Can Hamas be Trusted?

[Shaktimaan]

BEIRUT -- Suddenly, Hamas finds its basket full of international carrots after being hard hit with Israeli sticks. But not only that. Rapprochement messages to Hamas were being smoothed each time an international player spells them out.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was the first European statesman to say that his government was ready to talk to Hamas, "when they accept the peace process, when they agree to start negotiations." Speaking in parliament, Kouchner said: "We don't ignore the reality of Hamas, its electoral success or its weight in Palestinian opinion."

<snip>

Just recently, the European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana made the lightest gesture toward accepting a Palestinian unity government between Fatah and Hamas shall the Islamic movement commit to pursuing a two-state solution. Solana's new approach fell short of long-standing conditions, that Hamas must renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept existing interim peace accords.

This approach fantasizes about a beaten up and desperate Hamas that will soon rush to "accept the peace process," abide by the terms of a "two state solution" or at least commit to "pursuing" such an outcome. It also fantasizes about a strategy of engaging the militant organization, diplomatically and politically, to walk it through a process of moderation. Didn't Khaled Meshaal tell the French Jewish writer Marek Halter on the eve of Israel's 22-day offensive that his movement, whose 1988 founding charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, is finally ready to recognize Israel? So why not trying to further this "moderation."

In fact there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

http://www.metimes.com/Opinion/2009/02/03/can_hamas_be_trusted/8846/

[ShortnFiery]

1. Does it matter to at least talk with them? It is what it is - Hamas IS in charge of Gaza.

:shrug:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Notionally and hopefully temporarily

There are calls for fresh elections and a unity government

[Larkspur]

2. I don't trust the Israeli government

We know now that the Israeli governments under both Labor and the Right wingers encouraged the development of illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinians lands. The Israeli government operates like the Russian mob. Israel can't be trusted. They have to be treated like criminals.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Hamas is the elected government of Gaza

Perhaps if the US and Israel tried dealing with them as the elected government a different outcome would be possible. Years of pretending that Hamas is not the legitimate government, years of embargo and ostracism has failed. What is the prescription? More of the same, of course. When a policy has demonstrably and utterly failed, keep at it, don't change course.

[ohio2007]

4. Read the Hamas charter and you will see they intend to remain in power beyond any "western media "

election coverage next year.
they are not going to change

[Warren Stupidity]

5. So then, more of the same.

As I said, when a policy is clearly bankrupt and failed, it is best to just keep going on with it rather than changing course.

Why not just get it over with and kill all the residents of Gaza?

[Vegasaurus]

6. The government of Hamas has an expressed goal

to kill all the residents of Israel and take back "their land".

Talk about bankrupt (and not happening).

[theoldman]

7. I hope you will admit that it is their land.

I don't think Hamas wants to kill all Jews. They want to retake Palestine for Palestinians. What's wrong with that? Unfortunately the Mexicans and Native Americans have the same problem. I am sure that the Jews are hoping that eventually they will end up the victor just like the Europeans did in the US. It took us several hundred years to kill 95% of the native population.

[Vegasaurus]

8. What's wrong with wanting to retake Palestine?

There are 6 million Jews living there.

I am sure you wouldn't mind the Arabs killing them all off either, would you?

[TimesSquareCowboy]

108. Resettlement and reparations have to be at the top of the list of issues.

Otherwise, it's all just b.s.

[Ken Burch]

125. Plus, an apology for driving all those Palestinians out of their homes and off THEIR lands.

Maybe they can't all come back, but would it be asking so much to admit they shouldn't have been driven away in '48? That Deir Yassin and Plan Dalet should never have been done?
That Palestinians shouldn't have had to suffer for the crimes of Europeans?

[Idealism]

24. Typical misinformation

The Hamas Charter was not what Hamas the political party got elected on. In fact, no mention of "taking over Israel"/ "Killing Jews" was mentioned in their election platform. The "Government of Hamas" has said no such thing about wanting to kill every Jew in Israel and take their land back. The Charter says some things close to that, but again, that is not what they were elected on.

[ohio2007]

28. but they refuse to sit at the same table and do not recognize Israel....what kind of misinformation

does that spell out in the grand plan ?

[Idealism]

30. More of the same

When Hamas the political party won the elections, Israel refused to recognize them and refused to negotiate on any level with them. Hamas has offered Israel over a dozen peace proposals over the years, but it is Israel who always refuses to talk to them. The "Grand Plan" of the Hamas Charter won't get them very far if they follow it, but neither will the Likud charter if Israel follows that. Charters aren't that important in the region, apparently.

[Dick Dastardly]

33. Hamas has offered a Hudna or long term truce but not a peace proposal n/t

[Idealism]

34. It has been called many things, but technically you are correct.

Hudna, extended tahdiya, a "lasting calmness." Depends on how you translate it, I suppose, or who you are speaking with. One of Hamas's many problems is that their leadership is hidden, for fear of assassination, so you never know which "Spokesmen" is speaking for whom.

That being said, they have put a 10-year, 20-year, and up to a 50-year duration on their previous offers. Do you truly believe that if they were to have a 20-year cease-fire, that peace wouldn't develop?

[Dick Dastardly]

36. Their leadership has expressed themselves openly many times. The top leaders Meshal, Haniya as

well as others have spoken plainly that they will not recognize Israel as part of the Hudna, they will not impede other groups operations, they want full return of the refugees and have said it is only temporary and will never accept Israel.

Aside from the nonstarter of the return of the refugees, Israel or anyone else would have to be a fool to accept such a deal that is not a permanent peace but requires Israel to make concessions like it was one to a group sworn to Israels destruction , does not guarantee Israels security, makes Israel much more vulnerable because it has to pull back to the indefensible 67 lines and also hands Hamas a victory. And you say they should do this because you think peace will probably develop rather than their claim of never accepting Israel and using the hudna to grow stronger. What happens after 10 or 20 years and it doesnt develop or they demand more concessions but Israel has already given them up for this hudna rather than a true comprehensive peace deal?. What if the truce doesnt last and they use it as an opportunity to launch better attacks as when Israel left Gaza? There are so many what ifs that are a clear and present danger by accepting this rather than a true peace deal.
Why should Israel not take Hamas at its word that the Hudna is only temporary until they grow stronger and that it will never accept Israel? Should they risk their lives just because people such as yourself who dont have to live with such a threat think it will all just work out because Hamas doesnt really mean what they say? Would you be willing to put your life, your childrens lives and your families lives up as guarantees that it will develop into peace?, because that is what you are asking the Israelis to do.


btw tahdiya is even a looser agreement than a hudna. They are 2 different things




On February 8, 2006, after its victory in the 2006 parliamentary elections, Hamas reiterated that it was giving up suicide attacks and offered Israel a 10-year truce "in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem."<91> Hamas head Khaled Mashal stated, however, that he was not calling for an end to armed operations against Israel, and Hamas would not impede other Palestinian groups from carrying out such operations.<92> On 13 February 2006, Mashal added that Israel would need to recognize Palestinian rights, including the "right of return".

clip
On 21 April 2008, former U.S. President and 2002 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jimmy Carter met with Hamas Leader Khaled Meshal and reached an agreement that Hamas would respect the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip areas seized by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967, provided this be ratified by the Palestinian people in a referendum. Hamas later publicly offered a 10 year hudna or truce with Israel if Israel agreed to return to its 1967 borders and to grant the "return of return" to all Palestinian refugees. Israel has not responded to the offer.<96><97>

Critics of the Hamas truce offer suggest that Israel would never accept the Palestinian refugees right of return, contending it would create a demographic majority of Muslims in Israel and thus put an end to Israel's Jewish-majority status. Also, there may be disagreement within the Hamas leadership on long-term peace with Israel. American writer Jeffrey Goldberg states that when he asked Hamas hardliner<98> Nizar Rayyan if he could envision a 50-year hudna (cease-fire) with Israel, Rayyan responded, "The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel. Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God."<99> Steven Erlanger of the New York Times comments that Hamas excludes the possibility of permanent reconciliation with Israel. "Since the Prophet Muhammad made a temporary hudna, or truce, with the Jews about 1,400 years ago, Hamas allows the idea. But no one in Hamas says he would make a peace treaty with Israel or permanently give up any part of Palestine.".<100> Mkhaimer Abusada, a political scientist at Al Azhar University writes that Hamas talks "of hudna, not of peace or reconciliation with Israel. They believe over time they will be strong enough to liberate all historic Palestine.”<100>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas


Text

Credulous, likely-senile Jimmy Carter had tea with the terrorist group Hamas and now, according to MSNBC, Hamas is asking for a 10-year “truce” while refusing to recognize the State of Israel on the condition that said State of Israel return to the nearly-indefensible 1967 (read 1949) borders.



Hudna is no solution
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/940738.html

A TRUCE BY ANY OTHER NAME: HUDNA & TAHADIYAH
http://micahhalpern.com/archives/2009/01/a_truce_by_any.html

[delad]

47. quoting wikipedia selectively is

no way to go about proving anything relating to I/P related issues (especially considering the amount of prejudice that editors display on those pages (on both sides)).

Your quote from Wikipedia refers to other parties *interpreting or relating what Hamas leaders have said or intend (and Jeffrey Goldberg is hardly the most neutral of observers).

Mousa Abu Marzook wrote in the Guardian, August 2007, that Hamas was willing to talk to Israel.

In the elections that Hamas won, the langauge from their charter calling for the destruction of Israel was left out from their political manifesto. Is this not a step in the right direction? ie a step away from violence and into politics with calls for the destruction of Israel put to one side. This is similar to how the IRA slowly moved from being a purely extremist terrorist movement into a, if you will, more mainstream, political/terrorist movement.

<snip>
Jan 2006
"If the Israelis have an offer to be discussed and two very important points – the release of all detainees and a stop of all Israeli aggression, including the process of withdrawal from the West Bank...then we are going to search for an effective and constructive process at the end," said (Mahmoud) al-Zahar in an interview with WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein and ABC Radio's John Batchelor broadcast on Batchelor's national program.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48451

<snip>
april 2008
Now, finally, we have the welcome tonic of Carter saying what any independent, uncorrupted thinker should conclude: that no "peace plan," "road map" or "legacy" can succeed unless we are sitting at the negotiating table and without any preconditions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602899.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

<snip>
Jan 2009
Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported today about unmentioned Syria - Turkey peace initiative already accepted by Hamas delivered to Sarkozy contains the following points:

- Cease-fire from both sides, the Israeli army and Hamas.

- The withdrawal of Israeli army from the Gaza immediately.

- Return to the truce agreement signed back in June between Hamas and Israel.

- The formation of a special committee to open the crossings into the Gaza Strip.

- An international conference of donors to rebuild Gaza.

