Politics

War in Palestinian Territory

Thalia.

Posted to Politics on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:18:12 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

More than 100 Palestinians have been killed in internal violence since the Islamic militant Hamas, which rejects Israel's right to exist, won parliamentary elections last year and ousted Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' more moderate Fatah movement from power.  Hamas and Fatah have been trying to form a unity government for months.  They are deadlocked over Hamas' rejection of international calls that it recognises Israel.  As a result, Western donors have been withholding aid, resulting in a deep economic crisis in the Palestinian territories.

Friday's fighting killed 17 people, and injured hundreds, after a ceasefire  collapsed.  Now there is discussion of a new cease fire, and a meeting in Saudi Arabia between the parties.

The U.N. said it would not reopen its schools in Gaza Saturday after a midyear recess because of the fighting. Nearly 200,000 students study at the schools.

The quartet of Middle East peace mediators -- consisting of the European Union, the United Nations, the United States and Russia -- is expressing concern but reaffirming an international aid embargo against the Hamas-led Palestinian government unless it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and respects past peace deals.

There is concern that this is going to be the start of a civil war.

Editor's note: sub-q readers have also pointed out these stories, which discuss the ways in which Israel has been aiding Fatah over the last few months.

Tags: written by Thalia, edited by Port1080, Israel, Palestine, Fatah, Hamas (all tags)

This story: 47 comments (3 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Western Donors?

wetkarma.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:14:34 AM EST

none

Why are Western donors so essential for funding palestine? Why don't the palestinian people get the majority of their aid from their "muslim brothers" in Saudi Arabia etc?

Also while the deaths of so many people is indeed a tragedy, I've read this morning that one guy drove a truck bomb into a market in Baghdad -- killing over a hundred people. If palestine is indeed descending into a civil war, you'd think they could do better than killing a 100 people over the course of the past few weeks. Perhaps the internal conflict is overblown?

 

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

2

^ 1

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:26:51 AM EST

none

There is also the matter of taxes that the Israel collects on the behalf of the PA but refuses to release to them. As the first editor link (and my previous comment which has disappeared into nothingness) says Israel has released a quarter of the taxes that they've withheld since Hamas was elected.. to Abbas.. He cannot legally spend any of it without Hamas (legislature) approval according to Palestinian Basic Law.. but Israel is letting him have it, for the purpose of beefing up security.. you know.. his militia forces that are fighting Hamas.

Tipping Sacred Cows

3

^ 2

Re: Western Donors?

MayorBob.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:17:12 AM EST

none

The reason your comments and the link have disappeared "into nothingness" is that you need to set your preferences for comments to accept all comments.  Just click on Preferences on the right side of the page and then click on comments at the top of the page that comes up and you can set what you get to see.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

6

^ 3

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:57:16 AM EST

none

No the comment I made still doesn't appear after switching to view all.. I think it just wasn't submitted.

Tipping Sacred Cows

9

^ 6

This is what I see.

MayorBob.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:11:35 PM EST

none

Can also include links for: Misuse of funds, Israel releasing Palestinian money (which requires legislature approval to spend) to Fatah for 'security reasons' and that Israel is now running guns for Fatah. - rEvolution inAction

Perhaps you might want to send a message to shane about this.  Frankly, I'm stumped.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

12

^ 9

Re: This is what I see.

rEvolution inAction.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 03:54:57 PM EST

none

No worries, if it happens again I will, but this could have just been my error or my browser or my pc or my connection (I've been getting alot of timeout's recently).

Tipping Sacred Cows

17

^ 2

Re: Western Donors?

shatov.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:07:14 PM EST

none

I don't think that Israel is being very wise by releasing this money to Abbas. It may be that this could help Fatah defeat Hamas, but this victory may come at the expense of appearing to be Israeli puppets against the democratically elected Hamas. How could Fatah then pull the Palestinian population closer towards peace with Israel? How could their negotiations with Israel look like anything other than window dressings for selling out?

