The Specter of 'Hamastan'

[bemildred]

In several days of discussions in Jerusalem and Ramallah recently, I was struck by the nature of the debate I witnessed in both places. To my surprise, it wasn't about the stalemate in the peace process or the Arab peace initiative. It was about the conflict between Palestinian organizations in Gaza -- Hamas vs. Fatah -- and whether Gaza was in fact already lost to the Islamists. Both Israelis and Palestinians were wondering about the consequences of Gaza's becoming, in their word, "Hamastan."

Not all felt Gaza was lost. Some said Israel should let weapons and ammunition get to Fatah forces in Gaza to battle Hamas. I also heard from Palestinians and Israelis alike that Egypt could do much more to prevent Hamas from receiving smuggled arms and money through the Sinai tunnels running into Gaza.

But for every Palestinian and Israeli who argued for arming Fatah, I heard a contrary point of view that at this point it might not make any difference. The consensus was that Hamas had made a deliberate calculation to attack all key security positions held by Fatah in Gaza and that the Fatah forces now had few, if any, senior commanders still in that area.

All those I spoke with were worried about the consequences of Gaza's becoming an Islamist enclave. They saw it offering inspiration to other Islamists throughout the Middle East and providing a new haven for Islamists of all stripes. They feared it would spell the end of even the possibility of a two-state solution. Most were convinced Hamas would never accept peace with Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/AR2007060300953.html

[Lithos]

1. Same question I've been asking...

Also wonder if it will be a three state solution.

L-

[pelsar]

3. a liberal professors point of view.....

i spoke with professor whos expertise is "non democratic groups within democratic societies"... political science is his thing...this would include failed societies etc.

His point was that failed societies have an almost impossibe task to ressurect themselves, whereas changes in structures (rebellions, revolutions etc) of existing working societies happen without the society "missing a beat.".

what this comes down to is, better for hamas to take over, whatever the short term (20years?) consequences then a stalemate of fatat/hamas fighting. For citizen palestenian with no one to turn to for his needs, his security will only get worse. A repressive society that does have infrastrcture, that hangs homosexuals, stones adulters, is better than anarchy.

The westbank and gaza have two very different societies and cultures......though i've read little (and keep looking) i cant find anything about what the westbankers feel about gaza interms of todays situation there.

[bemildred]

4. Always a pleasure when we can agree.

Rulers always have an interest in order, and order is always better than chaos, and without order you will not have any of the other good, orderly things one likes to see. And things can change in a generation or two.

[pelsar]

5. so that means...

we're for "hamas".?.....great stand for a bunch of liberal/progressives..... (next thing you know we'll be pushing for a coalition of islamic jihad/al quida and hamas)

[bemildred]

6. Ha ha. Not exactly.

One doesn't have to be FOR something to admit you will have to put up with it. I'm not FOR Bush, but I have to put up with him, somewhat. One is still free to oppose Hamas, it's a matter of the methods used.

[Lithos]

9. Yeah

Those are the thoughts I'm trying to get a grip on.

Before Hamas was the Muslim Brotherhood who also seemed to dominate Gaza much more than any success they had in the West Bank. Hamas and The Muslim Brotherhood seemed to concentrate on things the people wanted, getting infrastructure such as schools and hospitals in place and cutting down on major lawlessness. Foreign policy and ideology are not really all that important when it comes to things lower down on Laslow's famous pyramid - food, shelter, safety and health come first. I think Fatah proved how detached they were when the outsider leadership won out over the insiders shortly after Oslo; the outsiders were outwardly focused first and foremost and had a hard time with the fundamentals of basic human necessities. Sure, Arafat did a good job in staving off ill-will with zakat, but zakat also I think means purifying one's own wealth which is what it boiled down to - something appropriate to someone building and justifying a leadership-cult, but not for nation-building.

The West Bank was almost always about large, almost tribal, family structures; much more at least than Gaza which seemed to be a hodgepodge from what I've read about. I think this is where their strength relies, so unless there has been a tremendous weakening here, I just don't see Hamas making major inroads. Some, yes, with the disaffected and those who have lost their family ties, but not enough to be a threat at the moment.

Do I want Hamas in charge? What a series of conflicting thoughts here as I completely understand and agree to a point with your professor acquaintance, but Hamas? Not a pleasant thought; please understand why it leaves such a bad taste for me.

L-

[pelsar]

11. just a personal note...

the professor acquaintance is actually my brother...teaches in N.Carolina (UNC). He spent 5 days here for a conference and the discussions went late into the night.

supporting hamas....that was the conclusion we came to in the end, if fatah "cant get it together". What i did learn was that arafat took a working society (gaza, westbank) that was based on western methodologies (and some middle eastern ones as well) and totally destroyed it, when he brought in his "guys" and turned it into one man show based on loyalties.

btw the methodology of hamas, hizballa was exactly what shas did as well. We had non religious people sending their kids to shas nurserys...and they would then come home and ask mom and dad some pretty confusing questions (why they are sinners etc). It seems the israeli govt started putting some money in to the preschool nurserys and nipped at least that bud.

