PDA

View Full Version : Tipping Point? Palestinians and the Search for a New Strategy



Rex Brynen
04-26-2010, 03:18 PM
The latest from the International Crisis Group:

Tipping Point? Palestinians and the Search for a New Strategy (http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/095-tipping-point-palestinians-and-the-search-for-a-new-strategy)


After almost two decades of unsuccessful U.S.-sponsored negotiations, Palestinians are re-evaluating their approach to peace.

Tipping Point? Palestinians and the Search for a New Strategy (http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/095-tipping-point-palestinians-and-the-search-for-a-new-strategy), the latest International Crisis Group background report, discusses why Palestinians, who are most in need of a resolution, balk at resuming negotiations; why, although President Obama appears willing to be engaged and confront Israel, Palestinians have denied him the chance to advance talks; and why, seventeen years after Oslo, the best that can be done is get the parties to talk indirectly. The answer is not that the PLO or its leadership have given up on talks and the two-state solution. They have invested too much for too long to shift course swiftly and radically. Rather, they seek to redress the power imbalance with Israel by pressing their case internationally, reinvigorating statebuilding, and encouraging a measure of popular resistance...

Sylvan
04-26-2010, 05:02 PM
There is no concession that Israel can make that the Arabs will accept. As long as they are international victims, the free money flows in.
The minute they accept peace and can be held accountable, the whole game is up and they know it.
Israel has figured this out.
Obama has too, its just perpetual victimhood is his gig too.

Rex Brynen
04-26-2010, 05:52 PM
There is no concession that Israel can make that the Arabs will accept. As long as they are international victims, the free money flows in.
The minute they accept peace and can be held accountable, the whole game is up and they know it.
Israel has figured this out.
Obama has too, its just perpetual victimhood is his gig too.

Are these generic Arabs (in which case the term isn't terribly useful), or do you mean the Palestinians? And why wouldn't this logically apply to Israel's c$3 billion per year? (I don't think it does--I'm just highlighting the logical inference.)

If you mean the Arabs in general, of course, the amount flowing in to Jordan and Egypt increased after signing a peace agreement, and the Palestinians assume it would too. Certainly, every World Bank and IMF analysis that I've ever seen of the Palestinian economy (probably several dozen since 1994) suggests that the economic costs of occupation to the Palestinians (in terms of trade and mobility restrictions) exceeds the economic benefits of foreign aid.

By contrast, the Syrians don't receive significant amounts of external aid any more, and certainly have no economic interest in perpetuating the conflict--rather, they have an interest in securing the return of the occupied Golan Heights.

If one examine the actual negotiating record in either 2000-01 or 2007-08 (the only two periods of actual permanent status negotiations), I think its rather hard to conclude that either side didn't want a deal. Rather, their views of what that deal should include were still too far apart for a deal to be reached, and external mediation was very poorly done indeed.

Sylvan
04-26-2010, 06:43 PM
Are these generic Arabs (in which case the term isn't terribly useful), or do you mean the Palestinians? And why wouldn't this logically apply to Israel's c$3 billion per year? (I don't think it does--I'm just highlighting the logical inference.)

If you mean the Arabs in general, of course, the amount flowing in to Jordan and Egypt increased after signing a peace agreement, and the Palestinians assume it would too. Certainly, every World Bank and IMF analysis that I've ever seen of the Palestinian economy (probably several dozen since 1994) suggests that the economic costs of occupation to the Palestinians (in terms of trade and mobility restrictions) exceeds the economic benefits of foreign aid.

By contrast, the Syrians don't receive significant amounts of external aid any more, and certainly have no economic interest in perpetuating the conflict--rather, they have an interest in securing the return of the occupied Golan Heights.

If one examine the actual negotiating record in either 2000-01 or 2007-08 (the only two periods of actual permanent status negotiations), I think its rather hard to conclude that either side didn't want a deal. Rather, their views of what that deal should include were still too far apart for a deal to be reached, and external mediation was very poorly done indeed.

