Replies
39
SoWal Insider
Blame Iran, and bomb them, then negotiate.
Beach Fanatic
Thoughts on Gaza?
Beyond tragic is all I can think of to say right now - the situation in my eyes is absolutely heartbreaking. I have no idea if the threats being lobbied around to abandon Gaza and turn it over to the terrorists hands of Hamas is seriously being debated- but to even consider such a fate would be dooming hundreds and thousands of Palestinians to an uncertain and scary future. Hamas is still the most radical of organizations, capable of inciting and propagating violent acts of terror and still absolute in their resolve that Israel should not exist - and they show no signs of weakening their resolute stand. The events over the past week have probably shattered whatever hope many many people had for a peaceful and united Palestine.
Fatah has always been more moderate and accepting of Israel and would probably like to see a number of UN resolutions that have passed actually implemented (such as the disassembly (is this a word???) of settlements but with the meagre support Abbas has received, especially from the US- it is unlikely that they are able to assert much power and influence. And after the US all but abandoned Abbas, it is so (struggling to find the right wor here...) disingenious to see Condoleeza Rice NOW try to curry favor by stating her support of Abbas and his democratic government. But maybe something good can come of this if the West can help.... this is so despairing and the whole area is sorely lacking in any sort of enlightened, moderate leader.
Beach FanaticAuthor
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010219
Arafat's Children
Gaza's mayhem is the bitter fruit of terror as statecraft.
Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Scores of Palestinians were killed this week in Gaza in factional fighting between loyalists of President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and those of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. As if on cue, it took about 24 hours before pundits the world over blamed the violence on Israel and President Bush.
This is the Israel that dismantled its settlements in Gaza in August 2005, a unilateral concession for which it asked, and got, nothing in return. And it is the U.S. President who, in a landmark speech five years ago this month, called on Palestinians to "elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." Had Palestinians done so, they could be living today in a peaceful, independent state. Instead, in January 2006 they freely handed the reins of government to Hamas in parliamentary elections. What is happening today is the result of that choice--their choice.
That election didn't simply emerge from a vacuum, however. It is a consequence of the cult of violence that has typified the Palestinian movement for much of its history and which has been tolerated and often celebrated by the international community. If Palestinians now think they can advance their domestic interests by violence, nobody should be surprised: The way of the gun has been paying dividends for 40 years.
In 1972 Palestinian terrorists murdered Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Yet only two years later Yasser Arafat addressed the U.N.'s General Assembly--the first non-government official so honored. In 1970 Arafat attempted to overthrow Jordan's King Hussein and tried to do the same a few years later in Lebanon. Yet in 1980, the European Community, in its Venice Declaration, recognized Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization as a legitimate negotiating partner.
In 1973, the National Security Agency recorded Arafat's telephoned instructions to PLO terrorists to murder Cleo Noel, the U.S. ambassador in Sudan, and his deputy George Curtis Moore. Yet in 1993, Arafat was welcomed in the White House for the signing of the Oslo Accords with Israel. That same year, the British National Criminal Intelligence Service reported that the PLO made its money from "extortion, payoffs, illegal arms-dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering and fraud." Yet over the next several years, the Palestinian Authority would become the largest single recipient of foreign aid on a per capita basis.
In 1996, after he had formally renounced terrorism in the Oslo Accords, Arafat told a rally in Gaza that "we are committed to all martyrs who died for the cause of Jerusalem starting with Ahmed Musa until the last martyr Yihye Ayyash"--Musa being the first PLO terrorist to be killed in 1965 and Ayyash being the Hamas mastermind of a series of suicide bombings in which scores of Israeli civilians were killed. Yet the Clinton Administration continued to pretend that Arafat was an ally in the fight against Hamas. In 2000, Arafat rejected an Israeli offer of statehood midwifed by President Clinton and instead initiated the bloody intifada that left 1,000 Israelis and 3,000 Palestinians dead.
In 2005, only months after Arafat's death, Israel dismantled its settlements and withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip. Palestinians have used the opportunity to intensify their rocket fire at civilian targets within Israel. Last month, Israeli security services arrested two Gazan women, one of them pregnant, who were planning to enter Israel on medical pretexts in order to carry out suicide attacks. Yet the same month, the World Bank issued a report faulting Israel for restricting Palestinian freedom of movement.
Now it appears Hamas has taken control of the Gaza Strip's main road and its border with Egypt, as well as the offices of the so-called Preventive Security Services, traditionally a Fatah stronghold. "They are executing them one by one," a witness told the Associated Press of Hamas's reprisals against the Preventive Security personnel.
We do not pretend to know where all this will lead. On Thursday, Mr. Abbas dissolved the government and declared a state of emergency, though he seems powerless to change the course of events in Gaza. Israel could conceivably intervene, as could Egypt, and both states have powerful reasons to prevent the emergence of a Hamastan with close links to Iran hard on their borders. But neither do they wish to become stuck in the Strip's bottomless factionalism and fanaticism.
At the same time, pressure will surely mount on Israel and the U.S. to accept Hamas's ascendancy and begin negotiations with its leaders. According to this reasoning, the Bush Administration cannot demand democracy of the Palestinians and then refuse to recognize the results of a democratic election.
But leave aside the fact that Mr. Bush did not simply call for an election: Is it wise to negotiate with a group that kills its fellow Palestinians almost as freely as it does Israelis? And what would there be to negotiate about? The best-case scenario--a suspension of hostilities in exchange for renewed international funding--would simply give Hamas time and money to consolidate its rule and rebuild an arsenal for future terror assaults. Then, too, the last thing the Palestinians need is yet further validation from the wider world that the violence they now inflict so indiscriminately works.
The deeper lesson here is that a society that has spent the last decade celebrating suicide bombing would inevitably become a victim of its own nihilistic impulses. This is not the result of Mr. Bush's call for democratic responsibility; it is the bitter fruit of the decades of dictatorship and terrorism as statecraft that Yasser Arafat instilled among Palestinians.
Arafat's Children
Gaza's mayhem is the bitter fruit of terror as statecraft.
Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Scores of Palestinians were killed this week in Gaza in factional fighting between loyalists of President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and those of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. As if on cue, it took about 24 hours before pundits the world over blamed the violence on Israel and President Bush.
This is the Israel that dismantled its settlements in Gaza in August 2005, a unilateral concession for which it asked, and got, nothing in return. And it is the U.S. President who, in a landmark speech five years ago this month, called on Palestinians to "elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." Had Palestinians done so, they could be living today in a peaceful, independent state. Instead, in January 2006 they freely handed the reins of government to Hamas in parliamentary elections. What is happening today is the result of that choice--their choice.
That election didn't simply emerge from a vacuum, however. It is a consequence of the cult of violence that has typified the Palestinian movement for much of its history and which has been tolerated and often celebrated by the international community. If Palestinians now think they can advance their domestic interests by violence, nobody should be surprised: The way of the gun has been paying dividends for 40 years.
In 1972 Palestinian terrorists murdered Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Yet only two years later Yasser Arafat addressed the U.N.'s General Assembly--the first non-government official so honored. In 1970 Arafat attempted to overthrow Jordan's King Hussein and tried to do the same a few years later in Lebanon. Yet in 1980, the European Community, in its Venice Declaration, recognized Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization as a legitimate negotiating partner.