Supporting unpopular leaders doesn't work - Israel should ask all other countries with colonial and imperial experience about this. Iran, Vietnam, etc. etc.

I don't doubt that the Israeli government wants peace, but what peace do they want? When Fatah was elected and talking with Israel, did Israel make offers that Fatah could accept? Sharon was taking steps to dismantle some of the settlements, but it appeared that he was still intent on keeping some of the largest settlements intact. He made moves in the right direction, but I am not so sure that Fatah could have accepted his deals without destroying their credibility.

Hamas won those elections for at least one reason - the inability of Fatah to deliver any services. The reasons for Hamas' electoral victory, and the absence of deals being offered by Israel that any Palestinian government could accept, need to be considered.

18

^ 17

Re: Western Donors?

gerrymander.

Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:41:39 PM EST

none

I don't doubt that the Israeli government wants peace, but what peace do they want?

One that starts with, "The state of Israel and it's people have the right to exist." As that's a condition Hamas can't even give lip service to, any further negotiations are moot..

19

^ 18

Re: Western Donors?

coquito.

Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 02:21:40 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

The other side of that coin, and it's an important one, is that it seems to be a peace that does not include a viable state for the Palestianians.

Frankly, I don't see either Israel or the Palestinians (whether under Fatah or Hamas) as good-faith actors anymore.

Now with caps!

20

^ 18

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 05:33:41 PM EST

none

You're missing something. The state of Israel must remain a Jewish state. That is one of the big problems. It's also why I can't ever support Israel. They're explicitly saying that Israel must always put it's Jewish citizens before it's non-Jewish ones.. and because of the whole ethnic/religious definition of Jewishness, it compounds it.

Tipping Sacred Cows

21

^ 20

Re: Western Donors?

Thalia.

Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 06:59:35 PM EST

5.00 (interesting)

What do you suggest Israel do instead?  Israel says that it must always be based on the refuge-for-Jews principles.  So yes, they do put the Jews ahead of others.  On the other hand, unlike in the U.S. when a Muslim Arab was elected to the Knesset (Congress) no one was objecting.  It's not like any of the neighboring countries are welcoming Jews with open arms.  So if Saudi Arabia can remain a Wahabi state, and Iran a Shiite state, why can't Israel remain a Jewish state?

Thalia

27

^ 21

Re: Western Donors?

coquito.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 10:22:23 AM EST

4.00 (astute)

So if Saudi Arabia can remain a Wahabi state, and Iran a Shiite state, why can't Israel remain a Jewish state?

As an advocate for secular democracy, I would prefer it if none of those places remained religious states. And as I understand it, our gov't argues that Saudi Arabia and Iran should be secular democracies, like the one they're supposedly trying to create in Iraq.   If that's true, we should ask the same of Israel.

Another thing: generally speaking, I think it's a bad idea to define what's "ok" by saying "Well, they're doing it, why can't we?" It's not question of "can," it's a question of should. Just because x is doing something wrong, doesn't mean we should feel entitled to do the same. That's a great way to get everyone to race to the bottom.

Now with caps!

23

^ 21

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:20:39 AM EST

none

Never? Really? Oh wait.. you just meant the Knesset.. not an actual cabinet position ( an interview with him)... and the non-Jews can now have access to sewers.

Saudi Arabia/Iran.. two things.. do you also have to be Arab/Persian? .. my bad.. I forgot that converts where given full rights as Jews in '97... besides, I thought Israel was supposed to be Democracy's outpost int he Middle-East.. not just the same old shit.

What do you suggest Israel do instead?  Israel says that it must always be based on the refuge-for-Jews principles.
Oh I dunno.. make it a refuge-for-everyone.. look at the Holocaust and say, "never again".

'Then they came for me..'

Haaretz has pretty much the same take as me... and on other matters as well (this link is an op-ed).

Tipping Sacred Cows

30

^ 23

Re: Western Donors?

