Tactics and Tragedy in Last Summer's Gaza War

“For if life had taught her anything, it was that healing and peace can begin only with acknowledgment of wrongs committed.” ― Susan Abulhawa, Mornings in Jenin

The Gaza Strip and West Bank

Many people believe the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a centuries-old problem where the same two sides have been killing each other side the dawn of civilization.  Some depict Israel as a murderous regime while others believe the same of the Palestinians.  The reality is far more complicated than this.  The United Nations on Monday released a report which accuses both Israel and Hamas (one faction of Palestinians mostly located in the Gaza strip) of war crimes from last summer's outbreak of violence.  With the one year anniversary of this war coming up in July, let's take a closer look at this event and some of the (often tragic) tactics used by both sides in this conflict.

The complete history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is much too long to detail here (and trying to shorten it into a few paragraphs just doesn't do it justice).  The modern roots of the 2014 Gaza war come from the split between the Palestinian Authority (recognized by Israel in the 1993 Oslo Accords as the representative government of the Palestinians) and Hamas (a much more radical political party which opposed the Accords) in 2006.  In short, Hamas won an election over the PA, a serious battle ensued between the PA and Hamas, and Hamas ended up taking control of Gaza while the PA remained the primary governmental power in the West Bank. Since 2006, Hamas and Israel have occasionally launched rockets and bombs at each other (while the West Bank has remained mostly nonviolent in its disagreements with Israel).

Gaza Strip and the Israeli Blockade

So what kicked off last summer's war?  On July 7th, several senior Hamas leaders died in an underground tunnel explosion (Hamas often uses tunnels to smuggle weapons and militants into Israel).  Hamas claims that this was the result of an Israeli airstrike while Israel claims it was an accidental explosion of their own weapons.  The next day, Hamas launched rockets into Israel, Israel responded with attacks of its own, and the whole situation escalated into one of the worst periods of violence in recent years.  Both sides claimed their justifications, and both sides committed some terrible acts in the process. 

One of the primary tactics of Hamas has been their use of rocket attacks against targets in Israel.  These rockets have relatively low precision compared to most modern rockets, so Hamas militants mostly point them in the general direction of a city or military base with the intent to hit whatever they can.  The main point of this tactic is to terrorize the Israeli population in the hopes this will convince them to pressure the government into giving in to Hamas' demands.  Fortunately, the "Iron Dome" missile defense system ensures that the vast majority of rockets do not hit any major cities (part of the reason Israeli casualties were so low in this conflict).  Hamas is also well known for using people's homes, hospitals, and other key infrastructure points to house weapons and their own fighters (making it difficult to attack them without creating civilian casualties).  In all, Israel lost 64 fighters and 6 civilians during the conflict.

Israel's Iron Dome Missile Defense System

On the Israeli side, the IDF (Israel Defense Force) used a combination of precision rocket strikes and armored vehicles to attack Hamas positions.  Unfortunately, as mentioned above, most of these positions are either key infrastructure points for Gaza City or civilian homes. Israel's military technology is very advanced (to the point where they can pinpoint an exact house to strike from the air).  Unlike Hamas, Israel knows exactly what it is hitting when it launches an attack.  For most civilian homes, the IDF claims to fire warning shots at homes and send phone calls as they are about to be hit (the warning shots are actually a small missile which has been altered so it doesn't explode).  This still only gives civilians at most a few minutes to evacuate their homes or die.  After the warning shot, the building is quickly leveled, destroying whatever military target (alleged or otherwise) was inside, but killing or displacing civilians in the process.  This is part of the reason Gaza City lost a hospital and power plant during this conflict. 

Though the IDF is correct in its assertion that Hamas uses these locations to house weapons and fighters, this does not make them legitimate targets by most international standards.  Just because a hospital is being used as an enemy base doesn't mean you should blow it up (for context, the U.S. military Rules of Engagement specifically prohibit attacking these sites unless absolutely necessary).  In all, Hamas lost an estimated 750 fighters and roughly 1,500 Palestinian civilians were killed during the conflict (not to mention over a quarter of a million people were displaced according to the United Nations).  Certainly, some of these civilians may have been combatants or could have been killed by Hamas instead, but this figure is still staggeringly high.  Furthermore, this mentality of "shoot the hostage to kill the enemy" is a poor way to conduct what is, in reality, an insurgency rather than a conventional war.

Casualty Figures in the 2014 War

On August 26th, a cease-fire finally took hold between Hamas and Israel.  So where is the conflict one year later?  Is any real peace possible? Not in the foreseeable future.  Israel and the Palestinian Authority continue to disagree on the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank (the process by which Israel builds houses in the West Bank and allows its citizens to live on this land, often displacing Palestinian civilians in the process).  Israel and Hamas remain in an unsteady cease-fire (which could flare up again at any time).  Finally, the PA has little power in Gaza and any final peace treaty would need both the West Bank and Gaza behind it (Israel has already stated it will not negotiate with Hamas on this).  Though international opinion is starting to turn in favor of the moderate (nonviolent) Palestinian factions, any true peace is still a long way away.