Today Syrian news agency SANA confirmed the above reporting about contacts made by the three countries to discuss Gaza.
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2009/01/07/the-never-mentioned-syria-%E2%80%93-qatar-%E2%80%93-turkey-peace-initiative/

so what if it's a hudna/tahidya? I'm sure there are members of Hamas who would dearly love to see an end to Israel (and maybe even death to all Jews) but there are some (maybe even in the next Israeli government) in Isreali politics who would wish the same of the Arabs in their midst. Either way, it's peace. And one can take it from there.

Or I suppose Israel could instead maintain a brutal military occupation and deny a portion of the subjugated population some basic human rights because you just don't know what might happen if they were allowed to live their lives in peace.

[Dick Dastardly]

157. Its not selective at all. Its what they said and have always said.

The Goldberg part was only a small part of it and it was not an interpretation but direct quotes as the most of the others were. I used Wiki just for ease of an example but there are unlimited other sources for these types of quotes. If you want to talk about predjudiced non nuetral editors then your use of SANA Syrian News Agency takes the cake because they dont even have a thimball full of credibility.


If anything I left out more info like


In April, 2006, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar did not rule out the possibility of accepting a temporary two-state solution, but also stated that he dreamed "of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it . . . . I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize). . . . This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land".<83> Al-Zahar added that he didn't rule out the possibility of having Jews, Muslims and Christians living under the sovereignty of an Islamic state, stating that the Palestinians had never hated the Jews and that only the Israeli occupation was their enemy.<84>

Your posts on Zahar like below show nothing new, this was just something Carter said that Zahar was using, he never expresses anything that changes his above statements. Sure they are willing to negotiate for a Hudna but not peace. Sure they are willing to accept a Palestinian state on the WB and Gaza but no reconition or acceptance of Israel. Hamas has never expressed anything about a real permanent peace deal but its always a rehash of the hudna/tahidya crap.

your post
<snip>
april 2008
Now, finally, we have the welcome tonic of Carter saying what any independent, uncorrupted thinker should conclude: that no "peace plan," "road map" or "legacy" can succeed unless we are sitting at the negotiating table and without any preconditions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

He even says later on in the article which you left out a whole set of preconditions which is the complete opposite of his Carter interpretation.
A "peace process" with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees. Given what we have lost, it is the only basis by which we can start to be whole again.

So even before they might even consider a peace process(not even peace itself) Israel must do all of that. Only a certified moron would even consider something like that.

so what if it's a hudna/tahidya? I'm sure there are members of Hamas who would dearly love to see an end to Israel (and maybe even death to all Jews) but there are some (maybe even in the next Israeli government) in Isreali politics who would wish the same of the Arabs in their midst. Either way, it's peace. And one can take it from there.

Or I suppose Israel could instead maintain a brutal military occupation and deny a portion of the subjugated population some basic human rights because you just don't know what might happen if they were allowed to live their lives in peace.

Your statement "so what if it's a hudna/tahidya?", shows a complete disregard for reality. Its not a peace and Hamas even states so. Why should Israel give all that up for a temporary truce with an enemy who has no problem with terror or targetting civillians, openly states its only a temporary truce and will never accept Israel among many other things. Should we not take Hamas at their word and deeds on this? Only a fool would make such a deal because they think a group like Hamas doesnt mean what they say and it will just work out so whats the difference between a real peace deal and a hudna/tahidya.

btw sure there are on both sides who wish what you said, the difference is in Israel they are the minority and Israel has the power to destroy the Arabs but dont. They have tried to negotiate a permanent peace. Hamas on the otherhand has a majority that wants to destroy Israel and would not hesitate if they had half the chance. They dont want a permanent peace unless it includes an end to Israel.


A hudna/tahidya is no substitute for a real peace deal and Israel is better off the way things are than accepting such a thing from a terror group like Hamas

[shira]

40. Do you truly believe Israel hasn't had enough the past 20 yrs...

and wants to start all over with Hamas?

Hamas has rejected any and all gains made with the PA since Oslo. You truly think Israelis want to start from scratch again with the same vitality and optimism from 20 years ago?

And you truly think the Israeli populace will just want to hop on board with the Arab initiative plan - pull back to 1967 borders, accept refugees - that will CERTAINLY weaken Israel and leave them much more defenseless - so that the Arab world can then "consider" normalization with Israel? The Arab initiative only states that once Israel does their job, peace isn't a guarantee, it's only a consideration. Who's to say that once Israel does all it reasonably can, there will then be "peace"? And what does normalization with the Arab world mean? Like the cold peace Israel "enjoys" with Egypt? And what of Iran, Lebanon, Syria? What's the point if they're not on board too? And the Arab initiative plan doesn't even state that terror ends (or needs to end) from the OT while Israel is pulling back and accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees.

There's a difference in Israel from 20 years ago when most of Israel was turning towards the 2-state solution, which is now universally accepted by Israelis even in Likud. Whereas THEN, Israelis felt bad/guilty for Palestinians and wanted to go for the peace process, Israelis NOW (especially the youth) don't so much. That's not to say Israelis haven't had enough and just want something done so Palestinians could just go away and have their own state. They want THAT, anything to end this for good - they've had enough. However, more Israelis now - especially the YOUTH - have grown up on the rejection of CD/TABA 2000-01 and Gaza 2005. The gains made for the peace camp 20 years ago following Intifada I, have led to that same peace camp from 20 years ago being FAR more sober and cynical now, exhausted and worn out by the process. The YOUTH feel like since CD/TABA and Gaza 2005 were rejected, what's the point - and they're now more likely to vote more RW than the last generation 20 years ago that wanted to go more strongly for peace.

Prospects look dim with Palestinian leadership as it is now.

Looks like Palestinians need leadership like Fayyad or Nusseibeh with Hamas and Fatah out completely, or after making a sweet deal - Egypt and Jordan need to come in and reclaim those territories and absorb refugees.

[Idealism]

48. Red herring after straw-man argument...

How will the API leave Israel "defenseless?" They have over 100 nuclear weapons, remember? Who else in the region does? Answer: no one. Israel has one of the best military's in the world, who else in the region is even close?

Why do you think Liebermann's party focuses on the youth vote? They are more susceptible to propaganda. Much like how cults focus on teenagers and indoctrinate them to their beliefs. They don't know history as well as their elders, and it is obvious. If you can believe the bullshit Liebermann spews, then you must be blind to history.

Haniyeh said it himself that there would be peace if Israel pulled back to their old borders. Arafat died trying to get Israel to pull back to old borders, yet the Fatah government wasn't shooting rockets into Israel. Why wasn't there peace then?

[shira]

50. to answer your questions

The API leaves Israel with probably (at least) up to 1 million refugees. Even if only 1% are hostile, that's 10 thousand. That's an economy buster as well as a very likely national security threat. 100 nuclear weapons does nothing for that. Think of the USA taking on 40-50 million people all at once, with "only" 1% or 400,000 hostiles. Sounds like a great plan Americans would be in favor of, right?

The API doesn't call on Palestinian terror to cease. It doesn't guarantee peace after Israel's actions, only consideration for it. So who's to say when Israel does enough to merit "serious" consideration for peace? What's enough? Israel is left pissing in the wind, more susceptable than ever to terror attacks (Ben Gurion airport would be extremely vulnerable once occupation ends in the W.Bank). Tel Aviv would now be an easy target. And then Israelis just have to "wait and see"? Hope that Iran/Lebanon/Syria buys in after everyone else?

And where/when did Haniyeh ever say there would be peace? Was this articulated in Arabic or English? The reason there wasn't peace in Arafat's time is because he rejected CD/TABA without so much as a counter-proposal, and he was congratulated for doing that and going to war instead.

You misunderstood me WRT Israeli youth. They don't need Lieberman to brainwash them. They grew up on the CD/TABA rejection and the failure of the Gaza 2005 pullout. They did not grow up during the days of Intifada I like the generation before them. Back then, there was no attempt yet for a 2-state peace deal, with what seemed like a willing partner. Now, there has been and Palestinian leadership rejected it and Gaza 2005 in favor of more and more war. This is what Israeli youth have grown up on. They've learned that Israel offers peace, Palestinian leadership wants war instead.

Back to Haniyeh and Hamas wanting "peace". Do you truly believe these guys want the conflict over so that they can focus all their energy on state-building, housing millions of Palestinians, getting Palestinians employed, and seeing to it that Palestinians all have freedom and equal rights for women and minorities? What makes you think Hamas is, or intends to be, more accountable for its people than the Taliban, Iran's Mullahcracy, Saudi Arabia, etc.?

[Idealism]

53. You assume that 10% of Palestinians are violent

It is not even remotely true. According to one member of the Qassam brigades, they have less than 200 to their number. Hamas is bigger than Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Brigades as well. Trust me, these won't be allowed to return. There is less than .01% of Palestinians who have engaged in violence against Israel. There are many more Israeli's who have engaged in violence against Palestinians. If anything, the Palestinians should be afraid to live in Israel.

Either way, the right of return can be negotiated, as both sides have acquiesced in a NYT article a few weeks back.

There are some leaders in Hamas who wish to see an end to the fighting with Israel. Obviously there are varying degrees of a cease-fire, but not all these people want violence. Just like Hamas does govern in a fucking weird mix of sharia law and socialism. Here is what the http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/">Council of Foreign Relations has to say about Hamas:

Is Hamas only a terrorist group?

No. In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. Indeed, the extensive social and political work done by Hamas - and its reputation among Palestinians as averse to corruption - partly explain its defeat of the Fatah old guard in the 2006 legislative vote. Hamas funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services, and Hamas's efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.

And stop writing lies, Arafat didn't reject Taba. Israel was unwilling to meet his demands and they walked away, simple as that.

How many times must you use that old canard?

[shira]

56. Read more carefully

I wrote about 1%, not 10%, being hostile. The API doesn't mention negotiations about RoR, only that Israel does something first and THEN peace is considered afterward and who knows what the Arab world will consider "just". And it's not a lie that Arafat rejected Taba. Jimmy Carter admits it, as well as Shlomo ben Ami and Dennis Ross. He chose war instead, and was congratulated for doing so.

Things you didn't respond to from my last post to you.

1. Where/when did Haniyeh call for peace? Was it in Arabic in front of the Palestinians, or in English?

2. What on earth makes you think Hamas wants to get into state-building and out of the war business? Look around the rest of the Arab/Muslim world. Are they good at state-building?

3. Why would Israel want to absorb 1 million Palestinians, 1% of which could very well be hostiles? That's like America absorbing 40 million, of which 400,000 are hostiles (8000 per state - maybe more in your own state and then there is still a missile/rocket threat, suicide bombers, etc.). Would you take a leap of faith and try that one out, put your friends and family at risk, and if not, why would you think Israel would?

