Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHamas Holds the High Cards
Forty years ago, I entered the Gaza Strip—soon after Israel had conquered that teeming cauldron of humanity after defeating Egypt in the Six-Day War—to report on the Israelis' bubbling optimism about their young nation's future. "Come back in 10 years," I was told by an Israeli general, "and you won't recognize the place," he said, spelling out visions of economic development and a grateful Arab population. Similar predictions were made for the West Bank, which had been administered by Jordan in a somewhat more humane yet quite oppressive manner.
The optimism of the Israeli occupiers did not seem so far-fetched then, given the hardships the Palestinians had endured under their fellow Arab protectors and throughout the diaspora. The experience of the Palestinians was not unlike that of the Jews: they were needed but scorned for their talents. Both refugee groups were scarred by grinding oppression and each nurtured a thirst for nationhood fortified by a tribally based religiosity that secular leaders often found useful.
That is the story of Hamas, a creation of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood, a religious and political organization which flourished after Israel humbled Gamal Abdel Nasser, the last great Arab nationalist leader, with its devastating victory over Egypt. The Palestinian movement was then led by puppets of Nasser and was secular in focus. It remained so, after being invigorated by the late Yasser Arafat, who gave the Palestinians their first serious and independent political identification. But as Arafat wasted his credibility in futile jockeying with Israel (mostly while in exile), corruption came to dominate his movement.
By contrast, the religious zealots who later formed the Hamas organization were more focused on spiritual probity and tended far more closely to the needs of their impoverished brethren in Gaza and the West Bank. As with Hezbollah in Lebanon—and that other Iranian-backed Islamist movement, the Shiites who now control Iraq—the religious movements, both Shiite- and Sunni-based, cornered the market on purity of purpose as opposed to rank opportunism. That is precisely why these fiercely anti-Western movements have been able to turn the favorite fig leaf of U.S. neo-colonialism, the slogans of democracy and elections, against the United States by winning popular elections.
While the American mass media tends to join the Bush administration in ignoring this unpleasant contradiction, the fact is that the people we brand as the enemy can make a strong claim to having won the election that our President Bush champions. What irony that the United States and the European Union, both of which cut off aid to the Palestinian government in 2006 when Hamas won the election, have now resumed aid to the PLO-dominated government that lost power through the vote.
This contradiction applies even more uncomfortably to Israel, which consistently demeaned the Palestinian movement when it was run by secularists. Israel only very reluctantly, and in the most limited of ways, was willing to risk the false security of occupied land for the possibility of peace. Israeli leaders of all parties drew the line at granting the Palestinians a real state with contiguous land and a significant presence in Jerusalem as it existed before the Six-Day War. Rarely mentioned is that some elements in the Israeli government initially supported the rise of Hamas as a desired alternative to the PLO and came too late to the recognition that Arafat, for all of his very serious failings, was their best alternative.
Now it is also too late for the remnants of the PLO to once again unilaterally assert a claim to lead the Palestinians. Sure, the United States, Israel and the EU can throw aid and tax dollars their way, but if the price is that the PLO assist in crushing Hamas, or even sit idly by while Israeli troops reoccupy Gaza, there will be chaos. The only hope is for the funders, including Israel (which has withheld the tax monies paid by the Palestinians from them), to recognize that the Palestinian people need to make their own history. At this point, that must include Hamas, which it is hoped will be moved, as was the PLO, to accept Israel's right to exist within borders that permit a viable Palestinian state.
That lesson of empowerment must also be applied throughout the region, from Lebanon to Iraq and Iran, where election results subvert the ambitions of the foreigners. Elections are great if they give the conqueror the results they want, but it is in the nature of things that people will not use the ballot to legitimize their oppression for long. The democracy project, ballyhooed by President Bush, founders on its failure to allow the will of the voters to be heard when they dare vote against U.S. policy.
Robert Scheer is editor of TruthDig.com.
© 2007 TruthDig
44 Comments so far
Show AllIf a state that Identifies with one religion gives up the right to exist, someone had better tell Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somolia,
ect.
fresh1 - "The right of return, by the way, is an actual legal right in international law"
According to the UN, in the 20st century there were 146,000,000 refugees that could not implement the right of return.