Settlements in the West Bank

Just to be clear, this isn't one of those posts which claims that both sides are equally guilty and at fault in this war.  Both sides are guilty of egregious crimes for sure, but one side is exponentially more powerful and capable than the other. Israel is a stable, (mostly) democratic country with a very strong military and some of the most advanced hardware in the world (courtesy of the U.S.).  It boasts a GDP of 268 billion and an average per capita GDP of around $36,000.  Gaza, on the other hand, is a severely impoverished region (GDP per capita of $6,100) with a barely functioning government ruled mostly by armed militants.  Their weapons consist primarily of whatever scraps they manage to find from Syria, China, and Russia, along with the limited number of outdated rockets which are smuggled in through the Egyptian border.  If any side truly has the means to bring about meaningful change in this conflict it is Israel.   The Palestinians in Gaza can barely keep the lights on and clean water flowing, so expecting them to have any real negotiating power is simply unrealistic.

If this analysis seems a little one-sided, its because that is the reality of the situation on the ground.  While Israel emerged from this war almost completely unscathed, Gaza's infrastructure has once again been decimated and its population continues to spiral into desperation.  This isn't entirely Israel's fault by any stretch of the imagination (after all Hamas is legitimately a terrorist organization).  But the continued blockade of Gaza essentially means that the region's population is imprisoned with a large group of desperate militants who know they will likely be killed the moment they lose power.  Israel certainly has the right to defend itself, but Israel also has the capacity and capability to be part of the solution.  Granted, the costs to Israel and risks associated with something like a broad humanitarian relief effort are high, but so is the moral cost of simply keeping Gaza contained in its own misery.  Then again, when the human and material costs of this conflict to Israel are so low, what incentive is there to solve the problem?

TL:DR: Both sides are guilty of serious crimes, but Israel is much more capable of changing the current situation.  A little restraint in the fight against Hamas can go a long way towards minimizing civilian deaths.

The Winners And Losers Of Turkey's Parliamentary Election

"The discussion of executive presidency and dictatorship have come to an end in Turkey with these elections." -HDP leader Selahattin Demirtas.

Turkey, the country not the bird

As one of the most stable countries in the Middle East, Turkey has long provided the region with an excellent example of how democracy and a weak executive branch can work in an otherwise highly fractured region.  Recently, Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan appeared to be challenging this tradition by making moves towards increasing the authorities of the presidential office.  Fortunately, Turkey's parliamentary elections earlier this week appear to have ended this dream (or at least dealt it a serious setback).  Let's take a look at the politics of Turkey and what this election means for the future of the country.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Unlike most other regional powers, Turkey does not have a strong authoritarian leader (something Erdogan is supposedly trying to change).  However, Turkey (with the notable exception of the Kurdish minority) does have a much stronger sense of shared nationalism, religious identity, and culture than most other Middle East nations (like Iraq for instance).  The modern state of Turkey was founded mostly by Mustafa Kemal just after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War.  Kemal believed strongly in making the new nation appear more "Western."  Among other things, he is famous for establishing a secular parliamentary government, abolishing the Islamic office of the Caliph, and introducing a Latin-based script to the Turkish language (he also banned the Fez for not being "European enough").  Turkey has remained relatively stable throughout the decades and is not as vulnerable to the same ethnic/religious breakdowns we have seen in other nations.  Today, the office of President has few significant powers (this is mostly vested in the Parliament).

Mustafa Kemal (Called the Father of the Turks)

So who is Erdogan and what was he trying to do?  Erdogan founded the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in 2001, which has since become the dominant party in Parliament.  He assumed the role of Prime Minister in 2003 and President in 2014, and started a process of encouraging infrastructure and educational investment (doubling the number of universities and drastically increasing the education budget). However, his presidency has also been marred by corruption scandals, media intimidation, and attempts to return Turkey to a more religiously-centered nation.  It seems his plan for the recent elections was for the AKP to win enough parliamentary seats to change Turkey's constitution without a holding a national referendum.  If this would have happened, Erdogan's party could easily have granted significant powers to the presidential office through constitutional changes.

He also built this giant presidential palace on federal land

But Erdogan's plan was foiled in this week's election.  His party only won 40% of the seats in Parliament (still more than any other party, but not enough to form a government on their own).  Under the Turkish constitution, the various political parties need to join together to form a majority government every election cycle.  Now, the AKP will need to combine forces with another party to form a ruling coalition (none of which are likely to help Erdogan amend the constitution).  If a new coalition isn't formed in the next several weeks, there will be a re-election to go through the process all over again.  This setback by the AKP is being recognized as a clear indication of the public's disapproval of many of Erdogan's actions (though many still support his reform programs).  Most likely, the AKP will relax its reform-minded agenda in favor of one which is more inclusive to other parties. 