In 1973, the National Security Agency recorded Arafat's telephoned instructions to PLO terrorists to murder Cleo Noel, the U.S. ambassador in Sudan, and his deputy George Curtis Moore. Yet in 1993, Arafat was welcomed in the White House for the signing of the Oslo Accords with Israel. That same year, the British National Criminal Intelligence Service reported that the PLO made its money from "extortion, payoffs, illegal arms-dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering and fraud." Yet over the next several years, the Palestinian Authority would become the largest single recipient of foreign aid on a per capita basis.
In 1996, after he had formally renounced terrorism in the Oslo Accords, Arafat told a rally in Gaza that "we are committed to all martyrs who died for the cause of Jerusalem starting with Ahmed Musa until the last martyr Yihye Ayyash"--Musa being the first PLO terrorist to be killed in 1965 and Ayyash being the Hamas mastermind of a series of suicide bombings in which scores of Israeli civilians were killed. Yet the Clinton Administration continued to pretend that Arafat was an ally in the fight against Hamas. In 2000, Arafat rejected an Israeli offer of statehood midwifed by President Clinton and instead initiated the bloody intifada that left 1,000 Israelis and 3,000 Palestinians dead.
In 2005, only months after Arafat's death, Israel dismantled its settlements and withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip. Palestinians have used the opportunity to intensify their rocket fire at civilian targets within Israel. Last month, Israeli security services arrested two Gazan women, one of them pregnant, who were planning to enter Israel on medical pretexts in order to carry out suicide attacks. Yet the same month, the World Bank issued a report faulting Israel for restricting Palestinian freedom of movement.
Now it appears Hamas has taken control of the Gaza Strip's main road and its border with Egypt, as well as the offices of the so-called Preventive Security Services, traditionally a Fatah stronghold. "They are executing them one by one," a witness told the Associated Press of Hamas's reprisals against the Preventive Security personnel.
We do not pretend to know where all this will lead. On Thursday, Mr. Abbas dissolved the government and declared a state of emergency, though he seems powerless to change the course of events in Gaza. Israel could conceivably intervene, as could Egypt, and both states have powerful reasons to prevent the emergence of a Hamastan with close links to Iran hard on their borders. But neither do they wish to become stuck in the Strip's bottomless factionalism and fanaticism.
At the same time, pressure will surely mount on Israel and the U.S. to accept Hamas's ascendancy and begin negotiations with its leaders. According to this reasoning, the Bush Administration cannot demand democracy of the Palestinians and then refuse to recognize the results of a democratic election.
But leave aside the fact that Mr. Bush did not simply call for an election: Is it wise to negotiate with a group that kills its fellow Palestinians almost as freely as it does Israelis? And what would there be to negotiate about? The best-case scenario--a suspension of hostilities in exchange for renewed international funding--would simply give Hamas time and money to consolidate its rule and rebuild an arsenal for future terror assaults. Then, too, the last thing the Palestinians need is yet further validation from the wider world that the violence they now inflict so indiscriminately works.
The deeper lesson here is that a society that has spent the last decade celebrating suicide bombing would inevitably become a victim of its own nihilistic impulses. This is not the result of Mr. Bush's call for democratic responsibility; it is the bitter fruit of the decades of dictatorship and terrorism as statecraft that Yasser Arafat instilled among Palestinians.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Here's another article. And I know Bob likes to minimize Iran's importance in this, but the evidence shows the contrary. I'll dig up the articles if I have to.
Land for Peace ?
? or land in pieces?
By Seth Leibsohn
The news out of Gaza is actually not the latest history lesson that Munich-type land-for-peace propositions require us to restudy. What we need is an update to Baruch Spinoza. While nature may still very well abhor a vacuum, we now know beyond speculation that terrorism will thrive in one. Where once a democratic state ?occupied? Gaza, a terrorist Fatah took over under the watchful eyes of the U.N. In less than two years, the even-more-radical Hamas blasted Fatah out of power and took over from there ? in one of the bloodiest coups of the past decade. Now Hamas, with support from Iran, runs a mini-state on the border of Egypt and Israel.
And yet, too much of the world ? and too many at home ? maintain a dangerous, if not fatal, post-9/11 foreign-policy strategy. The fatal thinking is twofold: 1) The U.S. must withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible and 2) the U.S. must reengage the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Iraq Study Group, made up of the ?wise? men and women of our political establishment, encouraged this policy by stating that ?The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.? As if Israel had anything to do with Iraq. As if, perhaps, Israel withdrawing from Gaza might be a model for the U.S. in Iraq. As if, perhaps, Israel should be further encouraged to fully withdraw from the West Bank as it did in Gaza. But there is no Israeli-Palestinian peace process right now, not when the ruling Palestinian government of Hamas adheres to a covenant that believes Israel will exist only up until ?Islam will obliterate it,? and was founded to consummate that goal.
Now is the time to take a history lesson about democracies withdrawing from lands tyrants lick their lips over. Again. The lesson no longer need be from the 1930s, or even the 1970s ? when a forced U.S. withdrawal from Southeast Asia resulted in killing fields and slaughter. The lesson can easily enough be 2005, when Israel left Gaza. The world wanted Israel out of Gaza, just as so many now want us out of Iraq. Israel left Gaza, and the void was filled ? but not by the laying of tracks for the Peace Train. Within two years, Iranian Hamas took over from Arafatian Fatah. Where many of us once warned that Fatah?s rule of Gaza would create another Libya in the Middle East, our warnings went unheeded, and, at the same time, the warnings were not alarmist enough: A new Iranian state in the Middle East is now in charge. Nice work. At long last, might we now absorb the lesson?
A democracy showing weakness where terrorists thrive is a sure recipe for disaster if only one condition is met: Cede land to the terrorists and encourage the democracy to withdraw. The Middle East is now in the balance between forces of composition and forces of decomposition. Just as the world community, and many in America, did not want Israel in Gaza, and now it has Iran and Hamas there, the world community, and many in America, no longer want the U.S. in Iraq. But what would be left as Sunni Baathists, al Qaeda, and Iranian militias have staked their claims to that country? We can leave, that is the easy thing to do. But look at Gaza once more, and ask: What will come next? In the end, no history or philosophy degrees are required to answer that question ? just two eyes to read the newspaper, and a memory that can reach back two years.
? Seth Leibsohn is a fellow of the Claremont Institute.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDNjZjY0YjZjNzJkZmUwZjUwNWE5YzdiOTU5ZGU3NTk=
Land for Peace ?
? or land in pieces?
By Seth Leibsohn
The news out of Gaza is actually not the latest history lesson that Munich-type land-for-peace propositions require us to restudy. What we need is an update to Baruch Spinoza. While nature may still very well abhor a vacuum, we now know beyond speculation that terrorism will thrive in one. Where once a democratic state ?occupied? Gaza, a terrorist Fatah took over under the watchful eyes of the U.N. In less than two years, the even-more-radical Hamas blasted Fatah out of power and took over from there ? in one of the bloodiest coups of the past decade. Now Hamas, with support from Iran, runs a mini-state on the border of Egypt and Israel.
And yet, too much of the world ? and too many at home ? maintain a dangerous, if not fatal, post-9/11 foreign-policy strategy. The fatal thinking is twofold: 1) The U.S. must withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible and 2) the U.S. must reengage the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Iraq Study Group, made up of the ?wise? men and women of our political establishment, encouraged this policy by stating that ?The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.? As if Israel had anything to do with Iraq. As if, perhaps, Israel withdrawing from Gaza might be a model for the U.S. in Iraq. As if, perhaps, Israel should be further encouraged to fully withdraw from the West Bank as it did in Gaza. But there is no Israeli-Palestinian peace process right now, not when the ruling Palestinian government of Hamas adheres to a covenant that believes Israel will exist only up until ?Islam will obliterate it,? and was founded to consummate that goal.
