Bigger than Ebola

Read an article in the AP headlines online yesterday that upsets me.  You can read the article here. What is upsetting me most is that the author is correctly drawing attention to the disease that causes a greater percentage of death, loss of economic gain, and is more directly afflicting children than any other disease in Africa, and yet receives so little attention.  Yes, for those who have been in my lectures on poverty, disease, African development issues, you guessed it correctly, I am talking about Malaria.

Some noteworthy information pulled from the article:
--14000 Guinean children under age 5 died of malaria last year.  1600 people in Guinea have died from Ebola.
--Liberia, out of fears of Ebola cancelled the distribution of 2 million mosquito nets. (For the uninformed: Malaria is spread by mosquitoes).
--A Cuban doctor sent to Guinea to fight Ebola died of Malaria induced kidney failure.  The one hospital in the country that could have provided dialysis was closed because of Ebola.
--Testing for Malaria requires bloodletting.  Everyone is scared to do it because of Ebola.

For my two cents, Ebola is tragic and terrible, but can be effectively contained from spreading.  Malaria spreads by mosquitoes we are unwilling to kill because the chemicals needed for the job are dangerous for flora and fauna.  But, we rush research and treatment for Ebola, and are casual about treating Malaria.  Some things, I simply do not understand.

Support for Defense Spending Cuts

I came across the following map today as I perused through international and sporting news (interestingly found this link while reading about announcer pairings for upcoming bowl games in an SI article).  Should anyone be surprised that New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland, OR, San Francisco and Los Angeles have the greatest number of people who desire cuts to military spending? I did find it interesting that Maine and Vermont as states were almost completely red (red indicates support for cutting spending in this map), but then again it is really cold in both of those states and they are really near Canada (which I am sure has something to do with everything screwy in this world--a shout out to SS in Ottawa, thanks for sharing with me the level of Canadian support for operations in Afghanistan over the years, makes me rethink a few things about Canadians).  Other pockets supporting cutting military spending center on Boston and Madison, WI (no surprises in either of these cases) and just north and west of Denver (which is surprising but maybe not man, cause we got more important things to do here, like find some munchies man).

(see the map above in greater detail at: http://www.isidewith.com/map/75v/support-for-military-spending)

For my two cents, DoD spending does need to be curtailed.  I do not, however, have a great plan for how to make these cuts without creating economic issues that would negate the positives of cutting the DoD budget.  The question is a tough one but one we need to struggle with as a population.

Waiting to Riot

I will never understand the concept of destroying the property of other people in my own community because of what happened in other communities, the nearest of which is over 2,000 miles away.  So, as I read the reports of looting and destruction in Berkeley, CA where the participants claim they are protesting events in Ferguson, MO and New York, NY, I will remain flummoxed.  I will also not buy any silly argument that if I were not a white male I would better understand the problem--sorry but I have reasons for angst and anger also, maybe not based on racial grouping, but reasons nonetheless, and I have devoted a large portion of my life to understanding political violence based on group dynamics.

For my two cents, if people are looking for an excuse to riot, they will find an excuse to riot.  So, the deeper question is not about what happened in Ferguson or in New York, but why are people waiting for an excuse to riot in Berkeley, CA?  When the demonstrators are even fighting with other demonstrators, supposedly there to demonstrate for the same reason, how are we supposed to view the event other than as people looking for an excuse to riot?  What is happening to the people in Berkeley and the surrounding communities to make young men and women want to riot?  Is what happened in Ferguson and New York what is happening in Berkeley?  Did someone get killed for breaking the law in Berkeley or did someone locally get killed because someone else locally did not like the friends, color, group affiliations they held?  Can I just go back to sleep today and wake up to realize all of these things are a really bad dream and not reality?  

Respect for Barkley

It pains me to say this, mainly because Charles Barkley went to the farm school on the east side of the state, but I feel my respect for Charles Barkley growing after reading this article.  The possibility of rationality warms my heart and my brain.   The media has a vested interest in making everything sensational/tragic/cliff-hanging (you get the point), as they work for competing syndicates each trying to capture listener/readership/viewership shares.  Losing a life was awful for whatever reason, but the media reporting on the losing of a life is often the difference between a rational consideration of why and how the loss of life happened and a knee-jerk reaction.

For my two cents while questions may arise about over zealousness of police officers that we should take seriously, the benefit of the doubt belongs to the police officer.  Very rarely do officers engage in deadly force.  Very rarely do officers actually use physical force of any type.  Officers are trained, better than the average person, how to use force, how to limit the use of force, and how to be situationally aware.  Why are we so willing to overlook that the loss of life in Ferguson began with an officer recognizing a subject of interest in a burglary?  Why are we so willing to castigate the officer who was attacked by a man 80 pounds heavier and several inches larger for use of force?  Because what we heard, read, saw all pointed to an egregious use of force against and unarmed man with his hands up just because of the color of his skin.  Well, now what do we know?

We know now that a grand jury heard testimony, viewed autopsy evidence and other physical evidence that does not support what we heard, read, and saw.  We know now that in the face of evidence contrary to their news service generate opinion, a minority of the population is willing to burn, loot, pillage, and riot.  I am sickened by the whole affair and done considering this mess.  And, I will still give law enforcement the benefit of my doubts.

Feeling Inspired Today

Feeling inspired today as I started reading literature on convergence and panel unit root models.  Gonna use some of this stuff in a paper soon to be presented.  So, here is some music that inspires me as I work on data modeling issues.

Can the LRA Rebound?

Read an article from the AP the other day on Joseph Kony and the LRA selling ivory and minerals to obtain weapons and other supplies.  Kony's 200-300 troops must be the best armed troops in the world or at least the best fed, best housed, something of the sort.  If you are selling ivory and gold at black market prices, you are making bankroll.

Oh wait, Kony's forces are pretty much bottled up in eastern Centeral African Repbulic and the Kafia Kingi district of Sudan.  The only reason the LRA continues to exist at this point, for my two cents, is that the criminal regime of Omar al-Bashir allows the LRA to hide in Kafia Kingi and will not allow Ugandan, CAR, and U.S. forces to cross into the district in the hunt for Kony and the LRA.  My other guess is that the LRA is not that well heeled at the moment because Kony is probably paying al-Bashir for the Sudanese hospitality thus the need to traffic in ivory and gold on the black market.

So, will LRA rebound?  Probably not, instead they will continue to exist in a precarious state until al-Bashir grows tired or finally caves to international pressure.  Either way, Kony and al-Bashir remain fugitives from international justice.  They are thick as thieves as the saying goes, or in this case murdering scum.