If the AKP was the big loser in this election, the primary Kurdish party (People's Democratic Party or HDP) was the big winner.  The Kurds are a distinct ethnic group whose lands were split among Turkey, Iraq, and Syria following the First World War.  Since then, the Kurds have never attained real independence in any of these states (they have also split into several distinct factions, making a unified Kurdistan nearly impossible).  This party, which pushes a more left-leaning and pro-Kurdish agenda, attained the 10% of overall votes needed to hold seats in Parliament.  This party has reached across cultural divides to gain both Kurdish and Turkish votes alike.  Their dramatic inclusion into the Turkish Parliament will likely mean more rights and autonomy for the Kurdish people (and a growing check on Erdogan's power).

A quick breakdown of the election results

So what does all of this mean for the region?  Well it certainly seems like the Kurds will play a much bigger role in Turkish politics (likely giving themselves greater independence).  Without his party's super-majority, Erdogan will be unable to increase his own power significantly, but he will still heavily influence things like Turkey's European Union bid and the fight against ISIS in neighboring Syria.  After all, the AKP is still by far the dominant party in Turkish politics. 

In all, this election seems to be a big win for the forces of democratic governance in Turkey.  In an era where Middle East nations are increasingly becoming more authoritarian (Egypt, Syria, and the Gulf nations), the defeat of Erdogan's potential power grab is a welcome reminder that popular rule can still succeed.  Some nations need a strong executive leader to function, others only a need broad ruling coalition.  Turkey, it seems, has opted for the latter. 

TL;DR: Minority parties win big in Turkish elections, President Erdogan loses his chance to increase his own power.

Hijabis Need Not Apply

"Discrimination has a lot of layers that make it tough for minorities to get a leg up." - Bill Gates

The inspiration for this post title, if you didn't already get it

Religious discrimination comes in many forms.  Sometimes it is as obvious a bunch of armed protesters outside a mosque in Arizona.  But more often than not, discrimination is subtle and much harder to fight against.  Workplace discrimination is no exception.  Affirmative Action and other such programs have attempted to correct this inequality, but often with mixed and controversial results.  In one recent case of workplace discrimination, Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who regularly wears a hijab, was denied a position at Abercrombie and Fitch because of her religious apparel.  On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Elauf, citing that A&F violated her individual religious freedom by penalizing her application because of her clothing.

What justification did A&F presume to have for denying Elauf a job?  She had applied for a position as a "model" (the people who wear Abercrombie's preppy clothes and drown you in cologne) when she was 17.  As part of their "Look Policy," the company typically doesn't hire people who wear "inappropriate" clothing (such as hats or unfashionable items).  It isn't so much that they are outright rejected, but their applications are usually demoted in favor of those who more closely resemble the A&F style.  This isn't the first case of discrimination in the Look Policy either.  In Elauf's case, her interviewer specifically stated that she was rejected because she wore a hijab.  (Check out a previous post for more about the importance of wearing hijabs and other apparel in the Islamic faith.)

Samantha Elauf and her mother Majda

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating based upon religious reasons (though people often have to specifically request this protection).  This is where policies such as the A&F Look Policy can often run into trouble. This policy in general makes some sense in a clothing store (A&F needs to promote the brand after all), but these policies can sometimes encourage judgements based upon cultural characteristics.  Making sure someone "looks appropriate" is an extremely subjective criteria (one which encourages hiring attractive, successful looking people with less regard to actual performance ability).

In the case of A&F, the main point of contention was whether or not Elauf should have stated she needed a religious exemption from the Look Policy.  As the court ruled, its pretty obvious Elauf would have needed an exemption for wearing a hijab (women wearing a hijab tend to identify as Muslim after all).  Now this doesn't mean that anyone wearing religious clothing can request an exemption.  After all, a women in a full body niqab probably wouldn't be granted this exemption since wearing A&F clothes is part of the job description.  Instead, other meaningful options for similar employment must be provided.  This is why such cases are so often difficult to mediate. 

The nine justices of the Supreme Court

In Monday's case, most of the justices decided in favor of Elauf, with only Justice Samuel Alito ruling against her.  Their arguments speak to the debate over company vs personal freedom in the workplace.  Most people would agree that a company can't decide to reject a job applicant just because they are black, gay, or republican (though many still do).  But discriminating against someone's weight, attractiveness, or religious appearance is still a very real possibility with policies such as this.  Unfortunately, Elauf's case is still not over (it gets pushed back to the appeals court who will make the final decision on her compensation).  At least for now, the case helps build the precedent against similar religious discrimination cases (A&F has also made changes to its Look Policy in recent years).

Overall, things like the Look Policy speak to a greater dynamic of maintaining a misguided definition of American dress and culture.  It isn't that Muslims (or anyone who does not fit the norm of "American" culture) aren't allowed to work for A&F, they just can't express their religious individuality in a meaningful way.  Like society in general, you can be different (or Muslim) all you want on the inside, just don't show it.

TL;DR: Abercrombie's "Look Policy" streamlines the process of rejecting people just for being different.