In what could prove to be a damaging moment for the McCain campaign, Former Clinton Administration State Department spokesman James Rubin has written an op-ed highlighting an interview he conducted with McCain a few years ago for Sky News in the UK. In the interview, conducted shortly after Hamas’ victory in Palestinian elections, the following exchange occurred:
[Rubin] asked: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”
McCain answered: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”
There are a couple of striking things about this revelation.
1) McCain’s charge today that Barack Obama’s willingness to meet with foreign dictators is a sign of naivete and unfitness for office looks like pure hypocrisy. Ironically enough, Barack Obama has actually drawn the line at Hamas, refusing to go along with Jimmy Carter. Obama will only meet with Hamas after they renounce terrorism and their commitment to the destruction of Israel. McCain now has egg on his face for supporting negotiations in the past that he now opposes.
It isn’t like the situation between Hamas and Israel is substantively different now than two years ago either. Hamas is just as dangerous to Israel now as then. The only difference seems to be that John McCain thought he could skewer Barack Obama for his support for diplomacy. It looks like McCain skewered himself.
2) Another striking aspect of McCain’s comments is his seeming rationalization for Hamas’ election. McCain sympathizes with the Hamas voter, it seems, citing the Palestinians’ desperation for prosperity and security that Fatah could not deliver. Well, Fatah may not have been able to deliver it, but that doesn’t mean Hamas was the answer.
If the McCain of 2008 had answered James Rubin’s question he would have said, “No, we will not treat Hamas diplomatically the way we did Palestinian governments of the past. Hamas is a terrorist organization and until they renounce terrorism and recognize Israel we have nothing to negotiate with them.”
Instead, McCain cited the “new reality in the Middle East,” and the need to “deal with [Hamas] one way or another.” And the context of the interview clearly suggests that McCain did not mean dealing with Hamas through force.
It seems the only new reality John McCain faces is his own hypocrisy.
As President Bush visits an Israel celebrating its 60th anniversary, Arabs and Palestinians commemorate the “Nakba,” which in Arabic means “the catastrophe.”
For a sampling of what all nations in the region outside of Israel think of the events and President Bush’s visit, a good place to start would be this editorial from Jordan’s Jordan Times.
“U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday arrived in Israel to cheer that country’s independence and celebrate Israeli democracy. … Bush hailed Israel as an example to the region. One wonders which example Bush was referring to. How to get rid of a pesky native population? How to create a democracy for 80 percent of its people, based on their ethno-religious backgrounds, and present itself as a haven for progressive values? Or could it have been how it has occupied a neighboring territory and people and blame the victims for their oppression?” Read the rest of this entry »
“The American president could hardly have envisaged a more unfavorable climate for his Middle East tour. Expected this morning in Jerusalem to participate in celebrations for the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, George W. Bush will have few other reasons to rejoice during a tour that will also take him to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and which is likely to illustrate the failure of his policies in the region. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is on the brink of collapse. In Lebanon, the pro-Western government of Fouad Siniora is suffering a Hezbullah onslaught, while the Shiite movement is supported by the two black beasts of U.S. policy in the region, Iran and Syria.”
By Patrick Saint-Paul, correspondent in Jerusalem
Translated By Sandrine Agoerges
May 13, 2008
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
The American president arrives in Israel in midst of political uncertainty and with the peace process is at a standstill.
The American president could hardly have envisaged a more unfavorable climate for his Middle East tour. Expected this morning in Jerusalem to participate in celebrations for the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, George W. Bush will have few other reasons to rejoice during a tour that will also take him to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and which is likely to illustrate the failure of his policies in the region. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is on the brink of collapse. In Lebanon, the pro-Western government of Fouad Siniora is suffering a Hezbullah onslaught, while the Shiite movement is supported by the two black beasts of U.S. policy in the region, Iran and Syria.
For his second visit to Jerusalem since last January, Bush will be forced to note that since he undertook to revive peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians at Annapolis in late 2007, no progress has been made. “Unless he has a rabbit in his hat, this will be the third time in the past half year that the U.S. president shows the Palestinians and the entire Arab world that they are wasting their time by trying to end the occupation by peaceful means.” says Akiva Eldar in an editorial entitled Bush should stay home .
