CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Little to celebrate at the birth of 'Hamastan'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Little to celebrate at the birth of 'Hamastan'

post #1 of 30
6/14/07 at 10:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Hamas flags flying in triumph over the Gaza Strip represent a historic blow to Palestinian national unity as well as an end to already slim hopes for any sort of meaningful peace process with Israel. Barring some dramatic reversal after the latest fighting - such as the improbable survival of the Hamas-Fatah coalition government - 1.4 million Palestinians in what is now being dubbed "Hamastan" will not only be physically cut off from their compatriots in the West Bank but will also be ruled by a movement that advocates armed resistance and is boycotted by Israel and the international community.

Neither side will be in a position to conduct negotiations with Israel or anyone else, killing off any hopes of urgently needed momentum to the current stalemate. "It leaves the Palestinians fragmented and very weak," said a senior Arab diplomat. Iran and Syria, which support Hamas, have boosted their influence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...103786,00.html

Now that the Palestinians seemed to have split into two groups, it should just stay that way. Instead of trying endless failing negotiations to create a Palestinian State, just give the Gaza Strip back to Egypt and give the West Bank back to Jordan. Let the surrounding Arab nations try to police their own.

For Israel, this would be an easier land-for-peace scenario because they already have peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan and it would be easier to negotiate the final borders with two established governments.

I doubt Jordan and Egypt would want to take them back though. Why take on the the trouble when it is easier to leave it in other hands?
Reply
post #2 of 30
6/14/07 at 11:23pm
Because Jordan and Egypt would treat the Palestinian so much better...
Reply
post #3 of 30
6/15/07 at 12:06am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
“This is the beginning of the separation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank,” said Mr. Abusada, referring to the two Palestinian territories that were eventually supposed to make up an independent Palestinian state.

“This is the lowest point in our struggle. We Palestinians are writing the final chapters of our national enterprise,” he said.
New York Times
Reply
post #4 of 30
6/15/07 at 12:53am
Marginalization was always the strategy behind Sharon's pullout. Nobody wins with this development. Israel will be forced back into Gaza if Hamas is left unchallenged, and nothing will have been accomplished.
Reply
post #5 of 30
6/15/07 at 2:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage
Because Jordan and Egypt would treat the Palestinian so much better...

Yes, genocide is a much more human from of treatment!
Reply
post #6 of 30
6/15/07 at 2:28pm
I can't help but think that the way the US reacted to Hamas partially led to this situation. Instead of recognizing and working with a government democratically elected by its people (their main stated goal in the Mid-East) they cut off their funding and started putting pressure on their enemies (Fatah) to squelch their movement. Cue to Hamas successfully fighting off Fatah and becoming even more radicalized. In other words, the same thing we have seen the US repeat over and over in the Middle East.
Reply
post #7 of 30
6/15/07 at 5:28pm
Exactly, Ali. Critics were writing months ago that Rice and the administration's reaction to the Palestinian elections would end up backfiring. And now the idiot talking heads (including the likes of Tony Snow) are already parroting the "Well, those darn Palestinians need to sort out their politics" talking points.

"So, you want a democracy? Well sure, as long as we like who you vote for."
Reply
post #8 of 30
6/15/07 at 5:43pm
I'm not sure that things wouldn't have turned out the same if we'd taken a more diplomatic approach, but even if they did, we'd be in a better position to do something about it. What leverage do we have in Palestine now? The right is so seduced by this stupid Reagan myth that if you are tough and unyielding, eventually the bad guys will fold.

So now we have:

Iraq - Complete chaos. More or less a Sunni/Shia civil war that may really be a regional war between Iran and Saudi Arabia being fought (for the time being) by proxy. A breeding ground for terrorists, with U.S. troops providing target practice. And now we're arming the militias. Not to mention the possibility of a Turk/Kurd war breaking out.

Palestine - All-out civil war.

Lebanon - Second assassination of an anti-Syrian politician leading to civil unrest, with a strong probability of breaking out into a Syria-Lebanon war, or a civil war between pro- and anti-Syrian factions within Lebanon.

And we keep hearing reports that Cheney is actively pursuing the goal of invading Iran.

Meanwhile, the 202-30% of Americans that still support Bush actually believe this is a good thing! "Armaggedon is coming, hooray!"
Reply
post #9 of 30
6/15/07 at 6:00pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
"So, you want a democracy? Well sure, as long as we like who you vote for."
There is a big difference between supporting a people's right to choose their own government and supporting their actual choice with aid money if they choose a government that disagrees with you. People are free to make there own choices but they also have to deal with the consequences of those choices.