The Palestinians who fled Israel were 700,000 of them.
The Jews who fled Arab countries were 900,000 of them.
In an ideal world you are right. Every refugee has a right to return.
Unfortunately, our world is less then ideal.
fresh1 - "Arabs were not just present, they were the majority."
According to UN partition plan from 1947 (UN resolution 181) - The part of Palestine allocated for the Jewish state had Jewish majority.
fresh1 "since before the 1948 war of conquest– in which 700 000 Arabs fled the violence– Arabs were not just present, they were the majority."
The war of 1948 was a war of annihilation against the Jews of Palestine that was initiated by the Palestinian leadership and the Arab league after they have rejected UN resolution 181.
Israel survived the war, and as a results ~700,000 Arabs fled the violence in Israeli controlled territory, and 900,000 Jews fled the violence in Arab held territory.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, the Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In 1940, he asked the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right, "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy.
In one of these broadcasts, he said, "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."
fresh1 "Israel defines itself as a Jewish-majority state, and as such, it has no inherent right to exist"
- Judaism is not only a religion, it's also a nation. Such as French, German, Sioux, Blackfoot etc.
Take me for example: I see myself as a member of the Jewish nation, but not of the Jewish religion (I don't even believe on God)
More than that - Zionism itself, is a national movement, where the majority of its power comes from secular, not religions origin.
Your claim is similar to saying::
"France defines itself as a French-majority state, and as such, it has no inherent right to exist" or
"Germany defines itself as a German-majority state, and as such, it has no inherent right to exist" or
"Russia defines itself as a Russian-majority state, and as such, it has no inherent right to exist"
What was not clear to me if you are against the idea of a national state altogether, or just against the idea of a Jewish state.
Dear vets and kummin--
Israel defines itself as a Jewish-majority state, and as such, it has no inherent right to exist, just like there is no inherent right for an ethnic Kurdish state in Iraq, nor a Catholic state in Ireland, nor a Muslim state in Kashmir, nor a Serbian state in Yugoslavia, etc, etc. There are no ethno-religious collective political rights-- human rights are individual rights. Think about it-- if there were a legal right for an ethnic group that claims a region as its home to be a controlling majority in that region, this would lead to chaos and competing claims in every country. Arabs would have a claim for what is now "Israel", i.e., a right for an Arab majority state within the same borders. Indeed, since before the 1948 war of conquest-- in which 700 000 Arabs fled the violence-- Arabs were not just present, they were the majority. But there is no legal right for each ethnic group to be a majority somewhere.
This is the true nature of Israel's "existential crisis". It becomes clear when defenders of Zionism say that respecting the right of the Palestinian refugees to return, or simply what they refer to as their Arab "demographic problem", represents a "threat to the existence of Israel". The right of return, by the way, is an actual legal right in international law, not a mythic right. It is enumerated in the universal declaration of human rights, to which Israel and the US are signatory.
Asking Palestinians to accept a mythic Israeli "right" to exist is a deliberate attempt at humiliation. Its like asking the Native Americans to admit that there is an inherent "right" for a European state in North America. Such a state exists, but it exists by force of dispossession, not by right. The major parties in Israel refuse to recognize Palestinian human rights. Palestinian land, to the Israelis, is theirs for the taking. They claim the right to take the land, take the water, colonize it, and build walls. Labor does this, Likud does this, and America's accommodationist politicians cheer it on.
dcbeltway
I agree that criticism of Isreal is not always anti-semitism.
Isreal is not above criticism, same as everybody else. The problem comes when someone ascribes certain motives or characteristics to the inhabitants, not government policy. That can be anti-semetic. All together though, the charge is used too much to stifle debate, the same as "islamphobia".
As far as something not being anti-semetic because a jew said it, jews can make anti semetic statements the same as everybody else. It has to do with the statement, not the ethniticity of the statement maker.
dcbeltway:
"cricism of Israel is not anti-semitism as Jews, themselves, in the Jewish press inside Israel (Ha'Aretz and JPost) and outside Israel (Finkelstein, Chomsky etc.)debate and criticize Israeli policy all the time."
