The complicated chance of peace in Gaza

As the Israeli operation continues in Gaza and President-elect Obama is poised to confront his first major international crisis, the hope to resolve the situation still remains in dismal prospects. The real dilemma to this operation is how to resolve the situation and insure that the circumstances that brought us to this are erased. Without a strong targeting by the international community on the Palestinian Authority and its responsibilities as a government body, the situation will undoubtedly fall into the cycle of repetition as soon as this crisis stops.


This situation is not solely a Palestinian vs. Israeli conflict, but will ultimately lead into the cycle of internal strife amongst Fatah and Hamas. In a computed analysis mapping Hamas' action, the findings were quite interesting. The findings, courtesy of Aaron Mannes and the University of Maryland, conclude:

"Perhaps the most interesting finding was that certain attacks, such as kidnappings and property attacks on Palestinians, tracked with internal Palestinian conflict. Although it occurred after the data was collected, the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit occurred during the Hamas-Fatah civil war. Another round of Hamas-Fatah fighting is likely in the West Bank, so more of these kinds of actions should be expected."

As stated previously in all my prior posts, the ultimate threat is the destabilization of the Palestinian Authority. As predicted, Hamas said on January 9 that the term of Mahmoud Abbas had expired and he "is no longer president." The overall rhetoric from the group seemed to challenge Abbas, coming just short of naming a successor. Once again, this potential for two Palestinian administrations seems to hinder the opportunity for diplomacy and prepares the route for a Hamas-Fatah civil war.


Once again, this potential conflict virtually prohibits the ability of Abbas' Fatah-led security forces to crack down on Hamas. Without the Palestinian government's ability to control portions of its territory, the attacks from Gaza will continue.


This is when the opportunity for an international force, similar to the French-led UNIFIL forces in Lebanon, could provide a potential for peace. As Walid Phares has proposed, the presence of an international force inside Gaza would present a step in the right direction for the people of Gaza. With the network of tunnels inside the territory, the movement of weapons has not diminished under Operation Cast Lead and will only be halted when ground troops are present. The positioning of a UN-force can administer aid and ultimately advocate the lifting of the Gaza blockade, acting as an advocate for the citizens of Gaza caught amidst the conflict.


As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza escalates, the time for action is now. A clear understanding must be made by all international partners, that Hamas can not be recognized as a political organization as it clings to violence. So long as violence comes out there Hamas, there must be a united effort to reduce its terrorist capabilities and to promote democracy amongst the parties involved in Palestinian politics.


Since the Hamas takeover and the placement of the Israeli blockade, the moderates in Gaza have fought to have their voices heard. Many see Hamas responsible for crippling their lives, yet their voices are not in the media. This is the opportunity to hand the stage to the moderates in Middle East affairs, who openly challenge the ideas that breed this senseless cycle of violence, yet we choose to ignore them.

"[Saudi] Prince Bandar bin Sultan said that the Hamas leaders promised, on the day after their election, to persuade their followers within three months that recognition of Israel [was necessary]. Why not surprise Omar Suleiman next month by fulfilling this promise? [The Hamas leaders] are undoubtedly afraid of their followers – [specifically,] of a faction within the Al-Qassam Brigades – and therefore they should be advised by Roosevelt's [saying] about political courage, namely, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." A political movement must first of all serve the interests of the people. Is it in their best interest to remain without a state, hungry and besieged... just because their leaders have lost their political courage? Hamas is at an important crossroads that requires it to shake itself and reshape itself, in order to meet the challenges faced by its people..."

-Arab scholar Lafif Lakhdar

The 2008 Arab-Israeli conflict

As I posted previously, the potential for the Israeli-Hamas battle to become much bigger is the greatest threat to international relations at this time. This is not just a battle between Palestinians and Israelis, but much bigger. This is an opportunity for Iran to secure its nuclear program and divert attention away from its unregulated nuclear program. However, the nuclear program is not the main concern now but rather the terror links that made this war possible.


The number one concern should be in the coming weeks, when Hamas could make good on its promises to disregard Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen. The already intense Fatah-Hamas divide could turn into bloodshed, with Palestinian factions warring against each other in the middle of a conflict with Israel. The question then turns to who the international community can talk with, Hamas' president or Abu Mazen? If this conflict is a direct result of Hamas, it would make sense to deal with Hamas, but it is important that the terror group is not given legitimacy through any talks.


This threat cripples the ability to resolve the situation. There will only be a loser, and it will be the Palestinian people. What could develop will be a civil war between Palestinian factions while at the same time engaging Israel. If the Fatah-Hamas conflict flares up, the potential for innocent bloodshed will increase drastically and the international community will be faced with the cries to intervene. Countries will be forced to take sides in a battle between terrorist groups masked as political forces, and the outcome will not be a resolution but rather another ceasefire.


