So Hamas just took over the Gaza Strip

[Schmeltz]

... in defiance of Propaghandi's parking-lot prediction. More refugees, more humanitarian crises, more tension and instability. What's the Middle East civil war count up to now?

At this point I'm thinking that while Hamas may have set up a little terrorist state all its own, and that's never good, a corollary effect might be to force closer relations between the Israelis - with Peres back in charge and seemingly determined to write himself a flowery political swan song - and Fatah, still in charge of the West Bank and now on a much better footing since the lifting of the Western aid embargo. Things might look grim for Gazans for the time being, and there's going to be rotten news coming out of the Strip for a while, but in the long-term perhaps this is a new opportunity to advance the cause of Palestinian statehood and ultimately the stability of the region, though at a cost. Renewed cooperation between Israel and Fatah, against the terrorist tactics of Hamas, could be the beginnings of a long-term relationship based on compromise and mutual recognition of the dangers posed by a common foe.

Or the Palestinians could be shooting themselves in the foot and this could herald yet another turn in the downward spiral of violence and chaos spreading throughout the Middle East.

What do y'all think?

[abcdefz]

*consults Revelation*

[Schmeltz]

^Not gonna help you much, but probably better than consulting FOX News.

[QueenAdrock]

You know, after reading the title I thought to myself that I should have a sense of shock or outrage or something, but all I could think of was "Yeah, it figures." Anything ground-breaking that happens over there will cause a clusterfuck some way or another and add to the bloodshed. Sad, really.

[D_Raay]

It is becoming more and more apparent as the days go by that this whole mess started, not as a result of disagreements between Fatah and Hamas, but because of the fact that both Israel and Washington refused to recognise the results of the election held in the Palestinian Territories last year. Now with Olmert and Bush 'mapping out' the future of the Palestinian people, it is even more apparent that the Occupation will continue and Abbas will head the new 'Puppet Regime' in the West Bank, while the population of Gaza will continue to be cut off from the world until their leaders 'give in' to Israeli blackmail. We are seeing the establishment of a new government based on money and power.... nothing at all to do with what the people want.

Does not sound like a revolution to me. Sounds more like an illegal takeover of a democratically elected government by outside elements.

[Ali]

Let's see:

- Hamas elected by the people of Palestine to be their new government. Hamas get the chance to go legit.
- West refuses to recognise new Palestinian government, because it's not the government they wanted, even if it's the government that Palestinians said they wanted.
- Western aid is cut off, Israel witholds tax revenue collected on behalf of Palestinian govt.
- West and Israel supplies Fatah with arms and promises to stand by them (against Hamas) should they decide to seize power (elsewhere known as a Coup d'etat).
- Hamas goes beserk and attacks Fatah, returning to old ways, because trying to do things Democratically obviously doesn't work and they were going to be overthrown by Fatah in any case.

Result - Fatah and Hamas at each others' throats, Palestinians dying in the crossfire, Israel safe from a unified Palestine and with no reason to return any more occupied territories (and every reason to return).

[Schmeltz]

So Israel has now released $550 million in cash to Fatah and there's going to be a summit soon between Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Fatah about what to do with this situation. With any luck some kind of semi-productive consensus can be achieved.

Say what you will about Western hypocrisy (I remember thinking the exact same thing when Hamas was first elected) but it seems to me that divorcing the extremists from the moderates in the PLO is actually a good thing. The peace process in the area has been crippled for decades by the willingness of both sides to employ violence when they don't get their way, producing a vicious spiral of despair, destruction, and apartheid. Stopping this cycle means that one side has to step up and fully commit to the renunciation of violent methods, and perhaps Gaza has inadvertently provided the first step toward such a model.

And let's face it, Hamas was never going to provide a viable solution to the problems faced by the Palestinian people; they were elected as a reaction against the endemic corruption and indolence of Fatah, not on the basis of their own sound policies and progressive position in the conflict. Hamas is a fundamentalist religious organization dedicated to the totally impossible goal of militarily destroying Israel. This is not a productive stance, however much sympathy it might garner from frustrated, desperate, disenfranchised Palestinians.

Mahmoud Abbas has obviously been quite shaken by this turn of events, and his party is now being driven to seek a closer relationship with people in a position to provide Fatah with the tools it needs to reconstitute itself as a productive leader in the goal of Palestinian enfranchisement. If that ultimately leads to the resumption of the peace process, all to the good is what I say.

