:: The Boys Weekend Journal ::

Article: Do These Guys Do Standup?

While US and British intelligence agencies are being raked across the coals for their bad information on Iraq's weapons stockpiles, in a bizarre twist of black commedy, the Israeli Knesset, according to this TIME article, is throwing a fit at the Mossad for not having come up with the same bogus intel. It seems the Mossad was never able to find any good evidence on the weapons, but the Knesset (and possibly the Mossad themselves) have quite effectively convinced themselves that they exist contrary to their own evidence. Now they're pissed that Mossad has never come up with data to back up their assumptions. I've often suspected that the Israeli government is living in some paranoid alternate dimension, but this takes the cake. Look, guys, your intel got it right. Be happy.

:: Joe 9:30 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Undermining Abbas

No matter how many angles I look at the Israel/Palestine conflict from, it seems I always come back to the conclusion that the Israeli government is completely divorced from reality. Hamas, a group that I generally regard as being politically astute, made a serious error with their last bus bombing. By the brutal calculus of this conflict, they were entitled to some degree of retaliation after Israel continued their assassinations after Hamas agreed to a cease-fire. However, it seemed they had accomplished that in a proportional way after a couple of minor bombing attacks that only killed 2-3 people. Then they followed that up with an attack killing a score of people and wounding scores more. It was obviously out of scale and not justified, and necessarily would trigger a response from Israel. I wonder if the last assassination did some real damage to Hamas' leadership, as the man assassinated was regarded as a leader in the political side of things and one of the architects of the cease-fire. His death, and the manner of it, may have pushed control into the hands of more militant and aggressive elements of the organization. I hope this is not the case, as the apparent mainstreaming and politicization of Hamas over the last 3-5 years has offered, I believe, the best opportunity for a resolution to this conflict.

In any case, it is the current response of Israel that concerns me. From the beginning of the roadmap they have insisted that Abbas not work cooperatively with Hamas to disarm them, but that he aggressively dismantle the organization. And now they are demanding this in stronger terms and they are making an effort to do it themselves at the same time. This is having the effect of causing a rebellion within the Palestinian Authority against Abbas as they do not want to participate in this action under these terms, and maybe not under any terms. Abbas now has the two great pillars of political power in Palestine, Arafat's faction of the PA and Hamas, both set against him, with Israel, backed on this matter by the US, not willing to budge on anything. Abbas was hand-picked to lead the Palestinians by Israel and the US. He was elected as Prime Minister by the Palestinian parliament simply because the US and Israel insisted that no negotiations could take place unless this was done. He has no military or police power to speak of, and no clear political mandate from the Palestinian people. He has no tools with which to combat Arafat's faction, which controls what little military capability the PA has, nor Hamas which has their own military force. Alienating him from these two groups leaves him as a powerless figurehead. And yet that is what Israel appears to be intent on doing. It strikes me as bizarre that they would set up their own chosen leader of the Palestinians for such prominent failure. They cannot be so blind as to not see what they are doing, and yet I can figure no rational reason for them to do it...

Hamas, I believe, is the key to this whole situation. I do not believe that a real resolution can be negotiated by Palestinians in a position of complete weakness, as Abbas is. Nor without strong support from the public and the militant groups, which I don't necessarily think Abbas has. Hamas has strength and has the support of a Palestinian public sick to death of feeling powerless and disenfranchised for that reason. Despite massive, desperate, efforts by the Israeli military to put Hamas out of business they remain as dangerous as ever. They have, in recent years, become more involved in humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, running hospitals and schools and the like. And they have backed off their initial stated goal (the complete destruction of Isreal) and become more willing to participate in negotiations. They are the foremost militant organization, and their word would carry substantially more weight with the other militants than does Abbas. I believe they have all the necessary elements to negotiate a real settlement with Israel. They have the strength to negotiate as equals, the support to bring the public on board and the power and creditibility to make the other militants fall in line. The US needs to insist that they be brought to the negotiating table, rather than setting up Abbas for obvious failure by insisting he do battle with them. Unfortunately our over-the-top rhetoric against terrorism makes this impossible, and will doom any efforts by the Bush administration to resolve this conflict.

:: Joe 1:26 PM [+] ::
...

