| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
 Posted - 05/18/2007 : 17:24:10
|
| Not that I'm happy about it, but that pretty much proves my ultimate point. |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 18:23:14
|
In all serious I'm not sure what your ultimate point is.
If its that there is no realistic prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians for the forseeable future then that's something I would agree with. But there hasn't been such a possibility for some time, particularly since the Camp David failure.
The essence of the problem in my view is this: the Palestinians of Gaza, and also of refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan, have always believed, and no Arab politician has ever dared stand up and tell them otherwise, that the peace settlement would lead to their return to their towns and villages in present day Israel. Gaza is full of Palestinians born there who believe their home is some long-disappeared and redeveloped village in Israel. They yearn to go home, to a home most of them have never seen and which no longer exists.
Whilst there are other major problems in achieving peace e.g. Jerusalem, this one is central to the aspirations of displaced Palestinians and completely impossible for Israel to consider fulfilling (except for a nominal number of family reunions in extreme circumstances perhaps).
Any Palestinian politician who told them that a settlement would leave them in Gaza, or Lebanon, or Jordan, would get lynched as a traitor. Nevertheless many Palestinians can see that the Fatah ideology of a peace deal with Israel will never satisfy their primary goal, hence the rise of the completely rejectionist Hamas.
From our point of view it's easy to say their aspirations are ridiculously unrealistic, but from their point of view without that there is no point in a peace deal which leaves them dumped forever in a ghastly Gazan refugee camp. Many of them literally would rather die fighting than accept that. Even if Israel withdrew from all the West Bank, all of Jerusalem and all of the Golan Heights it would be almost an irrelevance to these people.
Therefore as I see it there is no possibility of any peaceful solution to the problem for at least a few generations. Israel's best long-term strategy must be to try to make life in Gaza as acceptable as possible to the population so eventually they will accept it as their real home.
|
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 18:24:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Any Palestinian politician who told them that a settlement would leave them in Gaza, or Lebanon, or Jordan, would get lynched as a traitor. Nevertheless many Palestinians can see that the Fatah ideology of a peace deal with Israel will never satisfy their primary goal, hence the rise of the completely rejectionist Hamas.
I agree with a large majority of what you wrote, but I think you're oversimplifiying the rise of Hamas and the goals of Fatah. Remember it was not Hamas that rejected the deal at Camp David and Taba in 2000-2001. That was Arafat, then head of the Fatah party, for which he was criticized by the entire world including many parts of the Arab world. The P.L.O. was originally a terrorist organization responsible for many airplane hijackings in the 1970s (including the Entebbe crisis) and partially responsible for the Munich massacre at the Olympics in 1972. The party's official emblem depicts a two rifles and a grenade in front of the entire map of Israel (not just the Occupied Territories). The official textbooks used in Palestinian high schools written by or approved by the P.L.O. contain revisionist history (including Holocaust denial), incitement and glorification of violence, classification of the conflict as a religious rather than economic/territorial conflict, and downright bigotry. Although the P.L.O. renounced terrorism in the 1990s, they seem to have a "don't ask don't tell" approach to the issue. Also, renouncement of terrorism doesn't seem to include the illegal smuggling of weapons from Egypt.
The Fatah party is also incredibly corrupt. While his people live in squalor, Yasser Arafat lived as with personal wealth in the hundreds of millions. He did this mostly by international aid to meant for the Palestinian people into his own personal bank account. He used this money for cronisim and to give his wife and daughter a life of luxury in Paris. If I were a Palestinian, I would have voted for Hamas as well! I would demand government reform and vote for whichever party was the biggest threat to Fatah. Hamas's rise has less to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than it does with a more localized "Palestinian-Palestinian" conflict.
From an Israeli point of view, the only reason Fatah is better than Hamas is because they recognize Israel's boundaries (at least on paper). Otherwise, in their actions and their rhetoric, they really aren't that much better than Hamas. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 00:03:44
|
The only point I made about Fatah was that its ideological position was to work towards a peace deal with Israel. That is pretty much indisputable. The only thing I said about Hamas was that it was rejectionist of any peace deal.
How this oversimplifies the goals of Fatah is a mystery to me, because I never said anything about the goals of Fatah. I merely said something about their ideological position, which is not the same thing. However much you want to talk about their symbolism or corruption it will not change the undisputable fact that they peddle the idea that a peace deal with Israel is their present goal. No-one said that this peace deal was not to be brought about using various tools, including Al Aqsa Brigade suicide bombers, that these are nice people nor indeed that the peace deal with Israel was necessarily their final goal.