[Schmeltz]

BUMP and grind, yo.

An historic first: the Arab Leage sends a formal delegation to Israel. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070709/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_23) Meanwhile the Knesset has approved the release of 250 Palestinian prisoners, plus the first installment of the formerly frozen funds.

In spite of the suffering and fear in the Gaza Strip it's tough not to feel at least a bit optimistic when new precedents are being set and all parties seem willing to participate in a real peace process and make concessions of a sort. Is it too much to hope that these developments herald a crucial, formative step in the rapprochement of Israelis and Palestinians? Or is it much more worrisome to see Sunni Arab regimes aligned with Israel against the purported influence of Shi'ite Iran, with the potential of a violent cataclysm within Islam itself looming threateningly overhead?

Things have taken an interesting and somewhat welcome turn in the Middle East, it seems to me. As horrific as the prospect of further ethno-religious civil strife appears, it almost looks like a crisitunity - a chance for formerly diametrically opposed interests to find common ground and in so doing set the stage for truly significant cooperative efforts in the near future, especially with new leadership approaching the Oval Office and State Department in the USA.

[Carlos]

I too welcome any progress, or movement in the palestinian/israel conflict. However what does make me kinda sick is how the west is so hypocritical - we go on and on about spreading democracy accross the world. But then when the elected governemnt doesn't suit us, we stamp on them... then fund their opponents, and basically do everything possible to undermine it's authority.

All under the false pretence that Hamas is somehow this far out extremist group. Just like the Ahmadinejad line about Israel being wiped off the map that was mis-translated and not put into context by western media/governments to create an illusion + ramp up fear; the same goes for Hamas. Numerous times I have seen their spokesman saying that if Israel recognises international law, and is not an occupying force, then Hamas will recognise Israel, and is prepeared to work at a 2 state solution. Kinda like ALL other countries in the world - if France suddenly decided to take Sussex (my county) on the south coast on england, I would not recognise that as being france, or France as a whole - as france would be proclaiming sussex to be part of France.

Now I know full well there will be extremists within hamas and some will never accept Israel; some will be the product of militant propaganda, some may remember grandparents who were killed or raped by the Israeli's in their inital rampage of power back in 47, some will just have grown up with the Israeli aggresion - such things are hard to forgive and forget.

However Hamas is a large institution and should not be persectued as a whole, rather we should welcome the progressiveness of the political arm of Hamas - in exactly the same way that Sinn fein has been coaxed towards political, and peaceful government. Rather than shunning it, and readicalising those extremist elements within hamas even further.

Because this then would involve Israel actually doing what it should, a smokescreen is needed for Israel not to have to it - stalling tactics which we have seen from Israel for over 10 yrs now. The elction of Hamas just gave them a really easy excuse: ....."if we shit on the palestinians long enough, we'll radicalise them, and then the rest of the world won't give us so much stick..." - almost can see the thought bubble coming off warlord Sharon.

Israel has created it's own demons and continues to be it's own worst enenmy. This does not validate, or even excuse the behavior of some palestinians. However we should remember there has been a cease fire from serious terrorism for a couple years now (can't even remember the last suicide bombing in Israel), but we have seen an increase in Israels military activities since then, not a decrease. The only on-going threat that palestinians are posing to israel these days are their home made rockets - admitedly you wouldn't want one landing on your houes. However to compare apache gunships assainating politicians, with dissenfranchised youths (very similar to any youth on an estate/ghetto, that has zero chance of doing anything in life, and so gets into crime and vandalism etc.) fireing rockets, is misguided at best, and at worst just bullshit.

Not to mention Alan Johnston: without Hams taking Gaza strip and bringing about some law and order, we would still be seeing videos of Alan dressed in a suicide belt. Thanks to Hamas we have the only good news there has been for months from what i can see. Hamas have the interests of Palestinine as their priority, Fatah are just interested in maintianing power - that's why they wre defeated in open, free elections - cos they actually were making a difference for the ordinary palestinian, rather than the established, and higly corrupt Fatah party. That should be recognised by the west, but it isn't.

The biggest Irony regarding Israel, is that it would never have existed had it not been for terrorism - the british gave in to the Stern Gang, and created what we now call Israel - well actually not quite. Israel has stolen a little bit more, including Jerusalem; which actually should be under the control of the UN, as UN resolutions state - this would go a long way to reconcile the past. But I fear there's more chance of dubya impeaching himself.

