... A former World Bank executive! Evidently, Salam Fayyad is 'admired by the Bush administration'. I don't know whether to laugh or cry... Painfully obvious isn't it?
Meanwhile, the 'extremists' are granting amnesty to captured Fatah fighters in Gaza and have signalled their willingness to negotiate, while the 'moderates' rampage through the West Bank, arresting activists and torching offices. Hamas has gone so far as to ban the wearing of masks in the streets. For some interesting and unexpected commentary on the atmosphere in Gaza from a Fatah leader (as well as from officials within Hamas's Qassam Brigades), see this article.
Only now that our good democrat, Mahmoud Abbas, has sworn in an illegitmate and non-representative parliament with no Hamas members (the ex-Prime Minister/bad guy, Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh insists that the Hamas-Fatah unity government remains the only legitimate authority), and has called for an international force to take charge of Gaza, is the U.S. finally planning to end the Palestinian embargo, in an attempt to further bolster Fatah forces. As per usual, beating and starving the Palestinians into submission in order to force them to choose leaders that we like, appears to be the tactic of choice (see the entire history of U.S. foreign policy for more on this).
In other news, Fatah may be planning an 'Iraqi-style insurgency' in Gaza. Ordinary Palestinians must be honoured to know that Fatah is willing to go to such great lengths for them - subverting democracy with the help of foreign powers, crushing dissent in the West Bank, and now this! Full of surprises.
There may, however, be no need for this as Israel looks willing aid Fatah in its quest for absolute power. Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni stated, as if to clarify the wishes expressed earlier by Abbas, that, "those who are talking in terms of international forces have to understand that the meaning is not monitoring forces but forces that are willing to fight, to confront Hamas on the ground". There are already reports that Ehud Barak, set to become the new defense minister on Monday, is planning a military operation 'aimed at destroying Hamas's military capabilities in a short period of time'. Tellingly, an Israeli official remarked that, "the question is not if but how and when”.
Oh, and Mohammad Dahlan? He's in Cairo... "recovering from knee surgery".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
When a people, endorse groups that murder and attack innocent people, be they Israeli or Palestinian, it is the job of America to oppose them. When a people elect a parliament in which the majority faction calls for the destruction of another nation and people, it is the job of America to oppose them.
It's sad, but apparently true. The Palestinians need an authoritianian leader, not a democracy. The Palestinians need a force that can keep the peace and maintain the blessings of liberty, while denying democracy if it leads to the shithole that Gaza is in now.
Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, but it seems that peace will only come when it re-enters. But if a people call for the murder of another, they really don't deserve life to begin with.
When a people, endorse groups that murder and attack innocent people, be they Israeli or Palestinian, it is the job of America to oppose them. When a people elect a parliament in which the majority faction calls for the destruction of another nation and people, it is the job of America to oppose them.
The ‘calling for destruction’ is often misinterpreted as actually physically wanting to destroy and kill. While there is no doubt that Hamas has launched many operations against Israeli civilians in the past, their end-game is a one-state solution – meaning equal rights for Jews, Christians and Muslims (although I’m not denying the presence of some anti-Semitic currents within the group). They are, of course, an Islamist group, although much less ‘extreme’ and less wedded to dogma than often presented in the media. This International Crisis Group report (http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3886&CFID=20207349&CFTOKEN=38980055) offers some insight;
"Hamas leaders have for some time evoked the notion of a longterm ceasefire or hudna on the basis of a withdrawal to the 1967 lines, setting the stage for a decades-long, de facto coexistence.
Indeed, much like the PLO in the 1970s and 1980s, the most interesting statements emanating from Hamas are not those that confirm its established tenets but rather ones that seemingly contradict official doctrine, particularly when those making them are its most senior leaders. Sheikh Ahmad Yasin on several occasions explicitly referred to negotiations with Israel and a solution of the conflict that would leave the Jewish state intact156 and by his 2004 assassination had come to espouse the position ‘that while Hamas’s overall ideological project is the recovery of Palestine as a whole, it is ready to accept interim solutions based on a mutual cessation of hostilities and Israel’s full withdrawal from the territories it occupied in the 1967 war’. Perhaps more surprisingly, Abd-al-Aziz Rantisi, his radical successor as head of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, asserted that ‘the intifada is about forcing Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders’, and that once this was achieved the conflict, though it would not be over, would lose its armed character."
