From Debka File, so take it with a grain of salt because it might just be provocation:
DEBKAfile’s military sources reveal that last week, US and Israel transferred a quantity of automatic rifles to Abu Mazen’s Fatah forces
December 17, 2006, 8:14 AM (GMT+02:00)
The guns reached Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan who handed them over to the faction’s suicide wing, al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, Abbas’ only reliable strike force. Dahlan is now in command of the armed campaign against Hamas from presidential headquarters in Ramallah. Israeli officials are turning a blind eye to transfer of the arms into the hands of the most badly-wanted masterminds of Fatah suicide killings, such as Jemal Tirawi from Nablus.
Wouldn’t exactly be surprising, though.
During the past few months, I’ve seen several stories in the Israeli media of Israel and the United States arming Abbas for a possible confrontation with Hamas.
Okay, everyone relax. This story is not new, and the American efforts to train and equip Palestinian security forces have never been secret. The efforts are headed up by Gen. Keith Dayton, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that since the Americans are legally prohibited from working with Hamas, the forces they are training are those of Fatah. This is all part of the public record.
Now the reality is that if civil war breaks out in the territories, the Fatah forces will largely be American-equipped and American-trained. But that’s not because the U.S. is suddenly taking sides — the programs to train the PA security forces pre-date this year’s Hamas electoral victory.
For an unsensational article on Dayton (with, unfortunately, a sensational headline), check out Ha’aretz from six weeks ago: (There are better articles out there, but this was the first I found)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/781482.html
This program is old news? IIRC, Andrew, you were very sceptical when the Guardian reported this several weeks ago and argued that Hamas had a politicial agenda in accusing the Americans of funding Fatah forces (and the Guardian of low standards in reporting the story). Which one is it, then?
Andrew, it would be no surprise if we were talking about Fatah’s Presidential Guard, which was expressly created to protect Mahmoud Abbas and surround him by Dahlan/US loyalists. I think Egyptians are involved in the training too.
But this article talks about the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, the Fatah offshoot that among other things carry out suicide bombing and appear on the State Dept. list of foreign terrorist organization. Does this mean that General Dayton is arming and training terrorists? Let’s report him to Homeland Security.
My worry is — and this is a habitual worry, the same one I expressed in the post to which SP alluded — that legal, open, and known American programs go through the “muwamarat” ringer and suddenly, in the popular imagination, the US is secretly and *deliberately* funding terror. For a conspiracy to gain any traction, there has to be a grain of truth there. The grain, in this case, is that the US *is* in fact arming and training security forces (who, I admit, could someday become party to a civil war in the territories). That — once again — is a known fact, part of a long-standing US program, and in the public record.
What sets me off is that — if a guy like Dahlan decides to give those weapons away to a “terror group” like the Al-Aqsa Marytrs — some of you guys seize upon these stories (or rumors in this case) as evidence the US is cynically funding terror in an effort to check the influence of Hamas.
The reason this frustrates me so is that I’ve seen — on the ground, from personal experiences — the way in which well-meaning and entirely bona fide military aid programs can go wrong. For example: do you have any idea how many of the weapons issued by the U.S. to the Iraqi military have ended up in the hands of insurgents or Shia death squads? Does anyone care to take a guess? Right — lots. But does this mean the U.S. is “funding” the death squads or the insurgency? Well, in the strictest sense, I guess it does. But in practical terms, no. Nonetheless, if you ask the guy on the streets of Baghdad who is behind the attacks, he’ll tell you America (so the U.S. can justify the occupation and steal Iraq’s oil) or, inevitably, the Jews.
With all due respect to Issandr, I think the reason he posts these rumors (the original post said to take it “with a grain of salt”) is because of his complete lack of trust for any American program in the Middle East (which I, regretably, partially understand) but also a lack of any experience from the other side of the coin — that is, from within the American military or political (USAID, for example) groups in the region.
Based on my experience, things like weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists result from one of two things: a) incompetence and a lack of accountability or b) an evil plan to ruin the world. 99.9% of the time, it’s “a.”
We’re usually not smart enough to even think up a “b.”
If it’s a legal, open and known program that aids a faction within a political territory that has been fighting another faction, can the US really claim to not be taking sides in what could be a civil war?
What happened to the famed American strictness about “funding terror” even at several degrees of separation, I mean a little old biddy who gives money to her local mosque which may end up going to armed groups in Palestine can be held accountable but you’d have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the problems associated with the US continuing military aid to a party that has lost one side of the government in elections and is now trying to strong-arm and squeeze those who defeated them? I’d respect the US a bit more if they were honest about the fact that they were taking sides instead of couching the issue in a generalized program to train security forces.