[battyriders]

hear hear ,yes yes carlos you said what i was thinkin but better.

[Ali]

And let's face it, Hamas was never going to provide a viable solution to the problems faced by the Palestinian people; they were elected as a reaction against the endemic corruption and indolence of Fatah.Yes, the poor stupid Palestinians didn't know what they were doing when they voted for Hamas, who were, as you say, corrupt and indolent.

Quite right for the West to show the stupid Palestinians the error of their ways and make sure the the 'right' party was put in power. Too bad if a few civilians got hurt when Hamas resorted to violence, who would have thought that having all their money stolen by the Israelis and all their foreign aid cut off would make them so angry.

Hamas never had a chance.

[Schmeltz]

That was indeed a solid post, Carlos.


All under the false pretence that Hamas is somehow this far out extremist group.


Hamas is a far-out extremist group; it has carried out hundreds of suicide bombings and armed assaults against civilians and whatever moves it has made in the direction of a ceasefire or truce have to stand against the fact that its charter calls for the total military destruction of Israel, a goal to which its leadership remains explicitly committed. Surely you can see how that would mitigate against expanded Israeli cooperation with the organization, irrespective of its democratic election. Of course it seems hypocritical to censure an elected government simply because it isn't the preferred candidate of a foreign power, but on the other hand the mere fact that a party is democratically put in office doesn't mean it deserves unswerving support from the world community, particularly when its stated goals include armed aggression against its neighbours and the imposition of a fundamentalist theocracy in place of secular government.


However we should remember there has been a cease fire from serious terrorism for a couple years now


I don't see how you can make that claim given the full-scale war prompted by Hezbollah's rocket offensive of last summer.


However Hamas is a large institution and should not be persectued as a whole, rather we should welcome the progressiveness of the political arm of Hamas - in exactly the same way that Sinn fein has been coaxed towards political, and peaceful government.


That's a good point and I like your example. I'm prepared to agree that much more could have been done in terms of Western and Israeli cooperation with Hamas, and that opportunities were lost, rather than created, in the reaction to Hamas' election gains. At the same time I think this military takeover shows the group's true colours and I don't know that I'm prepared to acknowledge that Hamas had no other option but to disregard and abandon the very principles of democracy that they supposedly value so highly, and to resort to this kind of violence doesn't seem to me like a good way to advance the interests of Palestinians.


Israel has created it's own demons and continues to be it's own worst enenmy.


That's very true, at least to a certain extent. I don't think anyone can deny that Israel has committed profound missteps (and outright crimes) in its dealings with and treatment of Palestinians, especially concerning the construction of settlements in the West Bank. Failing to sufficiently exploit the opportunity for rapprochement with Fatah would be another such error, in my view.


Yes, the poor stupid Palestinians didn't know what they were doing when they voted for Hamas, who were, as you say, corrupt and indolent.


It certainly seems they didn't fully consider the potential consequences of electing a government incapable of dealing productively with their neighbours. But it was Fatah who was corrupt and indolent, not Hamas, hence their election losses. Hamas is activist and ambitious, as I think they've made quite clear.


Too bad if a few civilians got hurt when Hamas resorted to violence


That's a pretty callous and amoral thing to say.

[Ali]

But it was Fatah who was corrupt and indolent, not Hamas, hence their election losses. Hamas is activist and ambitious, as I think they've made quite clear.So the Palestinians should have voted for corrupt, indolent Fatah, not activist and ambitious Hamas?

Why am I not suprised Hamas got elected?

That's a pretty callous and amoral thing to say. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

[Carlos]

Hamas is a far-out extremist group; it has carried out hundreds of suicide bombings and armed assaults against civilians and whatever moves it has made in the direction of a ceasefire or truce have to stand against the fact that its charter calls for the total military destruction of Israel, a goal to which its leadership remains explicitly committed. Surely you can see how that would mitigate against expanded Israeli cooperation with the organization, irrespective of its democratic election. Of course it seems hypocritical to censure an elected government simply because it isn't the preferred candidate of a foreign power, but on the other hand the mere fact that a party is democratically put in office doesn't mean it deserves unswerving support from the world community, particularly when its stated goals include armed aggression against its neighbours and the imposition of a fundamentalist theocracy in place of secular government.