Now is the time to take a history lesson about democracies withdrawing from lands tyrants lick their lips over. Again. The lesson no longer need be from the 1930s, or even the 1970s ? when a forced U.S. withdrawal from Southeast Asia resulted in killing fields and slaughter. The lesson can easily enough be 2005, when Israel left Gaza. The world wanted Israel out of Gaza, just as so many now want us out of Iraq. Israel left Gaza, and the void was filled ? but not by the laying of tracks for the Peace Train. Within two years, Iranian Hamas took over from Arafatian Fatah. Where many of us once warned that Fatah?s rule of Gaza would create another Libya in the Middle East, our warnings went unheeded, and, at the same time, the warnings were not alarmist enough: A new Iranian state in the Middle East is now in charge. Nice work. At long last, might we now absorb the lesson?
A democracy showing weakness where terrorists thrive is a sure recipe for disaster if only one condition is met: Cede land to the terrorists and encourage the democracy to withdraw. The Middle East is now in the balance between forces of composition and forces of decomposition. Just as the world community, and many in America, did not want Israel in Gaza, and now it has Iran and Hamas there, the world community, and many in America, no longer want the U.S. in Iraq. But what would be left as Sunni Baathists, al Qaeda, and Iranian militias have staked their claims to that country? We can leave, that is the easy thing to do. But look at Gaza once more, and ask: What will come next? In the end, no history or philosophy degrees are required to answer that question ? just two eyes to read the newspaper, and a memory that can reach back two years.
? Seth Leibsohn is a fellow of the Claremont Institute.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDNjZjY0YjZjNzJkZmUwZjUwNWE5YzdiOTU5ZGU3NTk=
Beach Fanatic
6th Gen,
You keep baiting me and like an idiot I keep falling for it.
I can post as many articles as you can strongly making an argument as to why Israel AND the palestinians are at fault for their egregious conduct. The fact that you do not recognize this makes it pointless to even try have a conversation, let alone a healthy debate. How very easy for you to point fingers at Arafat, and how convenient it is to ignore the despicable and arguably, terrorist acts of Sharon for example. All I have to say to you at this juncture is that hopefully whoever presents themselves at the table to try improve the situation for both sides will geniunely NOT have the narrow mindedness of your views - peace will continue to elude....
You keep baiting me and like an idiot I keep falling for it.
I can post as many articles as you can strongly making an argument as to why Israel AND the palestinians are at fault for their egregious conduct. The fact that you do not recognize this makes it pointless to even try have a conversation, let alone a healthy debate. How very easy for you to point fingers at Arafat, and how convenient it is to ignore the despicable and arguably, terrorist acts of Sharon for example. All I have to say to you at this juncture is that hopefully whoever presents themselves at the table to try improve the situation for both sides will geniunely NOT have the narrow mindedness of your views - peace will continue to elude....
Beach Fanatic
6th Gen,
It is not so much the narrow mindedness that you exhibit that irks me - at this juncture I think that I beginning to know what your views on topics are - but it is the fact that you invited an opinion knowing perfectly well what my position was likely to be - and then you posted that article that you knew would inflame me - hope you enjoyed yourself!
It is not so much the narrow mindedness that you exhibit that irks me - at this juncture I think that I beginning to know what your views on topics are - but it is the fact that you invited an opinion knowing perfectly well what my position was likely to be - and then you posted that article that you knew would inflame me - hope you enjoyed yourself!
Beach FanaticAuthor
I wasn't baiting you or trying to inflame you. I seriously wanted to know what your thoughts were on the situation. Seeing how you've lived in Europe and the Middle East for a while, I'm not surprised that you've bought into their Evil Zionist threat nonsense, and you've shown you are all about moral equivalence. I posted the two articles, from two very well respected sources, National Review and The Wall Street Journal, after I posed the question, I don't believe either were published when I asked. So, tell me where Sharon commanded anyone to hijack (TWA, PanAm) blow up passenger airplanes (Swiss Air 330). Show me where Sharon financed blowing up Palestinian school buses. Show me where he murdered Olympic athletes. Do you want me to go on? I'm only to 1972. I really thought your moral equivalence only went so far. I cannot think of enough terrible adjectives to describe Arafat, so please give me some examples of Sharon doing anything in that ballpark.
Beach Fanatic
I wasn't baiting you or trying to inflame you. I seriously wanted to know what your thoughts were on the situation. Seeing how you've lived in Europe and the Middle East for a while, I'm not surprised that you've bought into their Evil Zionist threat nonsense, and you've shown you are all about moral equivalence. I posted the two articles, from two very well respected sources, National Review and The Wall Street Journal, after I posed the question, I don't believe either were published when I asked. So, tell me where Sharon commanded anyone to hijack (TWA, PanAm) blow up passenger airplanes (Swiss Air 330). Show me where Sharon financed blowing up Palestinian school buses. Show me where he murdered Olympic athletes. Do you want me to go on? I'm only to 1972. I really thought your moral equivalence only went so far. I cannot think of enough terrible adjectives to describe Arafat, so please give me some examples of Sharon doing anything in that ballpark.
Shatila and Sabra
Beach FanaticAuthor
Shatila and Sabra
It's still open to debate how much Israel was involved in the massacre, but it is well established that they did not carry out the attacks, and the populace by no means supported the incident. Israel let them fight it out, as they are doing now. History supports the view that the Israelites operate from the defensive position, while the Arabs are on the offensive. It is a basic tenent of each religion. Sharon's move into the camps was of a defensive posture.
Beach Fanatic
It's still open to debate how much Israel was involved in the massacre, but it is well established that they did not carry out the attacks, and the populace by no means supported the incident. Israel let them fight it out, as they are doing now. History supports the view that the Israelites operate from the defensive position, while the Arabs are on the offensive. It is a basic tenent of each religion. Sharon's move into the camps was of a defensive posture.
I believe you asked about Sharon not any populace. I also believe there is not much debate as to his involvement. Please check Israel's own gov't findings about Sharon. I am sure you are more aware than I to the consequences for Sharon. I do not recall if he resigned or was removed.
I will ignore the rest of your post as it is off topic and simply an attempt at ethnic race baiting.
Beach FanaticAuthor
I believe you asked about Sharon not any populace. I also believe there is not much debate as to his involvement. Please check Israel's own gov't findings about Sharon. I am sure you are more aware than I to the consequences for Sharon. I do not recall if he resigned or was removed.
I will ignore the rest of your post as it is off topic and simply an attempt at ethnic race baiting.
The Kahan Commission ruled that Sharon was complacent, not complicit, and he was dismissed from his position as Defense Minister. To call the rest of my post ethnic race baiting is simply turning a blind eye to history.
SoWal Insider
So when do you advocate bombing Iran?
Beach FanaticAuthor
Here is an interesting take on everything. First, from a friend of a friend who's pretty high up in Knesset, the best thing for Israel is for Abbas to be out of the picture, because not even the Euros will negotiate with Hamas. This article reiterates that.