[Idealism]

72. How do you figure out what percent of Palestinians are "hostiles?"

You greatly over estimate the numbers of the Qassam Brigades, which I already pointed out and you ignored.

Corrupt dictatorships are endemic in the Arab world. Along comes a democratically elected government with social services being provided, and they get shunned because their military wing is ridiculously stupid. Hamas was never given a chance to nation build. The second they came to power the blockade was enacted that choked off the Gazan economy, shutting down thousands of factories and putting even more Palestinians into abject poverty.

Seriously, Taba has been debunked by Mr. Carpenter about 10 times, yet you repeat this nonsense. Saying how "liberals can't tell a lie" and that Dennis Ross is somehow a neutral arbiter. Or how Shlomo ben Ami wasn't there on Israel's behalf...Find a new topic.

Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html

[shira]

117. even if 0.1%.....that's still a lot

and that doesn't even take into consideration the effect on Israel's economy for letting in 1 million refugees. No country would increase it's population by 15% on the promise of a "consideration" for peace.

As for Hamas' military wing being stupid after elections 2006....you couldn't be more wrong. They POLITICALLY rejected all PA agreements made with Israel and THAT led to border closures. After the Gaza pullout, Israel negotiated the "Crossings" agreement with the PA that left Rafah in the PA's hands. Hamas reneged POLITICALLY on that. Nothing to do with their military. OF course their military responded with more rockets but both MILITARY and POLITICAL wings of Hamas showed they were not serious about nation building.

Taba has not been debunked by you or Mr. Carpenter. You have yet to provide a source that CONTRADICTS Shlomo ben Ami or Dennis Ross.

And where did Haniyeh propose peace, like you wrote? He didn't. You were mistaken, weren't you?

Hudna is not peace and granting one does not in any way conflict with Hamas' charter to eventually destroy Israel. Your article only says Haniyeh's thugs will recognize and accept a Palestinian state - not that they will recognize or accept Israel as a Jewish state.

[shira]

122. to add

When Hamas took over and chose to renege on all PA security arrangements made with Israel since Oslo, including the very recent Crossings agreement that put the PA in control of Rafah, that showed Hamas' lack of governing capabilities and utter lack of commitment to state-building.

They knew by ripping up all previous security arrangements with Israel that their focus from that point on would be on a commitment to wage war, not build a functioning and secure state. How do you build a state when you rip up all security arrangements with your neighbor?

They had their chance. They chose not to get into nation-building.

OTOH, what we see now in the W.Bank (due mainly to Salam Fayyad) are signs of a commitment to nation building. Notice the difference?

[Idealism]

126. The only building in the West Bank is settlements and the Separation Wall

What signs of nation building do you see?

Unemployment hovering at 30%? Good progress there.

The PA is so inept at governing that the West Bank's economy needed an emergency loan to keep it from collapsing a few years ago, even after the billions they get in handouts from several entities and state actors.

The second biggest industry in the WB is agriculture, yet with Israeli settlements stealing hundreds of dunnums of farmland, farming isn't too successful as of late- further hurting employment and economy.

There is zero private investment in the West Bank.

The Palestinians living in the WB are forced to live under Martial Law. Over 1500 Military Orders issued by Israeli commanders determine what they can and can't do. Here is a hint: don't ever toss a stone, or they will throw you in jail for up to 20 years- that is if they don't open fire on you. They imprisoned children as young as 12 years old for the felonious act of "stone throwing!"

[shira]

134. are you serious?

1. Under Fayyad, the W.Bank's economic health has improved while foreign investment has increased. They have far better law and order than in Gaza. They have not ripped up all security arrangements with Israel. That is the start of nation building and not focusing solely on war. It's significantly more than what Hamas did when they took control, destroyed the greenhouses, rejected all security arrangements that the PA had made before them, and fired off more rockets against Israel. This isn't to say that Fatah is doing a "wonderful" job, only that it's significantly more than what Hamas did.

Your narrative about Hamas not being given a chance to rule is, therefore, utter bullshit.

2. As for "tossing stones" and jail time for youth, what do you suspect will happen if your kids decide to toss some fist-sized stones at people they don't like - and one of them hits their target on the head? Maybe they get just a detention? Or a "time out"? Slap on the wrist?

[Idealism]

138. Of course the WB is better off than Gaza, but by how much?

Given the billions of dollars that the PA receives in largess per year, you would think they would be doing wonderfully compared to the sanctions imposed on Hamas, right? They are barely hanging on in the WB, and like I told you, had to have an IMF-orchestrated rescue just to prevent from a total collapse of the PA.

Here are some "facts" for you, because you seem to like to ignore them.

The West Bank - the larger of the two areas comprising the Palestinian Authority (PA) - has experienced a general decline in economic conditions since the second intifada began in September 2000. The downturn has been largely a result of Israeli closure policies - the imposition of closures and access restrictions in response to security concerns in Israel - which disrupted labor and trading relationships. In 2001, and even more severely in 2002, Israeli military measures in PA areas resulted in the destruction of capital, the disruption of administrative structures, and widespread business closures. International aid of at least $1.14 billion to the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 2004 prevented the complete collapse of the economy and allowed some reforms in the government's financial operations. In 2005, high unemployment and limited trade opportunities - due to continued closures both within the West Bank and externally - stymied growth. Israel's and the international community's financial embargo of the PA when HAMAS ran the PA during March 2006 - June 2007 interrupted the provision of PA social services and the payment of PA salaries. Since then the FAYYAD government in the West Bank has restarted salary payments and the provision of services but would be unable to operate absent high levels of international assistance.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/we.html#Econ

Unemployment hovers at this point around 30% in the West Bank
Unemployment in Gaza (pre-Cast Lead) was around 45%. It will be even higher now that much of the Gazan infrastructure has been decimated.

You REALLY think that a 12-year old who throws a few stones should be put in jail for 20 years? That is remarkable. And then to say that it is either "a slap on the wrist" or prison... you really do only see black and white. How sad.

[Idealism]

124. You are throwing out some random nonsense

"Even if 10%!" or "0.01%", then it jumps to 15%... stay on message a bit more, its easier to read.

Taba was not rejected by Arafat. It has been proven, you just haven't read the links- how convenient.

Do you not understand how diplomacy works? No actor commits to action, especially a politician in Haniyeh's position, by giving away their hand. Even having him admit to accepting Israel within 1967 borders brings condemnation from the hard-liners in Hamas. You express a desire, then talks ensue and you go from there. When something more than you proposed originally gets done, you come out on top. Seriously, that is basic diplomatic protocol.

Your article only says Haniyeh's thugs will recognize and accept a Palestinian state - not that they will recognize or accept Israel as a Jewish state.

He said he would accept Palestine with 1967 borders. Was Israel not on the map in 1967? Seriously, shira. Read between the lines once in awhile, you might garner some insight.

[shira]

135. you're BS is being proven wrong and now you're just embarassing yourself

1. Even with 0.1% hostiles, that's a big risk for national security. With a 15% increase in population due to letting 1 million refugees in, that's an economy buster. You pretend that these are not significant issues. And again, why should Israel risk this in return for only a consideration to a peace arrangement? This costs the Arab nations and Palestinian leadership nothing (especially since they don't have to be committed to stopping terror). Israel gets nothing but "consideration" for a peace deal....and maybe not even that if some decide that allowing 1 million refugees into Israel is not "just". What morons would take such a leap of faith and put so much on the line for what could likely amount to nothing?

2. As for Taba, again, nothing claimed by Ross or ben Ami has been refuted by anyone else - including your EU report. Why must I repeat this everytime? Can you bring ANYTHING from the EU report that disputes Ross or ben Ami's version of events? And no one disputes that Arafat rejected everything without so much as a counterproposal, not even Jimmy Carter. The weak claim is that Arafat was still interested in talks and time ran out due to Barak....even though Arafat proposed nothing and rejected everything.

3. Haniyeh didn't promise peace, like you claimed. You did claim it, didn't you? And has he ever gone on record as saying he will recognize Israel's right to exist as a nation alongside the Palestine that he of course would recognize? No, of course not.



All you're doing now is rehashing BS, you're being proven wrong, and in response you're deflecting. Not that I expect better - most of your claims, narrative, etc.. have no basis in fact. It's just sad that a seemingly intelligent person like yourself is so closed-minded and disingenuous. Debating closed-minded RW fundies is a similar exercise in futility as is debating "secular religionists" like yourself. Like them, you're impervious to any amount of evidence that shoots down your views; views that are based mostly on emotion and not fact. Like them, you're from a faith-based community (believing the narrative) and amenable to indoctrination.

[Idealism]

137. You know nothing of diplomacy, do you?

You think Haniyeh would come out and say "Ok, full peace with Israel" without receiving a whisper in return? That is asinine and horribly naive, but then again, you have no idea what you are talking about in international relations so this is expected.

[shira]

148. I know that you make unfounded claims, peddle them as truth...

...are corrected, but then ignore the refutation and repeat the same BS.

Sorry, but we're pretty much done for now. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your emotions on the situation were based on some measure of intellectual honesty. Now that I see you really don't care about honesty and accuracy with respect to I/P, we're through.

Have a nice day.

ps
well, okay....maybe every now and then I'll briefly comment on your latest absurd rants...but nothing too lengthy or time-consuming.

[Douglas Carpenter]

151. you KNOW perfectly well that is NOT true

First of all Israel increased the number of illegal settler by 90% between the time they signed the Oslo Accord and the Camp David 2000 talks and exhilarated the expansion under Ehud Barak in 2000 - hardly a move toward peace. They have been expanding and expanding and expanding ever since.

Arafat did NOT walk out of Taba..The Israeli negotiating team under instruction from the Prime Minister Ehud Barak unilaterally ended the talks in January 2001 because of the election which Ariel Sharon was predicted to win by a landslide with an absolute promise to reject any agreement with the Palestinians reached at Taba. These facts are not in dispute among sane and rational people.

Here is the link to the European Union notes - known as the Morantinos documents which all sides have confirmed to be a reliable record of what occurred at Taba, Egypt in January 2001.

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

snip: "Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election."

snip:"This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to European Union notes:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

--

Israelis, Palestinians make final push before Israeli election
January 27, 2001
Web posted at: 11:38 a.m. EST (1638 GMT) - link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

"Barak's challenger for the prime minister's post, hard-line, hawkish Likud party chairman Ariel Sharon -- who holds a commanding lead in the polls -- has said he would not honor any agreement worked out between Barak's negotiators and the Palestinians. "

"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes."

