveness, these are the features of the religion of the Land of the Dead. These are the sources, the motivations of "going Muslim."

The sad reality is the rest of us, the residents of the Land of the Living, have to inhabit the same world as these violent spiritual and emotional cripples. Worse, there are among us so many of the High Minded and Lofty Thinking that do not yet realise that sad and bitter fact.

But, neither did those in a post office years ago a second or two before a former co-worker opened up with his weapons.

Yes, The Dead Really Do Vote

There is a ground truth in war which is both universal and, lamentably, rarely recognised by either historians or policy makers. In war, in all wars of whatsoever nature, there comes a time when the dead propel policy.

In a real way the dead vote. They vote through the living. The dead exercise a profound and often highly unpredictable pressure upon the political will of combatant populations and on the choices made by governments.

During World War I the peace initiative offered by Woodrow Wilson could not but fail even though neither the Entente Powers nor the Central Powers had any realistic hope of victory. The reason for that conclusion is both simple and stark. Had the French, the English, the German or even the Austrian government sought to make a "peace without victors" as the American president proposed, it would have been overthrown in a matter of days.

There was a single sentiment upon which the civilian populations of all the major belligerents could agree. Our dead shall not have died in vain. The populations of France, England, Germany, Austria, Belgium and even Italy were unwilling to see an end to the war without a benefit more than equivalent to the level of sacrifice.

During World War II the British and then the Americans sought to kill enough civilians through the "round the clock bombing campaign" that German civilian political will would collapse with fatal effects to the Nazi government and military. The "death from above" campaign was highly successful in breaking things and killing people, but it was totally counterproductive with regard to its goal of shattering morale. As the bombs fell and the civilian body count grew so also did German military production levels and overall popular commitment to the war.

Both World Wars were total wars of national survival for the primary combatants. They were existential in nature from the perspective of the Germans, the French, the British and the Russians. (Keep that in mind, we'll be coming back to the concept later.)

When a war is not existential for one of the belligerents, the impact of the "Dead Vote" is quite different. Take, for example, the American War in Vietnam. While the conflict was existential for the three Vietnamese belligerents, the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese and South Vietnam, it was not such for the United States. For the US and We the People, the war was a limited one in support of policy. It was not a matter of national life and death.

Through the long years of escalating fighting, the political will of the North Vietnamese grew substantially under the pressure of American bombs. The Viet Cong also experienced a growth of commitment even as their butcher's bill grew. Even the tenacity and will to fight among the supporters of the varied South Vietnamese governments increased--substantially in the closing years of the war following the American withdrawal.

In the United States the "dead vote" was cast differently by the living. Here the lengthening list of the dead resulted in a progressive decline of support for and commitment to the war. Here, We the Living concluded that we must not allow any more to die without useful purpose and in absence of a real, compelling goal.

In short, there are two antipodal "votes of the dead." One is expressed in the context of existential conflict. The other comes about in the lesser, limited wars: the police actions, the foreign interventions, the humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping missions.

The first demands a victory complete, comprehensive and beneficial enough to justify the lives lost. The second demands that no more lives be sacrificed for some hazy and debatable purpose.

Let's pull it down to slogan level. "Our sacred dead shall not have died in vain." Or. "No more wasted lives!"

Interpreting or forecasting the "dead vote" requires considering cultural and religious factors. The Japanese religious and cultural context assured the continuation of commitment regardless of the number of lives lost or the degree of physical destruction and deprivation experienced.

The seven and a half year War of Algerian Independence is a perfect case study of the dichotomy of effect between those whose dead have died in an existential cause and those whose dead have perished in pursuit of a policy goal. It is also a perfect example of the impact of religious and cultural factors on the way in which the living cast the votes of the dead.

In some ways the Algerian War was complex. It involved several distinct communities. It involved vastly different cultures and religions. Yet it can be simplified without doing harm to reality.,

There were two belligerent communities living in Algeria. One was the pieds noirs, the European minority population which had lived in the country for as many as five generations when the war commenced in 1954. The other was the mixed Arab and Berber Muslim majority whose ancestors had been present in some cases from the time of Carthage.

For both of these communities the war was existential. If the Europeans came out on top, then the Muslims would remain strangers in their own land. If the Arab-Berber majority won, then the Europeans would be refugees in the making.

Of course each of these two groups viewed the other through the prism of prejudice and hatred.