If the people of Palestine elect a party that rejects the International Agreements for working towards a two-state solution, they are also electing to receive less International Aid whether they like it or not.

Are the US and EU obliged to provide aid money and support to a party that calls for the destruction of Israel just because Hamas was chosen in a democratic election?

It's like choosing to not go to college and then complaining when your father does not give you the money he put aside for you in a college fund because of your decision.
Reply
post #10 of 30
6/15/07 at 6:11pm
Aside from the rampant killing, is this such a bad development? Here's the area we are talking about:



Notice that the Gaza Strip, solely in the hands of Hamas, is isolated between Egypt (not Hamas's greatest friend) and Israel. Fatah has withdrawn to the West Bank, where it is strong. Gaza is entirely dependent on Israel for water and other resources. If Hamas strikes out against Israel from Gaza, it would be fairly easy for Israel to cut off the resources without worrying about undermining the power of the more moderate Fatah in Gaza. If Gaza turns to Egypt, the more Western-friendly country can exert even more influence over its militant neighbors in regards to attacks on Israel. This brief, bloody conflict may have separated the Palestinians into two groups: One Israel and the West can work with fairly easily (Fatah in the West Bank) and one it can't work with very easily (Hamas in Gaza). This take is a little simplistic, I realize. Martin Indyk, Clinton's Ambassador to Israel, explains it a lot better in this Washington Post article.
Reply
post #11 of 30
6/15/07 at 6:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud
There is a big difference between supporting a people's right to choose their own government and supporting their actual choice with aid money if they choose a government that disagrees with you. People are free to make there own choices but they also have to deal with the consequences of those choices.

If the people of Palestine elect a party that rejects the International Agreements for working towards a two-state solution, they are also electing to receive less International Aid whether they like it or not.

Are the US and EU obliged to provide aid money and support to a party that calls for the destruction of Israel just because Hamas was chosen in a democratic election?

It's like choosing to not go to college and then complaining when your father does not give you the money he put aside for you in a college fund because of your decision.
We had a pretty good discussion about this last year in this thread.* My thoughts on continuing aid to a Hamas-led Palestine are pretty clear in that thread.

*Am I the only one who misses Geoff Foster?
Reply
post #12 of 30
6/15/07 at 6:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
We had a pretty good discussion about this last year in this thread.* My thoughts on continuing aid to a Hamas-led Palestine are pretty clear in that thread.

*Am I the only one who misses Geoff Foster?
Interesting article. I will check out the thread as well.

Edit: That is a good thread. Everyone discussing the issue from all different angles in an intelligent way.
Reply
post #13 of 30
6/15/07 at 6:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud
There is a big difference between supporting a people's right to choose their own government and supporting their actual choice with aid money if they choose a government that disagrees with you. People are free to make there own choices but they also have to deal with the consequences of those choices.

If the people of Palestine elect a party that rejects the International Agreements for working towards a two-state solution, they are also electing to receive less International Aid whether they like it or not.

Are the US and EU obliged to provide aid money and support to a party that calls for the destruction of Israel just because Hamas was chosen in a democratic election?
No, they are not "obliged", but they certainly can't pretend that their lack of diplomacy didn't exacerbate matters.

EDIT: Here's an article I was referring to from last January. A good read, I think.
Reply
post #14 of 30
6/15/07 at 7:17pm
I have to agree with Jon Voight. These areas are geographically isolated, with different economic, social, and political (in terms of neighbors and borders) issues. Balkanization isn't necessarily isn't a bad thing if the states weren't going to be compatible otherwise.
Reply
post #15 of 30
6/15/07 at 9:00pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
No, they are not "obliged", but they certainly can't pretend that their lack of diplomacy didn't exacerbate matters.
If the King of Saudia Arabia practically locking both parties in a room overlooking Mecca until they agreed to form a Unity Government didn't work, I don't know how much diplomacy by us would have prevented this Palestinian split.

At best, I think we would have just delayed it.
Reply
post #16 of 30
6/17/07 at 6:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahtheStud
If the King of Saudia Arabia practically locking both parties in a room overlooking Mecca until they agreed to form a Unity Government didn't work, I don't know how much diplomacy by us would have prevented this Palestinian split.
Uh, the Palestinians aren't that fond of the Saudi Arabian government, so I'm not sure why the king locking them in a room together should make a difference.