The hope of the American President to see an agreement before the end of the year seems illusory. According to his entourage, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, told Bush during his visit to Washington last month that upon discovering the positions of Israeli negotiators, he thought it was a joke - so far where they from the parameters set by Bill Clinton at the time of the previous talks.
According to the Palestinians, Israeli negotiators sought to retain, in addition to large areas with Jewish settlements, the Jordan Valley up to the outskirts of Nablus - amounting to about 10 percent more territory. In Jerusalem, there would be no question of splitting the old city - home to the sacred sites, nor the restoration of the Arab districts that border it. Israel merely proposed Palestinian control over an “Esplanade of Mosques” and some of the suburbs surrounding East Jerusalem. The talks were jeopardized by programs to enlarge Israeli settlements in the West Bank and violence in Gaza strip, where missiles launched by Hamas activists have led to an Israeli military response.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing foreign press coverage of President Bush’s trip to the Middle East.
The events now unfolding in the Middle East, which have been set in motion by Hezbullah’s takeover last week of much of Beirut, do not bode well for American or Israeli interests, warns one of France’s leading historians and journalists, Alexandre Adler.
Writing for France’s Le Figaro newspaper, Adler writes that Iranian President Ahmadinidjad, hemmed in by opponents at home and abroad, has turned to one of the last cards he holds in his hand: the Lebanese Hezbullah:
“Let us first turn to Iran, which is in a fever and where the most decisive threats originate. Iran’s President and his trusted accomplices - and a pro-Iranian faction of al-Qaeda - hope to recreate unity among all people of Muslim faith for a renewed jihad against America and Israel. Voices have been heard, notably among the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, who hope for such an outcome and support Iran’s nuclear program, which many Islamists - not only in Cairo - regard as a liberating force that should be immediately employed against Israel, whatever the risks.”
“Israel cannot tolerate a military victory for Hezbullah over its [pro-West] Lebanese opponents - any more than it can allow Ahmadinejad to pursue nuclear blackmail, especially in this very strange context: There is the probability that a Democratic candidate - indeed an Obama election victory - could bring to the White House a supporter of negotiations at all costs. … Clearly, this is a distressing 60th anniversary for Israel.”
This is a seminal article about what the United States now confronts, and it should be read by anyone interested in understanding this very important and hard-to-penetrate topic. Read the rest of this entry »
Credulous, likely-senile Jimmy Carter had tea with the terrorist group Hamas and now, according to MSNBC, Hamas is asking for a 10-year “truce” while refusing to recognize the State of Israel on the condition that said State of Israel return to the nearly-indefensible 1967 (read 1949) borders.
This is nothing new from Hamas, which would love to import offensive weaponry for the next 10 years while ruling both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Hamas’ terrorist attacks will simply be farmed out to (or conveniently blamed upon) Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Aksa Martyrs’ Brigades etc…while Hamas claims to be at peace and that Israeli self-defense violates this ‘hudna’ (an Islamic temporary truce until victory can be attained over an unwary enemy).
Hamas had its chance to give up violence and become a constructive political organization when it won that so-called election. Hamas could have suppressed violence and dismantled the other terrorist groups (see above list) while working with Israel and the world community to ease the plight of its subjects. Did Hamas choose to grow up? No way! Hamas chose to blow its big chance and continue to bring misery to the Palestinian Arabs.
Only an ignorant, politically-correct, self-righteous moralizing fool would buy-into this nonsense.
We just posted at WORLDMEETS.US something that anyone interested in global affairs simply must watch.
Nearly every year at the annual Arab Summit, Libyan despot Muammar Qadhafi gives a speech to the collected rulers of the Arab world who in stony-faced silence, sit and listen to him. Invariably - it is absolutely priceless.
Is the Bush Administration hoping for or perhaps even egging Israel on - to invade the Gaza strip and destroy Hamas’ power base there? Political Commentator Maria Appakova writes for Russia’s Novosti, ‘Sixty four percent of Israelis consider it necessary to hold a dialogue with Hamas to obtain a truce. But this is hardly in the interests of the United States. Nor is a truce likely to lead to peace. … Thus, just one option remains - the destruction of Hamas power in Gaza.’
By Maria Appakova
Translated By Igor Medvedev
March 5, 2008
Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)
MOSCOW: U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have simultaneously announced that they continue to believe in the possibility of establishing peace in the Middle East by the end of 2008.