The outsider in the war was France. Despite the legalities which proclaimed Algeria to be part of Metropolitan France and ignoring the complications of the French national ego and delusions of continued imperial glory, the war in Algeria was one which was not existential but rather an exercise in support of often ill-defined policy. France could live as well or, as events proved, even better without Algeria as it could carrying the colonial burden.

The dead started voting from the first day of the war. Pied noir dead voted consistently to continue and intensify the war by all means. As the death toll among the Muslim population mounted to its final total of some three hundred thousand, Arab and Berber political will both strengthened in support of total independence and reduced the potential of a moderate "third force" emerging. (It must be mentioned that the nationalist insurgents, the NLF, engaged in ruthless killings to preclude a moderate force from raising its collective head.)

For the outsider, the French, the dead finally voted in the opposite way. War weariness, or what French commentators called "boredom" with the war, was the basis for the DeGaulle government's peace agreement with the NLF. DeGaulle wanted to liquidate the war before it destroyed both the French Army and economy. But, in so doing, he read the mood of the French public perfectly. The war was ended not so much with joy as with an massive sigh of resigned relief.

As some observers mentioned at the time, the Algerian insurgents had a potent advantage. That advantage was defined as the nature of Islam with its emphasis upon martyrdom and a concomitant focus on death--particularly a kind of death which would avoid the perils of hell.

It was also noted at the time that Islam sanctioned, even required, the ghastly ways in which the insurgents butchered their opponents as well as those co-religionists who were suspected of supporting or even not resolutely opposing the French. The throat slittings, the decapitations, the genital mutilations, the torturing of captives, the burnings alive which were features of the war were not incorrectly identified by the French and other observers as being features of Islamic religion and not simply mindless barbarisms.

These features as well as the use of indiscriminate techniques of terror such as bombs planted in cafeterias, lamp posts, beachside dancehalls gave rise to the French and pied noir employment of terror and torture in return. The dead died more savagely. And, their votes counted for more in the minds of all three belligerents.

Islam being death oriented, violently intolerant and afflicted with a propensity for rigid authoritarianism is a powerful force multiplier. The dead of Islam always vote for more war, more death in order that the (literally) sacred Muslim dead will not have died in vain.

This combination of religion and the Vote of the Dead limits fatally the potential for the moderate third force so often sought without success not only in Algeria but over the past decades in the Mideast. Likewise, it limits the potential for any sort of meaningful long-term success for American policy in Afghanistan.

Even if the Son of Surge concept works to assure that the US and its allies achieve the minimum goal of "not losing" in Afghanistan, there is no real potential of a "free democratic, secular" nation-state emerging from the corpses and rubble. The corpses will assure that.

In the Mideast, in the Gaza Strip, the dead vote for more death and the living respond accordingly. This is a very good reason to agree with former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger.

Eagleburger, who is a realpoliker to the core, recently opined that the Israeli-Palestinian contretemps is "virtually insoluble." His reasoning focused on the inevitability of any proponent of a moderate settlement ending up dead--sooner rather than later.

If Eagleburger is right, and history is on his side, then there is perhaps only one viable option open for the Israelis (and the world.) That option is unpalatable on the surface, but so also is the endless continuation of the blow-counter blow way of war which has typified recent years.

The unmentionable option might be termed the "Sherman Doctrine." To paraphrase a comment by old William T.: The hand of war must rest so heavily upon those who started and continue the fighting that their descendants will both fear and renounce war forevermore.

After enough dying, even those whose religion sanctifies the fine art of dying, will grow tired of the fear, grow tired of asking themselves and each other, "Where will the next bomb, the next missile, the next shell land?"

Even those who purport to love death, to seek the cold embrace of the grave, will shudder with the endless thought, "Will I be next?"

After enough death, those still alive may well decide that they hear the voices from the grave whispering, "Vote for life. Vote for peace."

Well, one can hope. Sometimes even the dead can come to their senses.

Carlos Marighela Meets Hamas (And Iran)

Carlos Marighela lived and died as a theorist of urban insurgency. Forty years later his work soldiers on far from his native Brazil.

Marighela advocated terror as the principle weapon of the insurgent. His view was not the same as Lenin, who famously quipped, "The purpose of terror is to terrorise." No. Carlos Marighela had a far more focused understanding of terror. In his theory the utility of terror was found in its capacity to provoke the status quo power--the government in the case of the standard issue insurgency--or the occupying power in other situations. The goal was to force the status quo power into ill-advised and robust action.

