I’m kind of confused here. I thought they had come to a peace settlement over the dis-engagement from the Gaza Strip. I could understand them wanting to resume attacks on Israel if innocent civilians had been killed, but by all accounts, the men killed were “armed militants.”
I also thought Hamas was one of the better of the Palestinian groups. (Is this true?) But now it says they want to attack too. I thought they would be more interested in negotiating now that Gaza has the potential to be under their control.
I was going to post a thread similar to this. My premise was going to be, “If 1,000 suicide bombers drove Israel our of Gaza, will 100,000 drive them out of Jerusalem?”
I just wonder if Israel has given just that exact message. The goal of the Palestinians is to own and control all of Israel/Palestine. The nuance is in what segment of the Palestinians allow jews to stay there after they do.
My two cents: Hamas is a bunch of murders. But until Israel gets out of the West Bank, the violence will not end. Some may claim that the Palestinians won’t stop until all Israelis are driven into the sea – and surely there are some Palestinians like that – but I don’t buy it. The West Bank is a very, very big issue, and until some progress is made there, I don’t see any realistic hope that either side would renounce the use of violence against the other.
Nope. The pullout was not part of any sort of negotiated peace or cease fire. It was a unilateral decision by Israel. Hamas and other groups said they wouldn’t attack the outgoing settlers or the Israeli military personnel removing them, but it was not part of a formal agreement.
But they were their “armed militants.” Do you expect the militant groups to sit by and do nothing while their members get gunned down by Israel during a supposed cease fire?
That said, I have no idea if the bombings referenced came before or after the agreed upon cease fire.
Not anytime soon. I read an analysis of the situation from an Islamic fundamentalist that said a peace treaty was not permitted by Islamic law. A cease-fire for a limited time was permissible, but the final goal, an Islamic state in all of Palestine, by force if necessary, was not negotiable.
Palestinian Christians have been emigrating at a high rate for quite some time. Not only do they have the problems of any Palestinian, they are often abused and oppressed by their fellow Palestinians who are Muslims. There is a serious concern that the Palestinian Christian community may disappear. The decline to date has been dramatic.
What they should have done is kicked the Palestinians out of Gaza and provided a contiguous section of land connecting the West Bank with the Mediterranean. After that they should encourage (bribe) any remaining Muslims to migrate to their new home.
At some point Israel will conclude it is hopeless to bargain with militants and an all out war will ensue. Better to do it with handshake and a check and be done with it. It will probably be cheaper in the long run.
Absolutely not. They are one of the most ideologically violent of the Palestinian groups currently operating. Their theology by and large embraces suicide attacks, including attacks on civilians, which is well outside the norm in the greater Muslim world - a couple of their more important clerics had more than a little influence on Osama bin Laden’s thinking.
Where they could be considered “good” is purely internal to the poor Palestinian civilian community, for whom they provide a number of free social services ( schools, soup kitchens, etc. ). That’s one of the reasons they have grown to become such an important part of the Palestinian political process, easily rivaling the PA ( in Gaza most particularly ). They emphasize a “bottom up” approach to Islamist revolution, as opposed to their equally violent, but far less politically relevant counterparts, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who are “top down” proponents.
However whatever good they do for the poor Palestinian community is more than balanced out by the harm they do to the same community ( IMHO ) with their violent and intolerant tactics.
They are not politically un-astute. Allowing the Gaza turnover to proceed quietly was in their best interest, because they are in fact deeply entrenched there and would be well-positioned to seize substantive control. But their raison d’etre is not a seperate and viable Palestinian state, but the destruction of Israel. They gain converts by acting violently and defiantly, prodding Israel to respond, thereby racheting up general Palestian misery and hopelessness, thereby gaining recruits impressed by their defiance. It’s an ugly little death-spiral of violence.
Gaza has never been the key to peace. It’s a nice gesture I guess, but a relatively bloodless sacrifice for Israel ( I know that is disputable, but I’m comparing it to the West Bank ) and the more moderate Palestinian factions have less pull there and will gain less credit for retrieving it. It’s the West Bank that is crucial to Palestianian moderates, but of course that is precisely the area that is much more problematic for Israel to surrender ( for both external and internal reasons ).
Sadly the whole area abounds with Catch-22’s for every action.
They never stopped. And Gaza was abandoned largely so more effort could be focused to better effect in the West Bank, so it was never really part of any “peace agreement” anyway. Just a necessary strategic adjustment.
While it is clearly true that this is the goal of the extremist militants, Hamas etc. need the support of at least some reasonable fraction of the Palestinian community to be effective. The hope is that by isolating the extremists (on both sides), the center can win.
In other words, it is not necessary to convince every last person to end violent confrontation…It is just necessary to sufficiently isolate them.
If Israel completely gives up the West Bank and Gaza, the dispute will then be over Jerusalem. If Israel gives up part of Jerusalem, the dispute will be over the other part. If Israel gives up all of Jerusalem, the dispute will change to trade issues, water rights, right of return, etc.
Groups like Hamas need the hatred to justify their existence. The conflict will not end as long as such groups maintain de facto control over the fate of the Palestinians. The conflict will end when the average Palestinian says enough, and public attitudes change such that Hamas can no longer find support among the population.
This is also why such groups expend effort to indoctrinate kids, repeat blood libels, and in general incite and radicalize the population.
Tamerlane, I don’t know if I’m allowed to say this in GD, but based solely on your seemingly exhaustive knowledge of all things middle-east and your ability to write interesting posts that combine actual knowledge and the ability to express it effectively, I’d totally suck your cock.
Certainly, an extremist in Islamic Jihad or a similar group wouldn’t be happy at any of these points, and would keep pushing for more, using violent tactics. But at each of the steps you mention, more Palestinians will accept the new situation and would make more concessions, and the more accepting the international community will be.
It’s also perfectly true that continued Israeli oppression fuels Hamas’s existence. The Israelis could cut the legs out from under Hamas by extending full and complete rights to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. I know I’m a broken record on this subject, but it bugs me when people insist that democracy and equal rights for all is not just unworkable, but absurd.