The US and Israel seem to be willing to start up the aid to the West Bank now that Hamas is out. I wonder what the outcome of that will be.
Reply
post #17 of 30
6/18/07 at 12:18am
Not good I assure you. While current events probably makes the extremists/hard-liners in both the US and Israeli governments happy, it's pretty much a given that it's going to be a problem in the long run (especially after looking at the effects of actions taken in the past by US/Israeli hard-liners). From what I remember, a good deal-let's make that a very good deal-of the Palestinians have a positive view of Hamas since they were the ones providing much of the social services for the public while Fatah was looked upon as corrupt officials. The fact that the West is supporting Fatah so strongly now just shows how once again, it's got it's head up it's ass in terms of long-term planning.
Reply
post #18 of 30
6/18/07 at 2:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
*Am I the only one who misses Geoff Foster?
Nope. The Book section of the boards is not quite the same since he left. I know politically, they're always some clashes that occur, but book-wise, the man was a gifted analyst.
Reply
post #19 of 30
6/18/07 at 3:53pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
Uh, the Palestinians aren't that fond of the Saudi Arabian government, so I'm not sure why the king locking them in a room together should make a difference.
Why do I remember stories from Arab and Palestinian papers hoping for a good outcome in Mecca. I remember reading quotes from Palestinians saying that it was their last hope for peace between the two parties. It seemed they thought it might make a difference.

Anyway, they aren't fond of the USA either. I don't see anyway that we could have influenced Hamas diplomatically except by giving them the cash they wanted.
Reply
post #20 of 30
6/18/07 at 4:03pm
I just don't see how the US (and the West in general) benefits from this since the Palestinian people like and trust Hamas more than Fatah. It just seems another example of stupid planning since Fatah is viewed by the West as being the moderates and therefore trustworthy yet the Palestinians see them as corrupt. I mean, come on! What the fuck?!
Reply
post #21 of 30
6/18/07 at 4:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde
I just don't see how the US (and the West in general) benefits from this since the Palestinian people like and trust Hamas more than Fatah. It just seems another example of stupid planning since Fatah is viewed by the West as being the moderates and therefore trustworthy yet the Palestinians see them as corrupt. I mean, come on! What the fuck?!
There's the problem. Hamas is a terrorist group that also happens to do a much better job of distributing basic services to the Palestinians. Fatah is more Western-friendly (and not nearly as antagonistic towards Israel), but also reportedly pretty corrupt and inept when it comes to meeting the basic needs of the Palestinians. Fatah, as best I can tell, needs to get its act together and/or Hamas needs to back off of its extreme positions.
Reply
post #22 of 30
6/18/07 at 4:51pm
FYI, US and EU to resume aid to Abbas-led Palestinian Government.

Quote:
he United States joined the European Union Monday in announcing its willingness to resume hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the new Palestinian government led by President Mahmoud Abbas.

The commitment of financial and political support follows gunbattles last week between Palestinian Fatah and Hamas factions that routed Fatah forces in Gaza loyal to Abbas. That led to the crumbling of a unity government.

In response, Abbas declared a state of emergency and appointed a new Cabinet of political independents based in the West Bank.

...

Bush, Abbas discuss peace talks

President Bush called Abbas on Monday and pledged his support to the president and "those Palestinian moderates who are working to better the lives of Palestinians and work towards a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe told CNN

Bush also told Abbas he was "open to the idea" of restarting Mideast peace talks to stabilize the situation and will do anything to "move the peace process forward," Johndroe said.

Bush told Abbas that before he makes any firm commitments, he wants to "raise all of those issues" with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during their meeting on Tuesday and figure out the best way to proceed.

Shortly after his arrival in New York on Sunday, Olmert vowed to cooperate with Fayyad's government.

"We will defreeze monies that we kept under our control because we didn't want these monies to be taken by Hamas in order to be used as part of a terrorist action," said Olmert.
Reply
post #23 of 30
6/18/07 at 9:03pm
It seems to me that it's in the US and Israel's best interests to make absolutely sure that the West Bank now becomes a functional, stable region whose government can look after its people. But I'm sure that both they and Fatah will botch it.
Reply
post #24 of 30
6/21/07 at 5:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
It seems to me that it's in the US and Israel's best interests to make absolutely sure that the West Bank now becomes a functional, stable region whose government can look after its people. But I'm sure that both they and Fatah will botch it.
Probably.
Reply
post #25 of 30
6/27/07 at 5:44pm
Thread Starter 
In reference to my first post on this thread, I just read an interesting article about Israel wanting to hand Gaza off to Egypt.