Article: Busy News Day

Lots of interesting stuff today. This whole episode of going back to the UN for military and financial support is really fueling my Bush administration split conspiracy theory. According to stories floating around, Powell finally decided to make a move, and according to a story in the Milwaukee Journal last week he's got Karl Rove on his side, and this story shows the Joint Chiefs and Condi Rice lining up with him as well. That's a coalition that could take on the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis head-to-head. Interesting stuff... Of course Wolfowitz says (paraphrasing, I heard this on the radio) this is not a case of the US changing our position on UN involvement, it's that the UN has decided that backing up the US is the right thing to do. Huh? It was clearly the US who initiated this proposal, and the UN still ain't buyin unless the US makes substantive concessions to the UN.

Elsewhere, Abbas continues to play his one-note symphony ("do what I tell you or I'll take my ball and go home") for the Palestinian Authority. There is incentive enough for both sides to give it a shot, but I don't think Arafat intends to yield any real power, and Abbas has little room to negotiate without losing his US and Israeli endorsement (and with it his entire reason for holding office). They'll try to work things out for a while, it will collapse, and the roadmap will be officially over.

And finally, CSM mentions a new reality TV show coming out, as if we haven't had enough of them. But wait, this one, called "K-Street" is about political lobbyists. It's a bizarre, but intriguing idea, particularly considering it is produced by the brilliant writer/producer/director Steven Soderbergh. The bad news? It's an HBO exclusive.


:: Joe 4:34 PM [+] ::
...

::The Great Litmus Test::

So, in the news, Abbas is out and new attacks on Israel are in. I figured it would happen, but not this fast. I think the administration is still trying to pretend the road map isn't dead, but it would take a miracle to rescue it at this point. Now we've got another Arafat crony running the show there. I really don't see Arafat's crowd settling this thing. His crew is infamously corrupt, and I fear, growing further out of touch with Palestinian popular sentiment every day. Not to mention the fact that the US and Israel hate him with a passion and don't want to deal with him. In fact, I rather suspect he'd have lost power by now except for how strongly the US and Israel fight against him and the sympathy that this engenders in the Palestinian populace. And the way things stand now he has a death grip on the armed wing of the Palestinian Authority. As long as the US and Israel insist on dealing with the PA alone (not involving Hamas) and they maintain a level of pressure that leaves the PA unable to thouroughly reform itself this conflict will go nowhere.

Also in the news, Bush asks for a boatload of money for Iraq. I think this is a very good idea, but agree with various Democratic congress-people (including our friend Russ) that he needs to be made to suffer for it. If he is not willing to admit to any mistakes, if he is not willing to compromise on his tax cuts to fund it, if he is not willing to let Congress have more say on how it is spent, they need to reject this request. There is a column on tompaine.com of moderate value that contains a quote that I think captures the brilliance of Rove's media strategy: "The genius of the new Bush Speak is to fudge all substantive distinctions, on the assumption that the American people won't notice what you are saying as long as you get the photo op right." It's the ultimate statement of style over substance, and it has worked beautifully so far. Congress has an opportunity to force the administration to deal in substance or to see their plans suffer. If indeed they choose to pass up the funding to avoid substantive discussion of the issues, it would truly be a tragedy for Iraq. However, I don't think they can afford to do that, and I don't think they will. Congress, press them hard while you have the chance.

But all of that is not what I want to write about tonight. I wanted to clearly delineate why I will not vote for any Democratic candidate who voted for the resolution allowing George Bush to go to war with Iraq. It's late already, so I'm going to keep this short and to the point. When this vote came up in October of 2002 it had been known for a year that the Bush administration was angling to go to war with Iraq. Rumsfeld had set up a planning committee to prepare for this war within weeks of the 9/11 and had been working to position the US for this war despite a complete lack of evidence tying Saddam to the attack or demonstrating any substantive risk posed by Iraq to the US. When this vote came up the doctrine of preemtive warfare had been circulated to the public and the administration's support for it was known. When this vote came up it was known that our allies were reluctant at best and that the administration planned to use this resolution in an effort to blackmail the UN into agreeing to the war. When this vote came up it was known that only the most sketchy of evidence existed to justify a war on Iraq. When this vote came up it was known that the administration was refusing to disclose any plans for dealing with the aftermath of the conflict and offered only the most vague details on the costs of it.

So why did the Democratic party decide to support the resolution? Because they thought getting it off table would help them in the mid-term elections. Here we are discussion the most important of political issues, whether or not to go to war, and the Democratic party was busy playing politics. Many of those who voted for the resolution expressed strong doubts and concerns about where the adminstration was headed and how they would make use of the resolution. But they voted for it anyway. This is a level of disconnect that I simply cannot fathom. Why do you bother to try to attain a position of power if not to have some say on an issue of this critical importance? I cannot but conclude that the Democratic party and those members of it who supported the resolution are so lost in their pursuit of power that they have forgotten the noble pursuits that led them into politics in the first place. This was an act of the most extreme cynicism and disdain for their appointed duties.