These statements were made the day after Israel concluded ground operations in the Gaza Strip which resulted in the deaths of over 120 Palestinians. What price will Palestinians and Israelis have to pay before Washington realizes that its hopes have been dashed?
Bush’s words of hope, expressed during a press conference in Washington on the results of talks with King Abdullah II of Jordan, could perhaps have been dismissed as diplomatic politesse. But Rice was at that very moment visiting the Middle East and could see for herself what was going on in the region. In parallel with her meetings in Israel, rockets continued to fall; and the Israelis continued surgical strikes in Gaza on the eve of withdrawing its troops.
So what is the source of such faith that peace can be established in the next 10 months - and at a time when it seems that all international efforts to return the two sides to the negotiating table, especially those of the United States, have failed?
Yes, of course Israeli and Palestinian leaders maintain that peace remains their strategic objective, but statements on the resumption of talks have been sluggish. On the contrary, Israel is actively discussing new full-scale operations in the Gaza strip. For his part, President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, announced on the eve of Rice’s visit on Sunday that he was freezing negotiations with Israel, which were launched late last year in Annapolis under the patronage of the United States.
Recall that meetings between Israeli and Palestinian delegations resumed over the past few months, including those headed by Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the parameters of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Before that, there had been no talks on a peace agreement since the fall of 2000. They were at best not about peace, but about a truce and a ceasefire. Now the situation has returned to what it was over seven years ago.
Is Israel’s latest incursion into Gaza an attempt to put an end to the firing of rockets from Gaza into Southern Israel, or is it something much more? According to this analysis from Algeria’s French language Le Quotidien, what people in Gaza and Lebanon are now witnessing is the build-up to a joint U.S.-Israeli ’settling of accounts’ to ‘reconfigure the balance of power in the Middle-East and enable them to achieve their political agenda in the region.’ Kharroubi Habib writes, ‘Everything suggests that Israel and the United States are creating the conditions for a new war in the region, at the end of which they will finally establish ‘peace’ on their terms. And although they don’t openly say it, even Arab forces in the region are pushing for this Israeli-American plan. That includes the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas, who is counting on regaining control of the Gaza strip.’
By Kharroubi Habib
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
March 2, 2008
Algeria - Le Quotidian - Original Article (French)
Since Wednesday, the Israeli air force has been conducting raid after raid over the Gaza strip. These are no longer “targeted” strikes, but are operations meant to claim the largest possible number of victims in a population that has been declared a “hostile entity,” and to which the principle of “collective Punishment” applies.
In just a few days, hundreds of Palestinian men, women and children have perished, having been engulfed in fire. But the worst is unfortunately still to come for the people of Gaza, as the Israeli government prepares for a major operation against their territory. It is this that the air raids are preparing, with the aim of “breaking” the morale and capabilities of the popular resistance in Gaza.
One should not view the ongoing aggression against Gaza as a response to rockets being fired on the Israeli village of Sderot. It is rather, in our view, the prelude to a much larger operation, planned jointly by Israel and the United States, to reconfigure the balance of power in the Middle-East and enable them to achieve their political agenda in the region.
It is by no means fortuitous that just as Israel launched its raids over Gaza and warned of plans to begin ground operations, the United States announced the presence along the Lebanese coast of one of its warships, the USS Cole.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing foreign-language coverage of events in the Middle East that relate to the United States.
January 23rd, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
A major protest is now unfolding in the Gaza strip, where thousands of Palestinians are pouring across the border after masked gunmen blew up a barrier in defiance of an action by Israel:
Tens of thousands of Palestinians on foot and on donkey carts poured into Egypt from Gaza Wednesday after masked gunmen used land mines to blast down a seven-mile barrier dividing the border town of Rafah.
The border breach was a dramatic protest against the closure of the impoverished Palestinian territory imposed last week by Israel.
Jubilant men and women crossed unhindered by border controls over the toppled corrugated metal along sections of the barrier, carrying goats, chickens and crates of Coca-Cola. Some brought back televisions, car tires and cigarettes and one man even bought a motorcycle. Vendors sold soft drinks and baked goods to the crowds.
Meanwhile, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said his security forces have been ordered to let people from Gaza buy food — a sign of solidarity that will do him well domestically. He’a slao clearly trying not to get stuck in the middle of some Palestinian politics as well:
Mubarak said that for a permanent solution for Gaza the two Palestinian groups, Fatah and Hamas, needed to reach their own agreement. Egypt has tried to bring about reconciliation between the Islamist group Hamas, which controls Gaza, and Fatah, which runs the West Bank.