The economic costs of occupation? LUL WUT! What great economic tiger is being withheld? IMF and World Bank analysis is based upon the assumption that something will be created, but they have no idea what. The fact is the complete withdrawl from the West Bank would have the same result as it did in Gaza. A civil war and degradation of the conditions for the people.

The withdrawl ended in Gaza, boy, things got better there, didn't they?

Egypt received essentially no foreign aid prior to Camp David from the West. There was nothing to lose.
The 3B to Israel is specific to camp david. We bought the Sinai from Israel and gave it to Egypt. Why we pay Egypt is the mystery.
And by Arabs, yes, the arab world. They receive the great benefit of a focal point of blame. The 2 minute hate the whole arab world can focus their wrath upon. Even Jordan and Egypt, despite the nominal peace accords, still whip up their jew-hating frenzy on a regular basis. All this made possible by the lack of a comprehensive peace. Give that up?

We have the true international welfare state. wholely dependent upon the world's good graces and able to beat themselves with the martyr whip. At best you would have another dicatorial pariah state in the mold of Syria. At worst you would have lebanon of the 70s.

No matter what israel offers, the arabs will never accept comprehensive peace. The established states neither want it or need it (indeed, the benefit by having the conflict on-going is tangible) Hamas and the PLO benefit both by profit grabbing (Arafat did quite well financially) and by never being responsible.

Entropy
04-26-2010, 07:06 PM
The problem with the Palestinians is pretty simple IMO - they lack credible, unified leadership. Who can speak for all Palestinians? There isn't anyone or any single organization.

Rex Brynen
04-27-2010, 01:36 AM
The economic costs of occupation? LUL WUT! What great economic tiger is being withheld? IMF and World Bank analysis is based upon the assumption that something will be created, but they have no idea what.

Actually, no it's not. It's variously calculated on the basis on growth rates during period of lessened restrictions, the measurable incremental costs of of doing business under occupation, various econometric models, the performance of comparable economies, and past historical data. More the the point, in every donor meeting I'm aware of, Israel has accepted, with relatively minor quibbles, that mobility restrictions do indeed have these effects. They argue that the measures are necessary on security grounds--not that they are cost free.


The withdrawl ended in Gaza, boy, things got better there, didn't they?

Yes, but this was not only anticipated, but expected by the Israeli government at the time. No serious analyst of the conflict thought that a partial withdrawal from Palestinian territory that left most of it occupied would result in Hamas ceasing rocket fire--not the US, not the EU, not the PA, and certainly not Israel (having worked on the planning for Gaza disengagement for the donor community, I'm quite confident of that).


The 3B to Israel is specific to camp david. We bought the Sinai from Israel and gave it to Egypt.

The Israelis withdrew from Sinai because it was in their strategic interest to do so: it neutralized Egypt, and in so doing lifted any serious conventional military threat to Israel (quite an act of strategic far-sightedness, in my view). The CD dividend sweetened the pot, but I think if you ever get a chance to talk to any of the surviving Israeli decision-makers of the day you'll find it was very much a secondary consideration.


Why we pay Egypt is the mystery.

In the context of the Cold War, confirming Sadat's dramatic realignment out of the Soviet camp was a major strategic coup. The continuation of that subsidy post-Cold War is (like the $3b to Israel) partly a product of foreign policy inertia. Israel also tends to lobby for the Egyptian $2B to continue, as a way of helping to ensure it receives its $3B. Congress doesn't really question either.


Even Jordan and Egypt, despite the nominal peace accords, still whip up their jew-hating frenzy on a regular basis. All this made possible by the lack of a comprehensive peace. Give that up?

I doubt that anyone who spends much time in Jordan can accuse the state of whipping itself of whipping up Jew-hating frenzy. Quite apart from that, both regimes' relations with Israel are, in the absence of a resolution of the conflict, a significant threat to regime security. If you were to tell a Jordanian GID official that the conflict somehow makes his job of keeping the regime in power easier he would frankly wonder if you somehow missed the assassination of King Abdullah I, the coup attempts of the 1950s, British intervention in 1958, the 1970-71 civil war, or recent al-Qa'ida terrorism.