Thinking China

Today it is fairly easy to think about and read about events in Asia.  The president is in the Asia-Pacific and the news and entertainment folks follows where he goes.   I call them entertainment because I have a hard time considering Fox News, CNN, HNN, MSNBC, etc. to be news media these days.

This morning I took to ForeignPolicy.com to peruse blogs and reports regarding issues in Asia.  I found three things that I believe need to be briefly commented on in my own blog.  One, Michael Pillsbury makes a well built argument that China and the U.S. are preparing for war.  I wrote my master's thesis on Chinese foreign policy in 1998 and used pieces of that work for conference presentations and to inform a book chapter on Chinese-Philippines relations that I co-authored in 1999.  At that time I was convinced and remain somewhat convinced that China's intent was to have the capability to engage in military actions with any military force in the world (including the U.S. military) by the year 2015.  Chinese purchases of submarines, upgrades to their surface fleet, purchases and development of military aircraft, testing of ASAT capabilities, purchase of an aircraft carrier and development of naval air operations, development of apparent stealth technology aircraft, all point to a military attempting to rival the best in the world.

Two, North Korea has developed cheap, low technology, but efficient UAV capability.  I am not sure if efficient is really a good word here since a few of these UAVs have crashed in South Korea.  But, those crashes are how we know North Korea has developed this capability.  So we do not know if any of these border crossing UAV missions have been successful.  But we do know the capability exists and this knowledge is important and something to cause some degree of apprehension.

Three, David Francis and others are correct about the Obama-Xi handshake deal on climate change will be difficult for either side to really achieve.  Do we really believe that Obama by use of the EPA can really force inducstry, particularly the energy generating industry, to reduce greenhouse emissions by 26-28 percent by 2025?  And honestly, do you really think that this non-binding on U.S. citizens agreement (it is not a U.S. Senate ratified treaty), will be followed through by the next administration.  Great job of grandstanding Obama, ressurect that world image that won you the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.nothing.  And what kind of deal is it that says, ok we'll cut our emissions by 26-28% by 2025 and you promise to do something by 2030.  For my two cents, not a very strong move at all.

Rohingya Flight

I have blogged about the issue of Muslims in Myanmar a few times.  I am continuing to seek out information on this topic and to consider the ethnopolitical issues associated with being non-Buddhist in Myanmar.  In the 1980s through roughly 2010 the situation surrounding Karen population was well documented.  Why is it the case that the situation surrounding the Rohingya population is not as well documented?

I have been told by some that the question is one of religion, that the Karen population is Christian and the Rohingya population is Muslim.  Most of the Karen population is still a combination of Buddhist and animist, though a particularly large pocket of Karen Christians exists in the Irrawady delta region.  So, if the mostly Buddhist population of Myanmar were to take up arms against the Karen, they would be attacking many fellow believers.  The facts show that the government and military attacked the Karen population but the actions against the Karen population did not have a great deal of popular support in Myanmar.  However, religion does appear to be a more mitigating factor in regard to support in the population for attacks on Rohingya.  In dealing with the Rohingya the attacks have been made by the rank and file Buddhists of the population of Myanmar and the government is complicit in that the government does not disuade the populace of making these attacks.

Now, nearly two years after widespread violence against the Rohingya broke out, nearly 100,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar by boat.  Most of those fleeing have gone to Bangladesh, where over 85% of the population is Muslim.  Nearly 150,000 more Rohingya are living in camps still in Myanmar as internally displaced persons, but without any support from the international community as access to the Rohingya is routinely denied by the government of Myanmar.

For my two cents, I don't care if you are Muslim, Animist, Buddhist, Christian, yellow, red, purple with green polkadots, or whatever, you should not be the target of communal violence for existing as a minority population anywhere in the contemporary world.  Governments that support communal violence should be held in contempt and pressured to change their behaviors, not courted as trading partners and political allies--democratic engagement and enlargement may be admirable goals, but does democratic society accept government condoned communal violence as a norm of accepted behavior?

Congratulations to the Obama Administration

I posted yesterday "For my two cents, states need to stick to their positions if they choose a regulatory approach to dealing with the potential of Ebola spreading in the population, until proven vaccines are readily available in the health care marketplace in massive quantity."  The Obama administration has chimed in regarding regulations in public health.  Guess what the Obama administration spokesman said:

"I guess you can take that up with James Madison," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest, referring to the fourth president and key drafter of the Constitution, when asked why there was no binding federal policy. 

You can read a complete article regarding the stance of the Obama administration here.  The interesting thing here for me is that I have accused our executive branch of overstepping the intent of the Founding Fathers in regard to the powers of the presidency for years.  I am a known proponent of local control of government regulation, start the game at the community, move to the state, then and only in a limited manner the federal government.  So, today for my two cents, hats off to an administration for finally recognizing and accepting the limits of central authority vested in the executive branch of the U.S. government.  A minor victory for state rights, and coming from such a liberal administration, who would have guessed?

Ebola II

So apparently some health care experts believe that the disregard for their civil liberties overrides concern for ensuring Ebola does not spread to the general population.  Normally, I'd be all in for the protection of civil liberties.  I believe in minimalizing government intrusion into as many areas of our lives as possible and in regulation as a principle only where it deals with our rights of property and due process as defined in the U,S, Constitution.  I will remind my readers right at the start that I consider the greatest property right of any human as the right to life (implying some regulation applies to how life may be lived).

In an article (read it here) Dr. Anthony Fauci argues that we may unnecessarily deter workers with great medical skill from traveling to the danger zone to work because they will be quarantined upon return.  Dr. Fauci has a point, but if your personal sacrifice in the name of aultruistic service to mankind means you can not plan on an extra 21 days upon your return during which you are monitored to ensure you are not incubating the germ and becoming an active case of Ebola, then you are not that bright to begin with and probably should not be a doctor or nurse responsible for medical practice.  And hey, by the way I thank you for going out and making this sacrifice on the behalf of humanity--I really do.

I believe that human security is very important and that the security of life can be regulated, including the requirement of treatment for diseases that can be transmitted between humans.  A most effective means of treating communicable diseases with less than stellar medicinal treatment options is still the quarantine of the effected/potentially effected population.  For my two cents, states need to stick to their positions if they choose a regulatory approach to dealing with the potential of Ebola spreading in the population, until proven vaccines are readily available in the health care marketplace in massive quantity.  And yes, I am sorry that quarantine is not fun Kacy Hickox, and I was aghast to know that the facility you are in does not even include a shower facility.  However, the rights of people to have the right of life ensured outweigh your individual right to move around freely when returning from an Ebola hotspot at this time.