It is O'K to criticise Israel from inside (Israel is a democratic country), or from outside.
It is NOT O'K to refuse Israel the right to exist, to call for destruction of Israel, or to advocate measures that lead to destruction of Israel. It just happens that people who make calls of this sort are often motivated by antisemitism. Like some people on this blog that claim Israel does not have right to exist.
Observer expects us all to condemn anti-semitism while in the same sentence he has the audacity to call Islam stagnant and Christianity imperial. Now that's hyprocrisy and double standards if I have ever seen it! Not surprising coming from someone who is clearly Islamophobic and anti-Christian!
By the way cricism of Israel is not anti-semitism as Jews, themselves, in the Jewish press inside Israel (Ha'Aretz and JPost) and outside Israel (Finkelstein, Chomsky etc.)debate and criticize Israeli policy all the time.
"But, if the Palestinians would practice Ghandian non-violence, what the Israelis think would become as irrelevent as what the Native Americans think about their land."
I might also add that if the Palestinins were going to practice Ghandian non-violence, then Isreal would be more than happy to negotiate with them. They may never apologize for the Naqba, or go back to the pre '67 borders but there would be a Palestinian state next to an Israeli state and they would be living in peace.
MUCH AS ISRAEL HAS OFFERED OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
If Palestine stops fighting, they get a state. If Israel stops fighting, they cease to exist. End of story.
"When I went to school, that's what recognition meant: diplomatic relations, with each country having an embassy in the other. Perhaps this, like so many other things, has changed."
I see your point, but recognition is different than diplomatic relations. For instance, Kirabati or Samoa or Uzbekistan probably don't have embassies in each other's countries but they do recognize each other and presumably don't attack one another.
"I like your suggestion to use term "sophistry" to describe attitudes and methods of some people on this blog to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.The same methods are used by many European supposedly "lefties" "
Sophistry is alive and well on both sides of the debate. It is not the province of the left alone.
I remember several years ago, on this very website, warning against the rampant corruption of the PLO. I urged people to demand that the PLO leaders account for how the money was being spent, and that they account for the source of the lavish wealth (ie arafat and company) that was reported to be flowing into Switzerland and elsewhere.This was the palestinian people's money and its blatant theft ticked me off.
For my trouble I was called an imperialist, nazi, ect. I was told by the left-leaning writers that Palestine was a sovereign government, chosen by the people, and that what the did with the money was their business. To suggest otherwise was to be a western imperialist busybody.
Well, we have now come full circle. Now Fatah was OF COURSE corrupt, everybody KNEW this, and we now should support the new government HAMAS. Well, I'm sorry but the same call for accountability still applies. Hamas cannot seriously expect to be welcomed into the community of nations when their Charter continues to call for the destruction of another nation, extermination of its inhabitants, and Jihad against "the west". (oh, and the rotary and lions clubs).
Until Hamas changes their charter, no one is going to believe their sudden conversion to reasonableness and they will continue to live with the consequences.
Observer, Vets, Goose2
I like your suggestion to use term "sophistry" to describe attitudes and methods of some people on this blog to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.The same methods are used by many European supposedly "lefties" - it is very convenient to wrap themselves in the cloak of anti-Zionism, instead of being accused of traditional pedestrian antisemitism. The completely misguided boycott of Israeli academica by the Brits being a glaring example of this method.
Yes, yours might be a thankless job on this site,but this is where you can fine tune your arguments, while dealing with the flurry of sophists on this site as soon as the word "Israel" comes up. Keep it up! Just count the number of comments to every article that even remotely has something to do with Israel! Aren't there any other hot spots in the world? Most of Americans would not be able to easily find Sudan on the map, but this tiny spec of Israel - right away...
"GW Bush has been touting his mission to bring democracy to the Middle East. Well, the Palestinian people did what he wanted and held free and fair elections. The only problem was that he didn't like who they picked. Consequently, they were punished for their votes with an embargo and retention of their tax revenue. Three cheers for democracy."