Hamas and the PLO benefit both by profit grabbing (Arafat did quite well financially) and by never being responsible.

Hamas, of course, has no access to Western foreign aid--its finances come from Iran and some private Arab donors. As the IMF forensic audit showed, Arafat didn't profit personally from diversion of funds, but largely used those funds (most of which were provided by Israel, over the objection of donors, through diversion of the petroleum excise taxes to a Bank Leumi account and from there to offshore holding companies) to pay for his patronage system and the off-the-books expenses of the Palestinian security services. That particular channel was eventually closed by former PM (and current President) Abbas and former Finance Minister (and current PM) Fayyad. Fayyad in particular, as an economist and former IMF official, is quite a critic of long-term Palestinian dependence on foreign aid.

Rex Brynen
04-27-2010, 01:39 AM
The problem with the Palestinians is pretty simple IMO - they lack credible, unified leadership. Who can speak for all Palestinians? There isn't anyone or any single organization.

While it's obviously not unique to peace negotiations outside of conventional war--indeed, its more often the norm--I agree. It all leads to a rather dysfunctional vicious circle whereby Palestinian disunity stalls the peace process, and the stalled peace process discredits the Palestinian leadership.

Sylvan
04-27-2010, 02:56 AM
Whatever benefits derived from a complete withdrawl and independence would not off set the international contributions. Being the poor palistinians keeps the money flowing.


Yes, Israel anticipated what would happen because they know who they are dealing with. All or nothing is not a bargaining tactic, its an intimidation tactic. Again, there is NOTHING that Israel could offer that the arabs won't claim, "It isn't enough JIHAD!" Gaza proved that. The international community knows that, but its easier to blame the eternal jew and keep those friendly arab ties going and the oil sorta flowing.

Even without the money, Israel would have given the Sinai up. Israel gave up something tangible and got paid. Egypt gave up nothing tangible, but still gets paid.
good deal all around, except for the taxpayer.

A true palistinian state would be a huge threat to the Hashemites. The circassians aren't that good and an armed and unified palistian entity on the west bank would enjoy huge support from the palistinian-jordanians. Especially when the first act of that state will be to proclaim their never ending struggle to reclaim jaffa and haifa While Jordan doesn't extend to mini-series on the protocols of zion, I missed the Israeli embassy my last trip to Amman.

Hamas still benefits from the status quo as they are still paid to be an irritant to the zionist entity. That they don't get western money doesn't mean they aren't getting paid.
Arafat's wealth was pretty well established and his wife lived quite well in Paris. I non-concur with your assessment. http://www.betar.co.uk/articles/betar1070202773.php

The international desire to cast all blame on Israel is fairly ludicrous on the surface. Israel has given up tangible concessions to make peace with Egypt and Jordan. They have made peace with Germans. They have given Gaza to the palistinians, who had the opportunity to prove themselves capable of governing.
The international communities continued excusal of the arabs terrorism only emboldens them. Their only quasi friend is the United States, coincidently the only remaining country with any sizable jewish population.
Canada's feelings on the subject can be amply summed up from WWII. None would be too many.

Rex Brynen
04-27-2010, 12:21 PM
Whatever benefits derived from a complete withdrawl and independence would not off set the international contributions.

You may not think so, but the Palestinians certainly do, as do the IFIs. I've seen the PA's internal economic projections and planning, post-(hypothetical) agreement. Have you?


Yes, Israel anticipated what would happen because they know who they are dealing with. All or nothing is not a bargaining tactic, its an intimidation tactic. Again, there is NOTHING that Israel could offer that the arabs won't claim, "It isn't enough JIHAD!" Gaza proved that.

Gaza proved if you withdraw from part of an occupied territory while continue to occupy and settle the rest of it, some of the locals don't suddenly come to like you. Big surprise there!

As I said before, and having worked on planning for disengagement with both the Israelis and Palestinians, they did not plan on the withdrawal ending periodic rocket fire, and undertook it for quite different strategic reasons.

As for "the Arabs," it is about as useful referring to them generically, as if they all had the same views and interests, as it is talking about "the Jews."