The Geopolitics of the Palestinians
By George Friedman
Last week, an important thing happened in the Middle East. Hamas, a radical Islamist political group, forcibly seized control of Gaza from rival Fatah, an essentially secular Palestinian group. The West Bank, meanwhile, remains more or less under the control of Fatah, which dominates the Palestinian National Authority in that region. Therefore, for the first time, the two distinct Palestinian territories -- the Gaza Strip and the West Bank -- no longer are under a single Palestinian authority.
Hamas has been increasing its influence among the Palestinians for years, and it got a major boost by winning the most recent election. It now has claimed exclusive control over Gaza, its historical stronghold and power base. It is not clear whether Hamas will try to take control of the West Bank as well, or whether it would succeed if it did make such a play. The West Bank is a different region with a very different dynamic. What is certain, for the moment at least, is that these regions are divided under two factions, and therefore have the potential to become two different Palestinian states.
In a way, this makes more sense than the previous arrangement. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are physically separated from one another by Israel. Travel from one part of the Palestinian territories to the other relies on Israel's willingness to permit it -- which is not always forthcoming. As a result, the Palestinian territories are divided into two areas that have limited contact.
The war between the Philistines and the Hebrews is described in the books of Samuel. The Philistines controlled the coastal lowlands of the Levant, the east coast of the Mediterranean. They had advanced technologies, such as the ability to smelt bronze, and they conducted international trade up and down the Levant and within the eastern Mediterranean. The Hebrews, unable to engage the Philistines in direct combat, retreated into the hills to the east of the coast, in Judea, the area now called the West Bank.
The Philistines were part of a geographical entity that ran from Gaza north to Turkey. The Hebrews were part of the interior that connected north to Syria, south into the Arabian deserts and east across the Jordan. The Philistines were unable to pursue the Hebrews in the interior, and the Hebrews -- until David -- were unable to dislodge the Philistines from the coast. Two distinct entities existed.
Today, Gaza is tied to the coastal system, which Israel and Lebanon now occupy. Gaza is the link between the Levantine coast and Egypt. The West Bank is not a coastal entity but a region whose ties are to the Arabian Peninsula, Jordan and Syria. The point is that Gaza and the West Bank are very distinct geographical entities that see the world in very different ways.
Gaza, its links to the north cut by the Israelis, historically has been oriented toward the Egyptians, who occupied the region until 1967. The Egyptians influenced the region by creating the Palestine Liberation Organization, while Egypt's dissident Muslim Brotherhood helped influence the creation of Hamas in 1987. The West Bank, part of Jordan until 1967, is larger and more complex in its social organization, and it really represented the center of gravity of Palestinian nationalism under Fatah. Gaza and the West Bank were always separate entities, and the recent action by Hamas has driven home that point.
Hamas' victory in Gaza means much more to the Palestinians and Egyptians than it does to the Israelis -- at least in the shorter term. The fear in Israel now is that Gaza, under Hamas, will become more aggressive in carrying out terrorist attacks in Israel. Hamas certainly has an ideology that argues for this, and it is altogether possible that the group will become more antagonistic. However, it appears to us that Hamas already was capable of carrying out as many attacks as it wished before taking complete control. Moreover, by increasing attacks now, Hamas -- which always has been able to deny responsibility for these incidents -- would lose the element of deniability. Having taken control of Gaza, regardless of whether it carries out attacks, it would have failed to prevent them. Hamas' leadership is more vulnerable now than ever before.
Let's consider the strategic position of the Palestinians. Their primary weapon against Israel remains what it always has been: random attacks against civilian targets designed to destabilize Israel. The problem with this strategy is obvious. Using terrorism against Americans in Iraq is potentially effective as a strategy. If the Americans cannot stand the level of casualties being imposed, they have the option of leaving Iraq. Although leaving might pose serious problems to U.S. regional and global interests, it would not affect the continued existence of the United States. Therefore, the insurgents potentially could find a threshold that would force the United States to fold.
The Israelis cannot leave Israel. Assume for the moment that the Palestinians could impose 1,000 civilian casualties a year. There are about 5 million Jews in Israel. That would be about 0.02 percent casualties. The Israelis are not going to leave Israel at that casualty rate, or at a rate a thousand times greater. Unlike the Americans, for whom Iraq is a subsidiary interest, Israel is Israel's central interest. Israel is not going to capitulate to the Palestinians over terrorism attacks.
The Israelis could be convinced to make political concessions in shaping a Palestinian state. For example, they might concede more land or more autonomy in order to stop the attacks. That might have been attractive to Fatah, but Hamas explicitly rejects the existence of Israel and therefore gives the Israelis no reason to make concessions. That means that while attacks might be psychologically satisfying to Hamas, they would be substantially less effective than the attacks that were carried out while Fatah was driving the negotiations. Bargaining with Hamas gets Israel nothing.
One of the uses of terrorism is to trigger an Israeli response, which in turn can be used to drive a wedge between Israel and the West. Fatah has been historically skillful at using the cycle of violence to its political advantage. Hamas, however, is handicapped in two ways: First, its position on Israel is perceived as much less reasonable than Fatah's. Second, Hamas is increasingly being viewed as a jihadist movement, and, as such, its strength threatens European and U.S. interests.
Although Israel does not want terrorist attacks, such attacks do not represent a threat to the survival of the state. To be cold-blooded, they are an irritant, not a strategic threat. The only thing that could threaten the survival of Israel, apart from a nuclear barrage, would be a shift in position of neighboring states. Right now, Israel has peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan, and an adequately working relationship with Syria. With Egypt and Jordan out of the game, Syria does not represent a threat. Israel is strategically secure.
The single most important neighbor Israel has is Egypt. When energized, it is the center of gravity of the Arab world. Under former President Gamal Abdul Nasser, Egypt drove Arab hostility to Israel. Once Anwar Sadat reversed Nasser's strategy on Israel, the Jewish state was basically secure. Other Arab nations could not threaten it unless Egypt was part of the equation. And for nearly 30 years, Egypt has not been part of the equation. But if Egypt were to reverse its position, Israel would, over time, find itself much less comfortable. Though Saudi Arabia has recently overshadowed Egypt's role in the Arab world, the Egyptians can always opt back into a strong leadership position and use their strength to threaten Israel. This becomes especially important as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's health fails and questions are raised about whether his successors will be able to maintain control of the country while the Muslim Brotherhood spearheads a campaign to demand political reform.
As we have said, Gaza is part of the Mediterranean coastal system. Egypt controlled Gaza until 1967 and retained influence there afterward, but not in the West Bank. Hamas also was influenced by Egypt, but not by Mubarak's government. Hamas was an outgrowth of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which the Mubarak regime has done a fairly good job of containing, primarily through force. But there also is a significant paradox in Hamas' relations with Egypt. The Mubarak regime, particularly through its intelligence chief (and prospective Mubarak successor) Omar Suleiman, has good working relations with Hamas, despite being tough on the Muslim Brotherhood.
This is the threat to Israel. Hamas has ties to Egypt and resonates with Egyptians, as well as with Saudis. Its members are religious Sunnis. If the creation of an Islamist Palestinian state in Gaza succeeds, the most important blowback might be in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood -- which is currently lying very low -- could be rekindled. Mubarak is growing old, and he hopes to be succeeded by his son. The credibility of the regime is limited, to say the least.