Ebola Vaccines/Treatments

The World Health Organization says that at least 5 new experimental vaccines for Ebola will be available by 2015 and millions of doses of two exisiting vaccines will be available in 2015.  I categorize this announcement as good news.  You can read a brief piece about the WHO announcement here. 

I have to date, not strayed into the discourse on Ebola and stopping the spread of Ebola.  My silence is not a lack of interest.  I have personal friends in Nigeria, acquaintances who live and work in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.  For me the stakes here are personal, for my friends and acquaintances the stakes are even more personal.  I believe in dealing witht he pandemic we must ask a few questions.  My questions are not medical questions, as the exact causes, forms, treatments of diseases is outside of my expertise.

One, why is Ebola so deadly now compared to other know outbreaks?  From 1976 (when it was first identified) through 2013, the World Health Organization reported a total of 1,716 cases.  This year over 9,000 cases have been identified.  In answer to this question I think of demographics thanks to Malthus.  Malthus warned about pandemic sweeping away the population of the earth as a result of overpopulation.  I do not hold to Malthus' bleak view of the growth of population as the cause of natural and unnatural disaster.  I do, however, believe that simply the fact of having more people around meant that the virus had a chance to spread to more people.  I also think about modernization, namely infrastructure improvement.  In the last 10 years more miles of road have been constructed and/or paved than in the preceding 100 years in Sub-Saharan Africa, making travel much easier than ever (by the way, disease travels with humans).

Two, given the answers to question one, what should people do to combat the spread of Ebola?  My simplest answer is isolation.  I realize that isolation will cause disruption of economic life for a period of time.  Not allowing free travel in an era when commerce requires travel will definitely have costs.  I ask you to consider, however, that dead people do not engage in any commerce, that societies tending to thousands of ill people are losing commerce already.  Nigerian officials point tot he contribution of strict isolation rules for those exposed or potentially exposed to Ebola as a major reason why Ebola did not spread in that country.

My two cents is probably not worth that much when it comes to the science of epidemiology.  I do, however, believe that I understand as well as anyone that not being in contact with a disease will keep you from getting a disease.  I think it is also readily noticeable that not allowing those with the disease or exposed to the disease to travel will help stop the spread of the disease.  

SS on the SS Gravy Train

To be fair Schutzstaffel is not the same as Social Security and Social Security benefit payments are not regularly a "gravy train".  I use the term SS Gravy Train as an emphatically negative response to an article I read earlier in the AP wireline.  A story that I believe, for my two cents, should anger or at least cause psychic discomfort to citizens and residents of the U.S.

You can read the story for yourself here.  Why are suspected Nazi war criminals and SS guards receiving social security benefit payments after being forced out of the U.S.?  Because the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigation (OSI) used the payments as levarage to get suspected SS war criminals to leave the country voluntarily rather than being forced to go through the deportation process.  OSI was so fearful of the cost and length of the process of deportation that they cut deals with Nazi war criminals, several of whom are now living outside the U.S. and continuing to receive social security payments.  The article linked above states that 38 of 66 suspects removed from the country kept their social security benefits.  

Rather than forcing congress to change the process for deportation of suspected war criminals, rather than forcing the State Department to care more about war crimes and less about diplomatic nicety, we paid war criminals to leave the country and stay out of the country.  We, the U.S., dumped war criminals on other countries.  Even when pressure and outrage stopped the dumping practice we have continued to pay benefits to these suspected war criminals.  We freeze the assets of suspected criminals before trial and sentencing in this country routinely.  But apparently this does not apply to suspected Nazi war criminals.

Where's Kim Jong-Un?

I have been reading the speculation for the last two weeks about the whereabouts of Kim Jong-Un.  After deeply considering all the thoughts of several writers, I decided on my own approach to the question.

First we have to recognize what he looks like:



Then we can ask, where is Kim Jong-Un?

Bombs Away

Quick someone tell me the last time a bombing campaign against a state caused that state to collapse? Can you think of one?  I surely can not think of one instance where a bombing campaign caused a state actor to collapse.  

In case any reader has forgotten or you have not read any of my previous blogs, I have said that I consider IS to be a revolutionary movement based on a radical religious-based identity (and I am not saying that all Muslims are radical), not an ethno-nationalist movement, and gasp, not a terrorist movement--though they make ample use of terrorizing the locals to acheive governing authority.  IS uses terror and force to control the population in the territory it is attempting to govern in its attempt at creation of a modern Islamic Caliphate.  IS is using force to push existing government forces and local militias out of the territory it is attempting to control.  I am basically arguing that IS is a quasi-state actor trying to build a country (a quasi-state actor because no other set of actors is willing to recognize this state as legitimate).

Back to the original question of this post.  If--big if--IS is a state-like actor, why should we expect that a bombing campaign is going to be enough to defeat IS?  The Doolittle Raid did not cause Japan to surrender, neither did the March 1945 fire bombing of Tokyo, it took two atomic bombs after years of hard fighting and mounting irreplaceable losses.  Bombing Dresden did not cause Germany to surrender, rather years of fighting and growing insurmountable losses of which Dresden was only one caused Germany to fall in WWII.  Bombing the North during the Vietnam War did not cause North Vietnam to lose, did it?   For my two cents, the world must do a better job of supplying and supporting ground forces against IS or find a different strategy for containing and ultimately defeating IS, air strikes are simply not going to be the answer.  

Hooray, I Made it to Friday

I am right in the middle of a silly season stretch.  Midterms, guest speakers, homecoming at the college, homecoming for the area school district, little league football practices/games are all running together in one blur.  Plus, two KC Royals games going 12 and 11 innings to start the post-season have added to the blur.  

In the midst of all of the goings on I get to do one thing that is always a little fun.  I get to take the family to a nice hotel, spend some time with them, and go to a nice event for the alumni and members of the Pan Sophic Fraternity (who for some reason allege that I am their advisor).  In honor of the Pans I offer the following Friday frivolatry.

and while the guys may have a little Animal House in them, I don't suspect they go this far:

Putin or IS a Bigger Threat to World?

Gary Kasparov in a recent interview laid out his case for why Putin is a bigger threat to the world than IS (read about the interview here).  In his interview Kasparov compares European responses to Putin with European responses to Hitler pre WWII.  Kasparov also argues that the rest of the world is playing chess while Putin is playing poker and that Putin is calling our bluff.

For my two cents, Kasparov has a point and we should consider whether or not we are addressing Putin's aggressive Russian foreign policy correctly.  I am not convinced that the world response is similar to how we responded to Hitler pre WWII or that current Russian foreign policy indicates a similar desire to directly own and control the world.  Perhaps a few readers might chime in here and add their thoughts.