As the world watches the crisis unfold in the Middle East, the potential for the worst to come true seems to be everpresent. I hope the Palestinian Authority can hold its power, but that answer could emerge in nearly a week. This crisis is plagued by the many changes occurring on the world stage, most notably President-elect Obama set to swear-in on January 20. Only time will tell where the situation will turn next, but looking at the trend of recent similar situations, this one will get alot worse.

A tragic failure of negotiations

Many critics say that the Middle East is a region that will remain at war, plagued by conflicts that can not be resolved. Just as things looked on the rise from the region, the six-month ceasefire with Hamas ended. In an instant, the temporary peace exploded. All the boasting of Israeli ministers on the ceasefire's success disappeared with a fresh volley of rockets.


While many may see this as another example of the Arab-Israeli conflict, this is a much bigger event that has the potential to escalate into a catastrophic crisis. The situation has the potential to sink the region into an intensified permanent state of conflict.


Many experts are beginning to assert that the attacks seem to be fairly well-timed, and with the statement from Hizbullah, that responsibility may ultimately lay inside Tehran. With a fresh U.S. administration set to take control, Israel and Syria having had talks mediated by Turkey (now cancelled due to the Israeli airstrikes), and the Arab world again focused on its hatred for Israel, the only real winner is Iran.


There are two major components to watch for in the coming month as the situation continues.

1) What role will Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his party, Fatah, address the threat of Hamas?

It is important to remember that Hamas took power of Gaza from Fatah in June 2007. This separation of forces and animosity between the two sides could ultimately intensify the Fatah-Hamas divide if Fatah attempts to intervene. Abbas' presidency is in question already by Hamas, and any action could destroy the Palestinian leadership.

2) How will the Arab world react to the situation?

Needless to say, the Arab world is already blasting Israel for the action. Any military support to Hamas by the Arab world could instigate another Arab-Israeli conflict, which would ultimately involve Hizbullah. With Hizbullah's arsenal increased several times over, it is likely that even the Israeli military would remain stretched by having to confront multiple threats at the same time. The ultimate test to international affairs will be to keep Arab countries isolated and to keep the crisis between Israel and Hamas.


The situation is assuredly a nightmare one at best. It was a matter of time until this happened. A six-month cease-fire only set up this situation. Hamas increased its weaponry, just like Hizbullah after the 2006 conflict. As soon as the cease-fire was over, whether on its own will or under influence by Iranian leadership, Hamas took its weaponry and used it. Now, amidst all the impending transitions in the U.S. and Israel, it appears there is a crisis that has emerged and will dominate the headlines for sometime.

U.S.-Syrian relations on the horizon?

During a trip this week, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter stated that he believed under the incoming Obama administration "the situation will improve between the United States and Syria after we have a new president." This type of rhetoric remains in line with Syrian President Assad's commitment to pursue talks with the U.S. once a new administration had been set. Now, the Bush administration is in its final month and prepares to hand off to President-elect Obama.


Syria has increasingly expressed interest in Western relations, specifically through French President Sarkozy. As Syria continues to pledge "peace talks" with the West and Israel, it is important to remember the true face of Syrian politics led by President Bashar Assad.


There is the Valentine's Day assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiik Hariri in 2005. Almost four years later, the circumstances of the bombing remain veiled. Just this week, the lead investigator into the incident told investigators that the blast remains solvable. David Bellemare has not gone so far as the first investigator, Detlev Mehlis, who wrote in the commission's first report:

"...there is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act."

The Mehlis report suggests that figures in both Lebanese and Syrian intelligence had knowledge of the attack. The report called on Syrian cooperation investigating the attack, specifically accusing some of the 400 persons interviewed of giving misleading statements. With answers pending in the probe, it is clear that there still remains a great deal of work in explaining Syria's hand in promoting violence throughout the Middle East.


With Syria playing ally to Iran in the war for Middle East influence against Saudi Arabia and Egypt, it is unlikely that any dramatic concessions will come as Iran will cling to its major backer. Since its conception in 2006, the group Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon has been a topic of major controversy in the region. The group, sympathetic to Al-Qaida objectives, has been subject to major debate as to who backs it. Syria has accused Saudi Arabia of founding the group to counter the Shiite power of Hizbullah. Many reports contradict such a claim, linking Syrian intelligence to the group. This could contribute to the inaction that Syria has taken to combat the group until last month when Fatah al-Islam's leader, Shaker al-Abssi, was declared dead in a gun battle with Syrian forces.