Even without the money, Israel would have given the Sinai up.

Yes, this was my point. And even without money, Egypt would have accepted it. After all, they had dangled the same offer as early 1972, but weren't taken seriously until after the 1973 War.


A true palistinian state would be a huge threat to the Hashemites.

This claim drives the Hashemite security establishment crazy--it really does. I've seen senior GID officials, foreign ministry officials, and even Jordanian prime ministers go on at length about why is it that others have the temerity to describe to them what their security interests are, what it is Jordan "really" wants. The speed with which King Abdullah shut down talk of Palestinian non-statehood under Jordanian or Jordanian-Israeli custodianship last year highlights how frustrated they are that this thing gets floated from time to time.


I missed the Israeli embassy my last trip to Amman.

It's on Maysaloun Street.


Arafat's wealth was pretty well established and his wife lived quite well in Paris.

Yes, his wife received payments (largely to get her out of the way), but no, the funds weren't generally diverted to private Arafat accounts for private Arafat personal reasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Arafat fan--indeed, I was writing about corruption and patronage in the PLO in the late 1980s, long, long before most others. However, what happened to Arafat's money is fairly well established (used for political patronage and security force expenditures), as is how it was diverted to him (it wasn't foreign aid money, but rather Israeli excise tax collections). Moreover, the vast bulk of it was recovered and put into the PIF (http://www.pif.ps).


Their only quasi friend is the United States, coincidently the only remaining country with any sizable jewish population.
Canada's feelings on the subject can be amply summed up from WWII. None would be too many.

I'm not quite sure how Canada slipped in here, unless it is some sort of guilt-by-citizenship thing. (I could debate how friendly current Canadian government policy is to the current Israeli government, but it really doesn't have anything to do with anything).

I'm starting to think Wilf's policy of generally avoiding comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict is the smart one :D

William F. Owen
04-27-2010, 01:31 PM
I'm starting to think Wilf's policy of generally avoiding comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict is the smart one :D
I wish I was as smart as that observation suggests....

Sylvan
04-27-2010, 05:04 PM
Gee, you think Egypt would have taken the Sinai without cash payment? Shocking!
Based upon your website, I am ASSuming that your livelyhood depends upon the facade of a genuine desire for peace on the part of the arab world with Israel.
Maintaining that facade is essential for the PLO (lets not mince words, its still Fatah they talk about today) to continue to receive cash payments.
I would again assume that based upon your experience you at least understand arabic.

I have not seen the the PLO's internal economic projections. I can only assume that they are as full of #### as every other economic projection. I assume they are based upon vast numbers of tourists staying at plush hotels spending obscene amounts of money.
I am sure the decent into civil war or pariah state status and constant battles with the IDF would do nothing to stop that rosey scenario.

What drives the hashemites crazy is of little concern to me. They were able to crush a stateless PLO in 1970. A country of palestinians with their own army would be a more difficult task combined with a population within their own borders. Kingdoms are largely becoming passe even in the middle east. Jordan depends on the west and in today's media age, a Hama or Black September solution is not on the table for Jordan. Arabs hate to be reminded how militarily inept they are. If it wasn't true, they wouldn't be so butt hurt about it.