Mars Update

India enters Mars exploration attempts with a mission that could land them in the Mars Club with a modest $75 million budget.  Read here.

Should We Expect a Different Response from IS?

I have recently been asked what I thought about IS and about the response to IS proposed and made actionable by President Obama.  I have written previously that I believe IS is a transnational actor and that I believe IS to be a revolutionary movement that desires to create a new country.  Eventually the goal of IS is to move from being a country to, I believe, global domination in carrying out their particularl ideological understanding of the teachings of Islam.  I also wrote in that earlier blog that determining the best means of fighting against IS is difficult.

Today I want to first readdress the issue of what type of action to take against IS.  Secondly, what type of response should we expect from IS as a result of the chosen course of action by the U.S. government.    Finally, does this expected action change what action to take against IS?

IS is a revolutionary group.  This organization is transnational in its scope and position, presently operating in multiple countries.  The intent of IS is to create a new country with the IS organization as the government of that country.  IS leadership believes that their ideological view of Islam represents the truest conception of Islam, the practice of the faith, and the socio-economic and political structures that must exist if the truest conception and practice of Islam are acted upon and enforced (in the context of IS leader's conceptions, enforcement of socio-economic and political practice of Islamic life is required).  Because of the ideological disposition of IS leadership, IS as an organization represents not just a threat to populations in Iraq, Syria and Turkey, but to populations in all countries in the world.  IS represents a threat to the accepted international order (while this order may be found repulsive on many fronts, it is the status quo under which populations have grown and may continue to grow with minimal intrustion on the sovereignty of populations, through recognized governments, over their own territory).

The U.S. government, led by the Obama administration, has determined in executing the will of the U.S. population to engage actively in the pursuit of destroying IS.  The course of action taken to date involves the use of military assets in tactical strikes against targets.  The destruction of these targets, both human and non-human, is meant to physically deny access to structures, deny ability to control territory, and psychologically deny peace of mind to IS and IS leadership.  The Obama administration has also determined to start arming moderate anti-Syrian government forces.  This second action is questionable based on messages it sends and supplies it makes available to potential enemies of the U.S. population.  But, given these courses of action what should we expect from IS?

IS leadership has told IS followers to atttack U.S. and French citizens according to an article I read today.   In other words, IS leadership has told its followers to engage in acts of terror against the U.S., France, and others joining in the effort to destroy the IS.  For my two cents this response is exactly what we should have expected.  IS pictures itself as a state, as such if recognized by other states it would be an internationally legal equal.  IS has not been recognized and so remains a non-state, transnational actor and not a legal equal.  IS also does not possess the required forces to engage in direct military confrontation against the superior military forces of the U.S., France, Canada, Australia, etc. against which it has told its followers to rise up.  When faced with asymmetry the choices of conflict behavior are limited and most of the choices will be easily categorized as acts of terror.

Should the U.S. government change the course of action it has chosen in response to IS statements and potential actions?  The simple answer is no.  If the U.S. government chooses to change its actions the choice should be based on questions raised about the usefulness and results of arming moderate rebels in their actions against the Syrian government.  I always want people to realize that if the government chooses to take armed action against any population group, "We the people" must accept our role in the decision and our responsibility for the decision, because "We the people" elect our government--whether you as an individual voted for the current officers of government or not, collectively we bear responsibility for the actions of our elected government.  If we disagree with the government decision or the likelihood of personally being targets as a result of government decisions, we should then work to remove the current officers of our government or to get those officers to reverse their course of action on our behalf.  Finally, if you do not want to be a target, then never, ever, consent to allow your government to engage in militarized actions on behalf of policy meant to represent our aims as a population.

Mars, Whoo-Hoo!!!!

I remain amazed at what God has allowed human's to acheive in the realm of science and technology. If I were not a nerd for information about human destructive behaviors, I would be a science geek--probably a physicist.  (Hat off to AJ for explaining to me the difference between nerd and geek, as a non-physical scientist I am a nerd, a biologist would be a geek).  Today the first news stories I read in the wire services and news services were all about the Maven spacecraft entering Mar orbit.  The spacecraft is there to test the atmospheric composition in hopes of determining why Mars is not warm and wet like Earth (it is supposed by tests of Mars soil and geologic features that it was once warm and wet).  Hats off to NASA folks and good luck with the atmospheric measurments.

Of course, not all that I have read, watched over the years dealing with Mars is based on scientific acheivement.  So I offer the following top 10 list of movies and books on the subject.

10.  Invaders from Mars (1986)
 9.  The Martian Chronicles (Ray Bradbury)
 8.  Mars Needs Women (1967)
 7.  Mars Attacks (1996)
 6.  Mars (Ben Bova)
 5.  War of the Worlds (H.G. Wells)
 5.  Mission to Mars (2000)
 4.  Return to Mars (Ben Bova)
 3.  Total Recall (1990)
 2.  Red Planet (2000)
and, for my two cents the best book/movie about Mars
 1.  Red Planet (Robert Heinlein)

Rethinking Battle Deaths as Metric of Armed Conflict

For the majority of the years I have been a student of and professor of the study of violent political conflict we have measured the magnitude of violent conflict on battle deaths.  We have decided primarily whether a conflict is a militarized dispute or a war based on how many uniformed deaths there are in a calendar year of conflict.  A few years back Steve Saideman pointed out an obvious oversight to me regarding categorization of violence, notably that improvements to medical treatment in the field and at front area medical units meant more survivors that would have been deaths in previous decades.  Also, if a conflict is a civil war or other intrastate conflict, uniformed battle deaths only occur on one side of the conflict.

Today I was perusing Political Violence @ a Glance and was greeted by this piece by Tanisha Fazal. Fazal echoes thoughts that Saideman first voiced to me a few years back.  She breaks down four reasons for lower death rates in conflict zones and suggests that we may need to redesign our measurement of magnitude of violent political conflict to consider what we can compare and cannot compare.  For my two cents, Fazal is correct, it is time to redesign the measures and reconsider whether or not battle deaths is the best sign of conflict magnitude in the contemporary era.   

Scotland or Great Britain

Oh my dear Scotland, beware what you get when you give way to the thinking of Macbeth:

"From this moment the very firstlings of my heart shall be the firstlings of my hand"

Scotland is headed to its referendum next week.  All seems sensible that rather than violence we have democratic process in place to determine the future of Scottish independence.  But, Scotland be wary, if you do not accept the gifts of greater autonomy offered by Great Britain, what does happen to such things as currency, status in the EU, national debt, etc?