As I pointed out in my last post, this idea of a peace deal cannot work because of the impossibility of returning Palestinian refugees to present-day Israel, and this, in my opinion, is why Arafat ran away from Camp David - an essential contradiction was about to be highlighted. He could neither say to the Israelis "I will not compromise on the return of refugees" - which would have ended the negotiations and have destroyed for ever the idea of a negotiated peace, nor could he say to the Palestinians "I have won these concessions on the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, but the refugees will have to stay". He had to run away.
Although the rise of Hamas is no doubt more complex than I chose to outline in a posting on the fwfr fourum, something which I consider quite forgivable incidentally, it is, in my view, essentially true that it stems from the failure of Fatah to deliver anything on a peace deal, which in turn results incompatible requirements of Israelis and Palestinians.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 00:29:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Although the rise of Hamas is no doubt more complex than I chose to outline...
Hence the use of Mickey Mouse to simplify the issue.
 |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 05:43:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
The only point I made about Fatah was that its ideological position was to work towards a peace deal with Israel. That is pretty much indisputable. The only thing I said about Hamas was that it was rejectionist of any peace deal.
How this oversimplifies the goals of Fatah is a mystery to me, because I never said anything about the goals of Fatah. I merely said something about their ideological position, which is not the same thing. However much you want to talk about their symbolism or corruption it will not change the undisputable fact that they peddle the idea that a peace deal with Israel is their present goal. No-one said that this peace deal was not to be brought about using various tools, including Al Aqsa Brigade suicide bombers, that these are nice people nor indeed that the peace deal with Israel was necessarily their final goal.
I think we will have to agree to disagree. Since the early 1990s, Fatah has given lip service to peace while turning a blind eye toward and being an active participant in terrorism, extremism, corruption, lies, indoctrination, and other vices. While it may be indisputable that Fatah is more "peaceful" or "moderate" than Hamas is like saying that cat feces smells better than cow feces. It may be an "indisputable" fact, but I sure wouldn't want to deal with either one of them. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 19:45:10
|
It's almost as if the Palestinian people WANT to prove to the world that they don't deserve a country and would only destroy it if they got one. I don't think the word "peace" is even in their vocabulary (yes, I know it's the same as their word for "hello" and "goodbye").
But as long as they slaughter each other, there are fewer of them left to murder Israelis. Good riddance.
quote:
From our point of view it's easy to say their aspirations are ridiculously unrealistic, but from their point of view without that there is no point in a peace deal which leaves them dumped forever in a ghastly Gazan refugee camp. Many of them literally would rather die fighting than accept that.
I believe you. So if that's the destiny they've chosen for themselves, who am I to stand in their way? If they want to die for a lost cause, let them die. I guess being a martyr is easier than being a leader and building a country.
In 1948, someone sold them a bill of goods, and they bought it. They were promised a country of their own occupying all of present-day Israel, built on the ashes of Israel and the bodies of the Israelis. They were told to risk everything they had - which was MOST of present-day Israel, let's not forget - for the chance to get just a little bit more and kill some Jews in the process...so they DID risk it all and they lost EVERYTHING, and made mortal enemies of a nation that had decided once and for all it will never allow itself to victimized again, no matter the price. Tough shit. So now they've spent the last 60 years blaming the Jews for their predicament instead of themselves and the lying Egyptions, Syrians, and Jordanians that abandoned them in the refugee camps in the first place. Well, if they want to continue to live in denial, that's their business. They're the ones prolonging their own suffering, nobody else. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 20:28:22
|
| Downtown, you're forgetting that the civilian aspect of the fighting in Gaza. If it were just "bad guys vs. bad guys," then I would agree with you and wouldn't care who lives or dies or who wins in the end. What bothers me most about the fighting in Gaza is that (according to the Los Angeles Times), Hamas is demanding that Fatah members surrender themselves and name names of others so that they can be executed. These people are ordinary citizens that have nothing to do with security and are probably unarmed. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 20:47:01
|
Are you talking about the same Hamas that won a landslide victory in democratic elections?
The people have spoken. This is what they want. They chose terrorism and war. So let them have it. |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 21:18:01
|
Well I don't know about the rest of you but I feel very sorry for the ordinary, innocent Palestinians who are caught up in the present bloodbath and have had to put up with misrule for a very long time.
To be honest, I think that anyone who condemns the Palestinian people wholesale and says 'good riddance' when they get killed is guilty of the same racism as someone who says similar things about Jews or Israelis.