We come from very different backgrounds, it would appear. You are a professional academian who has built a comfortable lifestyle around the facade that there is a peaceful coexistance possible between the PLO/Hamas and Israel. You certainly have job security, as the status quo hasn't changed in 30 years and has no reason to change in the next 30.
I am a professional soldier. I deal with facts. The fact is the arabs deal with israel when they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. And even then, they generally don't. the festering sore of the refugees is of huge benefit to the arab world and the so called palistinian leadership. They could have had a state of their own at any time. They will not compromise because there is greater benefit to quasi-statehood and incessent payments from the EU than actually having responsibility for themselves. They have deliberatly fostered a culture of hate and murder in their UN schools.
If the use of Arab angers you, so be it. Again, facts. Palistinian is as much a legitimate term as Kosovar. The only difference is geographical boundries. Now, you can talk hashemite, circassian, bedouin, druise, aliwis etc as these have historical basis and differences. The difference between a jordanian and a palistinian is what ever the flavor of the day is.
Likewise, when the peaceloving palistinians chant in their peaceloving demonstrations, the don't say, "Death to Israel" as the western press so obligingly translates.
Its Jehud.
Jew.
We have talked around each other quite a bit. Again, you have built a career around excusing the arabs (who you know won't change) and castigating the israelis (who might).
to simply state, "Nope, ain't gonna happen" stops a guilt ridden gravy train in its tracks.
The israeli people have tried. Would you ever think 20 years ago that Ariel Sharon's party would be seen by the majority of Israelis as too accomidating? but they have skin in the game. To follow stupid policies results in wars and death. But that isn't the EU's problem. The EUs jewish problem is solved, now they have a muslim problem to deal with. The zionist apartheid theocracy as the international whipping boy just serves so many useful purposes for so many countries that no one is going to let it go. And blaming it all on the eternal jew can build lucrative bank accounts for those so inclined.

Steve Blair
04-27-2010, 05:20 PM
I posted about this on another thread, but it seems to bear repeating here. Personal attacks are NOT tolerated. Keep it civil and professional. Period.

William F. Owen
04-27-2010, 05:25 PM
We come from very different backgrounds, it would appear. You are a professional academian who has built a comfortable lifestyle around the facade that there is a peaceful coexistance possible between the PLO/Hamas and Israel. You certainly have job security, as the status quo hasn't changed in 30 years and has no reason to change in the next 30.
Sorry. This is bang out of order.
Speaking as someone living in Israel, carrying an Israeli ID card, and a lifelong Zionist, I say Rex Brynen is a stand up guy, who has put his ass on the line, in that he has lived the problems first hand. He is not part of the ME Peace Industry, and thus he's welcome at my house. We may not agree, but we do talk. If Rex wanted safe and comfortable he made some poor choices.

I am a professional soldier. I deal with facts.
I was and I do. What the "Facts are" is actually a huge part of the issue.

Rex Brynen
04-27-2010, 05:51 PM
and thus he's welcome at my house.

As a remember it, it was a cheap coffee shop in a mall last time. I've gone up in the world! :D

William F. Owen
04-27-2010, 05:57 PM
As a remember it, it was a cheap coffee shop in a mall last time. I've gone up in the world! :D

Eyh... I've moved house and have better coffee.

tequila
04-27-2011, 06:47 PM
Fatah and Hamas end feud, agree to interim government (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/27/us-palestinians-reconciliation-idUSTRE73Q50820110427)


(Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah group has inked a deal with bitter rival Hamas to end their long-running feud and form an interim government ahead of elections this year, officials said on Wednesday.

Israel said the accord, which was brokered in secrecy by Egypt, would not secure peace in the Middle East and urged Abbas to carry on shunning the Islamist movement, which has governed the Gaza Strip since 2007 after ousting Fatah in a civil war.

Forging Palestinian unity is regarded as crucial to reviving any prospect for an independent Palestinian state, but Western powers have always refused to deal with Hamas because of its refusal to recognize Israel and renounce violence ..

davidbfpo
04-27-2011, 08:30 PM
An IISS Strategic Comment:http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-17-2011/april/arab-upheaval-prompts-concerns-in-israel/

Which ends with:
Israel faces the prospect of a significant reshuffling of its strategic position and relationships as the outcomes of Arab uprisings solidify. Its concerns are likely to endure for some years.

Rachamim
04-28-2011, 06:47 AM
The problem is simple in terms of definition."Palestinians" did not exist as a people until 1948.Post-48 they have forged an existence in dysfunctional symbiosis to Israel.To turn the great Modern Zionist adage on its head,"they fight,therefore they exist."