Hamas’s leaders appears to be clear about the recovering of the 1967 borders, a two-state settlement, being the point at which armed hostilities will cease. They also offer more recent statements;
"Sheikh Ahmad Haj Ali, an imprisoned senior Muslim Brotherhood leader and Hamas legislative candidate, told Crisis Group: If Hamas achieves a majority I will defend my rights. One method of achieving my rights is to negotiate with he who usurped them, i.e. Israel, and I will respect their withdrawal from the occupied territories on a provisional basis… Spokesperson Muhammad Ghazal, now in an Israeli jail, went further than any other Hamas member Crisis Group spoke to, in a statement that could as easily have been made by Abbas: When we talk about politics, it means we have accepted the 1967 borders."
The report discusses Hamas’s “long-expressed view that it will endorse what a majority of Palestinians want”;
"Leaders interviewed by Crisis Group all reiterated this commitment to respect the will of the people and act in the public interest (al maslaha al amma). In the words of Hasan Yousif, “we have accepted the principle of accepting a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. If it’s in the interest of the people, we’re prepared."
Furthermore, Hamas’s entry into mainstream politics seems to come as a signal of their willingness to negotiate;
"Khalid Meshal, Hamas’s leader in exile and its pre-eminent international voice, justified entrance into the political mainstream with the phrase: “Resistance can be in a political and diplomatic form”, not only on the battlefield."
Also of note here, would be Haniyeh’s offer of a 10 year ‘hudna’, or truce, in 2006 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1936443,00.html). International Crisis Group mentions that;
"Hamas leaders have for some time evoked the notion of a longterm ceasefire or hudna on the basis of a withdrawal to the 1967 lines, setting the stage for a decades-long, de facto coexistence."
So, when media outlets imply that Hamas is ‘not open for negotiation’, the contrary would appear to be true.
It's sad, but apparently true. The Palestinians need an authoritianian leader, not a democracy. The Palestinians need a force that can keep the peace and maintain the blessings of liberty, while denying democracy if it leads to the shithole that Gaza is in now.
Your statement implies that Gaza being a ‘shithole’ is the fault of Hamas. I would argue that the evidence suggests that the situation in Gaza has, in actuality, little to do with Hamas – it is the product of the international aid embargo, Israeli refusal to negotiate with Hamas (and thus the Palestinians), and the preparing of Fatah for a civil war with military aid from foreign powers openly flowing across borders.
The results of the aid embargo have been absolutely devastating, and have lead to an economic scenario worse than the American Great Depression. This report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmintdev/114/114i.pdf) from the British House of Commons International Development Committee outlines the madness. As The Heathlander summarizes (http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/the-experiment-is-working/);
"* Real GDP declined by 9 percent in the first half of 2006 and was predicted to fall by 27 percent by the end of 2006, with personal income falling by 30 percent.
* 160,000 public sector workers have not been paid since March 2006, affecting 25 percent of the population.
* Their coping strategies include: postponing paying bills (83.5 percent), living on past savings (26.3 percent), selling jewellery (29.6 percent) and reducing consumption of fresh meat (88.6 percent). Fully 65 percent are reliant on informal borrowing just to subsist.
* 70 percent of the Gazan workforce is without work or pay.
* 51 percent of the Palestinians now depend on food assistance, a 14 percent increase on last year…"
And the list goes on.
As for your statement that “Palestinians need an authoritarian leader”, I see no reason why Palestinians are less capable of participating in democratic system than anyone else.
Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, but it seems that peace will only come when it re-enters. But if a people call for the murder of another, they really don't deserve life to begin with.