In my time I've written to both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority complaining about human rights abuses. I did at least get a reply (and a carefully crafted one at that) from the Israeli government. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 21:41:37
|
I don't say good riddance when they get killed, I say good riddance when they kill EACH OTHER, which is a very predictable outcome when you elect a terrorist army as your government. Nobody's ever said that about Jews or Israelis, because they don't settle differences with rival political parties by shooting each other!
Let them slaughter each other...what the hell do I care? |
Edited by - Downtown on 06/14/2007 21:43:06 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 07:54:22
|
While I'm not as uncaring as DT, I am feeling somewhat similar feelings about this. I knew it would happen, and I knew it would start shortly after we got those idiot settlers out of Gaza (and thank goodness we got them out). But essentially, if they want to have a civil war, then let them have their civil war. It is nobody's business but their own. Of course, that there are many, many innocent people being hurt by this is truly tragic, and I feel bad that they're getting caught in the middle. I'm a true optimist when it comes to human nature, and no matter how bad it seems, I still think that the vast majority of Palestians want to stop all the terrorist business, stop the in-fighting and just get on with their lives. Hamas promised they would build the types of infrastructures that they needed to eventually become their own country. They promised that the money would be used to help their people instead of being stolen away and put into off shore accounts for personal use of the guys in power. They promised to get rid of all the corruption that Fatah had installed. Instead, Hamas is out for revenge and violence and the money isn't being used to help their people anymore than when Fatah was in power. But while the money isn't going into individual's pockets anymore, it is going into financing violence - against both Israel and their own people. Outragous!
By the way, if anyone sees Olmert's wanting to bring in outside forces as a totally selfless and humanitarian act, I'm not 100% sure about that. There are at least two selfish reasons I can think of. One is to help get those Palestinians who collaborated with Israel out to safety, and the other to use the outside forces to keep an eye out for things like the Kassam rockets that the Hamas likes to lob into Israeli territory. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 09:26:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Let them slaughter each other...what the hell do I care?
If when you say "them" you mean guys with guns killing other guys with guns, then I agree. They had a choice, and they chose war. But if you're referring to guys with guns killing other guys with guns, and some women, and some children, and causing malnutrition, and lack of education and infrastructure, then it isn't good for the human race to say "what the hell do I care?" Not everyone who's suffering deserves to suffer.
But if what you mean is that you see a basket case then I tend to agree. I don't see that there's much the rest of the world can do about it. Like Iraq. Or Afghanistan. |
Edited by - Sean on 06/15/2007 09:28:24 |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 08:52:59
|
I agree more or less with ChocolateLady. I actually see Hamas's control of Gaza as a good thing from Israel's point of view. Now the terrorists have a "return address" whereas before the distinction between rogue state and legitimate state was much more blurred. Also, before this civil war the blame for the living conditions in Gaza was unfairly placed solely on Israel by the Arab world, Europe, and the United Nations. Now, Hamas is indisputably the cause of Palestinian suffering in Gaza.
This might just be wishful thinking, if Gaza and the West Bank split into two seperate Palestinian entities, perhaps Israel can turn the two-state solution into a three-state solution. At least for now, Israel can and should forget about a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians and perhaps concentate on a seperate peace with the West Bank similar to how it made a seperate peace with Egypt after the 1973 war. The West Bank could be an independent Palestinian state runned by Fatah while Gaza is still occupied. Remember that Fatah was originally an international terrorist organization that only officially renounced terrorism fairly recently. Perhaps in 40 years, Hamas might do the same and Gaza can be dealt with diplomatically. I'd be interested in ChocolateLady's opinion on this hypothesis.
The only thing I don't agree with ChocolateLady on is her hope for an international force to enter and help stablize Gaza. UNRWA is a failure and always will be. UNEF was nothing more than a tool of Egyptian policy (U Thant even sold ammo and artilary to Nassar only days before the Six-Day War). UNIFIL refuses to stop Hezbollah in Lebanon from breaking international law as it promised twice to do. If history teaches us anything, its that international forces in the Arab-Israeli conflict are always ineffective at best and malicious at worst. |
Edited by - GHcool on 06/16/2007 08:53:48 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 11:04:16
|
A few clarifications here. While the three-state idea is interesting, and has been tossed about, I doubt it will happen because while Fatah might have been a partner you could sign a treaty with, Hamas is not, and never will be. At least Fatah pretended that they were willing to live along side Israel. Hamas is outspoken in that they will settle for nothing less than all of Israel being pushed into the sea.
Also, I didn't say I hoped for the forces to intervene in Gaza, I said it was Olmert's idea, which has its faults.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hamas enlists "Micky Mouse"