Should the Scots assume that the greater portion of North Sea oil revenue is suddenly theirs?  Should Scots assume that they will not be saddled by a share of the national debt of Great Britain when they declare their independence?  Oh nationalism come to us again, cause us to have strange dreams, lead us in devious paths.

For my two cents, take the autonomy, cook up some more haggus, and enjoy a good dose of Islay single malt.

What to Do With IS

What should the U.S. government do on behalf of the citizens of the U.S. about the Islamic State?  President Obama is supposed to explain his plan on Tuesday and Wednesday in meetings with congressional leaders from both parties and a speech on the eve of the anniversary of September 11, 2001.   I believe the issue raises a number of very interesting questions for the study of conflict management.

First, what is IS?  The Islamic State is a movement that by its name calls itself a government.  By its actions IS is trying to rule over western Syria and eastern Iraq.  By its actions it poses a threat to Syrians and Iraqis who are non Sunni, as well as a potential threat to Turks and Kurds.  Indeed anyone in the general area of their operation and claims of control who does not accept their particular political, religious, and social doctrines is currently in peril of existence.  To become the government over a population within a territory and receive recognition from other states is how the system recognizes/determines what states exist in the system.  Remember that even the U.S. had to receive recognition from other states after declaring independence from the United Kingdom.  Normal procedure to the birth of a state does not include a formal declaration of independence but does historically involve some group of people claiming representation over a larger population and this happens within the framework of a geographic space that is almost guaranteed (we could question this element in the case of Antarctica) to not be without government or population already in place.

The second question is does the U.S. population want IS to become a recognized state?  I would say does the U.S. government want to recognize IS, but the U.S. government is supposed to do what "We the People" desire it to do.  As a population we can have any number of reasons why or why not to desire our government to recognize IS.  Our reasons could be matters of ideology, beliefs about what other governments/populations we support and desire to continue supporting, matters of financial interest, etc.  In determining foreign policy, the U.S. government should, I would argue, consider all of these possible reasons for why to support or not support recognition of IS.  Currently, I would argue, that we have alliance, financial, and security reasons (before even delving into social, religious, etc. reasons) for expecting our government to oppose IS.

The third question is how to operationalize the decision to support/oppose IS as a state.  I would argue, again, that we have chose to oppose IS and our government is responsive to that choice.  For my two cents it is at the point of how to oppose that things get interesting.  How do you fight IS when IS is fighting against another government that we have opposed?  The Assad regime in Syria will be greatly assisted by any and all efforts on our part to destroy IS.  Also, non-state actors we oppose in northern and eastern Syria that are connected to other terrorist bases would be positively impacted by our destroying IS.  So, I await with some interest the game plan about how to thwart IS without assisting other state and non-state actors in the region that we do not wish to support.

Truly Amazing Stuff Happens

Came across this gem while perusing news wires this am.  

For my two cents, an all provident God has saved this man to tell his story and for some greater purpose.  I never cease to be amazed by stories of people who survive ordeals such as the one Ali Hussein Kadhim survived.  I hope that governments around the world will take note and realize the depraved nature of the IS forces.

New Semester, New Issues, Same Old Issues

At last, the new semester starts.  Great, new semesters mean new issues so I do not get bored, for a few months anyway.  However, the new semester brought with it many of the same old issues of starting a new semester, including consuming my time and limiting my ability to blog about what I am reading, doing, thinking.

A quick update on life, went to APSA annual meeting last week.  I survived the great fire of 2014 at the Marriott Wardman Park, and no, I did not light it.  Dan Drezner has an interesting piece on the fire available here.  The conference was good, talked to interesting people about some interesting research.  Talked to more interesting people about grad schools, etc.  Visited with some grads from the department of Politcal Science here at GCC--good to see you all.

Little League Football season is underway, my boys are both playing.  The oldest even earned a starting spot at center for one game this season (they are 3 games in at the moment).  The youngest is still learning that offensive and defensive linemen do not do the same thing.  Great fun in the Saturday afternoon sun, rain, wind that goes on into the early evening hours.

Football in general has started.  Roll Tide Roll !!!!!!!!!!!!!  The Tide did not look absolutely fabulous on defense, but did have two RBs gain over 100 yards on less than 20 carries each and a first time starting QB throw for over 250 yards.  GCC kicks off the season at 1:30 tomorrow vs. Juniata---GO WOLVERINES!!!!

Will try to resume some normal blogging soon.  

Mutually Exclusive Answer Categories and Ferguson, MO

Perusing the news wire services I came across an article discussing the following poll results



As I looked at the poll, I found nothing very surprising in the results.  Then I looked at the question and the answer categories.  I find a big problem with the answer categories.  Any student who has been in my Research Methods in Political Science and paid any attention to the discussion and readings regarding survey research questions, knows that answer categories need to be mutually exclusive.  In the case of this survey can I reasonably believe that the shooting raises important issues about race AND race is getting too much attention?  The answer to my question is yes.

I believe the shooting raises questions about police policy and procedure in Ferguson, MO and about the racial composition of the police force of Ferguson, MO.  Can a nearly all white police force truly represent/defend the local community security concerns in a community that is majority black?  What opportunity for empathy with racial/ethnic histories exists within a police force that does not racially/ethnically represent the majority of the community which it is designed to serve?  I have serious qualms about the ability of that police force to serve that community because of race issues, indeed important issues about race are found in this particularly troubling event.

I also believe that race is receiving too much attention in the aftermath of the event.  I believe this to the extent that anyone, regardless of race should receive the same consideration under the law.  If (very big IF) the police office inolved in the shooting had legitimate reason for use of deadly force (stop it, stop it, stop it all of you who are saying I am waffling here) then so be it.  Do we know if the officer had reason to use deadly force--NO.  We have speculation, limited pathological findings, and upset friends and relatives (on both sides) spewing vehemently in opposition to one another.  We have a community up in arms about the failure of the police to be forthcoming about the event.  We have a police force faced with violent behavior that the police respond to based on years of training.  If you throw molotov cocktails at the police during a demonstration, they will likely use tear gas, batons, and other force to disperse you.  If you throw rocks at the police, they might even taze you or fire rubber bullets into a crowd containing rock throwers.  Do police respond properly?  Maybe, maybe not, but that response has nothing to do with race.

So, for my two cents, the survey is designed to provoke commentary and thought.  The survey question is not accompanied by quality answer set because it lacks mutual exclusivity.  We get the thoughtfulness and commentary stuff, but please ask questions correctly. 

