Breakthrough or Blockade in Middle East Peace Process? ...

[Tom Joad]

Breakthrough or Blockade in Middle East Peace Process?
Why Hamas won, and why negotiations must resume.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/08/EDGURH4I5P1.DTL&hw=joel+beinin&sn=002&sc=243

<snip>

While the State Department, President Bush and many other observers understand that Hamas' popularity is due to frustration with Fatah's corrupt governance of the Palestinian Authority, they have been missing several other crucial reasons why the P.A. has failed. The Bush administration's simple faith in elections has distracted it from comprehending the realities that Palestinians live with daily. What they have not understood is that an election is only a formal procedure. Substantive democracy requires the rule of law, protection of civil liberties and minority rights, physical security, a reasonable standard of living, sovereignty and political independence. The Palestinians have none of these. This is a source of Hamas' popularity that President Bush fails to grasp.

<snip>

Israel says that it will not conduct political talks with a Palestinian Authority led by Hamas. But since 2001, it has also refused to negotiate substantive political issues related to the removal of Israeli settlements, establishment of a Palestinian state and its borders with Yasser Arafat or Abbas. Instead, it undertook a unilateral redeployment from the Gaza Strip that, rather than creating a zone of Palestinian autonomy, has turned the area into a lawless open-air prison. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon sustained the abandonment of the January 2001 Taba talks, where the parties were, as Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo, the lead negotiators for each side, wrote in the New York Times on Aug. 1, 2001, "agonizingly close" to a comprehensive agreement. He ignored a Saudi peace plan floated by Crown Prince Abdullah in March 2002 that proposed recognition of Israel by all the Arab states in exchange for withdrawal to the Green Line border around the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Before his debilitating stroke, Sharon was planning further unilateral measures, according to the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, including the annexation of "greater Jerusalem" and areas to the west of the separation barrier in the West Bank.

<snip>

Neither the Bush administration nor Israel appears to recognize its own responsibility for strengthening Hamas and weakening secular and more moderate Palestinian political forces. Will Hamas recognize Israel and abandon armed struggle when it assumes political responsibility for the Palestinian people? If this happens at all, it is unlikely to come as a single dramatic declaration. A long transition comparable to the torturous negotiations among the Irish Republic Army, the British government and the other Irish political forces would probably be required.

Israel and the Bush administration have two options -- to stonewall the new P.A. government on the grounds that Hamas is a terrorist organization, or to engage cautiously and encourage the adoption of pragmatic policies by offering real progress toward a viable and independent Palestinian state in exchange. The first option will almost surely lead to more death and destruction for both Palestinians and Israelis. The second option is risky. But serious negotiation is the only chance for progress toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and long overdue.

[Grey]

1. Sort of off topic, but

Why do they never refer to the 'Leader' of Hamas by His Name? Is this a way to 'dehumanize' Him? A way to make Him less than/not worth Mention? In the same way they de-humanize Palistinians or the Prisoners in Cuba.
I am assuming He is a real person with a real name, Why does no one use it? What is this persons Name?

[Tom Joad]

2. I think because there is no one particular leader. eom

[pelsar]

3. hamas is multiheaded...

leaders in syrian, gaza and the westbank...hence when what one says may or may not have any bearings on what the others do..and in fact they all may go their own seperate ways. So when "hamas" makes a statement, one doesnt really know whats going on, is it internal fighting, for external consumption for syria or for the egyptains etc.

but the article, as usual ignore the "iran option"...sort of skips over it and pretends all the power lies with bush and israel:

engage cautiously and encourage the adoption of pragmatic policies by offering real progress toward a viable and independent Palestinian state in exchange. The first option will almost surely lead to more death and destruction for both Palestinians and Israelis. The second option is risky. But serious negotiation is the only chance for progress toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and long overdue.

the second option may not even be an option: iran is a prime example of a country overthrowing the old and getting a much worse fanatical govt...(first thing khomeni did after the revolution was hang and shoot all the secular democrates, communists etc)...or the taliban. Neither were interested in negotiating with the "west" since the wests values were abhorrent to them (as are the talibans and irans-stoning and hanging gays and rape victims is NOT a western value....for those that have to be reminded)

furthermore, the palestenains voted in hamas....they're not babies, they know exactly what hamas represents and plans for israel and israelis, and its not up to israel to interfere with palestenains politics.

Let hamas come forward and decide what they are......in the meantime....there is no reason to rush forward and make mistakes....

[bemildred]

4. "Decapitation" is a popular strategy.

Hence no leaders. You can see this in Iraq too. In a lot of places, these days.