Israel

by

Analyzing Gaza’s Situation Through the Lens of Terrorism Law

Under The Terrorism Act 2000 the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation that he/she believes is engaged in terrorism. The same Act in Part 1, Section 1 defines terrorism as follows:

“1 Terrorism: interpretation.

(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4) In this section—

(a) “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

(d) “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.“

It is difficult to take issue with this definition and it makes sense that any “organisation” engaged in these activities should be proscribed. Certainly, given their actions over the years, and specifically the medieval brutality of 7 October, Hamas clearly deserve their status as a proscribed organisation. Their actions are clearly caught by the definition of terrorism as set out in the Act.

However, if one looks at what has happened in Gaza over the past 18 months questions might be thought to arise as to whether any other organisation has been engaged in terrorism as defined above.

The whole of the civilian population of Gaza, “the public”, have been subject to actions which might fairly be described as intimidatory and judged by the perpetrators as advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. The self-defence justification started out weakly and has declined ever since.

But are the actions of the type specified in Section 1 Para 2?

Over the past 18 months Gaza has been subject to a sustained bombing campaign that exceeds the scale of any actions taken in the Second World War. The serious violence against a person and damage to property criteria are clearly met. Endangering persons lives and creating a serious risk to health and safety of the public, it may be argued, are met, not just by the bombing, but also by the turning off of critical utilities like water and energy. Stopping food and medical supplies probably add further evidence to breach of this condition.

In terms of interfering or disrupting an electronic system, destroying any or all of the systems in Gaza probably meets this condition.

Given this definition of terrorism, and what the Netanyahu administration has been doing and continues to do ,should the UK government consider the case as to whether the Netanyahu administration should be classed as a proscribed organisation?

by

Mathematicians are always 100% Right

aje.io/rhwq0p

by

Syria: What does Ahmed al-Sharaa mean?

The west and Israel seem to be concerned about what Ahmed al-Sharaa, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is saying. His pronouncements both in recent years and since the HTS victory in Syria have been measured and seem to reject the idea that his aim is to establish a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Syria. However, his past connections with the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS) and Al Qaeda are pointed to, as is his previous nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad al-Julani as evidence of his ideological position. They say they want to see actions not just words.

Given the experience of diplomacy in the region a degree of scepticism is sensible. Fine words butter no parsnips as they say. Furthermore, words do have a remarkable degree of flexibility in the Middle East. The term “defence” comes to mind.

However, given what went before, in the murderous Assad regime, and the scenes of celebration from Syrians across the country it is difficult to simply dismiss al-Sharaa. Given this most nations and agencies seem content to adopt a wait and see policy. Wanting to see if the promising words do get translated into actions.

Israel, as so often, is the exception here. It is busily defending itself against an attack, of which there is neither sign nor capacity, by bombing any and all military facilities in Syria. They are also annexing land inside Syria to secure Israel’s border.

If the scepticism of western, commentators, journalists, diplomats and politicians proves well founded then Syria’s appalling condition may simply continue under new management. If this is the case it will confirm a view of islamist insurgents as simply interested in gaining power in order to impose a version of Islam which is authoritarian, brutal and misogynistic. Together with a new regime of corruption and crime.

If this happens it will reinforce the view that you can never trust such groups. That radical islamism, or indeed, for some, merely islamism, is an inherently authoritarian and regressive force. Given this they must be opposed and where possible eliminated and certainly kept away from any levers of power.

It is right that the establishment of another fundamentalist regime with no interest in the rule of law outside of strict religious control, or an independent, multi-faith civil society, or any form of participatory government would certainly add to the woes of the people of Syria with negative consequences for other peoples in the region.

It may however be the case that the threat that al-Sharaa poses is not if he does not do what he says but rather if he does do what he says.

Clearly, it is early days however the actions taken so far by the new regime led by al-Sharaa and HTS are unlike previous insurgent takeovers. No bloody reprisals, no looting and no ill-disciplined soldiery. No immediate implementation of fundamentalist Islamic social measures. Co-operation with the existing governmental institutions with the existing government being asked to remain in power until March 2025 to oversee a prcess of transition. Universities have been opened as opposed to closed. No curfews.

The army is being maintained not dissolved, the civil service is not being replaced with people whose qualifications are ideological fervour as opposed to administrative competence. The strong underpinning message and fundamental aim is claimed to be a commitment to rebuild Syria and the “…establishment of a government based on institutions and a “council chosen by the people“. It will be interesting to see what this council is in due course. But there have been clear commitments to religious tolerance, the rule of law, and a strong civil society.

What seems to have happened to date in Syria seems to be characterised by a very disciplined fighting force. Disciplined in their approach to fighting certainly. But more importantly, disciplined in victory.

al-Sharaa has been absolutely explicit that the country has no interest or capacity to engage in a war with Israel. This, despite the illegal and substantial programme of bombing being done by their neighbour to “defend” themselves.

What might ring alarm bells in the West and Israel is the commitment to a process of change by Syrians for Syrians. A demand that all foreign forces now leave Syria to allow them to get on with the immense task of rebuilding a country that has been systematically destroyed by a brutal despot.

One of the many problems of the region is the constant maneuvering by global powers and Arab neighbours to secure advantage it times of uncertainty. Attempting to obtain territorial or other advantages when states are riven with internal conflicts or political instability.

If al-Sharaa does substantially what he says, it will create a real dilemma for the West, Israel and other Arabic nations. A moderate muslim nation with genuinely independent institutions, religious tolerance and a genuine distribution of power is going to stick out, in the region, like a sore thumb.