I am continually astounded that people try this logic. They DID democratically elect Hamas in a free and fair election. Hamas provided visionary candidates. It fought corruption in Fatah. It represented the oppressed. It is also, by charter, dedicated to destroying Israel. Just because a government is freely elected does NOT mean that other governments have to deal with it in any way. Nation states do NOT have to like one another or work with one another when one states it wants to destroy the other.
Re: Article 33 of the UN Charter and the Iraq war, The US felt that resolution 1441 (2002) called for the immediate, total disarmament of Iraq and continued to show frustration at the fact that months after the resolution was passed Iraq was still not disarming. Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from UN Resolution 678 (1990), and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of resolution 1441, then military action would be the result.
I believe that SC resolution 1441 was intentionally ambigious by referring to 678 so that the US would have the legal right to invade. Kofi Annan heartily disagrees that the invastion was legal, but resolution 1441 does appear to allow it.
"I didn't know the US recognized United Nation member countries like Cuba (or Iran, North Korea, Soviet Union). In fact, for the last 40+ years, the US has constantly tried to overthrow the Cuban government."
The US officially recognizes and has recognized each of the governments you list even though we have acted against them in the past (and present) and may or may not have diplomatic relations with each. Recognition of a government does not mean that we have diplomatic relations with it. We recognized Hitler's government and fought against it as well.
All UN members recognize all other UN members. The Palestinians are not UN members. Also out of interest, when did North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) become a UN member? Not that long ago.
""You cannot blame a Palestinian child for throwing rocks at soldiers for the problem while the IDF responds to such incidents with helicopter gunships and WMD's""
WMDs are restricted to Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons. Some people have added Depleted Uranium penetrator cannon shells to this list. I do not as they are not intended to cause mass deaths in the targets - deaths in the thousands or hundreds of thousands. (The uranium released is a horrific toxin even then.) In any event, although Israel probably has at least two of the three weapons available, they have never been used and release of any WMD would be spactacularly obvious to any observer untrained or not especially in the over crowded Gaza.
If the claim is Israel used DU shells in Gaza, that is very unlikely as well as DU ammunition is designed to penetrate the armor on tanks and armored personel carriers. It is VERY expensive and not nearly as effective on people or buildings as simple old fashioned lead and Hamas has no armored vehicles so DU would be a huge waste of money.
From the official UN news center regarding the 2006 war in Lebanon.
"8 November 2006 – The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has found no evidence that Israel used munitions with depleted uranium (DU) during its conflict with Hizbollah, but the country's use of cluster bombs in Lebanon remains the main obstacle to a resumption of normal life in the affected areas, the head of the agency has said.
Reporting on the findings of a UNEP assessment carried out for three weeks in October, Achim Steiner said samples taken from 32 sites south and north of the Litani river found "no evidence of penetrators or metal made of DU or other radioactive material."
He further stated that "no DU shrapnel, or other radioactive residue, was found. The analysis of all smear samples taken shows no DU, nor enriched uranium nor higher than natural uranium content in the samples."
During the fieldwork, the UNEP did confirm the use of "white phosphorous-containing artillery and mortar ammunition by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF)," Mr. Steiner added."
White phosphorous is also nasty, but not a WMD by any definition. Israel certainly used WP in Lebanon but it is used for smokescreens legitimately by every military on the planet (the heat in the WP smoke confuses thermal gun sights and non WP smoke does not so traditional smokescreens are totally invisible to modern weaponry). If they used it intentionally on people, then it would have been a war crime but that is hard to prove.
Sophistry is an interesting subject because there seem to be some popular definitions that are not quite accurate. The dictionary definition is here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=8&q=sophistry.
You didn't find it because it was misspelled. It is sophistry not sofistry.