The ‘Israeli withdrawal’ from Gaza is a myth. Although the settler presence has been removed, there are repeated Israeli ‘incursions’ into Gaza that frequently lead to civilian casualties. As this Medialens article (http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060630_kidnapped_by_israel.php) explains, many of these are referred to in the media as ‘retaliations’ for Hamas ‘escalation’, as well as the kidnappings of politicians being referred to as ‘arrests’. Here’s a series of excerpts from the text;
"This is what a breaking news report from the Guardian had to say: “Israeli troops today arrested dozens of Hamas ministers and MPs as they stepped up attempts to free a soldier kidnapped by militants in Gaza at the weekend. The Israeli army said 64 Hamas officials, including seven ministers and 20 other MPs, had been detained in a series of early morning arrests.” (David Fickling and agencies, 'Israel detains Hamas ministers,' 29 June 2006)…
‘Arrested’ and ‘detained’? What exactly was the crime committed by these Palestinian politicians from the West Bank? Were they somehow accomplices to Cpl Shalit’s “kidnap” by Palestinian militants in the separate territory of Gaza? And if so, was Israel intending to prove it in a court of law? In any case, what was the jurisdiction of the Israeli army in “arresting” Palestinians in Palestinian-controlled territory?...
Interestingly, the language used by the British media mirrors that used by the Israeli media. The words “retaliation”, “escalation”, “pressure”, “kidnap” and “hostage” are all drawn from the lexicon of the Israeli press when talking about the Palestinians. The only Israeli term avoided in British coverage is the label “terrorists” for the Palestinian militants who attacked the army post near Gaza on 25 June...
None of this context surfaced to help audiences distinguish cause and effect, and assess for themselves who was doing the escalating and who the retaliating.
That may have been because all of these explanations make sense only in the context of Israel’s continuing occupation of Gaza. But that context conflicts with a guiding assumption in the British media: that the occupation finished with Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in August last year. With the occupation over, all grounds for Palestinian “retaliation” become redundant."
B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization dispels the myth of the ‘free Gaza’ (http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Control_on_Air_space_and_territorial_waters.asp), noting Israel’s continuing control over the land, airspace, and sea, hampering trade and contributing to the devastation of the economy.
On the topic of a ‘people calling for the murder of another people’; for Hamas (and the majority of Palestinians), the conflict with Israel seems not to be focused on ethnicity. Israel, however, has made it quite clear that it places importance on the ethnically Jewish character of the state. What makes Israel’s claims to statehood unique is the way in which the state was created - by destroying hundreds of native Palestinian villages and creating a massive, ongoing refugee crisis.
This chart (http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties.asp), released and updated by B’Tselem, documents that from September 29, 2000, to May 31, 2007, approximately 700 Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinian attacks, while the number of Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli forces is around 2700.
I can't help but believe that when a group of people call for the "destruction of Israel and the Jewish people" they mean it only figuratively.
They claim to want a one-state solution, in which Jews, Christians and Muslims live together in peace, and in the middle east, only one such state exists - Israel. Israel has a huge Arab Muslim population, there is no open Jewish community in ANY arab country.
Lets also not forget why there is no State of Palestine. While yes, Israel did take land, they only did so after the War of Independence, upon which Jordan and Egypt gobbled up Palestine to be part of their countries. There is a Palestinian country - its called Jordan, just because they have a Hasmite MONARCH does not mean that the country is not Palestinian. I would love to see a unified West Bank and Jordan, a home for the Palestinian people - the pariahs of the Muslim world.
Israel has demonstrated its willingness to make peace with its neighbors, even by huge land trades, ie Egypt and hopefully soon Syria. There is no doubt that its an unfair fight, Palestinian militants and suicide bombers versus the IDF, but Israel does not kidnap journalists, conduct public executions, target political opponents, purposefully attack SOLELY civilians, launch rockets into Gaza and the West Bank unless in response. Israel has demonstrated its willingness time and time again for peace and for the construction of a Palestinian state. Times have changed, i do not believe that it should be returned to its 1967 borders, but the land trade should be equal. Countries must protect their own domestic interests and Israel, with much of the world ignoring the problem, has been left to solve the crisis of Palestinian infighting, has been left to solve the crisis of the Palestinian state and has been forced to do so WITHOUT the Palestinian involvement. Israel evacuated Gaza, and it seems that when the Israelis leave, all the Palestinians have left to do, is kill eachother.