Hamas is unlikely to take over the West Bank -- and, even if it did, it still would make no strategic difference. Increased terrorist attacks against Israel's population would achieve less than the attacks that occurred while Fatah was negotiating. They could happen, but they would lead nowhere. Hamas' long-term strategy -- indeed, the only hope of the Palestinians who not prepared to accept a compromise with Israel -- is for Egypt to change its tune toward Israel, which could very well involve energizing Islamist forces in Egypt and bringing about the fall of the Mubarak regime. That is the key to any solution for Hamas.
Although many are focusing on the rise of Iran's influence in Gaza, putting aside the rhetoric, Iran is a minor player in the Israeli-Palestinian equation. Even Syria, despite hosting Hamas' exiled leadership, carries little weight when it comes to posing a strategic threat to Israel. But Egypt carries enormous weight. If an Islamist rising occurred in Egypt and a regime was installed that could energize the Egyptian public against Israel, then that would reflect a strategic threat to the survival of the Israeli state. It would not be an immediate threat -- it would take a generation to turn Egypt into a military power -- but it would ultimately represent a threat.
Only a disciplined and hostile Egypt could serve as the cornerstone of an anti-Israel coalition. Hamas, by asserting itself in Gaza -- especially if it can resist the Israeli army -- could strike the chord in Egypt that Fatah has been unable to strike for almost 30 years.
That is the importance of the creation of a separate Gaza entity; it complicates Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and probably makes them impossible. And this in and of itself works in Israel's favor, since it has no need to even entertain negotiations with the Palestinians as long as the Palestinians continue dividing themselves. If Hamas were to make significant inroads in the West Bank, it would make things more difficult for Israel, as well as for Jordan. But with or without the West Bank, Hamas has the potential -- not the certainty, just the potential -- to reach west along the Mediterranean coast and influence events in Egypt. And that is the key for Hamas.
There are probably a dozen reasons why Hamas made the move it did, most of them trivial and limited to local problems. But the strategic consequence of an independent, Islamist Gaza is that it can act both as a symbol and as a catalyst for change in Egypt, something that was difficult as long as Hamas was entangled with the West Bank. This probably was not planned, but it is certainly the most important consequence -- intended or not -- of the Gaza affair.
Two things must be monitored: first, whether there is reconciliation between Gaza and the West Bank and, if so, on what sort of terms; second, what the Egyptian Islamists led by the Muslim Brotherhood do now that Hamas, their own creation, has taken control of Gaza, a region once controlled by the Egyptians.
Egypt is the place to watch.
The Geopolitics of the Palestinians
By George Friedman
Last week, an important thing happened in the Middle East. Hamas, a radical Islamist political group, forcibly seized control of Gaza from rival Fatah, an essentially secular Palestinian group. The West Bank, meanwhile, remains more or less under the control of Fatah, which dominates the Palestinian National Authority in that region. Therefore, for the first time, the two distinct Palestinian territories -- the Gaza Strip and the West Bank -- no longer are under a single Palestinian authority.
Hamas has been increasing its influence among the Palestinians for years, and it got a major boost by winning the most recent election. It now has claimed exclusive control over Gaza, its historical stronghold and power base. It is not clear whether Hamas will try to take control of the West Bank as well, or whether it would succeed if it did make such a play. The West Bank is a different region with a very different dynamic. What is certain, for the moment at least, is that these regions are divided under two factions, and therefore have the potential to become two different Palestinian states.
In a way, this makes more sense than the previous arrangement. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are physically separated from one another by Israel. Travel from one part of the Palestinian territories to the other relies on Israel's willingness to permit it -- which is not always forthcoming. As a result, the Palestinian territories are divided into two areas that have limited contact.
The war between the Philistines and the Hebrews is described in the books of Samuel. The Philistines controlled the coastal lowlands of the Levant, the east coast of the Mediterranean. They had advanced technologies, such as the ability to smelt bronze, and they conducted international trade up and down the Levant and within the eastern Mediterranean. The Hebrews, unable to engage the Philistines in direct combat, retreated into the hills to the east of the coast, in Judea, the area now called the West Bank.
The Philistines were part of a geographical entity that ran from Gaza north to Turkey. The Hebrews were part of the interior that connected north to Syria, south into the Arabian deserts and east across the Jordan. The Philistines were unable to pursue the Hebrews in the interior, and the Hebrews -- until David -- were unable to dislodge the Philistines from the coast. Two distinct entities existed.
Today, Gaza is tied to the coastal system, which Israel and Lebanon now occupy. Gaza is the link between the Levantine coast and Egypt. The West Bank is not a coastal entity but a region whose ties are to the Arabian Peninsula, Jordan and Syria. The point is that Gaza and the West Bank are very distinct geographical entities that see the world in very different ways.
Gaza, its links to the north cut by the Israelis, historically has been oriented toward the Egyptians, who occupied the region until 1967. The Egyptians influenced the region by creating the Palestine Liberation Organization, while Egypt's dissident Muslim Brotherhood helped influence the creation of Hamas in 1987. The West Bank, part of Jordan until 1967, is larger and more complex in its social organization, and it really represented the center of gravity of Palestinian nationalism under Fatah. Gaza and the West Bank were always separate entities, and the recent action by Hamas has driven home that point.
Hamas' victory in Gaza means much more to the Palestinians and Egyptians than it does to the Israelis -- at least in the shorter term. The fear in Israel now is that Gaza, under Hamas, will become more aggressive in carrying out terrorist attacks in Israel. Hamas certainly has an ideology that argues for this, and it is altogether possible that the group will become more antagonistic. However, it appears to us that Hamas already was capable of carrying out as many attacks as it wished before taking complete control. Moreover, by increasing attacks now, Hamas -- which always has been able to deny responsibility for these incidents -- would lose the element of deniability. Having taken control of Gaza, regardless of whether it carries out attacks, it would have failed to prevent them. Hamas' leadership is more vulnerable now than ever before.
Let's consider the strategic position of the Palestinians. Their primary weapon against Israel remains what it always has been: random attacks against civilian targets designed to destabilize Israel. The problem with this strategy is obvious. Using terrorism against Americans in Iraq is potentially effective as a strategy. If the Americans cannot stand the level of casualties being imposed, they have the option of leaving Iraq. Although leaving might pose serious problems to U.S. regional and global interests, it would not affect the continued existence of the United States. Therefore, the insurgents potentially could find a threshold that would force the United States to fold.
The Israelis cannot leave Israel. Assume for the moment that the Palestinians could impose 1,000 civilian casualties a year. There are about 5 million Jews in Israel. That would be about 0.02 percent casualties. The Israelis are not going to leave Israel at that casualty rate, or at a rate a thousand times greater. Unlike the Americans, for whom Iraq is a subsidiary interest, Israel is Israel's central interest. Israel is not going to capitulate to the Palestinians over terrorism attacks.
The Israelis could be convinced to make political concessions in shaping a Palestinian state. For example, they might concede more land or more autonomy in order to stop the attacks. That might have been attractive to Fatah, but Hamas explicitly rejects the existence of Israel and therefore gives the Israelis no reason to make concessions. That means that while attacks might be psychologically satisfying to Hamas, they would be substantially less effective than the attacks that were carried out while Fatah was driving the negotiations. Bargaining with Hamas gets Israel nothing.
One of the uses of terrorism is to trigger an Israeli response, which in turn can be used to drive a wedge between Israel and the West. Fatah has been historically skillful at using the cycle of violence to its political advantage. Hamas, however, is handicapped in two ways: First, its position on Israel is perceived as much less reasonable than Fatah's. Second, Hamas is increasingly being viewed as a jihadist movement, and, as such, its strength threatens European and U.S. interests.