Are the Israelis intentionally trying to derail progress on President Bush’s trip to the Palestinian territories and Israel - his first visit to the country? According to this op-ed article from the largest newspaper on Palestinian territory, Alhayat Aljadeeda, the Israelis are introducing issues of dispute and causing turmoil that have never been part of the peace talks, so that President Bush will be too busy putting out fires to make any real progress.
“Israel is preparing for President Bush’s visit by reshuffling the cards and by demonstrating that there are problems that were not included in any discussions before, such as the verbal escalation over political and security relations with Egypt!!!”
By Yehia Rbah, Translated By Jenny Oliver, Palestine - Alhayat Aljadeeda - Original Article (Arabic)
It appears that the Israeli ruling coalition led by Ehud Olmert isn’t satisfied with the bloody military escalation in the Gaza Strip that amounted to eight air-raids in one day. The air-raids target civilians, such as the Fayyad family [photo, right], as well as resistance fighters and homes. Additionally, dozens have been injured and abducted and the vicious encroachment of Jewish settlements continues. Meanwhile, statements by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have roiled relations with Egypt, which shows the real trend of Israeli policy.
[Editor’s Note: Israel has complained to Egypt that it isn’t doing enough to stop weapons smuggling into the Hamas-cntrolled Gaza strip. Foreign Minister Livni said on Monday, “What they [the Egyptians] are doing at Philadelphi is deplorable and problematic.” Egypt has promised to end the smuggling and says it is doing all it can].
This all shows quite clearly that the Israeli government is intent on putting huge obstacles in the path of George W. Bush’s visit to the region on the 9th of this month. His visit will not be confined to Israel and Palestine, as he will also tour the region in general. But the focus for this visit is to promote the opportunities for peace opened up after Annapolis conference and the donor’s conference held in Paris. However, Read the rest of this entry »
Is the U.S.-sponsored Middle East peace conference next month geared toward cheating the Palestinians, rather than finding an equitable solution to the region’s woes? According to this op-ed article from Syria’s state-run Teshreen newspaper, beyond cheating the Palestinians, the conference is intended to absorb some of the global resentment that has intensified toward President Bush and American foreign policy.
By Gaazi Aldada
Translated By James Jacobson
October 16, 2007
Syria - Teshreen - Home Page (Arabic)
In one of her previous visits to the region, American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice declared frankly, “I have come to the region with an empty suitcase.â€
Perhaps her current visit will be in keeping with the obscurity of her past visits - without apparent clear-cut objectives or stated goals. But this doesn’t mean this is simply a courtesy call. She has arrived with real objectives, although the real goals can only be seen but under the table between Rice and the Israelis.
This obscurity that surrounds Rice, her President and all of her colleagues in the American administration isn’t the result of a lack of clarity in their outlook or thinking. The reverse is true, since the Americans know precisely what they are doing, what they’re thinking and what their plans are for the region. This is deliberate obscurity, the primary goal of which is to keep the door partly open so as to wash their hands of any specific commitments, ideas or proposals that American officials have made before.
It’s easy to see that at the very moment they decided to convene their “Peace Conference,†the American discourse maintained the usual level of obscurity, since the event is sometimes called a “conference†and sometimes it’s called a “meeting,” with the intent of reducing the level of expectation. Even its stated timing, goals and invitations are unclear, nor is Rice using her current visit to alleviate any of this lack of clarity, which is in keeping with her usual rule.
It’s no leap of faith to believe that the real objectives of this conference will be to cheat the Palestinians of the rights that have been denied them, in fact reducing them to the lowest possible level. In addition, the conference will be used as a kind of sponge to absorb some of the resentment that has intensified toward American foreign policy around the world and to show that President George Bush is not just a man of war who has done nothing for peace.
Look at the headlines, and particularly if you’re someone in a Western country it’s all so incredibly puzzling: how can young men and women blow themselves up? Datelines to stories become interchangeable. Pakistan. Israel. Iraq. News reports (as usual) detail a Middle East seemingly in peril. And a recent story claims a new Al Qaeda “cell” may be heading to the U.S.
What’s the mentality? What’s the mindset? And why?