Japanese Stealth Fighter

Something about fighter aircraft always catches my eye when I am perusing news stories.  I have always been enamored of fast, hot-looking aircraft, and have a great appreciation for what they bring to combat. Seeing an article entitled "Japan to test first homegrown stealth fighter jet: report" in the AFP wire grabbed my attention.  I have been following changes in Japanese defense policy with particular interest since April of this year and first talked about it in my blog on May 30. 

To recap, in April the Japanese announced that Japanese troops might be used in defense of military operations by allies of Japan.  In May the Japanese announced they would begin exporting Japanese arms and components to allies in Asia (not just to the U.S. and other Western governments).  Throughout this spring and summer we have seen an increase in tensions between Japan and China over islands in the East China Sea.  The Chinese apparently developed a stealth figher which shows elements of F-22 and F-35 designs probably stolen by the Chinese in 2007.

For my two cents, this latest development should not surprise anyone.  The Japanese have committed themselves to an expansion of what "defensive" force means under Article 9 of their constitution.  Combine the redefining of "defense" with increased air activity over the East China Sea and the possession of stealth aircraft by the Chinese and the Japanese action is reasonable.  The question is the same now as all year for the Japanese; is expansion of use of Japanese military force, expansion of arms exports, and now the development of stealth technology in aircraft "defensive"?  No need for alarm either, for now keep it all in perspective.  Japan's move does not appear to be a gambit in an arms race, though I would expect the Chinese government through some office to potentially claim Japan is trying to start an arms race.

Nagorno-Karabakh; Why Now?

In case you missed the news, which I almost did, while focusing on Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, and a multitude of other conflicts around the world, The Armenians and Azerbaijanis are fighting again in the South Caucuses. The death toll is less than 20 as of the latest report I have read.  Nagorno-Karabakh has been under the control of Armenia and local Armenian militia since the end of heavy fighting for control of the region in 1994.


(map courtesy of wikipedia.org)

Typical of many ethnically fueled conflicts, both sides blame the other for initiation of hostilities.  Interestingly though, neither government seems to want to escalate hostilities.  Also, neither government seems to be really willing to meet and discuss the issue of control or to be beholden to Russia to broker peace.  The government of Azerbaijan, led by Ilham Aliyev, has stated in recent months that they are capable of militarily taking Nagorno-Karabakh by force and Aliyev is currently ignoring Russian requests to meet with Putin in Sochi to discuss the issue.

So, why the hostility now?  For my two cents, the hostility is most likely the product of local commanders making poor, snap judgement decisions and not a direct result of a desire to change the current status quo by force on the part of either government.  Given the statements of the Aliyev government keeping our eyes open on this trouble spot is wise, and I hope I am right that this latest incident will not be a spark to renewed larger scale hostilities.

Again Thinking Bullpup

Always looking at new and interesting bullpup designs.  This one by Desert Tech reminds me a little of the Israeli Tavor (a model I do like).  So, hey maybe I could be persuaded to look closer since it does come in 7.62x51 NATO.

Shameless Personal Advertisement

For my interested readers in the area, I'll be on Night Talk: Get to the Point Friday August 1st as part of a panel of local academics discussing current events.  The program is live from 8 to 9 pm on PCNC.  Looking forward to hearing the thoughts of my fellow panel members.

Foreign Policy "Creation" or "Zen"

I, like most international relations/security studies folks, have been following the events in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza with great interest.  I make no claim of special knowledge and fact.  I do, however, have my own opinions regarding the facts (thanks Daniel Patrick Moynihan for the great statement).  Human opinions regarding facts and what the facts indicate for the future is what truly drives the development of foreign policy.  In thinking about how I would recommend the U.S. government should respond to the facts (particularly in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, but also thinking about North Korean statements, Chinese actions/statements, continued unrest in Libya, South Sudan, and I can go on with the list), I found some interesting commentary in the last few days provided by Daniel Drezner (here is the Drezner Link) and Josh Busby (here is Busby Link).   I recommend to everyone a quick perusal of these articles.

For my own two cents, I caution people to remember that taking the long arching view of humanity and ideological growth in our world does not mean isolationism.  The "Zen" crowd might be wary of taking hasty actions, but this does not equate to inaction.  Structural realists generally believe that you must determine which interests are the most important (the interests are facts, which ones are most important are opinion) and act on those specific important interests.  In other words, do not sweat the small stuff, do not run off to fight battles that do not need to be fought just because someone offers you a battle.

Further, I caution against being hard on the "Reality Creators".  The proponents of this view (neoconservatives and liberal internationalists) are also looking at facts.  In the opinion of reality creators the facts justify/warrant/demand immediate action.  Busby says that there is room to manuever between the two positions and he is, in my opinion, correct.  So, read up, enjoy and use these ideas to figure out your own opinion regarding the facts we are presented and the appropriate responses.  Makes for good arguments over good cigars.

CAR Ceasefire?

Seeing a headline that said rebels signed ceasefire agreement in the Central African Republic caused me momentary happiness this morning.  Then I read the accompanying story.  The rebel leader signing the ceasefire agreement was Mohamed Moussa Dhaffane, a Seleka general who split with the leadership of the Seleka movement last year.  Recently Michel Djotodia, the Seleka leader who took the presidency of CAR after the Seleka uprising and then abused the population greatly before being forced into exile in January of 2014 has been reinstated as the head of Seleka.  Named as Djotodia's two deputies are Nourredine Adam and Dhaffane.

For my two cents regarding the veracity of the commitment, I'll wait and see.  I am not so happy as I was because the agreement was signed by Dhaffane and not Djotodia or all three of the Seleka leaders.  The problem is that Djotodia and Adam are both under sanction by the UN and arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court exist for both Djotodia and Adam.  The threat of arrest for former government leaders by the ICC and by courts claiming human rights jurisdiction beyond their own borders (remember that European state courts have tried to arrest several former leaders of countries other than their own for human rights abuses--think about the Spanish judge ordering the arrest of Pinochet for crimes against humanity while Pinochet was in England for medical treatment) hampers the ability for all relevant parties to be part of a negotiated settlement.  Djotodia and Adam cannot be included in the negotiations because of fear of arrest--this is problem number one with this ceasefire agreement.  Problem number two, Dhaffane split with the leadership of Seleka last year.  I realize he has been named one of the deputies this year, but does his view regarding the ceasefire equal the view of the entire leadership of Seleka?  

Territorial Sovereignty--South China Sea Edition

As I keep track of the South China Sea disputes between ten states I remain constantly amazed at the Chinese rhetoric regarding territorial sovereignty.  The latest statements from the Chinese Foreign Ministry claim "irrefutable sovereignty"* over the Spratly Islands.  For my two cents a slight problem exists with this statement by the Chinese government.