Thalia.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:34:11 PM EST

none

The Knesset is the Congress.  You remember the bullshit that went down when the first Muslim was elected to the U.S. Congress?  After 200+ years?  And last I checked, Muslim countries haven't made war on the U.S. particularly.  So WTF with "oh just the Knesset"?  As to the Muslim cabinet minister, do tell me who all the Muslim cabinet members are in our current administration.  

The problem with making it a "refuge for everyone" is the same problem that the U.S. has with immigration.  If enough immigrants move in suddenly, the character of the state changes, and not in a good way usually.  I don't know of any country that says "yes, come on in, you poor, uneducated, downtrodden folks, come live here."  Do you?  The U.S. restricts immigration to countries it likes, Europe is even more strict.  It's rather a stretch to expect Israel (which in size is smaller than Rhode Island) to accept "all refugees" when you do not expect the same from first world countries that are hundreds of times larger.

Thalia

34

^ 30

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 02:46:34 PM EST

none

The US has more atheists than they do Muslims (and they top out at around 10-15%). Israel has 16% of it's population identified by census as Muslim. Also it is hard to compare parliamentary positions with republican ones as both the powers and the method of appointment differs greatly.

That's the thing. I do expect that behaviour from those larger countries as well. Anyone who is opposed to unregulated immigration is racist in my mind, especially when it comes to granting refugee status to those who need it. But that's what we get when we hold dear to a concept that was developed by kings (sovereignty)..

I think the first country to understand the benefits of offering refuge to the world's masses will be the next super power.

Tipping Sacred Cows

37

^ 34

Re: Western Donors?

Thalia.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 02:55:35 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

In other words, you deem all countries in the world "racist."  That's cool.  At least a consistent position.  It's a bit weird to consider the absolute concensus to be "racist" but c'est la vie.

Thalia

42

^ 37

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 09:25:08 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

Absolute consensus implies that everyone agrees, which is not true. I'd say it's an absolute consensus of nations, but not of the people making up those nations. It happens to be the policy of majority in every country (especially western) and the most for it are always the nationalist parties, which bleeds over to the conservatives who dress up in economic theories to make it palatable to people who don't want to see themselves as racist but really don't like the idea of 'foreigners taking their jobs.'

Tipping Sacred Cows

38

^ 34

Re: Western Donors?

ms sue.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 04:10:25 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

Anyone who is opposed to unregulated immigration is racist in my mind

Quite a nuanced conclusion in your mind.

41

^ 38

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 09:20:56 PM EST

none

Didn't say it was.

Tipping Sacred Cows

31

^ 21

What Eternal Flavor Does One Favor?

permazorch.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:42:50 PM EST

none

Y'know, there's always been more than one flavor of Zionism (like Feminism and all the rest of it), and I'd prefer mine, if I had a choice, closer to an enlightened advancement from where the USA finds itself now. I'd rather we (the USA) were something more than an eternal eating machine, and I'd rather Israel were more than the bizarro world version of itself. It wasn't supposed to be this way, methinks...

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

32

^ 31

Re: What Eternal Flavor Does One Favor?

permazorch.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 02:16:42 PM EST

none

Sorry about the semi-coherent comment. I am at work. This is one of the few polls I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of the available options.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

33

^ 32

Re: What Eternal Flavor Does One Favor?

Thalia.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 02:43:35 PM EST

none

Sadly, I couldn't come up with an option I actually wanted.  Suggestions?

36

^ 33

Re: What Eternal Flavor Does One Favor?

rEvolution inAction.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 02:52:20 PM EST

none

[option] Have Israel and Palestine become two nations within one united country, with one capital city (Jerusalem) for the three governments (Federal,Israeli,Palestinian, and a Jerusalem municipal government).

Tipping Sacred Cows

24

^ 20

Re: Western Donors?

shatov.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:29:07 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

I'm not so sure that that is a huge problem. As long as equal rights regardless of religion are enshrined in the constitution, then the religion of the state is fine. Judaism is more benign than Christianity - there is not the same history of forced conversion in Judaism as there is in Christianity. I'm an agnostic, so I'm not overly keen on the idea of a state-enshrined religion, but as long as it also practices tolerance, then it is fine.