Quote:
Israel may want Egypt to take responsibility for Palestinians in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip but Cairo is making it clear that it is not interested in running Palestinian affairs, an expert here said.
and...

Quote:
Israel has been trying to draw Jordan and Egypt back to the way things used to be before 1967, when Jordan was responsible for the West Bank and Egypt for the Gaza Strip, Frisch said in a telephone interview.

The West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights came into Israeli hands as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War.

The call for dialogue between Fatah and Hamas was Mubarak's way of saying that Egypt will not take responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and that Egypt will not allow Israel to turn the Gaza Strip into an Egyptian problem, Frisch said.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstor...20070627b.html

I still think it would be better if Egypt took over Gaza again. Maybe Israel, the US and International Community could find some way to sweeten the pot for Egypt. Egypt would have a big hassle on their hands intergrating Gaza back into their country, but maybe we would have peace in the Middle East between the Arabs and Israel in our lifetimes instead of never-ending negotiations trying to create a new state where it's inhabitants can't even agree on it's make-up.

I think the Gazans would be better off as well. If Egypt moved back in, they would no longer be cut off from the world in a little prison-like strip of land. Egypt could re-open Gaza's Air and Sea ports and the Gazans would have a free open border in the South for commerce and movement of their people. Egypt would have to come in hard with their own Army and Police in the beginning to establish there authority over militias, but I think they could handle it.

I think Jordan would have a much easier time integrating the West Bank because they already have a large integrated Palestinian population, even the Queen of Jordan is Palestinian. This would also give the West Bank free access to the Red Sea at Acaba for their goods.
Reply
post #26 of 30
6/27/07 at 7:10pm
That won't work. Regardless of how the area looked before 1967, the Palestinians are invested in the idea of their own homeland. Egypt would just be inheriting another possible secessionist movement. And why Jordan want another headache? They have been fighting various Palestinian groups since they emigrated to refugee camps there after the 1967 war.
Reply
post #27 of 30
6/27/07 at 7:14pm
The only problems I can see with Egypt coming in and taking over Gaza, is the fact that the army would probably come in and destroy most of Gaza just trying to root out Hamas; the second, Egypt all ready has enough problems on their hands with the Islamic Brotherhood (their own extremists) I believe and adding Hamas+its supporters doesn't seem like the best idea to them.

It's not much of a surprise that Fatah is now getting all that money from the West now, but let's see how much of it actually makes it to the people? Or even to the people still living in Gaza? Fatah's a bunch of corrupt bastards so I'm just envisioning something ala some of the governments in Latin America: corruption becoming so institutionalized there that it's going to take generations for it to clean itself out of it.
Reply
post #28 of 30
6/29/07 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Hamas TV Kills Off Mickey Mouse Double

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - A Mickey Mouse lookalike who preached Islamic domination on a Hamas- affiliated children's television program was beaten to death in the show's final episode Friday.

In the final skit, "Farfour" was killed by an actor posing as an Israeli official trying to buy Farfour's land. At one point, the mouse called the Israeli a "terrorist."

"Farfour was martyred while defending his land," said Sara, the teen presenter. He was killed "by the killers of children," she added.

The weekly show, featuring a giant black-and-white rodent with a high- pitched voice, had attracted worldwide attention because the character urged Palestinian children to fight Israel. It was broadcast on Hamas- affiliated Al Aqsa TV.

Station officials said Friday that Farfour was taken off the air to make room for new programs. Station manager Mohammed Bilal said he did not know what would be shown instead.

Israeli officials have denounced the program, "Tomorrow's Pioneers," as incendiary and outrageous. The program was also opposed by the state-run Palestinian Broadcasting Corp., which is controlled by Fatah, Hamas' rival.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
Reply
post #29 of 30
7/13/07 at 1:01pm
By the way, if you haven't seen the Hamas Mickey Mouse Show, you really need to check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-c6lbFGC4
Reply
post #30 of 30
7/13/07 at 4:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Mohamed
That won't work. Regardless of how the area looked before 1967, the Palestinians are invested in the idea of their own homeland. Egypt would just be inheriting another possible secessionist movement. And why Jordan want another headache? They have been fighting various Palestinian groups since they emigrated to refugee camps there after the 1967 war.
I don't think it is a perfect plan for the reasons you gave, but I think it is a more workable solution than the current stalemate that only gets worse.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Little to celebrate at the birth of 'Hamastan'