If you read US media, you have been told a lot of stories about the recent attack in southern Israel. The initial suggestions were that Hamas was responsible. Then blame shifted to the Palestinian Popular Resistance Committees, though always with the suggestion that Hamas must have allowed it. Strangely Israel, which had killed a number of the attackers and normally identifies them within hours failed to identify the dead even after many days. Likewise Palestinian sources, which often very quickly identify the casualties, were unable to find anyone missing. You can read more in Friendlystranger's diary, reporting that an Egyptian Paper Claims Egyptians Attacked Eilat.
Now, a new US intelligence report suggests these initial claims have very little truth to them. The US (like Israel), is quite certain that Hamas was not behind the attack. Rather, they list three possible attackers:
U.S. intelligence agencies are investigating reports that al Qaeda-aligned groups played a key role in the deadly commando-style attack near the Israeli resort town of Eilat last week.
A U.S. government assessment of the incident Thursday concludes that either the Palestinian group Popular Resistance Committees or the Gaza-based Army of Islam (or Jaish al Islam), a Palestinian group sympathetic to al Qaeda, carried out the commando assault and bombing raid that emanated from the increasingly lawless Sinai Peninsula.
One intelligence official who focuses on al Qaeda said an initial assessment identified a new group, al Qaeda in the Sinai Peninsula, as a key perpetrator of the attack.
Of course, the US quickly acknowledges that the PRC did not conduct the attack:
The intelligence official who said there are signs of a new Sinai-based group said initial assessments indicated the Popular Resistance Committees' role was limited to providing advance scouting of locations for the attack.
That leaves either Al Qaeda in the Sinai or Jaish al Islam. Thus, the initial stories you were fed, that the PRC, likely acting with approval of Hamas, launched the attack were simply false. Likewise, Israel’s “response,” which involved attacks on Hamas, on the PRC, and on civilian infrastructure in Gaza, was no “response” at all, it was simply seizing an opportunity to launch attacks.
Nonetheless, the storytelling is not over. Now that the attack has been link to Jaish al Islam, you will be fed a story attempting to conflate Hamas to the PRC to Jaish al Islam to Al Qaeda. Lets watch it happen:
“There has been a history of close operational coordination between Hamas, the Popular Resistance Committees and Jaish al Islam, which is the most important of the al Qaeda affiliates in the Gaza Strip,” said Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations who now is the president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
“A history of close operational coordination” between Hamas and Jaish al Islam. Lets look at some of that coordination:
Hamas moves to arrest Army of Islam leader Mumtaz Daghmash
Hamas vows to wipe out Army of Islam
1 dead in Hamas, Army of Islam clashes
And so on. In fact, Jaish al Islam and Hamas are enemies. Likewise, the “Al Qaeda” link here is specious, and even the US admits:
"This is an example of Salafi extremists who tried to link themselves to al Qaeda and use that brand name," the counterterrorism official said, adding that it would be premature to say al Qaeda in the Sinai is an al Qaeda affiliate
Nonetheless, none of these facts will change the storyline from Al Qaeda to Jaish al Islam to PRC to Hamas to the PA to all Palestinians. If you read the news, you will be fed this story line ad naseum, in the hopes that you will believe through repetition.
It’s not like this wasn’t predictable. Right after the attack happened, I and others cautioned that one shouldn’t automatically blame this on Hamas or other Palestinians:
• Actually (14+ / 0-)
There is no particular evidence that Hamas is behind any of the attacks. Indeed, right now their strategy seems to be to let the PA move at the UN proceed to put diplomatic pressure on Israel. If Hamas wanted to undermine that, there are a thousand different ways they could do so, but they aren't.
On the other hand, it is likely that smaller and more radical groups have an interest in undermining the UN move, and in maintaining their leverage on the situation. They are far more likely to be behind the recent rockets.
As for the attack today. It's hard not to notice that Egypt, acting as Israel's ally, just sent 2,000 troops into the Sinai. A message to Israel by the well armed and organized Bedouin that Israel stands to suffer as well in the war makes a lot of sense in this context. They would be the obviously first place to look.
"How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.
by weasel on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 08:51:26 AM CDT
I also noted the danger of buying into the “Al Qaeda” rhetoric:
First, the use of the tag "Al Qaeda" is just a distraction here, as it is in most other places. It is a name used by radicals to conjure up a sense of power, and used by governments as an excuse for any behavior it cares to inflict in a crackdown. Egypt is moving to rein in the Bedouin tribes of the Sinai, which have long been neglected by the central government, and have long been agitating for more autonomy. Additionally, Islamic militants are active in the Sinai (a recent assault by militants lead to five people killed), but it is not really clear that these militants have any Al Qaeda links, or even that they exist as a separate expression from the Bedouin tribes. The Islamic militancy and the Bedouin nationalism are likely very closely related.
These storylines, including their inaccuracies and their continued use, were entirely predictable and predicted. I hope readers will take a lesson from this incident and take the initial reports of these types of events with a large grain of salt. Very often the media is feeding you an intentionally distorted story.
h/t to Friendlystranger, who beat me to the punch