The aid embargo is unfortunate, but where did the years of aid that the international community and Israel gave to the PLO go? Weapons? Missles? If the Palestinians are to use the aid for weapons, they are forcing their own people to starve. Israel has unilaterially engaged in a number of public works projects in the territories.
Its fun to be on the side of independence, its a shame though that idealists forget what they are fighting for - human dignity and social justice.
READ: Paul Berman "Power and the Idealists" maybe you'll realize that if you spend too much time on the left, you end up turning right. neocon.
Thanks for the post. Obviously, we disagree about a few things.
If you’re talking about the Hamas charter (quite a heinous document… I’m sure we’d both agree on this!), I believe that the organization can no longer be accurately characterized by its two decade old founding document – and that this is especially true during recent years (see the Crisis Group quotations and report in my earlier reply). If you’re referring to statements made by Hamas officials or leaders, it’s worth pointing out that racist remarks, or remarks that take a tone of ethnic superiority, are also easily found attributed to Israeli leaders. Regardless though, I don’t see the conflict as being dominated by racism (though I’m not saying that racism is completely absent) – it’s quite easily explained as a conflict between the occupiers and the occupied, or the displacers and the displaced.
My point is that Hamas has made significant developments that warrant its legitimacy as a negotiating partner (extended truces, focus on withdrawal to the pre-’67 borders, a renouncement of suicide attacks on Israeli civilians, etc.). If cessation of violence were the true goal, the reasonable thing to do, would be for the EU, the U.S., and Israel, to engage in a dialogue with the elected representatives of the Palestinian people, Hamas, who have, in recent years, shown willingness to negotiate. Instead, what seems to have happened, is that the EU, the U.S., and Israel have facilitated the overthrow of a democratically elected Palestinian government, and then thrust their allies in the Abbas/Dahlan/Fayyad coalition back into the helm once again. The effect of this is that, in dialogue with the non-representative Fatah regime, the international community is merely talking to themselves (and will be increasingly if they keep the current pace…).
I'm not absolving the Arab nations of any wrongdoing here (their ‘gobbling up’ of Palestine). But if you want to head in this direction, it would be necessary to remember that both Egypt and Jordan later revoked any claims over the region that they had made previously. Not that I think this really matters anyways... Palestinians exist regardless of whether they exist in Egypt or Jordan, or in Israel.
On the subject of the Palestinian state being Jordan, and the Palestinians being Jordanian, despite claims made by leaders in the past (which I believe are most accurately described as political in nature, rather than heavy on content relevant to nationhood), both sides now claim that the peoples are separate. Again though, I don't think that this should really enter the picture, as Palestinians have quite clearly demonstrated that they are, in fact, not Jordanian but a separate nation and people, by virtue of their advocacy in favour the one or two-state solutions - not the 'Jordanian' solution, if you will. I doubt you would make much headway attempting to convince a Palestinian that he or she is really not Palestinian, but actually Jordanian, and thus is not entitled to his or her rights as displaced person.
The effects of IDF 'incursions' into Palestinian Occupied Territory are most copiously documented by respected human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem, and are frequently referred to using words such as 'indiscriminate', 'disproportionate', and 'deliberate'. Tons of these reports are easily available to the public through the websites of each organization. As Norman Finkelstein likes to point out, there is a virtual consensus of all of the major human rights organizations that the IDF has continuously been responsible for massive violations of human rights and international law in the Occupied Territories.
As for the years of aid from the international community, it’s widely known that Fatah, PLO, and the PA have done virtually nothing for the Palestinian cause throughout their time in power, and that the cash has gone, more or less, straight into their pockets. Massive levels of corruption within the organization led to an ineffective state, which, in turn, led to groups like Hamas gaining popularity because of their ability to perform as the state should have. This is the principal reason for Hamas’s electoral victory. Though in reality, the Palestinians have been starving for decades – it’s just that now they’re starving moreso because the group that they voted in, in large part due to Fatah’s letting them starve, we don’t like.
About the sanctions… I would say that deliberately targeting an entire population of civilians for starvation in an attempt to coerce them into accepting a leader of your choosing is fairly deplorable.
I will check out the Paul Berman reading, thanks.
Post a Comment