Palestinian infighting

FYI

nacho libre wrote:

You mean Jundullah

If it is a reference to the Jundullah, I'm not sure one can confirm any concrete ties to Al Qeada; though how would it be surprising if they did exist?

"I had to return to this story of the US’s support for Jundallah against Iran because just providing a series of links to stories from 2004 that suggested that the Baloch nationalists are connected to Al Quida at the same time as getting support from the US smacked too much of conspiracy theory to me.

So I’ve looked a little deeper. Of course, the problem is that I know nothing of Baloch nationalism and until yesterday had never heard of Balochistan, a region in the south west of Pakistan that also impinges on Afganistan and Iran. Recent attacks in Iran attributed to Baloch nationalists had the Tehran authorities suggesting that the armaments came from the US (page 8 of the Art of Instant Forgetting) but they glossed over the fact that Baloch’s tribes are mainly Sunni (as opposed to Iran’s Shia majority)."

http://dublinopinion.com/2007/04/05/those-ties-to-al-qaeda-are-not-so-tight/

philologos

As for Hamas being funded by Iran, there is also reports that they were started by Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Funding. United Press International which is a major player in world news like Reuters has written articles claiming it.

This pic is good at describing the infighting I find...

Sand

As I mentioned in my previous post, if the UN and other independent observers were satisfied that the elections which resulted in a Hamas majority were fair, then it was incumbent upon the UN and 'the west' powers to recognise it as legitimate, whether liking the outcome or not. I personally may not have liked to see George Bush re-elected, Tony Blair or indeed Bertie Ahern re-elected either, but I have to live with the result, if the elections were fair, whether the outcome is against my wishes or not.

Just to note here - I dont think "the West" has questioned the elections [who knows, maybe they have but its not a big issue so easy on the google...]. Hamas is certainly the elected representitives of the Palestinians.

However, that does not imply "the West" has to fund them, or talk to them, or back them in their terrorism against Israel. In fact, they can cut funding, refuse to talk to them and do their best to stop their terrorism against Israel, and engage in activity to defeat them and remove them from power which is what theyve done. All that is perfectly above board and fine. Its called foreign policy. There is no obligation on the part of the quartet to back whatever government the Palestinians elect.

Much as there is no obligation on your part to back, support and champion George Bush because he was elected US President. You must recognise he was elected, but you dont have to support him.

This pic is good at describing the infighting I find...

Just missing the hook nose and beady eyes - evil grimace is present and correct though.

FYI

Sand wrote:

However, that does not imply "the West" has to fund them, or talk to them, or back them in their terrorism against Israel. In fact, they can cut funding, refuse to talk to them and do their best to stop their terrorism against Israel, and engage in activity to defeat them and remove them from power which is what theyve done. All that is perfectly above board and fine. Its called foreign policy. There is no obligation on the part of the quartet to back whatever government the Palestinians elect.

There is nothing 'above board' about funding an illegal coup.

Judt

Sand got it in one. Just because somebody is elected fair and square (and Hamas had to go into coalition, remember...) doesn't mean we have to deal with them if their ideology is one we disagree with - dealing with Fatah was a leap, but considering that Hamas is the organisation that makes Fatah look like one we can shake hands with in civilized circumstances.... Well, you see what I mean. Hamas is the Provisional IRA to the Real IRA....

All this crying for the Palestinians hides the fact that they're the ones screwing themselves up. Israel or "The West" can be blamed just about as much as Ireland could blame its problems in the 1960's, 70's and 80's on Britain.

FYI

Hamas were elected fair and square yes. They were only forced into a coalition due to the withdrawal of +humanitarian+ aid and what amounted to an economic embargo. Palestine is a prison, if you cut off aid and refuse the people the ability to work you effectively starve the population. It has nothing to do with a refusal to 'deal' with Hamas - the reality was that while 'the West' harped on about democracy, what they are actually talking about is 'democracy under a strict set of conditions', you are free to elect who we want you to elect - and if that is not an organisation with a legacy of corruption and a history of capitulation to 'the West' then perhaps you don't deserve it.

The new 'Prime Minister' has almost no support among the Palestinian people. Yet as we all know, it has little to do with what they want and more to do with what we want. So put aside all this 'they did it too themselves rubbish' - they got what 'we' had coming to them. Fatah will continue their legacy and Palestine will be no closer to true independence. Gaza will become ever more isolated and Israel will continue it's expansion.

Comments such as the above from Judt only serve to highlight the lip service we pay to democracy:

"All this crying for the Palestinians hides the fact that they're the ones screwing themselves up. Israel or "The West" can be blamed just about as much as Ireland could blame its problems in the 1960's, 70's and 80's on Britain."