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

_________________

Here is a neutral and dispassionate examination of what led to the break down at Camp David in 2000 and Taba in January 2001:

sion of Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba" by Professor Jeremy Pressman:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/322/visions_in_collision.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F355%2Fjeremy_pressman

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

IDF Commander: Israel Provoked Second Intifada:

link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=936744

Collision course
By Yotam Feldman

From his home on the Upper Galilee road between Safed and Rosh Pina, as Brigadier General (res.) Zvika Fogel looks out over Lake Kinneret, the Gaza Strip seems a distant memory. But four years after Fogel retired from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Gaza continues to preoccupy him. He became chief of staff of Southern Command headquarters in February 2000, and in the past few years he has reflected a great deal on the actions he and his fellow officers carried out in the months that preceded the eruption of the second intifada, at the end of September 2000. His conclusion: the IDF created an irreversible situation that led to a confrontation with the Palestinians.

Fogel analyzes - in military present tense - the developments in the months that preceded the eruption of the second intifada. "The conceptual sequence is that we are creating the conditions for a confrontation by the very fact of our preparations," Fogel says. "It is clear to everyone that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We want to decide which event would foment the explosion. All we have to do is say what will launch it and then behave as we have planned."

Even if that was not the Palestinians' intention?

"Exactly."

Was the course the IDF embarked on a one-way street?

"I am afraid that I have to say yes. I don't see a situation in which, in July-August, someone says, 'Dismantle the forward posts, we are going back to joint patrols.' People would have looked at you like you were tipsy."


link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=936744

[shira]

154. I have a 1st hand account of the situation that calls your version BS

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html

That article puts to rest that had Arafat more time, a deal could have been made. At the end of both Camp David and Taba, it wasn't that Arafat wasn't close in agreement and that he just needed more time - it's that he made NO proposals and acted as though he was either there to get everything he wanted (including humiliating and embarassing Israel), or that nothing at all would happen.

Ben-Ami and Ross make it clear it was due to Clinton's term ending that time ran out. Barak didn't even want to go to Taba, knowing it would be a waste of time and that Arafat would reject Israel again - but also realizing that if he didn't, that would be used against him in the election.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

66. Whereas Israel has signed a peace proposal, yet expanded settlements exponentially.

Go figure.

[aranthus]

37. No. They have not offered even one.

Hamas doesn't want to make peace with Israel. That's why the most it will offer is a "hudna". That's a truce, not peace. The Israelis aren't stupid enough to fall for that. If Hamas ever offered more than a truce, it would no longer be Hamas.

[Idealism]

49. Are you so naive to think that after 20 years of a hudna

that peace wouldn't come to the region?

[shira]

51. would this hudna for 20 years

still allow for Palestinian hate media:

http://www.pmw.org.il/specrep-16.html

This hate and incitement to genocide would lead to peace within 20 years?

[Idealism]

55. What would Palestinians have to hate

if Israel didn't oppress them, starve them of food, keep them unemployed, and kill hundreds of them every so often for the crimes of a few?

Fact is this; Hamas wouldn't exist if Israel wasn't oppressive to Palestinians. Just like they would not have won the 06 elections without Israeli and US efforts to splinter Palestinians politically.

[shira]

57. are you kidding?

You truly believe rank anti-semitism, that would make SS officers from WW2 blush, would just "disappear" during a hudna, after Israeli withdrawal and Palestinian RoR? Here's a clue....that hate existed prior to 1948. Look into the Grand Mufti and his associations with the German premier of that time.

And of course, you've gotta love the old canard, they just hate Jews because Jews do this and that. Is that what we tell blacks and women who are oppressed or hated.....that it's what they do that encourages hatred and hostility?

[Idealism]

70. You are confusing European anti-Semitism with Palestinian Nationalism

Palestinians have a legitimate reason to dislike the Israelis. What reasons do Europeans have to dislike Jews? Just stereotypes of "Jews have all the money" and other inane shit people think. That is the difference.

[shira]

120. wow, are you misinformed

http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Jan2009.htm#b040109

Scroll a little more than halfway down, until you get to "Extermination of Jews".

Here's more:
http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part6.html


You say Palestinians have a legit reason to dislike Israelis. Does that work both ways? Do many Israelis have a legit reason to dislike Palestinians?

[Idealism]

128. What are the Israeli reasons?

They are the ones who have benefited from this situation immensely. You will say they have a reason to dislike Arabs for firing rockets and sending suicide bombers, but if you didn't repress an entire society they would have no reason for doing these things.

[shira]

133. well, okay...

1. Israelis, who do not make policy and who have been affected directly by terrorism, just may have good reason to dislike Palestinians - and not due to racism. They don't feel "they", the individuals, have repressed anyone. Maybe "they" were children who left Gaza 3 years ago and have seen no returns. Maybe "they" have lost friends or family due to terrorism. "They" have not benefitted immensely from the situation because "they" haven't repressed anyone.

2. I provided you evidence of serious, institutional anti-semitism by Hamas and PA leadership - something big you were not aware of - and this has no effect on your opinions?

[Idealism]

139. Cognitive dissonance is something both sides suffer from

It is important to repeat your point that the average citizens on both sides do not see the terrorism their governments commit and carry out against each other. They can be made to share some of the blame (the citizens) simply for voting each side into power, much like all US citizens share some part of the failure that was the Bush presidency.

This leads to varying problems, but the biggest in my mind is the almost primordial response to demonize the other side, lending to extremism. The Israeli elections and 2006 Palestinian elections showed the results of this problem, with Liebermann coming out of nowhere much like Hamas did (although Liebermann did not win the election, he will become a power broker for a new coalition it seems).

Hamas would not have come to power if Israel treated Palestinians better, even you cannot deny that. Whether they treated the Palestinians fairly or not is not the question- you can always do better. Hamas would still be a small player in the region, but they would be marginalized by the moderates. Violence breeds extremism, and as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan- it is good for terrorist recruitment and local sympathy.

As for #2, what are my "opinions" that you are referring to?

[Vegasaurus]

141. The extremists who were the 9/11 terrorists

were not treated badly or marginalized.

They were not poor or uneducated.

And yet they still became terrorists.

Sometimes the old arguments just fall apart.

[Idealism]

142. Careful, your racism is showing!

The 9/11 terrorists have nothing to do with this situation

[Vegasaurus]

143. You mention Iraq and Afganistan

I will mention that terrorists bloom from the soil of hatred, not just poverty or lack of education.

Facing the truth is very difficult, I know.

[Idealism]

144. Perhaps I should have been more detailed

What I was alluding to was that in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US influence along with NATO and the violence that we have wrought unto the population has been a boon for Al Qaeda's recruitment. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda until we invaded Iraq, and terrorists poured into the country to incite a civil war in the northern regions.

There will always be hatred for the U.S. for many reason, not least of which is our imperialistic foreign policy ways. It is understandable, and we have made many mistakes in this regard through the decades.

I wasn't trying to narrow "why terrorists bloom;" they certainly come from oppressed sects of society more so than well-off cultures, they certainly have reasons that they feel justification for committing the acts they do- right or wrong- they have them.

Do you believe that some people are just born with hatred in their hearts?

[pelsar]

155. how is it.....that you know so much of what could/should have happened?

Hamas would not have come to power if Israel treated Palestinians better, even you cannot deny that.

i'm impressed....i guess your assuming that hamasnikim arent that smart and wouldnt have figured out another way of getting power if the "first way" didnt work...and then you would probably blame israel for that as well

this is not the first time you made some psuedo predictions that "only if israel did a" then b would have happened......its a great way to have an arguement, based on nothing more than ones own fantasy.

perhaps some info might help: whatever israel wants, there is always some other group fighting against it, and sometimes they win and other times they lose, but what is certain, is that its impossible to predict, either in hindsight or foresight......

[Idealism]

158. It is called cause and effect.

Israel dispossessed an entire people of their land. Do you think this action does not breed resentment at some form? Whatever the name of a group formed on this hatred is called matters not. There will always be a "retaliation" for those who feel they have been wronged. Whether they have a legitimate reason to FEEL that way is not in discussion. The fact is that IF "a" didn't happen, then "b" wouldn't either.

Actually, this is the "first time I have made pseudo predictions," because the other post is the same predication.

This isn't an argument. This is just logic. Hamas won by less than 3% of the vote; do you not think that 3% of Palestinians may be sympathetic to the cause of resistance to Israel enough to vote for Hamas? This isn't like 3% of them would have to go suicide bomb a cafe in Tel Aviv- this is just 3% more votes.

Or do you honestly believe that no matter what, Hamas was going to come out the winner in 06, despite all the polls showing Fatah in command?

[pelsar]

160. i got logic...

if the arabs didnt attack the non armed non violent jewish farmers in the 1920s then there would be a non violent flourishing democratic state in the middle east......with arabs, jews, druz, christians, etc

this too is just logic......and no doubt you agree.



as far as hamas and fatah....i dont even pretend to know the internal politics of the Palestinian nor the larger arab communities that are involved and how they operate. Fatah is corrupt and secular, Hamas is religious and corrupt and they all have outside influences that + plus neither fatah nor hamas are "gun shy".....(iranian style revolution always being a possibility or does your "logic" say it's impossible?)

despite all the polls showing Fatah in command?

as if polls have any connection to reality....just which poll and when we as it taken?......(Dewey and Truman being the most famous "poll)

[Idealism]

162. Polls have advanced a bit in 60 years, you know...

You don't have to be a genius to recall almost every article around the 06 elections were that "Fatah is in the lead." Seriously, I can find you hundreds that say this, but it isn't needed as you already know this and are just deflecting.

No, there has been violence on both sides that have made the peaceful two-state solution a burden that neither wants to bear, it seems. The land stolen of an entire people outweighs the violent actions of a few.

So, knowing that Fatah was in the lead right up to elections, that they only lost by 3% of the vote, and that Israel quietly supported Hamas in the beginning to splinter Palestinian politics, and thus Palestinian people, you STILL don't think that if Israel treated these people better than they would not have voted in Hamas?

[oberliner]

58. The existence of Israel

The fact that Israel exists on land that most Palestinians believe the Israelis have no claim to could be the source of hatred against Israel even after all of the things you describe have ceased to be problems.

Also, Hamas most certainly would exist irrespective of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Recall that their existence was predicated on the premise that the totality of Palestine (including Israel itself) must be liberated.

Furthermore, they have since developed into a group that believes that its vision of what Palestinian society ought to look like is better than that of its political rivals for whom there is no love lost.

[shira]

59. Hamas is also

an Islamic resistance group. There's a BIG, big difference between that and a political, national liberation movement. In fact, Islamic religious fanatics like Hamas believe it is heresy to only have a Palestinian national liberation movement that goes against the worldview of the Islamist revolution (similar to Iran/Taliban). IOW, they won't accept just a political Palestine. It must be part of the grand scheme of dar al Islam, and Israel's existance also defies that and would still be an affront to their sensitivities.