The correct definition is that it is using false or misleading BUT plausable statements to build an argument in a debate. "a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone "
There is a lot more and worth reading. Interesting concept and you see it a lot these days. I know wikipedia is not 100% correct on everything. but they have a good article on sophists and sophistry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism
Why don't you use words that are actually found in the dictionary. What the hell is sofistry? I thought about it seven times so I thought I would ask. Remember write to express not impress!
observer - " why cruelties of Iliad weigh less than cruelties of Pentateuch beats even among the most educated beats me and always will."
I'll tell you why...
Because no one is innocent.
PJD -Hamas's PM Hanieah has stated several times that it Hamas is willing to accept an Israel that recognizes a Palestinian state consisting of the totality of the WB and Gaza with East Jerusalem as it's capital.
PJD - You are not entirely accurate.
1. Hamas's PM Hanieah said that the Hamas is willing to accept a long term truce (10 or 20 years) if Israel will give the Palestinians totality of the WB and Gaza with East Jerusalem as it's capital, + Dismantle and expel all the Jewish settlement in the WB (440,000 people) + Accept the right of return. And after the long term truce is over, the war will resume.
So you see PJD, for some reasons you have conveniently omitted some "minor" facts such as dismantle of settlements, the right of return, and that the whole offer was for a temporal truce, not a final peace agreement.
vets:
Yours is a thankless job. As well as mine. Old habits die hard; anti-Semitism (European style) might be immortal. Old fairy tale Book, magnified thousand fold by Imperial Christianity plus stagnant Islam, may be the reason. But why cruelties of Iliad weigh less than cruelties of Pentateuch beats even among the most educated beats me and always will.
neoconned: "You cannot blame a Palestinian child for throwing rocks at soldiers for the problem while the IDF responds to such incidents with helicopter gunships and WMD's"
Here we go again: good Palestinian child (with Kassem rockets) vs. evil IDF's "helicopter gunships and WMD".
Not a single word of sympathy toward another real people locked in historical dilemma. Common sense is substituted for sofistry as soon as Jews are involved.
Then the whole 6 million of them are greedy imperialists, no additional questions asked. It may be very progressive but not for this commentator, whose sarcasm was immediately called into question.
Put it simple. Why Germans do not terrorize Poles, who stole "their" land from them in 1945? The land, which in turn has been "stolen" from Poles by forefathers of those Germans. Then ask the same question with regard to miriad of other real estates, the US included.
Absurdity of "stolen" land is the same sofistry as the sofistry of free election as panacea for all social ills. It is a frame switching method employed by those who agitate people for their own purposes.
Why not think 7 times over the topic prior to spitting out mindless comments.
Hi pamela,
1. There is no comparison between US government luck of relations with the Cuban government, to Hamas aspiration to annihilate all Israelis.
It's like comparing one Banana to a Jungle.
The Hamas does not recognize Israel right to exists. (All of Israel, Not just the Government)
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
US Government does not recognizing the legitimacy of Cuba's government.
Surly you must agree that saying: "Fidel Castro should be be replace with General Batista" it's not the same as saying "Israel should be obliterated, and all the Jews must die, or displaced".
2. When the Hamas government was formed in January 2006, they denounce all the past agreement between the Palestinian authority and Israel.
One of these agreement was the tax transfer agreement. How can you blame Israel for doing exactly what the Hamas wanted? Did you ever hear any Hamas official asking for these held tax transfer funds?
The USA, Canada, and the EU have a policy of not giving aid to terrorist organizations.
When the Hamas come to power, they were not judged for what they were. Instead they were given a chance to change their racist ideological policy.
So you see, the Palestinians were not punished for voting Hamas to power, Nor was the Hamas punished for what they were. They were punished because they didn't change. Their racist ideology was more important to them than the life and the well being of their own voters.
POWERSLAVE,
It doesn't matter whether you have a Gandhi or not, it is how you are portrayed in the media. Israel survived since day one by ensuring how they are portrayed in the world (the little David state vs Goliath), so they have all that PR infrastructure up and running for a long time. Palestinians has no chance in getting their message out. Look at the non-violent protests against the wall that has been going on practically non-stop, frequently with it ending like the ones in Birmingham, Alabama. But you do not get one peep from the media.