[Lithos]

14. To that end

is it too late to create a Fatah, or some successor secular party built up on people who at least identify with the people as opposed to the imposed cult of personality(ies) that is in place now? Was it a mistake to keep Barghouti in jail? Is the insider group lost or destroyed? I dunno that part as well.

L-

[Lurking Dem]

16. "Was it a mistake to keep Barghouti in jail?"

That question had oft plagued me as well.

[pelsar]

17. Baghouti...

who knows....trying to make a decision based on the internal politics is nothing more than gamble...it could go either way. Barghouti is an "insider" and was/is supported by the younger generation as opposed to those who came from tunisia. Deals that would have had to be made, those that might have fell through, been double/triple crossed, loyalties.....

maybe he would make a new personality cult...or simply be shunned aside.......or maybe....he would/could revitalize fatah with the original intifada I guys who were the ones who actually brought in Oslo and actually started the turn to the better.....

i think the israeli govt simple took the simple way out, he was arrested for his part in the bombings....and thats that. They're are a lot of potential moderate intelligent leaders of fatah in the jails of israel today.....who could make things better or worse.....

[question everything]

18. Right now we cannot even get a two states solution

After the Oslo agreement many Palestinian Americans came to the occupied territories to start new industries, to contribute to the economy of the new state.

Alas, the second intifada started, it was obvious that the ones who chose to fight and to convince their youth and the oppressed women to be "martyrs" won.

All the entrepeneurs just left in disgust.

When the UN voted in 1947 on a two states solution the Jews accepted the very small area, the Arabs did not.

In 1993 the Palestinians should have done the same and continued from there.

Similarly, after 1967, Israel offered land for peace for Egypt and Syria but instead there were the three "NO" of Khartoum.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. This is what Israel offered to return after the 1967 War

This was actually a proposal for a return of territories to Jordan with limited Palestinian autonomy. King Hussein met a number of times following the 1967 War with senior Israeli officials:



http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/allonplan.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. The Myth of the Generous Offer

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David (2000) negotiations By Seth Ackerman
-- link: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

"The seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can't reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s "generous peace terms" (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00). "

"The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel"

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."
____________

It does appear however that progress was made a Taba, Egypt in January 2001. However, Israel unilateral broke off the talks on the Eve of their upcoming election.

link to the European Union notes which have been confirmed by the Israeli and Palestinian delegation and being an accurate record of what happened at Taba in January 2001:

"This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

"(Yossi)Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election"

However, Mr. Sharon made it absolutely clear that he would not honor any such treaty:

Sharon calls peace talks a campaign ploy by Barak
Likud leader says he won't comply with latest agreements
January 28, 2001
Web posted at: 1:42 p.m. EST (1842 GMT) link:

"Sharon leads Barak by 16 to 20 percentage points in opinion polls that have changed little in recent weeks." link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/28/mideast.01/index.html

"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes." link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. Palestinian American business people and other professionals have visas blocked

Thursday, January 18th, 2007
Entry Denied: Palestinian-Americans Among Thousands Blocked by Israel from Occupied Territories

listen/watch by online streaming or download or read transcript:

link: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/18/1621247&mode=thread&tid=25#transcript

"The Israeli government has effectively frozen visitation and re-entry of foreign nationals of Palestinian origin to the West Bank and Gaza. We go to Ramallah to speak with two coordinators of the “Campaign for the Right of Entry and Re-Entry to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” We’re also joined by a leading Israeli human rights attorney and a Palestinian-American filmmaker recently detained by Israeli officials and deported.
-
We begin in Ramallah where the Israeli government has effectively frozen visitation and re-entry of foreign nationals of Palestinian origin to the Occupied Territories. Activists and human rights advocates are claiming that since last year’s election of Hamas, thousands have been denied entry into the West Bank and Gaza. The Israeli government initially denied that there had been a policy change. But on Tuesday, the Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories released a letter stating that the policy of denying foreign nationals entry had been reversed. The letter was dated December 28th and had been sent to the Palestinian Authority.
Yet - the organization “Campaign for the Right of Entry and Re-Entry to the Occupied Palestinian Territory” maintains that they know of at least 14 foreign citizens who only last week were denied entrance to the Territories. They say that in addition to being discriminatory, this policy is tearing families apart, blocking students from finishing their education, and keeping people from their jobs and businesses. The Israeli human rights group B’tzelem wrote in a recent report that the crackdown is part of a broader policy to limit the growth of the Palestinian population by “preventing the entry of spouses and children of residents, and by stimulating emigration from the area.”

"SAM BAHOUR: Well, we have, many of us, the bulk being Palestinian Americans, but foreign nationals of different countries, have come back or come to Palestine following the Oslo Peace Accords to contribute to building a different kind of Palestinian reality, one free of Israeli occupation and one that can merge into the nation-states of the world. And we've been here during the good and bad. "

listen/watch by online streaming or download or read transcript:

link: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/18/1621247&mode=thread&tid=25#transcript

.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

8. Israel chose to continue policies of occupation, of creating a prison for the

people of Gaza, and increasingly the people of the West Bank as well.

A tragic and sad move on the part of the policymakers of Israel.

[Tom Joad]

10. I am offended by the charectization of Palestinians

as "choosing to be miserable".

I think it is an over-generalization to say the least.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

13. You are making his point for him, you know. nt

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.