There is no hard evidence existing that suggests Hamas will "accept" and want peace with Israel more than, say, Iran or the Taliban.

And as far as Hamas, Iran, Taliban, etc... even THEY do not get along with each other. What makes anyone think that with 11 million dead Muslims since 1948, the API will ensure Israel gets along with everyone when Arabs and Muslims don't get along with each other in their own insane backyards?

[oberliner]

60. What does your vision for a peace plan look like?

How would you proceed if you were PM of Israel?

[shira]

61. I wouldn't want the job

At this point, I see only 2 options.

Dismantle Hamas/Fatah, put Palestinians back in control of their own destiny like before Arafat returned. Install leadership like Sari Nussebeh, which existed before Arafat but was destroyed by Arafat. Have NATO forces there to ensure the peace, not UN forces. Peace with Israel would then come soon IMO.

Or, go back to the Egyptian/Jordanian option. Give them whatever they need to take Gaza and the W.Bank back.

As for the rest of the Arab/Muslim world, they just need to hop on board once one of the 2 options above materializes. Once they see how serious Israel is in working peacefully with Palestinians - after one of the above scenarios - it would be on them to then make peace with Israel. And if not, then not.

[oberliner]

63. I do not see other of your options coming to pass

Surely you do not believe that either of those options are realistic or feasible, do you?

[shira]

64. I know that the 1st option

is truly wanted by a big percentage of Palestinians who want Hamas/Fatah gone. It's about the only way Palestinians will have freedom and equal rights that they will never have under the PA or Egypt/Jordan.

The 2nd option is far inferior to the first, IMO. Palestinians will just suffer under those regimes.

But let's put it this way....I see a FAR better chance at peace with these 2 options than with Hamas in charge the next 10-30 years. Do you think peace with Hamas is realistic?

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. Even Sari Nussebeh was jailed by the Israelis for several months accused of being a terrorist by

the Israelis.

Even Sari Nussebeh has fought and would fight against settlement expansion and land expropriation. No government which holds any credibility with the Palestinians is simply going to lie down while the Israeli state builds a vast apartheid infrastructure regardless what name the party calls itself. Hamas grew dramatically in numbers, support and strength when Fatah was seen by most Palestinians as having become collaborators in the creation of their own non-plausibility as a viable state.

Will those NATO forces also dismantle Likud, Kadima and Labor; parties all which have to varying degree engaged in the same policies of illegal expansion and upon illegal expansion - stealing land upon stealing land- until such a point in which a viable two-state solution is in serious jeopardy? Will these NATO forces begin dismantling the settlements and take whatever punitive action is necessary against those who aid and abet the settlements?

Frankly, I don't think that is any more a realist possibility than expecting the Palestinians to accept the dismantling of their political institutions. Neither is going to happen.

Your attitude toward the Arab and Islamic world is disgustingly racist and bigoted and is as short-sighted and ignorant as the ravings of the most real and bone-fide anti-Semite. I'm going to get out of here before I blow a gasket reading this hateful and ignorant nonsense.

[shira]

113. Sari Nussebeh better represents Palestinians than Hamas/Fatah

If not him, then someone else similar to the leadership pre-Arafat. Someone, who unlike Arafat, would have accepted CD/Taba 2000, the rejection of which was considered a crime against Palestinians by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.

Why should NATO dismantle anything Israeli? Are you trying to conflate Israeli leadership with Palestinian? Israeli leadership was prepared to end the conflict for good 8 years ago, and they ended settlements/occupation in Gaza just 3 years ago. NATO isn't needed for Israel as it is to control Hamas from brutalizing their own people.

As for my "unrealistic" solution, it's what Palestinians want:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#256492
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#256706
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#256707
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#256709
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#256497

Let's at least agree that though this scenario is unlikely, it's far superior to waiting for a peace deal under Hamas. Any agreement with Hamas will not lead to better lives for Palestinians who will remain victims under Hamas leadership. Just look at the quotes above. Leaving Hamas in charge will only postpone peace in the region. It will only prolong Palestinian suffering. How can you, as someone supposedly pro-Palestinian, believe that keeping Hamas in charge is in the best interests of Palestinians?

And lastly, what exactly do you find disgustingly racist, bigoted, short-sighted, and ignorant about my previous postings? Please be specific. I hope you don't believe that criticism of fanatical religious extremist Arab/Muslim leadership is racist, bigoted, etc.

[iconicgnom]

161. Imagine being a native Palestinian, and being forced to deal with it.

Totally poisonous

[Idealism]

71. True, but they would be marginalized greatly

Hamas get support from the people because the people are generally oppressed. If there was a compromised worked out that made it possible in a few years to see reasonable unemployment and a vibrant economy in an indepentdent Palestinian state, Hamas's popular support would be nil. There always will be extremists on both sides, but if you see these things to start to happen they will both have their rugs pulled out underneath them.

[azurnoir]

92. Very interesting comment nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. it does go back a long ways

From Avi Shlaim:

"The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present, is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt toward the indigenous population. On the other hand, there have always been brave and outspoken critics of such attitudes. Foremost among them was Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891 and published a series of articles that were sharply critical of the aggressive behavior and political ethnocentrism of the Zionist settlers. They believed, wrote Ahad Ha'am, that "the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force." And they "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." Little seems to have changed since Ahad Ha'am penned these words a century ago.

That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs as possible inside their state is hardly open to question. "

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

(I might add that Avi Shlaim is definitely a Zionist. He was actually born in Baghdad, Iraq in 1945 with Arabic as his first language and immigrated to Israel with his family as a small child of five years in 1950. He makes it quite clear in his books that he strongly believes establishing the Jewish state was a historic necessity and a great accomplishment. However he also acknowledge the grave injustice this project brought upon the Palestinian people and the confusion created within the Arab world)

Avi Shlaim was born in Baghdad in 1945, grew up in Israel, and studied at Cambridge and the London School of Economics. He is a Fellow of St. Anthony’s College and a Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2006. His books include Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, and War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History. He lives in Berlin.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781400043057-1

.

[oberliner]

68. Avi Shlaim is definitely not a Zionist

In fact, he has argued that "Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews".

[Idealism]

74. Zionism today is not like it was before

Zionism today has taken on racist overtones and prideful nationalist feelings mixed with religious zealotry.

[Behind the Aegis]

75. According to your definition of the word.

It is convenient for you to have such a definition.

[Idealism]

77. The definition you use justifies racism towards an entire ethnicity

It is striking that you even debate the morality of such a thing

[Behind the Aegis]

79. No, it doesn't. If you think so, then, you know what to do.

Unless of course you also believe Palestinian nationalism is also racist.

[Idealism]

80. All forms of nationalism is inherently racist

Was manifest destiny and the U.S. colonization of North America not racist to Native Americans?

[Behind the Aegis]

81. You are confusing things again.

"Manifest Destiny" and "nationalism" are not the same thing. One is a component of the other and is an extremist version.

"The definition you use justifies racism towards an entire ethnicity." Care to prove this?

[Idealism]

82. Can't go three messages without a "prove it" eh, BTA?

Manifest destiny was the justification for US nationalism. Just like terrorism is the justification for your nationalism.

[Behind the Aegis]

84. I would if you and those like you would stop making up bullshit and expect to be taken as fact.

"Just like terrorism is the justification for your nationalism." An example of my subject line.

[Idealism]

86. Perhaps I should have said "you and those like you?"

use terrorism to that means. You don't believe that nationalism is oppressive?

[Behind the Aegis]

87. So, baseless accusations again from you? How surprising!

:eyes:

Do you believe Palestinian nationalism is oppressive?

[Idealism]

88. Did I not already answer that question?

Why do you keep dodging mine?

[Behind the Aegis]

89. Then why "fight" for a "Palestinian" homeland?

For shits and giggles? Or another reason?

[Idealism]

90. Why do you dodge the question?

Is it racist?

[Behind the Aegis]

91. Why side with the creation of a Palestinian homeland?

[Idealism]

93. Who doesn't have a homeland in this equation?

I would like to see a homeland for every background, where they can rule through their own principles and beliefs. Why would you deny them that right, when by all accounts, they were displaced to make way for someone else's dream of a homeland?

[Behind the Aegis]

94. "[i]Why would you deny them that right,[/i]"

More BS.

You know, just because you say it, doesn't make it true or factual.

[Idealism]

95. [i]Prove it[i]

:rofl:

[Behind the Aegis]

96. How sad for you.

You have nothing, as usual, you can't make your argument without strawmen, red herrings, or ad hominems and are left with nothing but mockery. Pity.

[Idealism]

97. As usual, you have nothing substantive to bring the the argument

but petty one-liners without factual backing and overly generalized statements that you only wish to ask and not answer for yourself. A pity, indeed.

[Behind the Aegis]

98. See, mockery.

(BTW...I did answer your question.)

[Idealism]

99. Perhaps in your mind you did

It was not translated to your keyboard well enough

[Behind the Aegis]

100. Perhaps you just couldn't grasp it.

There is "reading" words, and "understanding" what is written. They aren't one and the same.

[Idealism]

101. My apologies oh masterful wordsmith but, no you didn't.

Let me ask you again. Do you not believe that nationalism is inherently oppressive? It is a yes or no question.

[Behind the Aegis]

102. Asked and answered.

But, since you can't understand it unless in very simple, plain English...no.

[Idealism]

103. No further questions.

[Behind the Aegis]

104. Of course not.

Your narrative is ruined. Run along.

[Idealism]

105. Narrative?

You just admitted you don't realize how racist nationalism is. The story writes itself.

[Behind the Aegis]

106. The story you have concocted.

So much for "no further questions." (Yes, I know it was rhetorical.)

Idealism: The creation of a Palestinian state is racist.

[Idealism]

107. Does Israel not think so?

Oops.

[Behind the Aegis]

109. I have no clue.

Israel is a big place and has multiple ideas, and, unlike you, tends not to see things as "black or white."

[Idealism]

112. Personal insults get you nowhere, BTA

Is it any wonder that you so many people have you on ignore?

[Behind the Aegis]

121. This coming from you?!

How do you know how many have me on ignore or not? As for personal insults, I give as good as I get; especially from you.

[inthebrain]

130. Capitalism IS inherently racist

Whereas racism and nationalism are tools to get the dogs to fight eachother.

Barking about nationalism is just putting the cart before the horse. Until the capitalists are challenged by an international movement directed by a conducted the working classes the problems that you see in Israel Palesting as well as the United States manifest destiny will continue to exist.

Hamas is a capitalist outfit seeking to establish it's place amongst the Western and European power brokers. Not at all different than the lousy options hoisted upon the Palestinian people in the past.