Marighela held that under sufficient pressure from terrorist acts, the government would respond with harsh, repressive, even brutal and lethal actions. As a consequence of this the uncommitted majority of the target population would unite against the status quo.

Terror, Carlos argued, therefore must have two results. The first, more direct and short term was that of undercutting confidence in the government's capacity to protect lives and property. The second, less direct but ultimately more lasting and powerful, was the trajectory of government repression leading to radicalization of the population generally.

The leadership of Hamas may never have read Marighela's book, Mini-manual For The Urban Guerrilla, but that terrorist group turned de facto government of the Gaza Strip sure has been acting as though Marighela ranked with Mohammad as the prophet with the most honor. Since shooting their way to power in the Gaza some eighteen months ago, Hamas has been the active employer of terror against Israel.

In the eyes of Hamas (and other similarly inclined groups) Israel is the occupying power. This foreign presence must be eliminated. Since this often announced goal cannot be accomplished by military means, the alternative of terror must be employed.

The endless barrage of crude (but continuously improving) unguided, short-range rockets and mortar shells aimed at the quarter million Israelis living within range of the Gaza Strip is meant to terrorise. It is intended, as are the IED's and suicide bombers, to force the Government of Israel (GOI) into taking robust repressive measures against Hamas and, inevitably, the population of the Gaza Strip.

The calculation made by Hamas is both simple and predictable by anyone who has read the Mini-manual. The Israeli response would produce significant numbers of photogenic and emotional scenes of death, destruction, grief and suffering. More than the rockets which goaded or the IDF missiles and bombs, the images of death and grief, suffering and anger served as Hamas' weapons of choice.

Why is the calculus so simple, so obvious?

Because the West has changed sides in the long running Israeli-Arab war. After forty years of public opinion support for Israel, the elites and opinion moulders of the US, the UK, the EU switched during and in the aftermath of the First Intifada. While the Israel Lobby may remain virtually all-powerful in the US, Israel has lost the sympathy and support of the elites generally in the West.

What Israel lost as a result of emotionally powerful images which reflected neither credit nor glory on the GOI and the IDF as well as the apparently uncompromising nature of many of Israel's major political figures has been picked up by the Palestinians. It is not that the leaders of the several Palestinian groups are great at public relations. Certainly Hamas is a crude and blustering collection of highly motivated and terrifically lethal thugs, not a crew which would be at home on Madison Avenue.

But Hamas and other similar groups are quite willing to let their people die on camera. They are ever so willing to put their fellow Palestinians through the wringer of wretchedness as long as it gains attention and sympathy. Carlos would be proud.

Hamas hopes to leverage its way to the goal of destroying the "Zionist Entity," by using the long lever of world opinion. The fulcrum point is found on the pile of Palestian bodies. This mound of cadavers is the result, not of GOI/IDF action, but of Hamas employment of terror as a goad.

Hamas had an alternative. It could have allowed the "Lull" to continue. Hamas was warned by Egypt, by the Palestinian National Authority, by Israel that ending the "Lull" would be a fatal mistake. Hamas chose, repeat, chose not to heed the warnings.

Why?

One can only speculate given that Hamas is not a bunch noted for either candor or honesty. Two salient points deserve notation. The first is that Hamas is an Iranian proxy. The second is that the US is in a period of interregnum.

If Israel had any intention of unilateral action against Iranian nuclear sites, now would be an apposite time to exercise the option. George W. Bush is carrying his short-timer's stick. President-elect Obama is nearly a month from taking office and has a host of other matters on his (collective) mind.

A prudential move for the Iranian mullahocracy to make would be one of assuring that GOI and the IDF were preoccupied with matters closer to home than the nuclear weapons development plants in Iran. Hamas and (if necessary or desirable) Hezbollah were ready, willing and even eager to have another go at provoking Israel and garnering support from the High Minded of the world.

Another very real benefit from the perspective of Tehran is the potential of the conflict escalating at least horizontally. One immediate impact of such a horizontal escalation including terror attacks against Israeli and US targets throughout the world would be an abrupt hike in the price of oil. Not to put too fine a point on the matter--Iran needs money. Badly. Right now.

So, all the way around, cranking up Hamas is a low risk, high-payoff proposition for the Iranian regime. They protect themselves and have a shot at the money as well.

The only losers in the game are Israel and the civilians of the Gaza Strip. And, why are they losers? Because Hamas acts like Carlos Marighela on steroids.