Trying to find a DVD that isn’t a long editorial to give you a clue is difficult. Most films quickly sketch good guys and bad guys. Few get you inside the terrorists’ skulls and let you see how they think, then let you judge for yourself.
A few months ago, I saw a DVD of a movie that dealt with suicide bomber and after it was done a friend said: “This is b.s. They clearly wanted us to feel sorry for those guys!” And he was right: the movie depicted an evil U.S. government as being the reason why key characters became terrorists or enemies of the U.S. You could tell the director’s viewpoint 15 minutes into the film.
So there has been gap for those who want to understand, as opposed to those who want to watch watch a two hour editorial. A gap until now.
Director Pierre Rehov (Hostages of Hatred) has filled the gap for us with Suicide Killers — a film that should be watched by all sides in this life-and-death debate and by people of all political parties. It is required viewing if you want to understand how some (we underline “some”) Muslims are happily ready to die as glorified martyrs by blowing up groups of innocent men, women and even tiny children with them.
Here are three interesting articles about the situation in Gaza:
- Charles Krauthammer at NRO: Charles argues that the situation is, now, quite simple. The West and Israel should isolate Gaza, because the West cannot deal with a terrorist organization. Furthermore, Israel should adopt a zero tolerance policy towards Hamas / Gaza. “Israel should declare that it will tolerate no more rocket fire — that the next Qassam will be answered with a cutoff of gasoline shipments.” At the same time, the West should focus completely on Abbas and help him as much as possible. Abbas stands for - in the eyes of Krauthammer - moderation and the US should bolster him. Of course, Abbas is far from perfect (he’s weak for one thing), this should be considered his last change: it is up to him to turn the West Bank into a success.
- Daniel Levy at The American Prospect, on the other hand, believes that “ignoring Hamas and Gaza in an effort to bolster Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah isn’t going to work.” That is why he proposes “a three-part plan to address the current crisis and relaunch a viable peace process.” The plan consists out of three phases:
* Phase one: Stabilization. The US need to support Abbas, but not hug him to death. “Those elements within Fatah and Hamas and in the Arab world (hopefully including Saudi Arabia) who are convinced that the only stability and peace-building option for Palestinians (and Israelis) is via Palestinian power-sharing and national accommodation should establish channels of dialogue and negotiation towards that end.” Fatah has to “reign in its armed militants on the West Bank, to incorporate them into regular security forces, and/or initiate a process of collecting unauthorized weapons.” Furthermore, “In Gaza, Hamas will be expected to undertake a similar process of regularizing the carrying and display of weapons and the collection of unauthorized weapons with a view to a later integration of security forces. Hamas should impose order and a ceasefire that will also be accepted by Israel.” Lastly: “Mid-level officials will coordinate between Israel and Hamas in Gaza (directly or via international agencies) in order to prevent a humanitarian crisis and allow normal life to resume.”
* Phase two: Consensus-building on a new way forward. Once the situation has calmed down, “Abbas and the Fatah and Hamas leaderships should commit themselves to a new power-sharing political arrangement.” Which would result in “a new power-sharing arrangement between Fatah and Hamas leading to a renewed National Unity Government.” After that they have to: “Expand the circles of support around this new way forward: Hamas and Fatah would explain their respective positions and Abbas would advocate for international acceptance of the new Palestinian national framework as having the delivery capacity, especially on security, to carry forward a peace process.” Israel and the US would get involved as well and they would work towards a new plan. “Security efforts will be focused on solidifying a comprehensive ceasefire arrangement that includes the West Bank and Gaza.”
* Phase 3: Re-launch a better grounded peace process. “Launch a comprehensive regional peace process on all tracks. Israel and the new Palestinian government will announce their readiness to begin serious political negotiations on all issues. This process should also involve Syria, which is important in itself, and can help reduce tensions and avoid spoiler tactics that might undermine the process, emanating from both Lebanon and from within the Palestinian arena.” “As the security situation is further stabilized against the backdrop of the ceasefire, major efforts should be undertaken by Israel to dramatically free up living conditions in the West Bank, and to remove outposts and outlying settlements.” Also, previous agreements forged to re-link Gaza to the West Bank should be fully implemented — including the Access and Movement Agreement from November 2005.” Of course, “the Arab states, in the context of the Arab League Initiative, should undertake certain diplomatic gestures towards Israel.” The last point of this phase:
On the Israeli-Palestinian track, the negotiating goal should be defined as a permanent status agreement. In the absence of an ability to reach such an agreement, the process should not be defined as an all-or-nothing effort that has collapsed (learning from Camp David 2000). Rather, two fallback efforts would be simultaneously deployed: the Quartet should put forward its own detailed parameters for permanent status and perhaps have them endorsed in a UN Security Council Resolution, and Israel would undertake an immediate agreed withdrawal from the West Bank towards permanent borders, with agreed-upon international forces taking the place of the IDF.