Time will tell but al-Sharaa presents very well. His interview on CNN is illuminating as much for the tone and thoughtfulness of his comments as for what he actually says. He has learned the lesson of previous insurgent groups, terrorists or freedom fighters depending on you politics. He is not picking fights he knows he cannot win. There is no inflammatory rhetoric about the State of Israel or the West. He does not shy away from his Islamic faith but neither does he see this as monopolising power in a new Syria.

The. task of rebuilding Syria will be monumental. An economy that is on its knees. Fighting continuing in the north as the Kurdish cause has Turkey and the United States maneuvering for advantage. Its South Eastern border with Israel being eroded, together with a substantial bombing campaign as Israel defends itself. Loud calls for swift and public retribution against those of the former regime engaged in the systematic torture of relatives of suvivers. And on top of all this external forces trying to ensure al-Sharaa fails.

If it does not fall back into a brutal fundamentalism Syria could become a model for a new kind if Islamic regime with enourmous consequences across the whole of the middle east.

by

What is the End Game for Netanyahu?

There has been a narrative about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s war aims and how they are shaped by the religious-right members of his cabinet. One which presents him as something of a hostage to their extreme demands. In parallel with this is the view that he is desperate to remain in power in order to delay the case against him relating to fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes. This creates the impression that his personal legal woes are to a great extent shaping his approach to the War in Gaza and elsewhere.

It is almost certain that PM Netanyahu has an eye to his personal legal jeopardy. He may feel that victory in a war against Hamas would make hims so popular that no Israeli court would be able to find him guilty of the charges he faces. I’m not sure I would bet on that, however.

When PM Netanyahu appointed his current cabinet it was said to be the most right-wing in the history of Israel. However, the bar for this was set by PM Netanyahu himself. According to Ian Black in his work “Enemies and Neighbours” when Netanyahu formed his first government in 1996 it was “the most right-wing coalition in Israeli history.(pp349) And at the time he pledged to support the “pioneering settlement” of Eretz-Yisrael, making good on this promise by lifting the restrictions on settlement that the previous Labour Government had imposed.

PM Netanyahu is not a hostage to the religious right, he shares their expansionist view of the future of Israel and is very clearly an active promoter of their aims.

This brings us to the Prime Minister’s war aims. These were clearly articulated in a speech at the start of the military campaign as being about, 1) bringing home the hostages, 2) destroying Hamas. But in the same speech he also spoke more broadly about “changing the Middle East”. What these words meant was never specified at the time but they are starting to sound, and look, as if they related to a war aim as fundamental as the other two.

After the precision carpet bombing of the whole of Gaza there are signs preparations are being made for what happens when the war ends. Various corridors are being established which it is said will be used to divide Gaza in ways which will make it easier to control and so prevent Hamas regaining any foothold in the area.

If this were the case the picture of life, for remaining Palestinian civilians would look bleak. Their movements would be further constrained between secure areas within the largest open prison in the world. The practicalities of life within this context would mean its very viability as a place to live would be questionable. Which of course some on the religious-right in Israel may regard as a happy “unintended consequence” of their need for effective “self-defence”.

However, in the North of Gaza steps might be being taken for an even more radical solution. A corridor, or new military dividing line, is being developed to separate an area in Northern Gaza from the rest of the territory. Its ostensive purpose, according to the IDF, is to trap Hamas in a confined area with no means of retreat or supply. This is the area which the Israeli government through the IDF have ordered all civilians to leave on pain of being treated as hostile combatants if they remain. An area into which it was suggested no foreign aid would be allowed, nor water of power, on the basis that there would be no civilians to need it as it would simply be a battle zone.

Some rhetorical retreat from that has occurred however any aid that does get into the area is woefully inadequate and fears that starvation and the lack of any medical facilities or medicines will lead to further significant loss of civilian lives.

This area in the North is subject to significant clearance. A process which some fear may be followed, at some stage. by a new programme of settler development. This would mean the permanent loss of the area, thus reducing the size and viability of Gaza even further. It would be a brave person who would take a bet that this will not happen.

Indeed, this scenario is leading to fears amongst neighbouring Arab states that they may well face a massive refugee crisis in the not too distant future. A crisis caused by Palestinians fleeing from a non-viable and hostile Gaza and West Bank.

The Israeli government denies this as a war aim. If they are honest in this assurance, it still leaves open the possibility that their practice of “self defence”, in the long term, has the “unintended consequence” of making everyday life so intolerable that it drives the Palestinians out of Palestine.

The US and the UK have access to detailed satellite imagery, military strategy experts, intelligence reports and a whole lot more information than is in the public domain. Perhaps this all supports the Israeli contention that their acts of defence are within International humanitarian law. Further, they remain focused on their original and limited aims of getting the hostages back and destroying Hamas.

From outside it does not look like this. What is happening, right now, in the occupied territories is unspeakable. It is being called out by a number of western institutions including the UN and the International Court of Justice and a range of NGO’s operating in the region. And yet our government and that of the United States are not taking decisive action to prevent what is happening.

What is happening in Palestine is already having far reaching implications. The dramatic collapse of Assad’s Syrian regime is the result of many factors, however, the weakened position of Hezbollah in Lebanon will have played its part.

If it turns out that this is a second Nakba PM Netanyahu may well achieve his objective of “changing the Middle East”. However, it might not be for the better for the Middle East, or, indeed in the long term for Israel.