Finding Palestinians (particularly the Jordanian variety) among al-Qaeda is nothing new, but over the last two days it seems that the network's infrastructure in Gaza has finally organized into a distinct group according to media reports. Called Jundallah, the majority of its members consist of former Hamas and Islamic Jihad members who decided that the other groups were "too moderate" for their liking.
Jundallah, not surprisingly, denies any connections to al-Qaeda but does adopt a far more strident line with respect to carrying out attacks on US targets (Hamas usually tries to skirt this issue with a "Maybe we will, maybe we won't" kind of approach) and refuses to accept any kind of truce or cease-fire with Israel.
To be fair, accusations about al-Qaeda activity in the Gaza Strip are nothing new - Sharon mentioned them in 2002 following the failed attack on the El Al airliner in Mombasa, Kenya, but the general consensus at the time had been that whatever infrastructure the network had in the area was pretty spread out, in large part because most Palestinian Islamists who would normally be attracted al-Qaeda tend to join Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades instead for a variety of reasons. Now that all of the major terrorist groups seem more interested in establishing and securing their own power base post-Arafat rather than attacking Israelis, al-Qaeda appears to have been able to exploit the situation by recruiting any disaffected members who happen to cross their path.
This makes good sense for the terrorist network for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that there is no easier way to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the people who constitute bin Laden's "base" (for lack of a better term) than by attacking Israelis. This was pretty much the rationale behind Saddam Hussein attacking Israel during the Gulf War and there is a certain kind of strategic wisdom to the approach, particularly since Jundallah, unlike Iraq during the Gulf War, is not likely to be subject to a conventional Israeli military assault.
With the Palestinian Authority security forces still struggling to get out of the Soviet-esque pattern of interlocking and overlapping areas of jurisdiction set up by Arafat to keep them struggling against one another, Jundallah is highly unlikely to get much flak from the PA either.
The establishment of Jundallah would also seem a fairly ideal base from which to support any renewed al-Qaeda efforts in Egypt. The well-documented arms smuggling trade into the Gaza Strip from Egypt can presumably work both ways and with the recent attacks there it seems to me that Gaza would make as good of a logistics base/transit hub for any future attacks that bin Laden or al-Zawahiri would seek to implement there. In addition, just by its existence Jundallah eliminates a major criticism of bin Laden's support for the Intifada as far as the claim that he won't put his money where his mouth is goes.
The elimination of Jundallah, therefore, should become a top priority for the Israelis assuming that it isn't already.
We've seen how difficult and deadly even the smallest (anybody want to go back to September 2001 when the only hint of Islamism in northern Iraq was a few hundred guys called Jund al-Islam?) or the most inept (witness some of the clashes between the Pattani Thai rebels and the authorities were in the opening months of the conflict) of these affiliate groups can be if they're allowed to take root. They are, as Jonathan Schanzer explains in his book, nothing less than al-Qaeda's armies and they must be put down one way or another to prevent them from doing harm to others.
With the Palestinian Authority security forces still struggling to get out of the Soviet-esque pattern of interlocking and overlapping areas of jurisdiction set up by Arafat to keep them struggling against one another....
Strangely benign reasoning of the "But their hearts are really in the right place" variety.
Almost as quaint as those Hamas "We'll teach you a thing or two, Abu Mazen, and show you what we think of you and your democracy" rocket (et al.) attacks on Israel targets.
As pretexts go, they're just so...beautifully crafted!
These newcomers, and the challenges (and opportunities they present) may offer reasons 11 and maybe 12 for why PA security forces may want to start jumping ship. Whether that would be a good thing or not is very hard to tell. If you're interested, I compiled reasons 1-10 for PA security members to consider retirement
Unlikely to happen. That would inflame tensions. And yes, the Israeli gov't would prefer Israelis to be killed through their own inaction, than send in soldiers to kill the bastards in question.
Here's a recent example.
Barry Meislin:
I don't think that anyone disputes that Arafat set up a lot of competing and in many cases overlapping security forces in order to prevent any one Fatah commander from gaining the necessary manpower it would have taken to overthrow him. His successors and would-be successors are still in the process of consolidating control of these security forces, which is something that they simply speaking must do if they want to establish themselves as major players.
Colt:
Right now Jundallah is in its formative stages, which means it'll be easiest to kill them now. Waiting seems to me to offer no real benefits, so the Israeli government needs to take care of them now or somebody inject enough iron into the spine of the reigning Fatah thug in Gaza for him to do the same. The alternative is waiting and allowing Jundallah to become entrenched, which I think will make them all the major difficult to knock off in the long run.
Maybe the Egyptians will be able to take care of them when they assume oversight of Gaza.
Is Arafat unwilling to control the terror (or freedom fighting, or whatever you want to call it)? Or is he unable?
(Sound familiar?)