- The Economist: “ecular nationalism of the sort Fatah stood for is coming to look like the weak force and radical Islam like the strong force. This poses a huge danger to a region already beset by violent conflicts. What is worse, Western policy is in danger of strengthening the wrong side by making the Islamists look like martyrs and the secularists like traitors.” A big problem with the “West Bank first” approach, hugging Abbas can labeling him a “moderate”: ‘Any Arab leader who wins the label “moderate†and is showered as a result of this with American love and money is in danger of being called a traitor.’
So, what needs to be done? Abbas has to deliver results. He has to show that moderation works. Working, in this regard, does not just mean that we should pour money into the West Bank; it means that Israel should withdraw, slowly but surely, from it.
From the three articles mentioned above, I agree the most with the article at the Econmist. Hamas and Gaza have to be isolated, the West Bank has to be supported, but money alone will not do the trick. Besides that, Abbas cannot afford to look like America’s best friend. That will only be counterproductive.
An interesting piece from Kuwait’s Arab Times translated on the indispensible site Watching America gives a glimpse of Tehran’s ongoing strategy to isolate the United States…this time from the U.S.’s own friends and allies:
THE attack on a Kuwaiti diplomat in Tehran, and the four-hour encirclement of Kuwait’s Embassy in Baghdad by the Revolutionary Guard are definite signs that Tehran has now taken its battle to friends of the United States, and that it intends to turn every Arab nation into a battlefield like Iraq, Lebanon or Palestine. This dangerous act was only the beginning, and is part of a strategy adopted by the Iranian regime to attack American projects in the Gulf region and expand the conflict zone by accusing others of being Washington’s agents. Previously, Iran had threatened to attack American projects in the Gulf if the United States attacked Iran. These threats are an attempt to impose Persian interests on Arabs, who are now acutely vulnerable.
Unabashed, unrepentant terrorist Hamas, still bent on destroying Israel, vs. corrupt, ineffectual ostensibly repentant terrorism-enabling Fatah, which allowed this state of affairs to develop. The Palestinians, having divided, were in the process of conquering themselves. Not surprisingly, utter murderousness trumped weaseling deception, and Hamas emerged the victor. But like everything else in the Middle East, it’s never that simple. Hamas’ victory almost immediately was revealed to be a disaster, Fatah’s rout an opportunity…
There is talk of concessions, a “West Bank first†initiative to reward Fatah, somewhat prematurely, before it has shown any maturity as a political entity itself. It is up to those who hold the pursestrings — Israel and the west — to quietly ensure that Fatah behaves responsibly. Palestinian peace and reconciliation may well be possible, if the criminal organization that is Hamas agrees to disarm, disband and disavow the destruction of Israel. Anything less will require a measured and reasonable response: the withholding of all cash, and the destruction of Hamas in Gaza by Israel.
The terrorist masters of Hamas, with their exuberant outburst of murder last week, have taken themselves hostage. This is no time to give in to terrorist demands. As we’ve learned, that only encourages them. If they will not release themselves, there is nothing we can do for them. If Hamas is bent on destroying itself, we shouldn’t try to stop them. If Fatah wants to lead the Palestinians, it will need to show it is capable of doing so.
I believe that this is an opportunity for the West and Israel to completely isolate Hamas, while at the same time helping the Palestinians in the West Bank. We must invest bigtime in the West Bank (and Abbas). Of course, our help should not be free: Abbas has to give us something in return. This means that he will have to fight terrorism actively; the PA TV should stop worshipping terrorists; schoolbooks should not contain any anti-Semitic propaganda; Abbas must use the money he gets to improve the lives of the West Bankers, etc.
Here are some couple of interesting articles about the situation in Palestine / Gaza and the West Bank:
- Jules Crittenden makes fun of poor Yasser Arafat whose nobel peace prize was stolen by Hamas.