Although Israel does not want terrorist attacks, such attacks do not represent a threat to the survival of the state. To be cold-blooded, they are an irritant, not a strategic threat. The only thing that could threaten the survival of Israel, apart from a nuclear barrage, would be a shift in position of neighboring states. Right now, Israel has peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan, and an adequately working relationship with Syria. With Egypt and Jordan out of the game, Syria does not represent a threat. Israel is strategically secure.
The single most important neighbor Israel has is Egypt. When energized, it is the center of gravity of the Arab world. Under former President Gamal Abdul Nasser, Egypt drove Arab hostility to Israel. Once Anwar Sadat reversed Nasser's strategy on Israel, the Jewish state was basically secure. Other Arab nations could not threaten it unless Egypt was part of the equation. And for nearly 30 years, Egypt has not been part of the equation. But if Egypt were to reverse its position, Israel would, over time, find itself much less comfortable. Though Saudi Arabia has recently overshadowed Egypt's role in the Arab world, the Egyptians can always opt back into a strong leadership position and use their strength to threaten Israel. This becomes especially important as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's health fails and questions are raised about whether his successors will be able to maintain control of the country while the Muslim Brotherhood spearheads a campaign to demand political reform.
As we have said, Gaza is part of the Mediterranean coastal system. Egypt controlled Gaza until 1967 and retained influence there afterward, but not in the West Bank. Hamas also was influenced by Egypt, but not by Mubarak's government. Hamas was an outgrowth of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which the Mubarak regime has done a fairly good job of containing, primarily through force. But there also is a significant paradox in Hamas' relations with Egypt. The Mubarak regime, particularly through its intelligence chief (and prospective Mubarak successor) Omar Suleiman, has good working relations with Hamas, despite being tough on the Muslim Brotherhood.
This is the threat to Israel. Hamas has ties to Egypt and resonates with Egyptians, as well as with Saudis. Its members are religious Sunnis. If the creation of an Islamist Palestinian state in Gaza succeeds, the most important blowback might be in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood -- which is currently lying very low -- could be rekindled. Mubarak is growing old, and he hopes to be succeeded by his son. The credibility of the regime is limited, to say the least.
Hamas is unlikely to take over the West Bank -- and, even if it did, it still would make no strategic difference. Increased terrorist attacks against Israel's population would achieve less than the attacks that occurred while Fatah was negotiating. They could happen, but they would lead nowhere. Hamas' long-term strategy -- indeed, the only hope of the Palestinians who not prepared to accept a compromise with Israel -- is for Egypt to change its tune toward Israel, which could very well involve energizing Islamist forces in Egypt and bringing about the fall of the Mubarak regime. That is the key to any solution for Hamas.
Although many are focusing on the rise of Iran's influence in Gaza, putting aside the rhetoric, Iran is a minor player in the Israeli-Palestinian equation. Even Syria, despite hosting Hamas' exiled leadership, carries little weight when it comes to posing a strategic threat to Israel. But Egypt carries enormous weight. If an Islamist rising occurred in Egypt and a regime was installed that could energize the Egyptian public against Israel, then that would reflect a strategic threat to the survival of the Israeli state. It would not be an immediate threat -- it would take a generation to turn Egypt into a military power -- but it would ultimately represent a threat.
Only a disciplined and hostile Egypt could serve as the cornerstone of an anti-Israel coalition. Hamas, by asserting itself in Gaza -- especially if it can resist the Israeli army -- could strike the chord in Egypt that Fatah has been unable to strike for almost 30 years.
That is the importance of the creation of a separate Gaza entity; it complicates Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and probably makes them impossible. And this in and of itself works in Israel's favor, since it has no need to even entertain negotiations with the Palestinians as long as the Palestinians continue dividing themselves. If Hamas were to make significant inroads in the West Bank, it would make things more difficult for Israel, as well as for Jordan. But with or without the West Bank, Hamas has the potential -- not the certainty, just the potential -- to reach west along the Mediterranean coast and influence events in Egypt. And that is the key for Hamas.
There are probably a dozen reasons why Hamas made the move it did, most of them trivial and limited to local problems. But the strategic consequence of an independent, Islamist Gaza is that it can act both as a symbol and as a catalyst for change in Egypt, something that was difficult as long as Hamas was entangled with the West Bank. This probably was not planned, but it is certainly the most important consequence -- intended or not -- of the Gaza affair.
Two things must be monitored: first, whether there is reconciliation between Gaza and the West Bank and, if so, on what sort of terms; second, what the Egyptian Islamists led by the Muslim Brotherhood do now that Hamas, their own creation, has taken control of Gaza, a region once controlled by the Egyptians.
Egypt is the place to watch.
Beach Fanatic
I wasn't baiting you or trying to inflame you. I seriously wanted to know what your thoughts were on the situation. Seeing how you've lived in Europe and the Middle East for a while, I'm not surprised that you've bought into their Evil Zionist threat nonsense, and you've shown you are all about moral equivalence. .
6th Gen,
Kindly abstain from putting words into my mouth especially when you state the rubbish you do above but more so because I have categorically stated that I am NOT an anti-zionist. However, if you wish, you can put me in a little box you call moral equivalence because I have indeed stated that I understand and sympathize with the Palestinian struggle.
Beach FanaticAuthor
6th Gen,
Kindly abstain from putting words into my mouth especially when you state the rubbish you do above but more so because I have categorically stated that I am NOT an anti-zionist. However, if you wish, you can put me in a little box you call moral equivalence because I have indeed stated that I understand and sympathize with the Palestinian struggle.
No, I said that because you said that Arafat wasn't much different than Sharon, not because you "understand" the struggle.
Beach Fanatic
No, I said that because you said that Arafat wasn't much different than Sharon, not because you "understand" the struggle.
My larger point being that Israel has been complicit in contributing to conditions under which Palestinians live today...and it has not been without its share of violence and terror.
Beach FanaticAuthor
How about you give me something in the ballpark of blowing up schoolbuses. Or any old act of terror will do.
And at least back up that Sharon wasn't worse than Arafat. Or are you saying that was obvious hyperbole?
And at least back up that Sharon wasn't worse than Arafat. Or are you saying that was obvious hyperbole?
Edited
Beach Fanatic
How about you give me something in the ballpark of blowing up schoolbuses. Or any old act of terror will do.
And at least back up that Sharon wasn't worse than Arafat. Or are you saying that was obvious hyperbole?
6th Gen,
I will NEVER manage to persuade you that IMHO, Israel bears some responsibility for instigating and provoking the Palestinians. There were hundreds killed at the massacres of Sabra and Shatila (and I have no desire to engage you in what Israel concluded about Sharon's motives) - there have been scores and scores of innocents killed when Israel bombs in retaliation (be it in Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, etc).
Without fundamentally conceding that in war, tactics are often messy, indiscrimatory, violent and agressive, then we can agree to simply disagree. You condemn the Palestinians for resorting to terrorist tactics that target civilians yet you still categorically refuse to even attempt to get to root causes of hatred and anger. Then you ask me to give you a similar example of Israeli acts of terror - it is not so neat and it depends largely on what one considers an act of terror. Subjecting entire generations to the status and conditions of refugees is one such act in my eyes. You can continue thinking that Israel is only defending its rights and is more honorable in their strategies - they are not.