Al-Abbsi had a curious history with Syrian authorities. After being arrested in 2000, al-Abbsi spent three years in a Syrian prison for weapons smuggling charges. He then traveled to Iraq and became an associate of Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A Jordanian court had sentenced al-Abbsi to death in 2004 for the killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in 2002. However, al-Abbsi had remained elusive after the Nahr al-Bared seige in Lebanon that killed more than 200 in the Palestinian refugee camp in 2007. It was not until September, when Syria arrested al-Abbsi's daughter, that efforts began to increase against the leader of Fatah al-Islam.


Only until the September bombing in Damascus did Syria reveal any efforts to pursue members of the group, specifically the group's leader. Such spontaneous action has contributed to speculation that al-Abbsi was no longer in line with Syrian objectives and was taking the group in his own direction. The level of pressure that Syria has placed on the group has previously been nonexistent, begging many questions as to why there has not been a precedent of operations targeting the membership of Fatah al-Islam. When writing about Syrian actions against Fatah al-Islam, Walid Phares wrote:

"Some Terrorism commentators in the West and in the US spoke of an “elusive Fatah al Islam.” Unfamiliar with the Levantine nature of the phenomenon, those commentators still struggle with what they describe as “speculation” over the group’s “real motives,” as if they haven’t captured the equation behind Fatah al Islam. First, they conclude that this group can’t have ties to Damascus because the Syrian regime executed four members of the group. Ironically, the news came from the Syrian intelligence itself, which means that the Assad regime can go as far as killing operatives to intimidate the rest of the group, and on top of it, “sell” the news to the world as an “an anti al Qaeda” activity, which by the way would be bought by US officials."

History is taught because it has a unique way of repeating itself. While attempting dialogue with Syria, the U.S. should recall the consequences of failed alliances in the Middle East. I hope Assad is sincere in his objectives, but he has provided little besides mere talk when it comes to abandoning the Iranian regime and terror ties. Actions speak louder than words, and Syria should continue to combat terrorism inside its own country before looking outward.

The need for a global campaign against terrorism

Nearly a week ago, the images from Mumbai of nearly a dozen terrorists crippling a major city was broadcast all over the screens worldwide. Bodies lay in the streets, gunmen walking amongst them spraying police with bullets. The typical Hollywood mass murder attack finally happened. With 163 people dead, an investigation hopes to uncover what exactly went wrong to allow such an attack.


As we look to the future on how to confront the threat of terrorism, the Mumbai attacks set an example of how vulnerable the world still to such violence. While Western countries have taken the lead to address this problem, many developing countries - such as India - refuse to take the role seriously. Consider that the anti-terror squads, the elite groups meant to fight off the attackers, were armed with World War One rifles and defective bulletproof vests. This clearly begs the question as to how much funding India provides its reactionary response to terrorism that clearly failed that day.


Where was the flow of Western money going to for anti-terror training? U.S. forces are training Pakistan's Frontier Corps, which have accomplished nothing in the tribal regions of the country. In August, the EU announced that over the next three years it would increase its economic aid for the lawless Northwest Frontier Province to $63 million for education, trade, and farming projects. This is not an answer to fight terrorism. Sinking money into countries that shy away from confronting terrorists in their borders deserve no aid.


Making a connection between poverty and terrorism is not a factual statement by any means. As one expert I once heard say, "When was the last time you heard of a suicide bombing in Haiti?" This is a simple excuse to allow countries to do what they do to other problems, and try to fix everything with money. What really exists is a war of ideals. For too long, the voices of moderate Muslims have been silenced in their home countries while the West has sat idle.


How come we are behind the curve in fighting terrorism. We still see it as a crime, something that can be dealt with in our courts. It is far bigger than that. Dr. Yonah Alexander, who has authored nearly 90 books on security issues, said:

"This is true especially after 9-11; terrorism was labeled as a threat of war. I'd like to remind all of us that in our lifetime, or at least in my lifetime, we dealt with the Cold War, and since 1979 we've dealt with a "war" with Iran, and the third war is the "war" with jihadism and extremism, personified by the "war" with Bin Ladin."

The war on terrorism is a war, despite being labeled as a "bumper sticker war" by some. As some lawmakers ponder how far is too far in this war, we are losing the fight of winning hearts and minds. It is time to specifically target the propaganda stream from terrorist outfits, filled with the hatred for anything deemed un-Islamic. As Saudi Arabia uses textbooks in the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia that promotes jihad and hatred, the State Department does nothing. The war on terrorism is bigger than a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is something that is spread through paranoia and intolerance by Islamic radicals.


The fight against terrorism is one that encompasses numerous aspects and requires the assistance of the international community. No one country should lead the way, and while the United States took the lead after the September 11 attacks, it is time for organizations to lead the way. This is not just the U.S. response to those attacks, but is the world's voice that it wants to overcome the social fears spewed by radicals. Through a global referendum that addresses the aspects that promote terror and a pledge to confront them, we can make the operations and ability to create new terrorists a more difficult process for those groups.