It is not unlike the treatment of Muslims by many in the US. With many of them being deported with their family split up, beaten up, detained and such, you don't hear much news on it or having people of power stand up for them. But you get a Sikh getting beaten up based on mistaken identity, it becomes newsworthy and all the politicians stands behind the victim to denounce the bias crime.
"However, I blame Hamas for this current situation. Hamas was treated as illegitimate because it treated a sovereign country, Israel, as illegitimate."
Sorry, but there is no diplomatic concept called "right to exist" there is diplomatic recognition - having an embassy, an ambassador and all that. But Palestine is as yet not a state. Also which Israel has a right to exist. Pre 1967? post 1967? Hamas's PM Hanieah has stated several times that it Hamas is willing to accept an Israel that recognizes a Palestinian state consisting of the totality of the WB and Gaza with East Jerusalem as it's capital.
As far as the use or arms, of course they will use arms! Would there be an independent Ireland without use of arms and also, the use of some pretty dirty, so-called terrorist tactics? But, for those remembering the Irish in 1920, it's "Erin go Bragh!" But for the Palestinians it's "dirty Arab cockroaches!" Um, might there be a bit of racism here? Then again, shouldn't we expect racism from those that call themselves a "god-chosen-people" - as racist a concept as I've ever heard?
When I went to school, that's what recognition meant: diplomatic relations, with each country having an embassy in the other. Perhaps this, like so many other things, has changed.
GW Bush has been touting his mission to bring democracy to the Middle East. Well, the Palestinian people did what he wanted and held free and fair elections. The only problem was that he didn't like who they picked. Consequently, they were punished for their votes with an embargo and retention of their tax revenue. Three cheers for democracy.
This was a missed opportunity to work for peace with Hamas through diplomatic means. Arming and aiding one side has, and will continue to cause more grief for the Palestinians.
It's okay to talk to people we don't agree with. It's called diplomacy. But the Divider-in-Chief either doesn't get it or wants perpetual war and chaos.
Hi pamela,
You are confusing diplomatic relations with recognition.
The USA do not have diplomatic relationships with Cuba.. Even though the US government is not friendly to the Cuban government, the USA recognized that Cuba, as a country, has the right to exist. The US government does not wish to see Cuba destroyed, and it's people killed or displaced. (And the same goes to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and to the Islamic Republic of Iran)
I appose the war in Iraq, I think the USA should make efforts to pool it's troops out. But not because it's violate the UN charter Article 33 (The US did talked to Iraq from 1991 till 2002) But because I think the war is against the interest of most Americans.
The situation however is different in Gaza. The Hamas, who won the elections, have to take responsibility over a population of 1.5 million people. They have two options:
1. Accepting Israel's right to exist, and stop attacking Israel. (According to the demand of USA, Israel, Canada, EU, Russia and the UN, and UN charter)
2. Continue saying that their ultimate goal is annihilate Israel, and all its non-Muslim people, and continue with their rockets attacks in Israeli border towns.
Which option do you think will best serve the Palestinian people in Gaza? (Who are currently depended for Jobs, Food, gas, Electricity)
vets: "Each of the 192 UN members must recongize(sic) all other 191 UN members."
The U.S. and Iran are both UN members who do not recognize each other. I'm sure there are more.
Look at Article 33 of the UN Charter:
"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."
Didn't the U.S. violate the UN Charter's Article 33 with the invasion of Iraq?
The mentality of international politics is the same as that of the playground. The big kids can break the rules, but nobody can kick them out.
wangman, native americans do not have to recognize anything. They just have to live with it.
If only the Palestinians could produce a Ghandi. They would have the Israelis out of Palestine in a blink of the eyes, historically. Imagine TV images of Israelis gassing 20,000 PEACEFUL Palestinians standing in front of a bulldozer.
Sadly, the Palestinian power structure NEEDS the conflict. Without it, they would lose legitimacy. And, the rest of the Arab world is happy to mouth platitudes about Muslim unity, and then do absolutely NOTHING to let Palestinians reside in their own countrys.
Besides, hating the Jew is SO much more fun than actually working for peaceful co-existance.