[Dick Dastardly]

156. That is a whole bunch of hooey. Capitalism is not inherently racist nor is it

the root problem as you try to claim or for that matter a problem at all. Capitalism with the proper saftey nets in place is and has been the best system for innovation, raising a countries standard of living and general prosperity in history. Capitalism is a good fit with democratic forms of government and produce a synergy nothing else has equalled. The most prosperous countries are democratic with varying mixes of a free market capitalist economic system. This is the Democratic Underground not the Socialist or Communist Underground, go peddle that crap overthere because the last time I checked we Democrats still believed in free market capitalism.

[inthebrain]

159. Yeah, where do think you got those safety nets from and why are they there?

Here's a hint, the Socialist uprisings in American Society had a lot to do with them. As a matter of fact, they had EVERYTHING to do with them.

Capitalism the best system for innovation? What a load of complete BS. Before this country had a space program it took Sputnik till everyone decided to get their shit together. Even so, before then, it took a supreme court case to get creationism chucked out of the public schools and even that failed. After the Sputnik launch it took a whole lot of red baiting to finally kick that creationism garbage to the curb.

Yeah, Capitalism, the self cleaning oven.

Oh, and I find it rather ironic that you are singing the praises of regulated Capitalism as a system of innovation and prosperity while the system itself is crumbeling around you.

It's also rather typical of the capitalists to sweep all their barbarity under the rug and falsly proclaim they've "lifted people out of poverty".

Tell that to the 25% of children in this country that are starving or malnourished.

Tell that to the more than 3/4 of the worlds population that lives on less than $5 a week.

Yeah, regulate the bunk system with a bunch of foxes watching over the henhouse. The same fixes that try to sell the working classes on the myth that they are somehow better than one another by stirring up racist, xenophobic, ethnocentric and religious hatred. All to distract them from how bad these crooks are ripping them off from the fruits of their labor on daily basis.

And I'll remember your proclamations on what the Democratic party is supposed to stand for the next time Martin Luther King is wheeled out by Democratic Party capitalist. He was a great admirer of Marx and no lover of Capitalism.

[oberliner]

110. Be that as it may, Avi Shlaim is not a Zionist

And it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

[Violet_Crumble]

132. I hope yr not a Zionist either, Oberliner...

Douglas is correct. Avi Shlaim is a Zionist of the mainstream variety, and assuming that you'd even read his artcle, let's clarify what Avi Shlaim said when he defined what sort of Zionist he was talking about:

'By Zionism today I mean the ideological, ultra-nationalist settlers and their supporters in the Likud-led government. These settlers are a tiny minority but they maintain a stranglehold over the Israeli political system. They represent the unacceptable face of Zionism. Zionism does not equal racism, but many of these hard-line settlers and their leaders are blatant racists. Their extremism and their excesses have led some people to start questioning not just the Zionist colonial project beyond the 1967 borders but also the legitimacy of the state of Israel within those borders. And it is these settlers who also endanger the safety and well-being of Jews everywhere.'

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/04/edshlaim_ed3_.php

[Douglas Carpenter]

150. thank you for pointing out the facts Violet.. Avi Shlaim IS A Zionist and anyone who has read his

work knows that. He stated categorically and clearly in his book "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World" that he considered the establishment of the Israeli state a matter of historic necessity. He is completely un-nuanced in stating that. He also categorically stated that he felt the 1967 War was a defensive war - although he carefully examined events that lead to the crisis.

I would say that if one uses the term Zionist the way some anti-Zionist use the phrase, meaning a supporter of the settler movement or someone who is fiercely racist against Arabs or someone who opposed to reconciliation with the Palestinians and the Arab world - indeed he is not a Zionist of that type.

It is absolutely shameless how on some peoples part when the word Zionist is used carelessly by some anti-Zionist to mean the most reactionary elements of pro-Israeli thinking - they will immediately correct them and remind them that the Zionism simply means those who support the establishment of the Israeli state. Then when a critical thinking Zionist such as Avi Shlaim appears - they reflexively insist on only the most strident definition of Zionism - and they become the ones who use the word Zionism exactly the same way that anti-Zionist would use the term. They reminds me of how right-wing Republicans who accuse American opponents of American foreign policy of hating America. The intellectual dishonesty is simply jaw dropping. Perhaps such people in spite of their questionable claims (which I have trouble believing) of supporting peace, actually are the kind of Zionist that anti-Zionist are talking about - strident opponents of reconciliation rather critical thinking Zionist who recognize that the survival of Israel and the peace and security of Israeli people requires a change of attitude and a change of direction and some self-reflexion on how their policies have affected others. Perhpas they simply don't believe that an intellectually honest critical thinker with self-reflexion could possibly be a Zionist. Many of my fellow non-Zionist would agree. But I wouldn't want to be that dogmatic. It strikes me as a bit narrow minded.

[shira]

136. you know when someone has to claim "this person is a zionist", etc....

something's fishy.

:eyes:

[aranthus]

76. Talk about naive.

Where do you get the idea that hatred of Israel is simply because of the occupation? That's just Arab propaganda. When Hamas says they will agree to a truce only and that they will never recognize Israel, they mean it. They are keeping their options open for a further war. What makes you think that the incitement of hatred against Israel and Jews would end?

[Idealism]

78. They won't be in power if the oppresion ends

They were democratically elected (barely over Fatah). If the oppression stops, what need does the common Palestinian have for a government to violently resist?

[pelsar]

83. tell that to the iranians......

still living under shari law.....oops i forgot you believe that female iranians like being second class citizens (i bet the social democrats also liked shari law, as they walked to the gallows after khomneni took over).....so i guess the Palestinians will possibly like living in a world where homoseuxals are hung, and couples holding hands are dragged through the streets....hamas's world.

[Idealism]

85. If the US didn't install the Shah

Would there have been the Iranian revolution? Probably, but I don't think it would be that extreme. Iran had a thriving private sector prior to 1979 and a rapidly growing economy thanks to the country's plentiful natural resources. This all came to a halt because the population rejected the illegitimate ruler. If the US didn't install the Shah, Iran may have gone the way of Iraq under a similar Baathist regime. Either way, less oppressive to women.

[pelsar]

123. i m not much on predicting the future or past....i'm impressed that you can....

simple fact is there was a revolution, a fascist, theocratic regime took over and is not letting go....for some strange reason you appear to believe hamas would "let go" if there was no war with israel.

i'm impressed care to explain how that would possibly happen? and why would hamas go "quietly"(as they eliminate their opposition by killing them these days....)

or perhaps like iran, and Saudi Arabia (as you seem to believe) the Palestinians would "like" living under a religious dictatorship......

[Idealism]

129. You fail to see the point

Hamas would have nothing to "let go" if Israel didn't oppress these people. Why? Because, they wouldn't have been voted into power in the first place if Israel didn't treat these people like dirt. What would Hamas have to "resist" against if Palestinians were treated with respect? They would still be around, for sure, but marginalized greatly. They for sure wouldn't have won the elections- as it was they barely did that anyways.

Your argument is moot.

[Shaktimaan]

145. How can you be so certain of that?

They for sure wouldn't have won the elections- as it was they barely did that anyways.

Most analysis of the election that I've seen deduced that Hamas' success wasn't derived from their stance regarding Israel at all. In fact, the election results were not so much an endorsement of Hamas as they were a rejection of Fatah and it's astounding level of ineptitude and corruption.

I doubt very much that Hamas was elected because of how Israel was treating the Palestinians. Especially since Israel had been making some pretty significant peace overtures during the months immediately preceding the election. That was when Israel withdraw from Gaza, which it successfully coordinated with the PA and more than a few NGOs. They demolished the buildings that were unsuitable for the Palestinians while leaving ones that were. The greenhouses were left entirely intact, all having been bought and paid for by a third party. And even immediately following Israel's withdrawal, when Hamas and IJ began launching Qassams against Sderot, Israel completely refrained from retaliating militarily. Several months of gradually increasing rocket attacks went by, during which time Israel made no offensive moves in response.

Changing leadership just when Israel was actually making significant concessions would only make sense if the ousting of Fatah was in spite of Israel's actions, not because of them. People sometimes try and argue that Israel's concessions were too little, too late and just did not signify enough of a change to warrant continuing the status quo, but this does not really make much sense. Gaining Gaza was a significant accomplishment for the Palestinians, any way you slice it. If, after 60 years of conflict and 40 years of settlement expansion, your (much more powerful) enemy finally begins reversing its misdeeds, you don't do anything to convince him to stop. Not on purpose, anyway.

What would Hamas have to "resist" against if Palestinians were treated with respect? They would still be around, for sure, but marginalized greatly.

Well, what did Sadat do to Islamic Jihad that warranted them killing him? Why did they then try and kill Mubarak too? What does Islamic Jihad have to resist against in Egypt? Secular government. Corrupt and/or totalitarian rulers. Any of their demands that whomever is refusing to acquiesce to. It doesn't matter if Israel treated the Palestinians differently. There will ALWAYS be something that they are doing/are not doing/did at some point in the distant past that can be used to incite people against them. And in Israel's case, as long as it exists there will ALWAYS be at least one very popular reason for Hamas to resist. (And if Hamas' ideology ever softens then there's always Islamic Jihad waiting in the wings.)

Israel could try and treat the Palestinians as equitably as it treats its own citizens and it would not end up mattering for long. After all, Hamas would never let them get away with a dirty trick like that.

[Idealism]

146. Just by numbers, it is certinaly within the realm of possibility

Fatah won 41% of the vote, despite it being common knowledge that Abbas and his government were stealing foreign aid and stashing it in Swiss bank accounts, not building schools or hospitals that were desperately needed, and generally seen as not "fighting for the average Palestinian", etc. Hamas won 44% of that vote on a Liberation/Resistance military platform with Socialism as the political system. You are correct in the regard that the exit polls showed that Fatah was being rejected as inept and corrupt, but it was also split between secular and non-secular Palestinians. The Islamist vote went heavily for Hamas, as one can expect. Add in Hamas's campaign promises of "sharing the wealth" (which is laughable considering they don't have the same largess doled out to them that the PA had), and you still only get a 3% margin of victory. This is not in any way insurmountable, no?

What does Islamic Jihad have to resist against in Egypt? Secular government. Corrupt and/or totalitarian rulers. Any of their demands that whomever is refusing to acquiesce to.

Sadat was hated by the Arab world for handing Israel the Sinai. Islamic Jihad is an ultra-nationalist movement, especially the Egyptian offshoot that killed Sadat. Sadat was shunned by almost every Arab country after the Sinai agreement. He was also hated locally for being another corrupt dictator, and for caving into neo-liberalism. Mubarak is hated by Arabs the world over for his deplorable role in the Palestinians suffering, but also for his past persecution of the Egyptian Brotherhood and al Gama'a al Islamiya- that started the week Mubarak ascended to the Presidency.