India has been a sitting duck

After yesterday's attacks, many officials remain stunned as to how this breakthrough attack went virtually undetected until its implementation. The plotters of this attack had the significant benefit of India being in disarray when it comes to developing its internal security. Shortly after the July 26 blasts in Ahmedabad that killed 56 and injured over 200, India finally realized that its ability to counter terrorism was already ill-prepared. However, several suggestions by Indian government officials focused only on com batting the traditional remote-detonated devices used in most attacks this decade. The intent to take hostages and to actually use ground forces in such an assault has been one that seemed to have vanished from the scene in India.


Perhaps the greatest setback to Indian domestic security is that it has no nationwide intelligence network. With 28 states, each operating its own individual intelligence apparatus, the state is the ultimate head and is not required to share information with its neighbors. This was proved in the July attacks, when four of the cars used were stolen from Mumbai and then used in the attacks. The cars license plates were not completely altered, and would have found their way on a list by law-enforcement in a state here in the U.S.. However, in India such a network does not exist and the vehicles were able to pass multiple security checkpoints before their use in the blasts. In August, Gujarat province announced that it would create a special intelligence cell specifically to counter terrorism - yet it would only have an intelligence collecting purpose.


Furthermore, while India is quick to suggest Pakistani involvement in yesterday's attack, it acknowledged that it had seen substantial problems in its prison system. Cell phone SIM cards have frequently found their way into prisons that do not have a phone jamming system, allowing communication and other contacts from a supposed "secure" environment. Indian authorities had intercepted messages regarding terror plots being hatched from inside the country's prisons and were finally made aware of this vulnerability. The ability for domestic terrorism to thrive has extended well beyond Kashmir and into numerous systems in India, all of which has never been addressed or countered.


The country's intelligence collecting and sharing abilities are at best - deficient. It was only a matter of time until India felt the affects of an attack that may have been prevented, and yesterday was that point. The anti-terror squads have been tested by the most recent attack and it has proven that India has under equipped what is intended to be their elite services. This time, it will be necessary for the government there to not just talk about making changes and actually implements them in a rapid line. The components of the Mumbai assault leave a dangerous pattern among all countries concerned with international security, and all countries should evaluate the ability to coordinate and distribute emergency services across numerous areas and dealing with waves of militants. The patterns of this most recent attack have sent shock waves among the intelligence community, and it will be an incident that must be remembered for the lessons learned.

India's Mumbai terror attacks continue 24 hours later

The chaos in Mumbai continues nearly a day after the attacks began. With the head of the anti-terror squad killed along with several other senior commanders, the effectiveness of the ATS remains questionable as the army has taken responsibility of operations. As the casualty figures continue to remain sketchy, it will take time to clearly identify the situation as it appears the goal of spreading chaos throughout the city was achieved. It appears that the majority of the hostages have been released, yet reports of explosions at the Taj Hotel suggest that the situation remains tense.


The attack represents a new phase in the fight against terror, as the goal of essentially shutting down a city was achieved in the remarkably coordinated attacks. As the squads were able to hit at least 10 sites across Mumbai, the emergency services were clearly under equipped and ill-prepared for such massive attacks occurring simultaneously. It appears that these squads of gunmen are mostly in their 20s, suggesting a potential recruitment and alliance of the Indian youth mujahideens and larger groups. If yesterday's attacks were merely explosions, this incident would be no different from the Ahmedabad blasts in July in which 21 bombs were detonated across the city. However, the use of "foot soldiers" and the intent of hostage-taking is one that has not been seen in India for some time.


Ultimately, the investigation part of the phase has yet to begin as clues of the attackers are just now being discovered. With such a breakthrough attack the focus should be on outside elements support - specifically the ISI. As of now, the focus appears to be on SIMI and its offshoots. However, a report suggests that the perpetrators reached Mumbai using boats originally from Karachi. The intelligence trail for the preliminary setup for this operation could go as far back as six months ago, with the finding of a barge nearly four months ago. As police have reportedly found at least four boats laden with explosives outside the city, the investigation may have some fairly solid links to help establish the origin and trail of support that masterminded this operation.


The fight of what Walid Phares called "urban Jihad" has hit India and proven to the world that terror groups are capable of striking anywhere at any time. By all means, this attack is clearly a successful hit taking out various targets in nearly every major part of a hub. This type of tactic has yet to be seen in such a violent form, and many Western intelligence officials remain concerned that this could only be the beginning. Undoubtedly, information will be revealed in the coming days describing foreign terror connections once the situation is resolved. Until then, it is my hope that the anti-terror squads and Indian military are prepared to potentially deal with any further crises that could erupt.