Not to mention the obvious differences between 70's Ireland and present day Palestine.

Voipjunkie

Mairt wrote:

The Pals can't terrorise and bully their way into being a country, pure and simple.

Yeah the Israelis have cornered the market on doing that

banaman

nacho libre wrote:

I'm surprised no-one in the media has tryed to blame it on the Israelis;)

well apparently the Israelis set up Hamas as an alternative to Fatah in the first place.

fly_agaric

FYI wrote:

Palestine is a prison, if you cut off aid and refuse the people the ability to work you effectively starve the population.

That's true, but how can the EU* with good conscience hand over money to a group like Hamas?
Wouldn't you admit there is a real problem here no matter what you think about the Palestinian cause?

*ignoring the US here for obvious reasons

Mick86

banaman wrote:

well apparently the Israelis set up Hamas as an alternative to Fatah in the first place.

Why on earth would Israel set up an organisation dedicated to the destruction of the Israeli state and which has carried out most of the attacks on Israel over the last twenty years?

FYI

fly_agaric wrote:

That's true, but how can the EU* with good conscience hand over money to a group like Hamas?

Ask yourself the same question of EU/US support for Israel and Fatah.


"Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)"."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html

fly_agaric

FYI wrote:

Ask yourself the same question of EU/US support for Israel and Fatah.

Is the EU giving aid to Israel?
(I actually think the EU should be treating it as a pariah state. Trade and relations may be "support" of a sort but they are not "aid" and don't suggest EU agreement with all Israels' policies)

I don't think the EU should be intervening by helping either Fatah or Hamas tbh. At the moment all it can do is try to give aid through 3rd parties, the UN, charities rather than giving money to a Hamas govt. directly.

As for the US, in case the reasons are not as obvious as I thought, I omitted it before because I think there is very little difference between US and Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, or between US/Israeli goals here.

Expecting the US to start giving Hamas money to run Gaza because the Palestinians living there are suffering is a bit like expecting the Israeli govt. to do so IMO.

FYI

fly_agaric wrote:

Is the EU giving aid to Israel?
(I actually think the EU should be treating it as a pariah state. Trade and relations may be "support" of a sort but they are not "aid" and don't suggest EU agreement with all Israels' policies)

Trade is in some cases de facto support for certain policies:

"Britain has almost doubled the value of arms exports to Israel, according to official figures released yesterday.

Arms exports to Israel approved by the government totalled £22.5m last year, almost twice the amount in 2004, according the latest annual report on strategic export controls published by four government departments."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828246,00.html

I don't think it's too far off the mark to suggest that the US/Israeli position taken over the last 40 years has forced the Palestinians into partnership with Hamas, not least the fact Hamas is actually a product of Israeli attempts to undermine a more influential Fatah. It's quite absurd really that on one day Fatah are the most evil of evil and the next they are the 'moderates'. The real fear with Hamas was that they might actually force a solution - and not the 'wiping out of Israel' or some such nonsense (as we know there is no military force in the Middle East foolish enough to think they could - if the immoral thought took them).



"Jeremy Bowen was questioned about why the BBC had failed to report on an important peace initiative begun this summer jointly by a small group of Israeli rabbis and Hamas politicians. A public meeting where the two sides would have unveiled their initiative was foiled when Israel’s Shin Bet secret service, presumably with the approval of the Israeli government, blocked the Hamas MPs from entering Jerusalem.

Bowen, though implicitly critical of Israel’s behaviour, believes the initiative was of only marginal significance. He doubts that the Shin Bet or the government were overly worried by the meeting -- in his words, it was seen as no more than a “minor irritant” -- because the Israeli peace camp has shown a great reluctance to get involved with the Palestinians since the outbreak of the intifada in 2000. The Israeli government would not want Hamas looking “more respectable”, he admits, but adds that that is because “they believe that it is a terrorist organisation out to kill Jews and to destroy their country”.

In short, the Israeli government cracked down on the initiative because they believed Hamas was not a genuine partner for peace. Again, at least apparently in Bowen’s view, Israel was acting in good faith: when it warns that it cannot talk with Hamas because it is a terrorist organisation, it means what it says.

But what if, for a second, we abandon the assumption of good faith?

Hamas comprises a militant wing, a political wing and a network of welfare charities. Israel chooses to characterise all these activities as terrorist in nature, refusing to discriminate between the group’s different wings. It denies that Hamas could have multiple identities in the same way the Irish Republican Army, which included a political wing called Sinn Fein, clearly did.