- “Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday issued a decree outlawing the armed groups of Hamas and said its members would be prosecuted.” Abbas wrote he has decided to “consider the Executive Unit and the militias of the Hamas movement illegal, due to their military coup against the Palestinian legitimacy and its institutions.” As a result, “anyone who is involved in any of these two groups is going to be punished, according to the law and the orders of the state of emergency.” Hamas’ reaction: Abbas is a traitor who is part of some grand American-Israeli conspiracy to “bring down the Hamas government.”
- Israeli PM Ehud Olmert met with UN Secretary General Ban to discuss the situation in Lebanon and Gaza. According to the JPost, “Olmert asked that a draft plan be drawn up in Israel regarding the possibility of an international force on the Gaza border.” Sadly, “there was little likelihood that such a deployment would materialize.” Both Egypt and Hamas strongly object to such an international force (because such a force might make it impossible for Egypt to smuggle weapons into Gaza).
- Meanwhile, incoming Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is believed to be planning “an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush Hamas.” No one can blame Israel for attacking of course considering the fact that rockets are fired from Gaza every single day at Israel. However, it seems to me that Israel would be wise to refrain from attacking for quite a while. As I have said before, starve Hamas. Enforce the borders. Make sure that nothing comes in and that nothing gets out of Gaza. Isolate Gaza completely. Then, if Hamas decides to launch more than one terrorist attack against Israel (I’m talking about coordinated terrorist attacks), strike back hard or, better yet, strike against Hamas leaders in Gaza, but let time to its work - let Gaza collapse.
- A senior Fatah officer explained why he and his buddies did not fight against Hamas and, instead, surrendered: “we are very disappointed with our leadership.” He explained: “We decided to surrender to [Hamas’s armed wing] Izaddin Kassam because we didn’t feel that our commanders and leaders were behind us. Many of our commanders had fled to Ramallah and Cairo, where they were issuing orders to us from air-conditioned hotel rooms.” It is quite remarkable that Abbas did not order his troops to fight back (until too late).
- Meanwhile, Israel says that it will not allow Fatah “to slaughter Hamas members in the West Bank like Hamas did to Fatah last week in the Gaza Strip.” My question: why not? Let it happen. Palestinians hate Israel no matter what Israel does. Let the Palestinians divide their land into two separate entities: Hamastan and Fatahstan.
- Outgoing Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz isn’t happy. “Peretz was outraged that Olmert and Barak were so quick to replace him. He told Olmert in a conversation on Friday that the telephone vote took him by surprise and that Barak violated a promise to him that the handover in the Defense Ministry would be coordinated in a respectful manner by the two of them.” Peretz (one of Israel’s worst Defense Ministers in the history of the country) said: “It’s not as if Barak is Rambo coming to save us. So why is [his appointment] being handled so hastily and disrespectfully?”
- And, lastly (from the JP that is), there is this column by Khaled Abu Toameh, called “Palestinian Affairs: Fatah’s final death blow.” Khaled explains why he believes Hamas was able to take control of Gaza so easily. In short: Palestinians believe that Hamas is the lesser of two evils. Fatah is incredibly corrupt. The problem: once Hamas rules, Hamas will become corrupt as well.
Next, lets go to the Haaretz:
- “Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayad said after being sworn in Sunday that his first priority would be to restore security to the PA.” He said: “The first piority of our government is security and the security situation. The mission will be difficult and hard, but not impossible.” That of course depends: if he includes Gaza, it might be a bit more difficult that he anticipates. If, on the other hand, he is strictly talking about the West Bank he’s probably right.
- Aluf Benn wrote an op-ed about Ehud Barak. Aluf explains why Barak changed role models: first, he was a big fan of Winston Churchill, nowadays, he looks at General Charles de Gaulle for inspiration.
Gideon Levy writes: “Slightly before Shabbat came in on Friday evening, U.S. citizen G. reached the Palestinian side of the Erez Crossing. G., the headmaster of a private school in Gaza, may have been the last Westerner to leave the Strip. The last one to leave did indeed turn off the lights: The Palestinian side was empty.” Read this column if you want to see a perfect example of the idiocy of the left on this issue.
- Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel conclude that Hamas is a wolf in moderate clothing. Really? I dunno, I don’t think that there is much ‘moderate’ about Mickey “the Martyr” Mouse.
![[Guardian Unlimited, U.K.]](http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2008/03/04/bell512.jpg)