*China's Foreign Ministry repeated that it had irrefutable sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, where most of the competing claims overlap, and that China continued to demand the immediate withdrawal of personnel and equipment of countries which were "illegally occupying" China's islands.

Can any sovereignty over territory exist in an "irrefutable state" if other Westphalian recognizable entities make claim on the same territory?  Legal equality of sovereigns (states) dictates that states are able to govern without interference over the population within the territory recognized as belonging to the population being governed.  I have always favored the recognition of that idea of sovereignty as I would not like foreign governments dictating to my own government how to govern my behavior.  In fact, the thought of most European governments actions toward their own citizens and control over their citizens' behaviors makes me cringe, and these are considered democratic governments.  But who recognizes states and the territory over which a state is sovereign?  The simple answer is other states.

If other states do not recognize a state's right to rule over the population in a certain territory is the sovereignty irrefutable?  The Philippine government can make the same claim as the Chinese government as can the Vietnamese government as can the Sultan of Brunei (and I could go on here with the list).  So, obviously the sovereignty is not irrefutable and Chinese rhetoric on the issue is not going to help settle the issue.  Continued unilateral attempts to settle the issue can only be based on coercive action.  Will non-regional states allow coercive action to settle the issue of sovereignty over the South China Sea?  China is also telling the non-regional actors to stay out.*

*China "hopes that countries outside the region strictly maintain their neutrality, clearly distinguish right from wrong and earnestly respect the joint efforts of countries in the region to maintain regional peace and stability"...

This last statement leaves me confused.  Apparently non-regional states are supposed to be neutral.  What does that mean about the actual regional claimants to the territory?  This statement means regional actors are not expected to be neutral, and that fact belies the Chinese claim of irrefutable sovereignty.

Why Hamas Escalated Now

Hey, I believe in being even handed.  Good piece regarding Hamas' reasons for escalating in Political Violence @ a Glance.  My thoughts on the matter tend to echo those of the author (Allison Hodgkins).  For my two cents, Hamas cannot appear to be simply another Fatah.  Hamas must maintain credibility of its effort to be the leaders of the Palestinian cause and has chosen this moment as the right time to escalate.  Hamas is also not particularly willing to listen to Egypt at the moment because the current government of Egypt is the one that removed a Hamas friendly regime from power.  

------------------

Why Hamas Escalated, When Before They Didn’t

by politicalviolenceataglance on July 15, 2014

By Allison Beth Hodgkins

Just a short while ago it seemed that the Islamic militant group Hamas had everything to gain by moderation and had little interest in escalating tensions with Israel. As I wrote previously on this blog, Egyptian president Morsi’s ouster was a disaster for Hamas. Since late last year, Egypt’s crackdown on the tunnels into Gaza and loss of support left Hamas struggling to pay the salaries of its civil servants and witnessing a slide in public opinion polls. The unity deal not only gave Hamas a bump in the polls, but also promised financial relief and the prospect of improved access to the Rafah crossing with Egypt. Of course, all these incentives were dependent on maintaining quiet. 

And then we have the kidnapping and murder of three teenage Israeli settlers in the West Bank, an uptick in rocket fire, this July 4th screed to warn of hellfire and brimstone and then, as of July 7, 2014, Hamas made good on the promises in their most recent screed and lobbed there rockets as far as the outskirts of Jerusalem. And as Israeli airstrikes drove up the number of Palestinian dead, Hamas, almost gleefully, warned airlines to stay clear of Israel’s Ben Gurion airport.

 So what gives? After upholding a ceasefire agreement for almost two years and swallowing the crow sandwich that was the unity deal, why let loose and risk it all just for the pleasure of proving what big rockets they have?

At the risk of sounding Kerry-esque, the simple truth is that Hamas was against escalation until it was for it. The chain of events since those teens were seized en-route from Jerusalem has steadily eroded Hamas’ room to maneuver and backed it, inexorably, into a corner where it had to chose between the Russian roulette of escalation and irrelevance. It chose the former — a high stakes gamble to reclaim the mantle of resistor in chief on behalf of the struggle and shore up its tenuous stake in the Palestinian marketplace.

To a large degree, Shlomi Eldar gets it mostly right here when he says that Hamas’ main objective is to avoid looking like a defeated movement. What it really can’t afford to look like is a religiously conservative version of Fatah: weak, ineffective and seen as trading a continued hold on power for continued occupation. While the business of governing the fractious Gaza Strip has forced Hamas to make compromises in order to pay the bills and keep the sewage from overflowing, these compromises have required enforcing the November 2012 ceasefire on all the resistance factions in the strip. This is no easy task in good times (or not so bad times), but with the popular mood turning from generally irritated to downright irate, groups like Islamic Jihad, the PFLP and other new challengers smell blood in the water.

According to this very convoluted report, there was a meeting in Gaza around July 2nd in which Hamas apparently tried to convince the various armed factions to uphold the truce. They failed. The other factions in the meeting saw no reason to uphold a truce, especially since the newly formed government of national consensus decided not to pay the salaries of Gazan civil servants as supposedly promised in the unity deal. The street wanted escalation and so they would have it, calls for moderation be damed.

The IDF claims that there were around 5 or so rockets being fired out of Gaza on a daily basis throughout the month of June. Those rockets appear to have been of the limited range variety. From July 1, the number of rockets increases slightly: to 10, 15, 20 and finally 40, however the range is the same. This pattern concurs with the assertion that the early round of missiles was largely the work of the PFLP or other factions with less firepower and an interest in demonstrating their resistance bonafides. It is not until July 7, after Israel struck a tunnel and killed 7 Hamas militants that Hamas unleashed its long-range arsenal and the overall number of launches jumps to over 80.

In other words, the macabre peeing contests currently taking place is not between Israel and Hamas, nor even Hamas and the PA, but between Hamas and the rest of the resistance camp. Real resistance movements can hit Tel Aviv or threaten to close down Ben Gurion airport; the rest are short range wannabes.

As was pointed out here, the murder/kidnapping in the West Bank demonstrates the extent to which Hamas has lost control. The suggestion that attackers planned to murder the teens from the start further confirms that the objective was to incite violence, undermine the unity deal and punish Hamas for even hinting at the prospect of moderation. Hostage negotiations require calm; murder brings swift retribution. While Hamas may have initially tried to manage the pace and scope of escalation, as the spiral of tit-for-tat increased in size and frequency, it came out of the corner swinging.