None of this is to exonorate the Israelis. But, if the Palestinians would practice Ghandian non-violence, what the Israelis think would become as irrelevent as what the Native Americans think about their land.
I didn't know the US recognized United Nation member countries like Cuba (or Iran, North Korea, Soviet Union). In fact, for the last 40+ years, the US has constantly tried to overthrow the Cuban government.
Also, I don't remember the Native Americans having to be required to recognize the United States as the legitimate stealer of their land, or else suffer the wrath of the world? (Oh, I forgot, we did shove it up theirs by putting them in ghettos and letting them rot in there).
Massud and Kummin and Vets. I agree totally. Exchange formal rights to exist. Stop shelling and suicide bombing and then talk. Not the other way round. No Palestine witout cesation of hostilities against Israel. That is a REAL cesation of hostilities, not the current cease-fire burn through that goes on there every 12-18 months.
There is a sort of a catch 22 though in that Palestine now is not a member of the UN, it is an observer so it doesn't need to recognize Israel yet if it does not recognize Israel it will never be a country and thus never a member of the UN. If it isn't willing to become a member of the UN why should any other government support them at all?
massud - you wrote -
I feel bad for the ppl of Gaza trapped under this mess. The little ppl always suffer first, in my observation.
However, I blame Hamas for this current situation. Hamas was treated as illegitimate because it treated a sovereign country, Israel, as illegitimate. They refused legitimacy for legitmacy.
The truth is always much more complicated. They di not refuse legitimacy as much as they were denied legitimacy. The US and Israel demanded free elections be held in Palestine before any peace process could be resumed. Keeping in mind that it was Israel who broke the process' initial agreements from Oslo by never even slowing down the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. Israel also refused to even speak of restitution for those who have been displaced by the Jewish nation against their will. The US under Clinton and Bush simply stood by and said nothing. So essentially the demand for elections came from the same groups who broke the process to begin with.
Despite the hypocrisy of the request Palestinians held elections which were monitored by the UN and were both free and fair - something that has not happened in the US in the past 7 years. The US and Israel got what they wanted it seemed, until the results came in. So now the truth is no longer complicated but very plain for the average idiot to see. The US and Israel want Bush's definition of democracy - do what your told - or suffer warfare and humiliation. Nice "peace process' huh? It was only a few weeks after the results that someone found an obscure statement by some of the original Hamas founders about never recognizing the state of Israel. The question "do you recognize Israel as a sovereign state?" was then put to the current Hamas leaders who did not respond. Imagine the reverse. The world asks the US if they recognize Palestine as a sovereign state? We were told yes, if there were free and fair elections in Palestine. There were. The US and Israel did not like the results. So now they refuse to recognize them and declare Hamas a terrorist organization. Hypocrisy after hypocrisy are throughout the entire history of the US and its recognition of terrorism and the various groups who use terror as a tactic. In 1989 against the former USSR the Mujahadeen were freedom fighters. After 11-Sept-2001 they were called AL-Qeada and terrorists. This is why the rest of the world no longer believes the US and its stated intentions of spreading democracy. Ask any Palestinian mother if they want our version of democracy. The answer might wake you up into reality. But then those who cover the so called news in America have never been to Palestine. If a Palestinian blows up his or herself in a suicide attack it is terrorism. When a US made bulldozer given to the IDF ran over an American girl - humanitarian aid worker - multiple times killing her - the family was told by G W Bushwhacker himself that - "she should not have been in a war zone". But don't give GW much credit. It was the same thing Ronald Reagan told the family of a civil engineer from CA teaching Sandinista farmers crop irrigation when the CIA and Contra hit squads targeted him with a grenade attack in Nicaragua in the early 1980's. No surprise really - nothing original comes out of W's mouth anyway. Until Israel decides to live up to it's own commitments in the peace process there will be no peace. The Palestinian people are being destroyed by Israel and discarded by the world community as we stand idly by watching. You cannot blame a Palestinian child for throwing rocks at soldiers for the problem while the IDF responds to such incidents with helicopter gunships and WMD's.