Beach Fanatic
And at least back up that Sharon wasn't worse than Arafat. Or are you saying that was obvious hyperbole?[/quote]
Arafat was horribly divisive and has regrettably done irreparable damage to the Palestinian cause. His passion and anger were understandable but his tactics, character, and ethics were NOt honorable.
I have no idea how to even begin to compare Sharon to Arafat - I know that under Sharon's guidance, Palestinians suffered great losses and hardships as well as a continuation of seeing their rights eroded and their territory confiscated and handed to new settlers - all whilst the conditions of their lives deteriorated. Towards the end of his life as PM, it seems that he finally understood that he would need to start dismantling the illegal settlements that had flourished during his tenure as general and PM and that he conceded that Palestinians had a right to a homeland. Ironically, in his more mature age he became more moderate!
Arafat was horribly divisive and has regrettably done irreparable damage to the Palestinian cause. His passion and anger were understandable but his tactics, character, and ethics were NOt honorable.
I have no idea how to even begin to compare Sharon to Arafat - I know that under Sharon's guidance, Palestinians suffered great losses and hardships as well as a continuation of seeing their rights eroded and their territory confiscated and handed to new settlers - all whilst the conditions of their lives deteriorated. Towards the end of his life as PM, it seems that he finally understood that he would need to start dismantling the illegal settlements that had flourished during his tenure as general and PM and that he conceded that Palestinians had a right to a homeland. Ironically, in his more mature age he became more moderate!
Beach FanaticAuthor
And at least back up that Sharon wasn't worse than Arafat. Or are you saying that was obvious hyperbole?
Arafat was horribly divisive and has regrettably done irreparable damage to the Palestinian cause. His passion and anger were understandable but his tactics, character, and ethics were NOt honorable.
I have no idea how to even begin to compare Sharon to Arafat - I know that under Sharon's guidance, Palestinians suffered great losses and hardships as well as a continuation of seeing their rights eroded and their territory confiscated and handed to new settlers - all whilst the conditions of their lives deteriorated. Towards the end of his life as PM, it seems that he finally understood that he would need to start dismantling the illegal settlements that had flourished during his tenure as general and PM and that he conceded that Palestinians had a right to a homeland. Ironically, in his more mature age he became more moderate![/QUOTE]
For someone that knows so much about an area, an has so much understanding about an area, you cannot even back up your own rhetoric. The best you can do is that under his guidance, "Palestinians suffered great losses and hardships". No thought to why that could be of their own doing, or of their own leadership's doing. Yea, that's about on par with murdering athletes, blowing up schoolbuses and suicide bombing. What kind of understanding do I need to be able to condone such acts? Thanks.
Beach FanaticAuthor
6th Gen,
I will NEVER manage to persuade you that IMHO, Israel bears some responsibility for instigating and provoking the Palestinians. There were hundreds killed at the massacres of Sabra and Shatila (and I have no desire to engage you in what Israel concluded about Sharon's motives) - there have been scores and scores of innocents killed when Israel bombs in retaliation (be it in Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, etc).
Without fundamentally conceding that in war, tactics are often messy, indiscrimatory, violent and agressive, then we can agree to simply disagree. You condemn the Palestinians for resorting to terrorist tactics that target civilians yet you still categorically refuse to even attempt to get to root causes of hatred and anger. Then you ask me to give you a similar example of Israeli acts of terror - it is not so neat and it depends largely on what one considers an act of terror. Subjecting entire generations to the status and conditions of refugees is one such act in my eyes. You can continue thinking that Israel is only defending its rights and is more honorable in their strategies - they are not.
In retaliation. There is your key. Israel has no cheeks left to turn. And why won't you engage me on the findings on Sabra and Shatila? Show me a better investigation that proved Sharon's complicity. I don't believe you understand that your statements are racist against the Palestinians themselves. We should not expect them to act civilized, because that is all they know. We should understand their hatred, anger and terrorist tactics. My parents and grandparents grew up when blacks were inferior, and the excuse was that it was because it had always been that way. That was all their generation knew. Do you want to excuse the acts of violence earlier in this century? There were reasons behind turning water canons and German Shepherds on blacks in Selma, but that doesn't excuse the actions. The fact that you believe that the Palestinians and Israelis are equally honorable in their tactics is reprehensible. Your arguments represent the tantamount of excusing and condoning terrorism, because that's all they know, and that's the only way they know. Sound familiar?
Beach Fanatic
In retaliation. There is your key. Israel has no cheeks left to turn. And why won't you engage me on the findings on Sabra and Shatila? Show me a better investigation that proved Sharon's complicity. I don't believe you understand that your statements are racist against the Palestinians themselves. We should not expect them to act civilized, because that is all they know. We should understand their hatred, anger and terrorist tactics. My parents and grandparents grew up when blacks were inferior, and the excuse was that it was because it had always been that way. That was all their generation knew. Do you want to excuse the acts of violence earlier in this century? There were reasons behind turning water canons and German Shepherds on blacks in Selma, but that doesn't excuse the actions. The fact that you believe that the Palestinians and Israelis are equally honorable in their tactics is reprehensible. Your arguments represent the tantamount of excusing and condoning terrorism, because that's all they know, and that's the only way they know. Sound familiar?
You understand nothing and your views are as uneducated and reprehensible to me as mine are to you - take this as my final post to you. Continued confirmation of what our original thoughts on each other are.
I am done with you - over and out - feel free to post as much as you want/like - I literally have no patience, energy or use/time for you.
Beach FanaticAuthor
You understand nothing and your views are as uneducated and reprehensible to me as mine are to you - take this as my final post to you. Continued confirmation of what our original thoughts on each other are.
I am done with you - over and out - feel free to post as much as you want/like - I literally have no patience, energy or use/time for you.
What defense is there, Chickpea? You've resorted to namecalling when you can't answer the question. If it is uneducated, lead me to credible reports that show Sharon was complicit in the massacre. You can't do it. Calling it uneducated when I am giving you historical facts is nonsense and a copout. All you have to do is admit that the Palestinians acts of terror are indefensible. Can you do that without qualifiers?
Beach FanaticAuthor
Western Fictions, Arab Realities
Getting real.
By Jonah Goldberg
I have been scouring eBay for the last couple of days, hoping to snag a one-of-a-kind item. But, alas, it hasn?t turned up yet. I?m looking for the late Yasser Arafat?s Nobel Peace Prize. It was looted from Arafat?s Gaza compound by the victorious forces of Hamas, a jihadist group backed by Iran and Syria that has routed the once-mighty forces of Fatah from power in Gaza. According to the Jerusalem Post, a Fatah spokesman added: ?They stole all the widow?s clothes and shoes.?
The widow in question would be Suha Arafat, Yasser Arafat?s photo-op wife. Who can blame the looters for wanting to grab as much of her swag as possible? First of all, she wasn?t using it. Suha hasn?t been to Gaza for years. And her favorite shoe designer is Christian Louboutin, whose wares can fetch about $1,000 a pair, which is more than many Palestinians make in a year.
But it?s that peace prize, won by Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin for agreeing to the 1993 Oslo accords, that really captures the lunacy of it all. It?s the perfect reminder for everyone, myself included, of the Arabs? refusal to yield to idealism, hope, or good intentions ? and the West?s refusal to recognize reality.
?The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing,? former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser once said. But from the U.S. point of view, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Maybe they just don?t want what we?re selling?