The problem with Israel is not that it is a Jewish state, but rather that it appears to not want to compromise over its settlements in Palestinian land.

In addition, if you have a problem with the Jewish nature of Israel, please either keep it to yourself, or don't associate with those of us who are solely concerned with the occupation of Palestinian land. I know that it doesn't necessarily mean that you are anti-semitic - and I really believe that you aren't - but it is opening up your flank too much to such accusations.

25

^ 24

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 02:10:57 AM EST

none

Historically Judaism has had a problem recognizing conversions. The problem is that the state's constitution affirms equal rights for all, but in practice is discriminatory.

The occupation has a lot to do with the Jewish nature of the state. Israel has the illegal settlements because the Palestinians won't compromise on their Right of Return which Israel doesn't want to touch because it would invalidate the Jewishness of the state (according to the 'Demographic Bomb' argument).

So no, I don't have a problem with the Jewish nature of Israel.. it's a problem with the Jewish nature of the laws of Israel.. or to make it clearer, the unbalanced application of the law.

Tipping Sacred Cows

28

^ 24

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 11:11:14 AM EST

none

Oh.. one other thing. In Israel 80% of the population is defined as Jewish, the largest minority is not 'Muslims' it is 'Israeli Arabs'. Those are the definitions they use. Does equality of religion still matter at that point?

Tipping Sacred Cows

39

^ 28

Re: Western Donors?

Thalia.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 05:36:40 PM EST

none

CIA Factbook says:

Ethnic groups:
Jewish 76.4% (of which Israel-born 67.1%, Europe/America-born 22.6%, Africa-born 5.9%, Asia-born 4.2%), non-Jewish 23.6% (mostly Arab) (2004)

Religions:
Jewish 76.4%, Muslim 16%, Arab Christians 1.7%, other Christian 0.4%, Druze 1.6%, unspecified 3.9% (2004)

Israeli Arabs are not an ethnic group, they are a definition.  They are Arabs (ethnically) who are Israeli citizens.  Not ethnically different from being an Arab who is not an Israeli citizen.  Kind of how there is no "ethnic" difference between Asian-American and Asian.  

Thalia

40

^ 39

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 09:20:38 PM EST

none

Arab or Israeli Arab, they are still treated as second class citizens... please explain why.

Tipping Sacred Cows

43

^ 40

Re: Western Donors?

Thalia.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 11:05:46 PM EST

none

For the same reason that the U.S. discriminated against blacks for over 100 years, because they're afraid.  And they have some right to be afraid. Some 60% of Israeli Arabs support the Palestinian intifada.  And demographic bomb like, the number of Israeli Arabs grew from 150,000 only fifty years ago to over a million now.   It's not a good thing that there is discrimination, and it is in fact illegal under Israeli laws.  

Thalia

44

^ 43

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:04:44 AM EST

none

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

- excerpt from the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel

It's beautiful, isn't it?

Tipping Sacred Cows

45

^ 44

Re: Western Donors?

Thalia.

Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:14:03 AM EST

none

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment.

It's beautiful, isn't it.  And it predates the end of Jim Crow laws by a mere 100 years.

46

^ 45

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 02:11:28 AM EST

none

Yup.. too bad it's ignored too often.

Tipping Sacred Cows

47

^ 46

Re: Western Donors?

permazorch.

Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:50:50 PM EST

none

Simply a crying shame. The constant mourning of what might have been, what should have been, and what was intended to have been, for all of us stupid, motherfucking children on this green planet of the clocks.

Let's build a new sandcastle, just for kicks.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

22

^ 20

Re: Western Donors?

gerrymander.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:16:01 AM EST

3.00 (astute)

They're explicitly saying that Israel must always put it's Jewish citizens before it's non-Jewish ones

And yet, one can find non-Jewish representation in Israel's government, but not a single Jew anywhere in power in Palestine. Go figure.

26

^ 22

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 02:12:22 AM EST

none

As I'm sure you know, the majority of Jews living in Palestine vote in Israeli elections.