Hi hazmat -
For a start, UN S/C resolution 242 (and 338) have already been met when Israel withdrawn from more than 90% of the territories occupied in 1967. i.e - peace agreement with Egypt and Jordan and the Oslo accord with the PLO.
And the other reason: The Hamas wants to be reelected. Therefore they must do what is best for their voters. If they think poverty, unemployment, wars, and death, is what their people need, then you are right. There is no need to recognize UN charter and agree to the demands of the international community.
dear vets,
please explain why hamas would want to join the u.n., given its continuing refusal/inability to enforce its own resolutions #242 and 338?
if we start from the premise that the u.s. and israel are being frustrated in their attempts to structure a peaceful resolution, that will only lead to confusion. but if we accept that permanent war is the objective, and that escalation and provocation are the tools of choice, and, further, that the legitimacy of these two governments depends on the existence of an external threat, then recent headlines suddenly make sense.
zoya - Hamas isn't gonna make the same mistake as Fatah — i.e., "recognizing" Israel.
Why is the word "recognizing" is quotes? And why is that a mistake?
Each of the 192 UN members must recongize all other 191 UN members.
If the future Palestinian state would want to join the UN, they must agree with what's writtem in UN charter.
If the Hamas prefer to ignore the international community, then I feel sorry aof the 1.5 million Palestinians who are bound to suffer due to that.
Hamas isn't gonna make the same mistake as Fatah -- i.e., "recognizing" Israel. Where did that bit of capitulation get the PLO?
Hamas is the legitimate government of the Palestinian people, who won the popular vote. That is a fact.
The real question is a different one - Should the international community recognize the Hamas government?
The article above is talking about the Bush Administration. The Hamas however, is also not recognized as the legitimate Palestinian government also by the UN, EU, Russia, Canada, Israel, and even some Arab countries (Such as Egypt, who moved a couple of days ago the embassy from Gaza to Ramallah in the west bank).
Now that the Hamas is in power in Gaza, we shell have to wait and see what they will do.
If they stop attacking Israel, and recognized Israel's right to exists (This is a very basic demanded derived from the UN charter, article 2, since Israel is a member of the UN) - then they should be recognized too.
If they will stick to their racist fundamentalist ideology, ignore the suffer of the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza, and continue to dismiss the UN charter, than all UN members should not recognize them as well.
Richard - "Hamas and Hezbollah would never even exist without the Occupation of Palestinian land by Israeli..."
The article above say: "That is the story of Hamas, a creation of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood, a religious and political organization which flourished after Israel humbled Gamal Abdel Nasser."
As for Hezbollah's creation - Iran's revolution in 1979, should share the blame for it's creation 3 years later, along with the Israeli invation to Lebanon.
Hamas and Hezbollah would never even exist without the Occupation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlers and the never ending shelling of Gaza and West Bank cities by Israel.
I feel bad for the ppl of Gaza trapped under this mess. The little ppl always suffer first, in my observation.
However, I blame Hamas for this current situation. Hamas was treated as illegitimate because it treated a sovereign country, Israel, as illegitimate. They refused legitimacy for legitmacy.
fpal,
"Freedom" is a word used by sophists to muddy the waters and confuse the issues. By itself it means nothing. Freedom from government regulation of business owners means no freedom for workers from abuse by the business owners.
And we all know Bush thinks "democracy" means everyone on earth following his will, because of course one percent of the world's population voted for him.
There was at one time some truth and some value in the US government and its underlying premise and documents, but that day has long since passed. Now it is a complete fraud, a criminal enterprise, dedicated to robbery, enslavement, oppression, and murder of the many for the benefit of the few.
"...the favorite fig leaf of U.S. neo-colonialism, the slogans of democracy and elections..."
So true!
Hamas was elected by the people.
How can the American people support this administrations' policies that are flat out lies?
Where are the opposition political parties? Where are the free media acting as the fourth estate?
Apparently these don't exist in America. Perhaps Americans aren't as free or don't have individual freedoms as they say. Another lie, delusion of being American?
Or is it simply American hegemony?