[shira]

149. you did it again - proven wrong, can't come to grips with reality

You pontificate, as if it's truth-to-power, that Hamas is in control mainly due to Israel "not being nice". But Hamas came to power on the heels of the Gaza 2005 pullout, as Shaktimaan wrote. Say what you will, but Israel's actions in summer 2005 should have prompted a POSITIVE response, not an escalation in war.

This is what we call a "narrative buster".

[Idealism]

153. How do you "prove" someone wrong with a question?

He asked "how can you be so sure?" Obviously, I am not 100% sure but it is definitely within the realm of possibility that Hamas would not have come to power if Palestinians were treated better- which is an understatement on both ends. Did I not breakdown the numerous reasons Palestinians voted for Hamas over Fatah? Did I not mention the Islamist vote, the rejection of Fatah, the promises for social services- all before I mentioned Israel's treatment? Projecting much there, shira?

Perhaps you should read the conversation over.

[Recursion]

41. Stop lying about that

Hamas does not want to "kill all the Jews". They want control of the Levant and for Jews and Christians living in the Levant to pay a Jizyah like in the days of the caliphate.

[azurnoir]

12. Read the Fatah charter says the same thing

oops and what about those settlements? Actions do speak loud too.

[ohio2007]

27. Got tht link to the Fatah charter ?

[azurnoir]

32. Here you go

http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&x_article=1351

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124315

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/2051

[Idealism]

35. Many people don't realize

that Fatah, the PLO, Arafat, and Abbas was treated the same as Hamas is being treated now by Israel. They were all brushed away by Israel, who never listened to their concerns. The reason Hamas is such a problem is because they, unlike Arafat and Abbas, chose not to lie down and take getting the short end of the stick year after year.

[oberliner]

62. That is not the reason

The PLO used to conduct terrorist operations against Israeli civilians.

Then Arafat publicly renounced such actions and signed a document recognizing Israel and committing the PLO to peaceful coexistence with Israel.

That is why Israel started treating Arafat and the PLO differently.

Were Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce violent resistance, and commit itself to peaceful co-existence, then Israel would treat Hamas differently as well.

[Idealism]

73. No, they wouldn't

Israeli politicians can't afford to be "soft" on Hamas. Even if Hamas signed a letter of intent like Arafat did, it would be viewed as a charade by Likud and most likely Kadima, and brushed aside.

The old line of "Hamas needs to recognize Israel" is seriously skewed. Israel is already a state. Why does Israel, neigh, the world recognize Palestinians?

[oberliner]

111. They have said so repeatedly

Israel has made this demand over and over - there is no reason to believe they would not follow through. The US has made the identical demand. No one would brush aside a statement from Hamas recognizing Israel and renouncing violence.

As to your other point, as soon as a Palestinian state is established I am confident that Israel will be among the first to recognize that state.

[Idealism]

114. Just so long as it wouldn't come from Israeli lands, you forget to add

[oberliner]

115. What other lands would it come from?

I don't get what you are saying.

[Idealism]

116. If certain people in the government had their way

Palestine would come from Egyptian and Jordanian lands.

[oberliner]

118. Well that isn't what Livni and Kadima say

And, fortunately, they got the largest number of mandates!

[Idealism]

119. You just reminded me of something I forgot to do!

[Traveling_Home]

9. Didn't they conduct some kind of coup following the election -> sent Fatah packing? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Not quite.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah-Hamas_conflict

Hamas won the elections, Israel, the US, and Fatah basically colluded to deny turning control over to Hamas. Hamas seized control anyway in Gaza, by force of arms. Calling kicking the defeated party out of control over the government 'a coup' is typical inverted neo-logic.

[ohio2007]

29. yes, they did execute those Fatah stragglers who stayed behind

You can guarantee Hamas will not lose the next election either with their iron fist party platform

[Idealism]

31. Thanks to Israel, Hamas's popularity is much higher than what it was

prior to Cast Lead

[ohio2007]

46. Thats what you have been reading so it must be true

we will see how al Jazeera video reports on post Cast Lead.

[Idealism]

54. Are you saying that AP/Haaretz/JPost is pro-Hamas now?

[azurnoir]

13. more about the coup

in 2005 Abbas won the Presidential election in the PA making Fatah the majority or ruling party in 2006 Hamas won the Parliamentary elections giving Hamas the majority of Parliamentary seats in the PA or Palestinian Authority and making Ismail Haniyeh Prime minister so there was a coalition government the US supposedly alone did not like this situation and well here's the rest

Gen. Dayton admits US is helping Fatah

As violence raged this week in the Gaza Strip between Hamas and Fatah, US officials stressed the importance of American efforts to bolster forces loyal to the latter and said further help was necessary.

Congress recently allowed $59 million to be used to further Dayton's efforts at training the presidential guard of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah.
The money, however, didn't go through the normal appropriation process, as the White House took previously approved funds and simply reallocated them.
Dayton pushed the case for further US assistance to the Palestinian guard, despite months of efforts on the ground that have seemed to have little effect against the well-disciplined and well-supplied Hamas.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/J...

He admits that the US was/is "helping" Fatah/PA to fight Hamas in Gaza note this article is fro May of 2007, at best both sides were planning this well in advance.

The June escalation was triggered by Hamas’s conviction that the PA’s Presidential Guard, which US Security Coordinator Lieutenant General Keith Dayton had helped build up to 3,500 men since August 2006, was being positioned to take control of Gaza. The timing was significant. Abbas, Haniyeh and Hamas Politburo chief Khaled Meshaal, normally based in Damascus, had signed a Saudi-brokered power-sharing deal on 9 February 2007, and formed a national unity government in mid-March. In response, the build-up of the Presidential Guard was accelerated. The US had arranged the transfer of 2,000 rifles and ammunition from Egypt in late December 2006, and in late April the Israeli government transferred another 375; the US committed $59 million for training and non-lethal equipment, and covertly persuaded Arab allies to fund the purchase of further weapons. Jordan and Egypt hosted at least two battalions for training, one of which was deployed into Gaza as clashes resumed in mid-May. With half its parliamentary bloc and its cabinet ministers in the West Bank in Israeli custody since the abduction of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit by Palestinian militants on 28 June 2006, Hamas concluded that its remaining government base in Gaza was in danger and launched what in effect was a pre-emptive coup.

http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/pas...

After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Yes it was, though there are some twists to it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. No it is not Gaza by itself is not recognized as a separate nation by anyone

[Warren Stupidity]

19. De facto, since the palestinian civil war, Gaza is separate.

Brief review: 2006-9: Hamas wins elections in West Bank and Gaza, Fatah, with support from Israel and the US refuses to step down and hand over control to Hamas, civil war breaks out, Israel and US embargo Gaza, Fatah retains control over the West Bank, Hamas takes over control of Gaza effectively dividing the PA into two separately governed regions.

Yes Gaza is not recognized as a separate nation, nor for that matter is the West Bank. On the other hand, there are effectively two separate governments of the PA, one legally elected and in control only of Gaza, the other not legally elected and in control of the West Bank.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Your story misses several key points...

The PA is the recognized government of the Palestinians, though it is still considered and NGO by some. It represents the West Bank and Gaza. o nation recognizes Hamas as speaking for the PA.

Hamas won the elections in the assembly. Fatah had tried to do some tinkering and ironically it backfired and they end up with fewer seats than Hamas. Hamas did not win the popular vote. However, Abbas was President of the PA. Things got messy. This is not western Europe or the US where effective power sharing and transfers of power are the norm. This is the ME, where the AK-47 is the rule of law.

Subsequent to that Hamas took over Gaza by force of arms bringing with it a dictatorial form of fanatic Islamic government. Persecutions of non-Hamas and non-Muslims skyrocketed. Attacks against Israel stepped up too

There were supposed to be Palestinian elections prior to the Gaza incursion. Both sides blame the other for that not happening. Each side claims the other obstructed the elections out of fear of losing them. Articles support both sides as well. Abbas term of office as the PA President has now expired, but he remains in office since no elections have been held. Many have called for reconciliation or national unity elections. Most are refusing to deal with Hamas.

If one were to accept your position that we must accept a Hamas led Gaza, the Confederate States of America would be in existence today.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. CSA - bad analogy

As Hamas won the election and control over parliament - the Fatah government in the west bank is in the analogous position of Jeff Davis's CSA. The PA is not generally recognized as a sovereign nation - and obviously does not function as one. While 'the PA' is the recognized government, 'the PA' is one thing to Israel and the US, another thing to Fatah and its supporters, and yet another thing to Hamas and its supporters. What you cannot weasel out of is that Hamas won the last election and controls the legislature - while Fatah rules by extra-constitutional decree in the West Bank. Democratic legitimacy, much to the dismay of Fatah, the US, and Israel, belongs solely to Hamas. We demanded democracy and we got it. Now we want to abolish that democracy and support the undemocratic Fatah rulers of the West Bank as once again we discovered that the people are revolting.

But enough of this. My point here is not a quibble over what is the true government of the PA, the elected government or the one that rules by decree, my point is that the US-Israeli policy of embargo, delegitimizing, and ostracizing the elected government of the PA has been a total failure. More of the same will continue to be a total failure.

[oberliner]

69. Fatah was elected - the Hamas success in the legislative elections did not affect the presidency

I respectfully disagree with your concept of who the elected government is and who rules by decree.

[cboy4]

11. Yes. It can be trusted to position rocket launchers between

school buildings and fire Grad missiles into Israel, preemptively.

Plus they can be trusted to blow themselves up on civilian buses just for the hell of it.

That's what Hamas can be trusted to do.

One thing we know. It couldn't give less of a damn about the safety of its people.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. The real question should be: Can ISRAEL be trusted?

Hamas is always pretty much true to its word. Not the case at all where Israel is concerned, as it consistently pledges one thing, and does quite another.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Hamas true to its word? Laughable. To its nature, yes

[cboy4]

22. Now that's funny.

"Hamas is always pretty true to its word" :rofl:


I take that back .. they keep their word that they enjoy terrorizing humanity.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Another scholar! Just what we need here. More "experts."

[cboy4]

25. You're giving me too much credit as an expert....Anyone, and

I mean ANYONE not living on the moon is more than capable of recognizing Hamas can't be trusted farther than they can be thrown.

[Ken Burch]

127. So does the IDF, as any Palestinian in the Territories can tell you.

the state YOU defend has no moral superiority anymore. Not after Operation Cast Lead, and not after tonight's election.

Nothing good comes from "winning".