Tipping Sacred Cows

29

^ 26

Re: Western Donors?

Thalia.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 01:03:34 PM EST

none

The majority of Mexicans in the U.S. don't vote in U.S. elections either.  Citizenship is required.  But there are quite a few non-Jewish citizens in Israel, and they have a right to vote.

Thalia

35

^ 29

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 02:48:40 PM EST

none

True enough.

Tipping Sacred Cows

4

^ 1

Re: Western Donors?

coquito.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:38:22 AM EST

none

Why are Western donors so essential for funding palestine? Why don't the palestinian people get the majority of their aid from their "muslim brothers" in Saudi Arabia etc?

In part, that seems to be answered in one of the links from the writeup:

The Arabs meet with Hamas, but they are not willing to help it in any possible way, and they oppose their policies.

Should Arab states use their influence on Hamas to get it to change its policy?

They do have influence on Hamas, but they are not willing to be a patron as they have been, for better or worse, for Fatah since the beginning.

But my question to you is, why does it matter, exactly? What was the purpose of your question? If I may infer: it sounds to me like a cynical way of saying that if the Arabs don't care about them, no one else should either, or else just way to point the finger at the "muslim brothers," as you put it, then wag it a little.

Now with caps!

16

^ 1

Re: Western Donors?

rEvolution inAction.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 05:34:08 PM EST

none

Don't look now, but Russia wants to send Hamas a check

Tipping Sacred Cows

5

Re: War in Palestinian Territory

coquito.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:48:33 AM EST

none

There was this exchange in the subQ:

comment:

Can also include links for: Misuse of funds, Israel releasing Palestinian money (which requires legislature approval to spend) to Fatah for 'security reasons' and that Israel is now running guns for Fatah.
(said links are now in the Ed's note)

reply:

Wow,  it didn't make it out of subQ before it turned into an "Israel is evil" loop.  Somedays you guys are too predictable.

What's the issue here, exactly? Isn't the discussion about a possible civil war caused, in part, by frustrations among the people over a financial crisis? If mentioning the West's withholding of funds to Hamas is OK, shouldn't Israel's involvement in the financial crisis also be OK? And isn't anyone providing guns to one side of a possible civil war significant?

If there is a Palestinian civil war, it won't have happened without significant involvement on the part of Israel (or a number of Arab states/groups and the U.S., and some European countries...). Can we not talk about that obvious fact without immediately  starting the name calling game? Or is mere mention of Israeli involvement verboten and a suddenly a sign of anti-Israelism?

Now with caps!

13

^ 5

Re: War in Palestinian Territory

marduk.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 04:11:12 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

Everyone who criticized South Africa was really just prejudiced against the Dutch.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

7

^ 5

Re: War in Palestinian Territory

rEvolution inAction.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:11:55 PM EST

none

Those comments were lifted from an aborted sub I sent to Plastic a week ago entitled "Fatah: As Corrupt As Ever".. the only reason there is all this violence is because no one (this includes Israel, but does not single them out) is willing to take Hamas at their word. Over the years they've shown themselves to be pretty honourable.. for an organization devoted to mass murder (it's actually only part of their mandate, but everyone seems to ignore that) they've managed to keep their word better than most nations. The point of the statement was not to show Israel doing  bad things (in fact, this is the first time I've ever seen them work with Palestinians.. making it a step forward... or maybe a half-step).. it was to show that Fatah are not the moderates they seem, nor are they playing by the rules.This week, Islamic Jihad sent the first suicide bomber in nine months into Israel.. to try and get Fatah and Hamas to stop fighting each other and fight the Israelis instead.. it just shows you how fucked up their way of life is.

As for Israel.. I want to coin a term, or at least spread it's usage because it applies: Anti-Gentilism. That's for all those people who think it's impossible to have issue with Israel but not with Jews.

Tipping Sacred Cows

8

^ 5

Re: War in Palestinian Territory

ms sue.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:24:06 PM EST

none

Can we not talk about that obvious fact without immediately  starting the name calling game? Or is mere mention of Israeli involvement verboten and a suddenly a sign of anti-Israelism?