Hamas are an Islamist group, not a far-out extremist organization - the Taliban are an example of an extremist group. Hamas do not bomb schools that teach woman, they have very clear political and military goals. Which you have laid out correctly. But there fundamentalist Islamic postion is no more exteme than say Saudi Arabia, but the US has no probs dealing with them.. they got lotta cash :eek:
There military position is in direct response to the illegal occupation by Israel. I am in no way condoning violence, however we cannot be naive and ignore it's causes. they have stated that this would change if Israel abided by international law like everyone else... although we will have to wait and see - given the chance.

I will use the analogy of Ireland, and the IRA/Sinn Fein again, as the situation is extremely similar - but obviously has it's unique difference at the same time.

From their perspective it is a military resistance force fighting a war (we have to be able to see that that is how it will be viewed from the IRA/Hamas position) against an occupying force. A difference between the 2 situations is there is a purely political wing of the IRA called something else - there is not such a thing with Hamas.
I wonder whether there would be peace in Ireland now if Sinn Fein had not existed as a name/brand.. but had just tried to be political under the banner of the IRA.. prob we would still have violence in Ireland.
So maybe Hamas need a re-brand.. lol. no seriously we have to do as I said in previous post - nuture and encourage Hamas in a productive way, whilst still maintaining that overt state violence cannot and will not be tolerated - they wouldn't dare..... would be blown of the planet by Israel and te US. NOt to mention the leaders just being assasinated - as israel has become the most proficient state assasins on the planet.

The IRA, and sinn fein (to this day) want the abolition of British rule/occupation, and for Ireland to be one again - in the same way that Hamas do not want Israel to have any part of palestine, and part of jerusalem. Because historically it wasn't theirs. Now sinn fein is in power sharing government of N.I the same state body which their stated objective says to destroy/abolish. This for me shows that so called hard line positions can be watered down given a little power, and equality.

Stopping subversive aggression organized by elements of Hamas will be almost impossible - but at the same time if it cannot be proven then like any other suspected covert state sponsored agression it must be ignored by other states, until there is proof that the leadership of the poltical part of Hamas were responsible, or that it can be shown that they do nothing when they can.

Otherwise we are being wholly irresponsible and hypocritical in our obligation to recognise the rights of the palestinian people, as they democratically elected Hamas as their chosen government, in fair and open elections.[/quote]



I don't see how you can make that claim given the full-scale war prompted by Hezbollah's rocket offensive of last summer.ok they took an Israelli soldier hostage, but again, as from their perspective they're in a war, why is that any worse than the thousands that Israel hold, some of whicha re woman and children. They have clearly said they would release him if Israel agrees to release some of their prisoners. I am not gonna attach a moral prespective, because I don't think we can ultimately side with one or the other with complete satisfaction. But this was used in conjunction with the myth that Hezbolah in response took some more Israeli prisoners, infact the captured soldiers were inside lebannon, and not stolen from Israel as had been widely reported.
It is also documented that Israel moved it's forces some time before into position for an assault on Lebannon, and that it wasn't just a case of them being there as standard operations.
So as can be clearly sumised, Israel orchestrated the whole thing, and Hezbollah were just very willing participants.


on a new and more up-to-date note. Blair I feel is wholey the wrong person to be the man to truly resolve the situation. He may be able to prop up a puppet regime run by Abbas, but this will not be welcomed by the actual people - as it's what they've had for a few yrs since the death of Arafat. Not to mention his blatent overt inclination towards US/Israeli interests. :(

it's a toughie all right.


P.S just made this post and put on BBC's newsnight. It's an special on the issues facing the Islamic world, with some very interesting guests - well worth watching.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

[Ali]

What he said. (y)

I caught the end of this radio broadcast (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/talkingtoterrorists/pip/gns13/) I dunno if it's possible to listen to it again online, see if you can get it to work

The gist of it is that if you sideline a terrorist group, like Sinn Fein, the African National Congress, Hamas, then their ONLY course of action is violence. When Hamas was elected, the West should have come forward and held talks with it about recognising Israel, helped the two sides to reach an agreement, offered incentives... what did they do? Refused to talk to them and sidelined them even more, so that they went back to their old ways.

Sinn Fein is now sharing power in Ireland and the ANC have been in power ever since they were unbanned, neither has done anything violent. Why? Because they didnt have to.