[Idealism]

26. You have to convince both parties here that peace is a common good

and that both sides need to give up something to attain that good. Hamas needs to give up their violent vindictive ways and Israel needs to give up their oppressive occupation. It is simply as that, in the end.

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. Collin Powell and several other prominent mainstream leaders support dialogue with Hamas

and signed a letter which includes a paragraph very clearly stating so - along with calling for real talks which covers substantial real issues.

Some of the signatories frankly surprised me:

"As to Hamas, we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organization is far preferable to its isolation; it could be conducted, for example, by the UN and Quartet Middle East envoys. Promoting a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza would be a good starting point."

Partial list of Signatories:


Zbigniew Brzezinski -Former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter

Lee H. Hamilton - Former Congressman (D-IN) and Co-chair of the Iraq Study Group

Carla Hills - Former U.S. Trade Representative under President George H.W. Bush

Nancy Kassebaum-Baker - Former Senator (R-KS)

Thomas R. Pickering - Former Under Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton

Brent Scowcroft - Former National Security Adviser to President Gerald Ford and President George H.W. Bush

Theodore C. Sorensen - Former Special Counsel and Adviser to President John F. Kennedy

Paul Volcker - Former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve System

Jodie Allen - Senior Editor, Pew Research Center; Former Editor of the Outlook Section, Washington Post

Harriet Babbitt - Former U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States; Former Director of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs

Birch Bayh - Former U.S. Senator (D-IN)

Shlomo Ben-Ami - Former Foreign Minister of Israel

Lincoln Chafee - Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies; Former U.S. Senator (R-RI)

Harvey Cox - Hollis Professor of Divinity, Harvard Divinity School

Michael Cox - Professor, London School of Economics and Director of the Cold War Studies Centre

James Dobbins - Former Assistant Secretary of State

Joseph Duffey - Director, U.S. Information Agency, 1993-1999; Assistant Secretary of State for Education and Culture, 1977

Peter Edelman - Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Joint Degree in Law and Public Policy; Former Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Gareth Evans - President & CEO of International Crisis Group; Former Foreign Minister of Australia

Leon Fuerth -Former National Security Advisor to Vice President Al Gore

Gary Hart -Wirth Chair at the University of Colorado; Chair of the Council for a Livable World and the American Security Project; Former U.S. Senator (D-CO)

Robert E. Hunter - Senior Advisor, RAND Corporation; Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO

Robert Hutchings - Diplomat in Residence, Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University; Former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council

Daniel Levy - Director, Middle East Policy Initiative, New America Foundation; Senior Fellow, Century Foundation; Lead Israeli Drafter, Geneva Initiative; Member of Israeli Delegation, Taba Negotiations

Anatol Lieven - Professor of War Studies, Kings College London; Senior Research Fellow, New America Foundation

John McLaughlin -Former Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency

Everett Mendelsohn -Professor Emeritus of the History of Science, Harvard University

Diana Villiers Negroponte - Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution

William E. Odom - Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Ret.); Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; Professor of Political Science, Yale University; Former Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-1988

Christopher Patten - Co-Chair of International Crisis Group; Chancellor of the University of Oxford; Former EU Commissioner for Foreign Relations; Former Commander in Chief and British Governor of Hong Kong

Edward L. Peck - Former U.S. Chief of Mission to Iraq; Former Ambassador to Mauritania

Larry Pressler - Former U.S. Senator (R-SD) & Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Member, Council on Foreign Relations

Theodore Roosevelt IV - Managing Director, Lehman Brothers

J. J. Sheehan - General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)

Eric Shinseki - General, US Army (Ret.)

Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

Stephen J. Solarz - Former U.S. Congressman (D-NY)

Robert and Renee Belfer - Professor in International AffairsJohn F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Phil Wilcox - President, Foundation for Middle East Peace; Former U.S. Ambassador at Large; Former Special Assistant to the Undersecretary for Management at the U.S. Department of State; Former Director for Regional Affairs, Bureau for Middle Eastern and South Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State

Lawrence B. Wilkerson - Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.); Pamela C. Harriman Visiting Professor of Government, College of William Mary; Professorial Lecturer, George Washington University; Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Department of State; Former Director, U.S. Marine Corps War College

Joseph Wilson - Ambassador in President George H. W. Bush’s Administration; Special Assistant to President Clinton; Senior Director for African Affairs, National Security Council

Timothy Wirth - President, U.N. Foundation; Former U.S. Senator (D-CO)

Frank Wisner - Former U.S. Ambassador to Zambia, Egypt, the Philippines and India; Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Former Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs; Vice Chairman of External Affairs at American International Group

link to full letter and all the signatories:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Annapolis%20Summit%20Statement.htm

.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. the former Israeli Foreign Minister on talks with Hamas

"SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, Hamas. I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.

And with these people, I think they are much more pragmatic than is normally perceived. In the 1990s, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. 1990s was the first time that Hamas spoke about a temporary settlement with Israel. In 2003, they declared unilaterally a truce, and the reason they declared the truce is this, that with Arafat, whose the system of government was one of divide and rule, they were discarded from the political system. Mahmoud Abbas has integrated them into the political system, and this is what brought them to the truce. They are interested in politicizing themselves, in becoming a politic entity. And we need to try and see ways where we can work with them.

Now, everybody says they need first to recognize the state of Israel and end terrorism. Believe me, I would like them to do so today, but they are not going to do that. They are eventually going to do that in the future, but only as part of a quid pro quo, just as the P.L.O. did it. The P.L.O., when Rabin came to negotiate with them, also didn't recognize the state of Israel, and they engaged in all kind of nasty practices. And therefore, we need to be much more realistic and abandon worn-out cliches and see whether we can reach something with these people. I believe that a long-term interim agreement between Israel and Hamas, even if it is not directly negotiated between the parties, but through a third party, is feasible and possible. "

link:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=140

"Israel must change its strategic objective in Gaza from toppling Hamas to rescuing the Annapolis process, and with it the last chance for a two-state solution. This requires not only a cease-fire with Hamas, but also a return to a Palestinian national unity government that alone can offer the peace process the vital legitimacy that it lacks today. Without the resurrection of the Mecca agreement, which put Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization in a coalition government, Hamas cannot expect to secure its control of Gaza and the PLO cannot deliver a peace settlement with Israel.
The notion, dear to the architects of the Annapolis process, that peace can be achieved only when a wedge is driven between Palestinian "moderates" and "extremists" is a misconception. A Palestinian national-unity government would not impede a settlement for the simple reason that the moderates now negotiating with Israel must in any case strive for an agreement that the extremists could not label as a treacherous sell-out. Hence, the difference between the Palestinian positions in the current negotiations and those they may hold when a unity government is restored would only be very minor."

link to full article:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/03/former_israeli/

[LeftishBrit]

42. I strongly support dialogue with Hamas. But the crucial question is..

does *Hamas* support dialogue with Hamas? Or will they brand any of their members who go to the negotiating table as 'traitors'?

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. usually this sort of thing begins with indirect contacts with meetings which

offer both sides some kind of plausible deniability that they are conducting negotiation which they claimed they would not conduct.

This is very similar to the process of talks that developed between the PLO leadership and Israel which eventually led to open and overt negotiations.

It is simply not possible to make a lasting peace based on negotiations with 40% of a country. Only a unity Palestinian government which in this case would simply have to include Hamas, simply for the sake of viability - would be capable of delivering.

If the Palestinian Authority were to refuse talks with any Israeli government that included elements like Likud who refused to recognize the right of a sovereign Palestine to exist, based on the 67 border and with East Jerusalem as its capital - everyone would say the Palestinian Authority were being unreasonable and rejectionist.

[LeftishBrit]

44. You are right about covert negotiations

E.g. the Thatcher government would NEVER, but NEVER negotiate with all those IRA terrorists (except, as we now know, for all the times when it did so secretly).

We shall see. Sometimes it happens; sometimes it doesn't.

I am also concerned about Likud's willingness to negotiate if it comes to that; but again, we shall see. Let's just hope that they don't turn out to be the main party in power in Israel!

'It is simply not possible to make a lasting peace based on negotiations with 40% of a country.'

Not sure here; most governments represent less than 40% of their people, either because the countries aren't democracies, or because large numbers don't vote, or because the governments are minority-governments in parliamentary systems. So most negotiations are thus with representatives of 40% or less of the country. However, the more parties get involved, the more solid and lasting any agreement is likely to be. As I always say, not talking to your enemy doesn't make them stop existing. But at the same time, some parties may not choose to get involved.

[eyl]

131. Bear in mind who signed the Wye Accords n/t

[Idealism]

140. That is no real accomplishment

considering the Wye agreement was never implemented. I would be ashamed if I signed my name to an agreement then never stayed true to my word.

[Vegasaurus]

45. But Hamas has stated repeatedly and recently

that it has no desire to make a lasting peace with Israel (sicne they consider all of Israel occupied, and plan to "liberate" it).

They have no desire to make a unity agreement with Fatah.

So, who is being obstructionist here?

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. in the lead up to the Good Friday agreement, Sein Fein was all over the place in their positions

which indicated that there were different opinions coming from different factions and their positions were in a state of flux. Even today Sein Fein does not recognize the right of British sovereignty over any of Northern Ireland - even though they participate as members of a government which accepts and operates under British sovereignty

The world's foremost experts on the Middle East see Hamas also as containing different factions and holding opinions within a state of flux and changeability.

Likud and a number of other Israeli parties consider all of the Occupied Territories to be an intrinsic part of Eretz Israel. Lots if not most Israelis at least emotionally and viscerally consider the land between between the Jordan and the Sea to be the Land of Israel and their homeland. Almost all Palestinians consider the land between the Jordan and the Sea to be their Palestinian homeland. Neither visceral position is going to change. The question is not what any given party holds as a theoretical positions. . The question is whether or not the constituency supporting any given party -whether an Israeli party or a Palestinian party has a large enough block of supporters capable of setting aside attachment and ideology for their own long term self interest.

[KT2000]

147. They are headed

toward mutual destruction and it is almost irrelevant as to whether each side can be trusted. There does not appear to be a desire for peace from the leaders and the recent election in Israel does not bode well for the future.
This thread has been enlightening. There are centuries of history to draw upon for both sides to supply justifications for further hatreds, violence and war. It is never ending unless something changes but that will not happen either. History means more than their own children.

What will either side GIVE for peace and safety for their children - nothing.
They will get their wars and eventually Iran will join the fray and the US will send a new crop of sons and daughters and bombs as well. It will be a Middle East bonfire.

What a fucking failure.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

152. Of course not, but it can and should be gambled on.

It would be foolish to trust Hamas; entering into an agreement with it would be a gamble.

On the other hand, not entering into an agreement with it isn't even a gamble, it's a sure-fire lose. And if Israel made the right agreement and honoured it, the odds would be good.

But that's not going to happen.