Very good questions. Perhaps Thalia's comment was a reaction to how these discussions often evolve...or devolve, thanks to just a few who can't seem to see any middle ground ever when it comes to any issue involving the Middle East.

I don't recall too many -- any, really -- who dig in their heels and proclaim Israel to be without fault, but I do recall several who blame it entirely. That intransigence sets the tone.  

10

^ 8

Re: War in Palestinian Territory

coquito.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:51:53 PM EST

none

Perhaps Thalia's comment was a reaction to how these discussions often evolve...or devolve, thanks to just a few who can't seem to see any middle ground ever when it comes to any issue involving the Middle East.

I don't recall too many -- any, really -- who dig in their heels and proclaim Israel to be without fault, but I do recall several who blame it entirely. That intransigence sets the tone.

Perhaps it was "a reaction," but it seemed to me rEvolution's comment was perfectly sensible, wasn't calling Israel "evil," and that Thalia's response was the one starting the cycle of devolution in this discussion. If we're ever going to have a civil, sensible discussion about this, it doesn't help to go off on flashbacks to prior arguments. Not that that's easy, of course.

Now with caps!

11

^ 8

Re: War in Palestinian Territory

MayorBob.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:58:37 PM EST

none

I don't recall that many either myself, although to say there were none who adopted an "Israel does no wrong" posture is going a bit IMHO.  I could name David Palter and Eduardo who fall into that category when you get them right revved up on the topic.  Alas, Israel and the Palestinians are just one of those topics which you hardly need a lit match to ignite a major flame war.  You're right, of course, that given the stated topic here, and especially on Plastic, you will likely find more strident voices for Israel being the epitome of evil in the world.  But, I don't think that's what rEv was saying in his post.  I think he was merely saying that the entire thing is a bit more complex and, at times, opaque than we might imagine.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

15

^ 11

Re: War in Palestinian Territory

ms sue.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 04:35:20 PM EST

none

This is to both you and coq: I wasn't really considering rEv's comment per se here,  and I wasn't necessarily defending Thalia's remark --  but just saying that perhaps she was reacting to history.

I could name David Palter and Eduardo who fall into that category when you get them right revved up on the topic.

Count me as a third, then, if getting revved up means reacting to some of what I've seen posted; e.g., the seemingly wide latitude given a group like Hamas -- shame more people can't look past their, you know, stated purpose --  with no corresponding generosity given Israel or the U.S.

Surely most of us fall in between here and blame everybody involved. But we don't make as much noise.

14

Back on topic

rEvolution inAction.

Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 04:17:05 PM EST

none

Another broken truce agreement. Can we call it a civil war yet? And if so.. what does it mean? The possible outcomes are: (1) Fatah wins (2) Hamas wins (3) They eventually reach a peace deal (4) Someone else wins.

(1) So let's say Fatah wins the fight.. Abbas gets to call new elections, Hamas is no longer able to participate and the PA get's all it's money back. Does statehood move forward?

(2) Hamas wins, Abbas is forced to either resign or work with them according to their rules. Still no money coming in, Palestinians are paying taxes which aren't going to their government.. so then the ball is in Israel's court (the rest of the world won't blink on the funding).. do they start a war (through inaction) or do they finally negotiate without any pre-conditions?

(3) Eventually Palestinian disfavour with the two parties forces both of them to quit fighting, but how much is lost by that time? Can a coalition of the two work? Will Israel speak to them without Hamas changing it's charter?

(4) The kill each other off, and either Israel unilaterally creates a Palestinian state or another faction is created in the vacuum that follows.

Also there is the ticking clock that is Kadima.. how long will they be around? Can Olmert hold it together? If Kadima falls.. who's going to take over? Likud or Labour? Does this happen before or after the Palestinians are done fighting each other.. and how will it affect them? There's so many questions.. and no answers.. only deaths.

Tipping Sacred Cows

This story: 47 comments (3 from subqueue)
Post a Comment