Modern Israel exists on 2/10ths its historical land.Both Jews and"Palestinians"were offered land at the same time,officialy in 1921,only the Jews accepted."Palestinians"refused and saw the British lop off Jordan from the Mandate.After Ethnically Cleansing that portion of its Jews it installed a branch of the Hashemi (Hashemite) Clan as a pro-British Monarchy,after giving the other main branch Iraq.Ergo they cleared al Hejaz (the Hashemi controlled portion of Arabia) for its annexation to Nejd by the Saudi Clan and voila...Saudi Arabia,Iraq and Jordan in one fall swoop (as the French did the same with Syria and Lebanon).

The Jews continued their state building as"Palestinians"continued in a 16 year non-stop barrage of terrorism against Jews which wasn't returned until 1936.Those years were the critical period.By 1929 the Jews had fully formed their state with full economic takeoff and began focusing on the military end of things.By 1936 they had a fully viable nation while"Palestinians"were still calling themselves"Southern Syrians"and refusing to accept responsibilities along with proffered opportunities.

Since Israeli Independence in 1948 nothing has changed.A nation cannot exist without a people and a people cannot exist on hatred and violence alone."Palestine"will never succeed if and when it is dragged kicking and screaming into independence.It has no historical or cultural narrative apart from that hatred,that dysfunctional character.

Rex,that 3 Billion US a year you mentioned?It means absolutely nothing.The largesse only began with Kennedy and even then it wasn't pouring in until Nixon.Still,add up every Dollar from day one and you come up with 30% of a single year's worth of Israeli GNP.Weaponry?Israel is the #4 exporter of arms on the planet.It is a tech-based economy with a ranking of #1 or #2 in any given year in patents,IPOs,university degrees,tech start ups and more.

America doesn't give away money,it buys things,in this case a long term strategic partner.Israel os a Liberal Democracy with absolute political stability.

You are correct that stability attracts investment and indeed,were"Palestine"to make formal peace yes,money would roll in but it would roll in with strict riders just as it does to Israel and every other sovereign nation.While staying as is the PA enjoys free reign financially.Arafat looted Billions in US Dollars,literally.

Rachamim
04-28-2011, 07:11 AM
You may not think so, but the Palestinians certainly do, as do the IFIs. I've seen the PA's internal economic projections and planning, post-(hypothetical) agreement. Have you?



Gaza proved if you withdraw from part of an occupied territory while continue to occupy and settle the rest of it, some of the locals don't suddenly come to like you. Big surprise there!

As I said before, and having worked on planning for disengagement with both the Israelis and Palestinians, they did not plan on the withdrawal ending periodic rocket fire, and undertook it for quite different strategic reasons.

As for "the Arabs," it is about as useful referring to them generically, as if they all had the same views and interests, as it is talking about "the Jews."




Yes, this was my point. And even without money, Egypt would have accepted it. After all, they had dangled the same offer as early 1972, but weren't taken seriously until after the 1973 War.



This claim drives the Hashemite security establishment crazy--it really does. I've seen senior GID officials, foreign ministry officials, and even Jordanian prime ministers go on at length about why is it that others have the temerity to describe to them what their security interests are, what it is Jordan "really" wants. The speed with which King Abdullah shut down talk of Palestinian non-statehood under Jordanian or Jordanian-Israeli custodianship last year highlights how frustrated they are that this thing gets floated from time to time.



It's on Maysaloun Street.



Yes, his wife received payments (largely to get her out of the way), but no, the funds weren't generally diverted to private Arafat accounts for private Arafat personal reasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Arafat fan--indeed, I was writing about corruption and patronage in the PLO in the late 1980s, long, long before most others. However, what happened to Arafat's money is fairly well established (used for political patronage and security force expenditures), as is how it was diverted to him (it wasn't foreign aid money, but rather Israeli excise tax collections). Moreover, the vast bulk of it was recovered and put into the PIF (http://www.pif.ps).



I'm not quite sure how Canada slipped in here, unless it is some sort of guilt-by-citizenship thing. (I could debate how friendly current Canadian government policy is to the current Israeli government, but it really doesn't have anything to do with anything).