Andrew, I think there’s a more subtle explanation: c) a deliberate policy of arming one side of a conflict for political reasons even though it might be morally wrong or even illegal under US law. It’s not either an evil plan for world domination or a mistake. The arming of various South American right-wing militias or of bin Laden and friends in Afghanistan comes to mind.
This case is quite different fromt the mistakes made in Iraq in a) arming some factions (e.g. Chalabi’s) at the beginning of the war and b) not securing the former regime’s weapons caches fast enough. Perhaps I’m a conspiracy theorist, but the US plan to arm Dahlan’s people had a purpose: since it was not to fight Israel, it was obviously to fight Hamas and other radical groups.
Besides, I don’t think you should divorce individual programs such as a training agreement from the bigger picture: the US is helping Israel to perpetuate the occupation of Palestine while arming one particular group it wants in power and while helping the military imbalance between Palestinians and Israel. And since January while backing sanctions to starve the Palestinian people in hope they’ll rethink their electoral choice. Forgive me if I don’t admire the program.
It appears the article has been taken down. Probably by Mossad.
SP, I think the US *has* been honest about taking sides in that we don’t even talk to Hamas. That seems like a pretty clear message to me. Actively and cynically arming a side is another matter, but we’ve certainly taken sides in at least one sense. But what’s interesting is that if you talk to the American people on the ground, many of them would love to be able to talk to Hamas. But the US Congress keeps passing laws (another last week) that makes it progressively harder for Americans to work with any Palestinians who aren’t Fatah. In the 1990s, US negotiators were prohibited from talking to the PLO — even though they knew the Israelis were! So blame politics in DC, not General Dayton.
Regarding Issandr’s post, I simply don’t have the time or the intellect to frame this debate within the larger context of US support for Israel and the greater Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I’m just not smart enough, so I won’t even try. 🙂 I *do* think you can talk about individual policies without linking everything to the big picture, though. Why? Because I don’t think the US has a clear strategy in the region (instead we have “principles” — like our support for Israel — which should not be confused with strategy), and in the absence of a strategy, it’s hard to link anything we’re doing on the ground to a bigger picture.
You know who *does* have a strategy for the region? Iran. And unlike me and George W. Bush, they’re smart. So why is it that we never talk about *their* role in the region? They, after all, are arming Hamas and Hizbollah — and paying Khaled Meshal vast sums in Damascus so he won’t trade back Gilad Shalit. Is *that* in the best interests of the Palestinians? And is it possible for a non-American or non-European power to be an “empire” in the way that we always accuse America of being? I’m open to comments…
So the US is arming/funding the faction of the Palestinians they prefer… I am shocked, shocked! I fail to see the issue to debate about. Now much more interesting is if they start taking this how-to-deal-with-civil-war attitude to the situation in Iraq. Imagine if they really start arming one side, the 80 percent solution, getting the weapons direct into the hands of the Shia that can really use them. THEN you’ve got something to debate about. Just might solve that whole problem over there… though there would be a lot less people in certain provinces.
very nice posts, Andrew
What a depressing thought, Paul. Every time I hear the “80 percent” solution here in DC (which, thankfully, isn’t often), I think of the “final solution.” Today, after all, there are about the same number of Sunni Arabs left in Iraq (6 million — over a million have already fled) as there were Jews killed in the Shoah. I shudder to think what would happen if the US, in effect, endorsed ethnic cleansing in Iraq.
For an only marginally less depressing story, check out my op-ed in today’s Daily Star about the training of the Iraqi security forces, which hits on some of the pitfalls and mistakes mentioned in the above posts:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=77749
I have to admit I don’t quite understand why you don’t think US funding Dahlan gangs + possibly al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is not interesting. I suspect when, soon enough, we’ll be dealing with that blowback you’ll change your mind. But sure, Iraq is more important, for now.
I don’t really see why the difference between a ‘principle’ and a ‘strategy’ would prevent Andrew from placing the Dahlan funding story into a wider context. Whether or not the US is only acting on its ‘principles’ or implementing a policy, Washington is still going to have aims, and in order to reach those aims, will have to plan ahead. I think that’s the definition of a strategy. It seems far too easy to take the funding story out of its context, declare it bona fide, and then brand everyone a conspiracy theorist who sees the training/arming of Fatah as proof of something a little worse than Washington’s ‘incompetence’ and ‘lack of accountability’.
HAMAS,
Are the ones who try to help palestine Innocent peoples who are hurt my Israel Terrorist / Extremiest forces. Hamas are elected by palestine peoples because they are not corrupt. Hamas is the true spokeman of palestinian peoples. Israel try there best to crush Hamas but Allah is the defender of Mujahidins who sacrifice their life for islam. my request for all muslims to help Hamas at any cost in this regard Allah will give u very beautiful paradise.Hamas are the hero of Islam.
Hamas / Mujahidins Zindabad.