But that wouldn't matter except for one other reality upon which we must get a grip.

The public opinion molding elites of the West are on the wrong side this time but there is no indication that they either recognise it or are ready to recant. The death, the destruction, the wretchedness and the grief are not being manufactured by the Israelis this time. This time these are all the intentional products of Hamas.

Hamas is guilty. Not Israel. Only if we in the US and the rest of the West get a grip on this fact will the death, destruction and grief come to an end. Only then will the theories of Carlos and the plans of Hamas and the ambitions of Iran be ended Only then will the terror stop. Only then will the dead of Gaza not have died for nothing.

Here They Go Again!

History doesn't repeat itself--but it can sure seem that way. Last week Hamas went for yet another round of rocket induced coercion with the goal of forcing Israel to back down from its closure of the landlines of communication. Big shock! The action was counterproductive. Despite Hamas' fond hope that the upcoming elections would paralyse Israel's capacity to react with force, the IDF has proven otherwise.

All the usual actors--the UN, the EU, the Arab League, the Pope--have performed the expectable stereotyped roles. Violence has been deplored. Humanitarian crisis has been declared.

Of course the majority of condemnation has fallen on Israel. That's the line that has been routinely taken ever since the First Intifada started nearly twenty years ago. Israel went from champ to chump as cameras caught footage of tanks rolling through houses and grunts shooting at rock tossing kids.

The reflexive reprobation of Israel ignores several fundamental realities resident in the present situation. The first, most glaring, is that Hamas is the effective government in the Gaza Strip. As the government the Hamas terrorists have the duty of protecting the civilian population.

Far from meeting even the basic requirements of this duty Hamas has deliberately and repeatedly put the civilian population at great risk. Not only the risk of becoming collateral damage from IDF reposts to Hamas terror attacks, but also assuring that civilians would lack the basics of life including food, medical supplies, and potable water.

Yes, there is violence to be deplored. But the violence was begun and continued by Hamas--as a matter of deliberate and continually enunciated policy.

Yes, there is a humanitarian crisis. But the crisis is the deliberate product of Hamas' actions and policies. It is a creation of Hamas. Period.

What this means in practice is simply that Israel is not under a specific duty to assure that no civilians die in the Gaza. It is not Israel's duty to assure that each and every civilian in Gaza has adequate supplies of the necessities of life. It is not Israel's duty to assure that Gaza has a functioning economy.

These are no more Israel's obligation than they were the duty of the US and other Allied nations to assure an absence of civilian casualties or suffering in Germany or Japan during World War II. The protection and maintenance of civilian life is the responsibility--the sole responsibility of the government having power over the civilian population. In Gaza that is Hamas.

The hand wringing High Minded of the EU, the UN, and the Vatican had best get a grip on that reality. So should those of We the People who have joined the chorus of criticism.

There is a second, more basic reality in play. It involves dissecting the motivation behind the policies and actions of Hamas. One superficial reason is self-evident. Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

That is not the only nor even the most basic motive. Samuel Huntington, the Harvard political scientist who outlined the "Clash of Civilizations" over a decade ago, got it right. Wherever and whenever Islam meets a culture based on another religion, it does so with intolerant violence.

The authoritarian and death oriented nature of Islam, particularly Islam of the Islamist/jihadist sort, is no more concerned about the suffering and death of its own population than it is the misery and fatalities of the opponent's civilians. The record of Islam's conquests and defeats is marked with blood of its own as well as that of the "infidel."

In recent years the lack of Islamist/jihadist concern for the well being of Muslims is seen not only by the Hamas policy of seeing the non-combatants of Gaza live in misery, fear and under the threat of death. It is seen as well in the vast number of Muslims killed by suicide bombers and IED's in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.

Hamas is following the normal course of Islamist affairs and Muslim history when it willingly, even eagerly, uses the bodies of the people under its rule as pavement on the road of policy. As long as the High Minded, Lofty Thinkers of the West fail to see what precisely Hamas is doing, it will continue to do everything possible to show the world pictures of bleeding and dying Gazans. This hardened, cynical, religously mandated practice will continue until and unless the governments and opinion molders of the US, of the West get a grip on the realities extant not only today but over the span of centuries.

Failure to get a grip on these unpleasant but easily seen realities makes the US, the EU, the UN facilitators, enablers of the atrocities committed against the people of Gaza. Atrocities which are inflicted not by Israel but by the government called Hamas.