I'm starting to think Wilf's policy of generally avoiding comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict is the smart one :D

Israel withdrew from Gaza while also withdrawing from 15% of the so called"West Bank."It stated quite clearly its intentions for a further withdrawal of another 75% of the remaiming twrritory within the"West Bank,"retaining between 6 and 10% via annexation which would then be offset by an equal amount of fully arable land from within Israel Proper.The end result would be 100% of Gaza and land equal to 100% of the"West Bank."

This was the in fact the Kadima Platform (Kadima being the ruling party at that point).It did this unilaterally.In addition it bequeathed 100% of the infrastructure extant in Gaza including a hothouse flower industry worth more than 1 Billion US in turnkey fashion. What was the result?Even as Israel was pulling its last convoy over the Gaxan Border HAMAS launcjed a failed"Suicide Bombing"against it.

Your belief that the violence emanating out of Gaza is related to the Israeli presence in the"West Bank"isn't grounded in reality.Simply read the HAMAS Charter which states the HAMAS platform succinctly;HAMAS aims to not only destroy Israel but to kill every Jew on the planet.Blaming Jews for every war since the French Revolution,for all alcoholism and drug addiction,controlling all $edia,banking and so on,it actually makes"Mein Kamph"seem tame.Yet HAMAS us but 1 of 27 terrorist organisations operating in Gaxa.The Salafi (Salafist) Groups make HAMAS seem perfectly tame.

Fact of the mater is,Israel jhas only been administering Gaza and the"West Bank"since 1967.The attacks from Gaza (as well as the"West Bank") began in 1920.The violence comes from race baiting hatred.

As for"Settlements,"it is a completely manufactured issue.Simply refer to Sinai...or even Gaza where the IDF literally dragged Israelis out by the hair.The"Settlements"didn't cause terrorism nor do they perpetuate it.27 years before Israel captured it "Palestinians"were blowing up Jewish women and children.

tequila
04-28-2011, 09:00 AM
Newly empowered Egypt brokers Palestinian peace deal (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/27/112925/newly-empowered-egypt-brokers.html#storylink=omni_popular)


CAIRO The Islamist group Hamas and the mainstream Fatah party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas announced Wednesday that they've agreed to reconcile, in a surprise Egyptian-brokered accord that angered Israel and left U.S. officials struggling to maintain their influence over Mideast peace negotiations.

The power-sharing deal, which was hammered out in a series of secret meetings in Cairo, includes the formation of a national unity government and a timetable for a general election next year, Egyptian and Palestinian officials said ...

The unrest in Syria played a role in the agreement. Hamas' exiled political bureau chief, Khaled Meshaal, and the Islamic Jihad militant group's leader, Ramadan Shallah, live under the protection of Assad. Shallah, who reportedly will join the other groups at the Cairo ceremony, was added to the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists in 2006.

With Assad now facing a popular revolt that seeks to overthrow him, Hamas was forced back to the negotiating table for a Plan B, said a senior official in the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to comment publicly on the developments ...

Rex Brynen
04-28-2011, 02:45 PM
Israel withdrew from Gaza while also withdrawing from 15% of the so called"West Bank."It stated quite clearly its intentions for a further withdrawal of another 75% of the remaiming twrritory within the"West Bank,"retaining between 6 and 10% via annexation which would then be offset by an equal amount of fully arable land from within Israel Proper.The end result would be 100% of Gaza and land equal to 100% of the"West Bank."

Not really (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-freeze-the-peace-process-1.136686):


"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.

"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, was speaking in an interview with Haaretz for the Friday Magazine.

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde," he said. "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

Certainly Olmert accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state, although he and Abbas couldn't agree on the details and close the deal. Sharon? Not so much.

An Outsider
04-28-2011, 04:59 PM
Newly empowered Egypt brokers Palestinian peace deal (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/27/112925/newly-empowered-egypt-brokers.html#storylink=omni_popular)
It'll be interesting to see what the result is though. My gut tells me that this is partially a mutually beneficial stunt for all parties. It puts the new military regime in Egypt on the side of it's still-revolting people, allows Hamas to quell it's domestic youth-led discontent, and allows Fatah to recover somewhat from the embarrassment of the leaked Palestinian Papers.