This escalation is a high-stakes, high-risk gamble made in effort to disprove its weakness, reassert control over its ranks and distance itself from chargers it has sold out in the interest of money and power like its Fatah rivals. There is also a ‘use it or lose it’ element to the rocket strikes. Most of this material, especially the long range stuff, was smuggled in overland from Sudan via Sinai. With a new regime in control in Egypt, that road is closed. As Israel’s strikes into the strip grew more ferocious, Hamas probably calculated they best launch them before they were vaporized. 

In the end, this gamble may pay off. The Hamas leadership is aware that neitherNetanyahu, President Sisi, nor President Obama want to see an all-out ground war in Gaza. All indications are that a ceasefire will be brokered before it gets to that point. Of course, in the fog and friction that currently has hold over the densely populated strip, neither side may be able to prevent the whirlwind they have sown.

Nevertheless, when a ceasefire is eventually reached — which it will be at the end of the day — Israel far prefers Hamas to chaos, and Hamas may gain access to the border and other perks, like the re-release of re-arrested prisoners that it can claim as the fruits of its righteous struggle. If such an outcome is on the account of a few hundred Palestinian civilians, so be it. Resistance after all, is a sacred endeavor, especially when it raises market share.

On Egypt's Role in Israel-Palestine Dispute

Got the following via email from an Ely Karmon.  Met Ely in 2010 at a counter-terrorism seminar.  The interesting thing to me is that Israeli leaders do seem to be willing to find a ceasefire solution.  Ely, as you will read below, thinks the only long-term full solution is one that is unworkable because of the high costs associated with the action (both human and political).  So, Ely sensibly lays out from an Israeli perspective what Egypt can/should do to help make things work.  For my two cents, this piece is a good start for thinking about the issue from the Israeli view.  No bones about it, this is an Israeli view, not a Palestinian view, and certainly not a Hamas view.  The bigger problem may just be that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have not really worked out the details of governing Gaza.

---------------------------------------------------

At this hour, July 15 16:00, after Israel accepted the proposed ceasefire agreement brokered by Egypt and hold fire since 9 am, Hamas rejected it and poured heavy rocket fire on South, Central and even northern Israel.

Therefore Israel decided at 14:00 to resume the aerial attacks against Hamas.

 

See below my analysis of the Egyptian brokered agreement and the elements it should include in order to change the done in the Gaza Strip.

In any scenario, Egypt is and will remain the most important regional actor and it will impact on the outcome of the present conflict.

 

In an interview on July 10th I argued that:

 

The overall solution to the problem of Hamas’ aggression is to conquer the entire Gaza Strip or a large part of it, go from house to house, find and destroy all the rockets and heavy weapons held by all of the terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip.

 

However, I do not see Israel performing now such a move because of the anticipated major harm to the people of Gaza and to the Israeli soldiers and because of the harsh criticism and pressure sure to arrive from the international community after Israel will be forced to control for months and even longer a territory suffering huge from economic, social and political problems. 

 

I expressed my opinion that the Palestinian Authority, led by Abu Mazen, along with Egypt, must take over Gaza. The Palestinian Authority should be accorded a foothold in Gaza, where Israel's role is to provide ease of the blockade, more freedom to the economic activity in the Strip and freedom of movement. One must remember that Fatah still has hundreds of thousands of supporters in Gaza who are oppressed by Hamas and that there is an underground Tamarod movement, similar to the movement that helped General Sisi topple the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in July 2013.

 

Israel cannot occupy Gaza and transfer it to Abu Mazen as then he will be considered a traitor to his people.

 

The ceasefire agreement sponsored by Egypt – July 15. 2014

 

If indeed the ceasefire agreement brokered by Egypt will be accepted by Hamas, and the Islamic Jihad which is operating to a certain extent in coordination with Iran, it is imperative that it include a number of essential elements:

  

-           Immediate deployment of the Palestinian Authority’s security forces along the Gaza/Egypt border and taking control of the Rafah crossing;

-           A clause stating that the Palestinian Authority will gradually regain control of the Gaza Strip;

-          No tunnels will be opened through the Egyptian border and Egypt will be responsible for preventing weapons smuggling, alongside the Palestinian Authority, possibly while updating Israel on significant violations;

-           A clause on international supervision over the rocket arsenal in Gaza;

-           No Hamas members, released in the Gilad Shalit agreement, who were arrested lately in the West Bank, will be released if they did not comply with their release agreement;

-           The political detainees from the last operation in the West Bank will be released;

-           Israel must announce a cessation of construction in the settlements for a period of one year to improve the political atmosphere in the West Bank and allow a return to peace negotiations, even if they do not achieve immediate results;

-           Israel will have to agree to significant reliefs in the transfer of goods to and from Gaza and use its influence in the West to provide generous economic and humanitarian aid;

-           Egypt will use its influence with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to provide extensive economic aid to the Palestinian Authority as the one responsible for the rebuilding of the Strip;

-           Qatar will not be given primacy in this area because of its destructive role in helping radical Islamist parties across the Arab world.

 

Egypt’s role is crucial in the pressure on Hamas to accept this agreement and implement it. 

 

It is clear to all that Egypt has a supreme political and security interest in weakening Hamas: currently, in the trial of former President Morsi and other leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood who are charged, among other things, of escaping from prison during the first days of the revolution, Hamas is accused of providing assistance to said escape (in parenthesis, during the court hearings Morsi called out slogans from his cell supporting Palestine).

 

Egypt, in addition to the destruction of tunnels, prevented in recent days smuggling of rockets from Gaza intended for firing against Israel, while at the same time, rockets were fired in the Sinai against the Egyptian security forces. 

 

If such an agreement will come to be, one should take into account that on the propaganda and political level part of the Palestinian and Arab public opinion may perceive Hamas as the winner in the present conflict, due to its success staging massive rocket attacks towards most of Israel without suffering heavy casualties among its military/terrorist ranks and its political leaders.

 

This can express itself in the results of future elections in the Palestinian Authority, if such elections take place.

 

It will be interesting to follow the struggle between Hamas’ military wing and the political wing regarding the acceptance of the agreement terms.

 

It is also interesting if the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) will reject the agreement even if accepted by Hamas, serving thus the interests of its Iranians sponsors.

 

It is probable that Salafi and Jihadi organizations in the region (Syria, Iraq,Yemen) will also be affected by Hamas’ success, as perceived by them, and they too will try to acquire rockets to further their goals or deter the countries fighting them.

 

 

Ely Karmon, PhD

Senior Research Scholar

International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) and

The Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) at

The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC(

Herzlyia, Israel