For example, in 2005, Israel simply gave Gaza to the Palestinians. According to the international community?s land-for-peace mantra, a peaceful society should have sprouted like a stalk from Jack?s magic beans. Instead, the Palestinian people voted for a band of Islamic fanatics ? even the European Union calls them terrorists, not that it matters much ? dedicated to the destruction of Israel. But the diplomacy-uber-alles crowd has long been immune to contrary evidence. Remember when Arafat fanned the second intifada in response to an unprecedented peace offer? Members of the Nobel committee openly talked of revoking the peace prize ? from Peres.
Now, President Bush, the leaders of the EU and the editors of the New York Times all say this is the moment for Israel to offer more concessions to Arafat?s successor, Mahmoud Abbas. So much for the fresh-from-Iraq cliche that it?s pointless to choose sides in a civil war.
Margaret Beckett, the British foreign secretary, lamented, ?Once again, extremists carrying guns have prevented progress against the wishes of the majority who seek a peaceful two-state solution.? But how do you square this with the fact that Hamas, the party promising the destruction of Israel, won the Palestinian elections in 2005? Meanwhile, the leaders of Fatah ? the ?moderates? ? had not long ago set the standard for Israel-hatred themselves.
The great irony is that Hamas now labels members of Fatah as Jewish ?collaborators,? a designation that apparently justifies even the execution of wounded Fatah prisoners in hospitals.
The German foreign ministry went so far as to suggest that Hamas?s triumph necessitates increasing aid to Gaza because of the hardships Hamas rule will cause. It seems that if you choose terrorism, either at the ballot box or in the streets, the Europeans, like the good hands at Allstate, will be there to pay for the mess.
But there?s another, perhaps more important, lesson to be drawn from the Hamas ascendancy. The Bush administration pushed for democracy in the Palestinian territories and got what it wished for ? in spades. The assumption behind the push for democracy in Gaza and in Iraq is that Arabs can be trusted to handle political freedom. Even the Democrats demanding an immediate pullout from Iraq hope that with democracy, the Iraqis will be able to sort out their problems themselves via some euphemistic ?political solution.? That is unless the antiwar Democrats are really advocating turning all of Mesopotamia into one giant Gaza Strip ? the far more likely result of U.S. withdrawal.
For many disciples of the ?international peace process,? it?s a matter of faith that the Palestinians just have to want peace, because how else can you have a peace process? For many supporters of the Bush Doctrine, Iraqis have to want democracy, because if they don?t, what?s the point of having a freedom agenda? But what if these are just beloved Western fictions? We see a well-lighted path to the good life: democracy, tolerance, rule of law, markets. But what if the Arab world just isn?t interested in our path? As a believer in the freedom agenda, that?s what scares me most.
? 2007 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Getting real.
By Jonah Goldberg
I have been scouring eBay for the last couple of days, hoping to snag a one-of-a-kind item. But, alas, it hasn?t turned up yet. I?m looking for the late Yasser Arafat?s Nobel Peace Prize. It was looted from Arafat?s Gaza compound by the victorious forces of Hamas, a jihadist group backed by Iran and Syria that has routed the once-mighty forces of Fatah from power in Gaza. According to the Jerusalem Post, a Fatah spokesman added: ?They stole all the widow?s clothes and shoes.?
The widow in question would be Suha Arafat, Yasser Arafat?s photo-op wife. Who can blame the looters for wanting to grab as much of her swag as possible? First of all, she wasn?t using it. Suha hasn?t been to Gaza for years. And her favorite shoe designer is Christian Louboutin, whose wares can fetch about $1,000 a pair, which is more than many Palestinians make in a year.
But it?s that peace prize, won by Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin for agreeing to the 1993 Oslo accords, that really captures the lunacy of it all. It?s the perfect reminder for everyone, myself included, of the Arabs? refusal to yield to idealism, hope, or good intentions ? and the West?s refusal to recognize reality.
?The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing,? former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser once said. But from the U.S. point of view, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Maybe they just don?t want what we?re selling?
For example, in 2005, Israel simply gave Gaza to the Palestinians. According to the international community?s land-for-peace mantra, a peaceful society should have sprouted like a stalk from Jack?s magic beans. Instead, the Palestinian people voted for a band of Islamic fanatics ? even the European Union calls them terrorists, not that it matters much ? dedicated to the destruction of Israel. But the diplomacy-uber-alles crowd has long been immune to contrary evidence. Remember when Arafat fanned the second intifada in response to an unprecedented peace offer? Members of the Nobel committee openly talked of revoking the peace prize ? from Peres.
Now, President Bush, the leaders of the EU and the editors of the New York Times all say this is the moment for Israel to offer more concessions to Arafat?s successor, Mahmoud Abbas. So much for the fresh-from-Iraq cliche that it?s pointless to choose sides in a civil war.
Margaret Beckett, the British foreign secretary, lamented, ?Once again, extremists carrying guns have prevented progress against the wishes of the majority who seek a peaceful two-state solution.? But how do you square this with the fact that Hamas, the party promising the destruction of Israel, won the Palestinian elections in 2005? Meanwhile, the leaders of Fatah ? the ?moderates? ? had not long ago set the standard for Israel-hatred themselves.
The great irony is that Hamas now labels members of Fatah as Jewish ?collaborators,? a designation that apparently justifies even the execution of wounded Fatah prisoners in hospitals.
The German foreign ministry went so far as to suggest that Hamas?s triumph necessitates increasing aid to Gaza because of the hardships Hamas rule will cause. It seems that if you choose terrorism, either at the ballot box or in the streets, the Europeans, like the good hands at Allstate, will be there to pay for the mess.
But there?s another, perhaps more important, lesson to be drawn from the Hamas ascendancy. The Bush administration pushed for democracy in the Palestinian territories and got what it wished for ? in spades. The assumption behind the push for democracy in Gaza and in Iraq is that Arabs can be trusted to handle political freedom. Even the Democrats demanding an immediate pullout from Iraq hope that with democracy, the Iraqis will be able to sort out their problems themselves via some euphemistic ?political solution.? That is unless the antiwar Democrats are really advocating turning all of Mesopotamia into one giant Gaza Strip ? the far more likely result of U.S. withdrawal.
For many disciples of the ?international peace process,? it?s a matter of faith that the Palestinians just have to want peace, because how else can you have a peace process? For many supporters of the Bush Doctrine, Iraqis have to want democracy, because if they don?t, what?s the point of having a freedom agenda? But what if these are just beloved Western fictions? We see a well-lighted path to the good life: democracy, tolerance, rule of law, markets. But what if the Arab world just isn?t interested in our path? As a believer in the freedom agenda, that?s what scares me most.
? 2007 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
margarita brocolia
You understand nothing and your views are as uneducated and reprehensible to me as mine are to you - take this as my final post to you. Continued confirmation of what our original thoughts on each other are.
I am done with you - over and out - feel free to post as much as you want/like - I literally have no patience, energy or use/time for you.
:clap:
Except your valuable rebuttals will be missed ..... You add an open-minded, well-informed view of the situation. I actually read your posts. I have pretty much stopped reading any of 6thgentroll's "cut and paste" articles, except when specifics are being discussed.
Will he be left to troll and flame at will, without being set straight by those of you who can debate the incorrectness of his "logic"?! Not good! :(
Or can we have a total boycott and not give him a platform for trolling? It is disgusting imo.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.