Some of Israel’s recent actions might fit with such a simplistic view of Hamas. Israel tried to prevent Hamas from standing in the Palestinian elections, only backing down after the Americans insisted on the group’s participation. Israel now appears to be destroying the Palestinians’ governing institutions, claiming that once in Hamas’ hands they will be used to promote terror.

The Israeli government, it could be argued, acts in these ways because it is genuinely persuaded that even the political wing of Hamas is cover for terrorist activity.

But most other measures suggest that in reality Israel has a different agenda. Since the Palestinian elections six months ago, Israel’s policies towards Hamas have succeeded in achieving one end: the weakening of the group’s moderates, especially the newly elected politicians, and the strengthening of the militants. In the debate inside Hamas about whether to move towards politics, diplomacy and dialogue, or concentrate on military resistance, we can guess which side is currently winning.

The moderates not the militants have been damaged by the isolation of the elected Hamas government, imposed by the international community at Israel’s instigation. The moderates not the militants have been weakened by Israel rounding up and imprisoning the group’s MPs. The moderates not the militants have been harmed by the failure, encouraged by Israel, of Fatah and Hamas politicians to create a national unity government. And the approach of the moderates not the militants has been discredited by Israel’s success in blocking the summer peace initiative between Hamas MPs and the rabbis.

In other words, Israeli policies are encouraging the extremist and militant elements inside Hamas rather the political and moderate ones. So why not assume that is their aim?"

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11085

Padraig Mor

Sand wrote:

Just to note here - I dont think "the West" has questioned the elections [who knows, maybe they have but its not a big issue so easy on the google...]. Hamas is certainly the elected representitives of the Palestinians.

However, that does not imply "the West" has to fund them, or talk to them, or back them in their terrorism against Israel. In fact, they can cut funding, refuse to talk to them and do their best to stop their terrorism against Israel, and engage in activity to defeat them and remove them from power which is what theyve done. All that is perfectly above board and fine. Its called foreign policy. There is no obligation on the part of the quartet to back whatever government the Palestinians elect.
.

The West are not being asked to 'fund Hamas' . They are being asked to leave in humanitarian aid (you know - food, medicine). Israel is also being asked to release the hundreds of millions it has stolen from the Palestinian government (it is now giving some of this to Fatah but I digress).

Re talking - how can you have a 'peace process', 'road map' (or whatever they're calling it this week) and not talk to the leaders - democratically elected - of one side? To think otherwise is bizarre! Not doing so is an act of bad faith.

Hamas are also not engaged - at the moment - in 'terrorism' against Israel. Saying the opposite is a favourite tactic (generally unchallenged in the media) of the pro-Israel brigade.

Padraig Mor

Mick86 wrote:

Why on earth would Israel set up an organisation dedicated to the destruction of the Israeli state and which has carried out most of the attacks on Israel over the last twenty years?

Yet another example of the rose tinted view of history on the Israeli side. While Israel did not 'set up' Hamas, it did fund it and support it in its early years. Why? Divide and rule - exactly the same as they're doing now, just the other way round.
At the time (mid 80s) the PLO were looking a bit too 'pragmatic' for Israel's liking (i.e. Israel may have had to enter good faith negotations) so Israel supported the counterweight - Hamas. Fast forward twenty years. Hamas is now looking like it may be in the business of moving toward a negotiated settlement so Israel (& the U.S.) support the opposition - Fatah. The oldest trick in the book...

PS Hamas has not "carried out out most of the attacks on Israel over the last twenty years" - even less so since it was elected to government.

banaman

Quote:
Originally Posted by banaman
well apparently the Israelis set up Hamas as an alternative to Fatah in the first place.

Why on earth would Israel set up an organisation dedicated to the destruction of the Israeli state and which has carried out most of the attacks on Israel over the last twenty years?

Well originally they wanted an alternative to Fatah which was largely PLO so they set up Hamas but , much like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc if the moderates get nowhere then the hardliners take over because people see no alternative.

Look at the rise of the Provos, Hezbollah, and so on.
If you continually refuse reasonable demands to negotiate as the Israelis have done then its no surprise that you drive moderate organisations into the hands of hardline extremists.

(Or have stalled the negotiations or reneged on deals, remember the Oslo accords? What happened to the Israeli premier who signed a generous deal with the Palestinians?
He was assassinated in Israel, by an Israeli despite the much vaunted security apparatus.)

philologos

Well Israel was trying to defeat the PLO, and thought by adding a religious element it would help to defeat the PLO, and it would add an extreme Islamic element so it looked like it was a war about Islam versus Judaism as opposed to a racial war. Look at the sources on the wikipedia page I gave. United Press International, who are as big as Reuters or Associated Press has said it.