But then, Israel never provided Arafat with an incentive strong enough to control it (according to the nabobs in the know). And so, we'll never know the answer to that one, at least as it's been formulated. The only thing one has to know is that Israel is responsible for not providing the incentive and for therefore prolonging the violence. Which makes the question, as formulated, a true non sequitur (or rather, merely a cynical attempt by supporters of Israel to distract the world from Israel's responsibility for the conflict).
Is Abbas unwilling to control the terror (or freedom fighting, or whatever you want to call it)? Or is he unable?
But then, Israel isn't providing Abbas with an incentive strong enough to control it (according to the nabobs in the know). And so, the terror has every "justification" to continue. And Israel continues to be the responsible party.
All Abbas has to do is to say that he wants to control (or "consolidate") all those terrorists (or freedom fighters). And maybe make a few public gestures in that direction to show that he means business (or rather that he'd like to mean business if only Israel would let him and the US would give him enough cash). Meanwhile, all that has to happen is that the terrorists (or freedom fighters) continue to do "their thing," showing, proving that Abbas is not able to do what he claims he'd so much like to.
And why isn't Abbas able to control (or "consolidate") all those rogue(?) elements? One guess (and it begins with an "I"). Yes, that's right. Israel is not doing enough to support Abbas. Israel is not doing enough to show it's serious about peace. Israel is not releasing enough prisoners. Israel is still killing Arabs. Israel is going to withdraw from Gaza. Israel is not going to withdraw from Gaza. Israel is going to withdraw from Gaza but not coordinate the withdrawal with Abbas. Israel is...is not.... is.... After all, we all know that Abbas faces treeeeeemendous pressures and needs Israel to demonstrate that the Palestinians will receive something commensurate with everything that the Palestinians have given Israel so far (or about to give Israel! Or would like to give Israel, except that, well....)
They say that where there's a will, there's a way. Will for what?, though, should be the question.
And this scam has been so successful for so long that there's very little reason why it should stop. And every reason why it should continue (I know; I'm repeating myself).
And Abbas is on his way to DC for more support and to demand the cash he and his people need to show that they're serious about making peace.
As opposed to Israel, which is going out of its way to prevent it.
#5 Dan Darling
In practice, that means airstrikes and/or military incursions.* The example I gave in post #4 was the leader of an established cell, who had sent suicide bombers to Tel Aviv. The Israeli government isn't about to 'inflame regional tensions' in order to destroy a nascent terror group that hasn't killed anyone yet.
Look, the Israeli government has put world (read: American) opinion before the welfare of their citizens for a long time now. 'Confidence building measures', 'peace processes', whatever. Bush was 'deeply troubled' when Israel killed Rantisi, and the U.S. habitually condemns Israeli CT operations. Why? Because Israeli CT operations harm the PLO, which pushes back the possibility of a PLO state. Frankly it is a little rich to now expect Israel to do to an as-yet inactive terrorist group that the U.S. has demanded Israel not do to the groups who have murdered so many of its citizens. A little rich, but alas predictable.
*Gaza is a rat's nest. The IDF cannot send in their SF disguised as Arabs, as they do in Judea and Samaria, and expect them not to get stuck in a Mogadishu-lite fight.)
Strengthen the moderate terrorists?
Another recent example: PM Sharon okayed gestures to PA despite renewed shelling, over the objections of the Shin Bet.
Why do this?
The decision to approve these steps now is also related to Abbas' planned visit to Washington Thursday. Thereby, Sharon hopes to deflect Abbas' expected complaint to U.S. President George W. Bush that Israel is not helping him.
Release convicted terrorists, import known terrorists, move experienced terrorists to areas where Israel is winning...
This is from the article, not my comment:
Sorry to go on. Fatah being 'someone we can work with' is a pet peeve. The U.S. wouldn't agree to work with a group like Fatah if, every so often, their people blew up a bus in New York or killed a few Marines.
Colt:
The way I see it, the Fatah fascisti that make up their security forces (and I believe the brownshirts and the terrorists are in different segments of Fatah) have as much to fear from Jundallah as anybody else in the vicinity - last I checked, bin Laden still has the "kill" order out for Abbas. So either they can break Jundallah or they can have Israel do it for them. They keep on assuring everyone how wonderful things would be if they were just given a state, here's their chance to prove that they can exercise one of the most fundamental criteria, that whole sovereignty thing.
That's just not true, I'm afraid.
If Fatah killed off Jundallah, all that would prove - by ommission of action - is that they can get on fine with Hamas, PIJ, the Popular Resistance Committees, etc. Either that, or they're too weak to take them on.
More likely, though, they won't do anything. And nor will Israel. That's the peace process for ya.
What I meant was that the brownshirts are used against internal dissent while the terrorists are focused outwards against Israelis. A show of force against Jundallah would prove the very thing that Israel has claimed all along - that the PA can eliminate terrorist groups if they want to - while simultaneously removing an organization that poses as much a threat to them as they do to the Israelis.
Unfortunately, I think you're right that apathy is the most likely Palestinian reaction ...