I understand the importance of politics and compromise and playing the game to achieve your goals. But this goes far beyond that. This was a matter of the most vital moral and political importance. That is not a time for playing games. It was unconscienable for the Democrats to view going to war as a matter of political expediency.

And to top it off, it didn't even work. The Democrats lost out on the mid-term elections because people were rallying behind Bush's war. Even having voted for the war they could not rightfully claim they were stronger proponents of it than the Republicans, many of whom voted for the war, not as a matter of politics, but because they actually believed in it. It was a stupid idea, and I believe I said so from the beginning. Signing on to the President's anti-terror agenda cannot help the Democrats. It simply gives these policies their endorsement and strengthens the position on this critical issue of the Republicans, from whom these policies originated in the first place.

And so I cannot in good conscience ever again support any Democratic politician who supported or voted for that resolution, and will not, even should the cost be a Republican victory. This goes beyond a matter of disagreeing on policy, as I disagree with the Republicans. It is a betrayal of everything our political system should be about. I will not stand for it.

:: Joe 1:05 AM [+] ::
...

::How To Make Friends and Influence People::

The US exercised its veto on a UN resolution to condemn Israel's efforts to remove Arafat. The US was the only security council member to vote against the measure. It's almost like we're going out of our way to make it easy for Muslims to hate us...

:: Joe 2:19 PM [+] ::
...

::The Blasphemy of Evenhandedness::

CSM has an editorial today pointing out that Americans need to debate (deliberate) on how the U.S. might best achieve peace petween Israel and Palestine. I have been thinking about this for some time now. It amazes me that there is such blind support for Israel in this country. Howard Dean was recently lambasted when calling for an "evenhanded" approach by the U.S. towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Why is this so controversial? If the United States government really wanted to foster peace between Israel and Palestine, I believe it could rather easily do so by putting significant pressure on BOTH peoples. This is simply a question of how committed the United States is to achieving peace there, and it appears it does not have the priority that has been given Iraq.

The United States could easily put down terrorist organizations in Palestine. It could easily arrange for the removal of Yasser Arafat. It could easily put substantial pressure on Israel to remove illegal settlements and adhere to UN Security Council resolutions calling for an end to the occupation of Palestine by Israeli forces. Israel receives something like one third of all U.S. foreign aid, a staggering amount in the billions of dollars. It is clear that we have the financial and political leverage to persuade the Israeli government to take such steps. Finally, the United States could easily lead or create a peacekeeping force in Palestine, something that would be absolutely necessary until the Palestinians can rebuild infrastructure and hold legitimate elections.

If the United States can topple two governments within a year, it most certainly can create stability in Palestine. Critics will claim that peace can not be imposed on these two peoples. Yet history has shown us that they are incapable of establishing peace on their own, and they are unlikely to do so until there is a buffering force between them.

:: Ryan 12:53 PM [+] ::
...

::One State Solution Gaining Ground::

CSM had a roundup today of the latest foolishness out of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It mentions, amongst other things, that some Israelis are questioning whether dropping bombs on crowds of Palestinians really helps their cause, that Israeli efforts to oust Arafat have successfully driven his popularity level with Palestinians to its highest level in 5 years (as predicted previously on this blog), and that the US joined Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands (a more distinguished group of nations is difficult to imagine) in being the only nations to vote against a UN resolution condemning Israel's security wall.

In our previous discussions on this topic, I believe I have stated my opinion that the urgency in implementing a two-state solution lies on Israel. That if they fail in this regard, it won't be long before Palestinians lose interest in that approach and embrace a one-state solution. The demographics of the situation are such that if a one-state solution were implemented, the Palestinians would be ruling it by the end of this decade. And if the demand for a second state is dropped, it will become very difficult for Israel to explain why they have two distinct classes of citizens, with unequal representation in government and unequal protection under the law. The political and economic pressure on them to implement a one-state system would be overwhelming. Essentially, I think failure on the part of the Israeli government to establish an independent Palestinian state within the next 2-3 years will put the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state in severe jeopardy. According to CSM article, this idea is gaining increasing support from Palestinians. They link to this NRP transcript which gives a very good overview of the subject.

Also in the news today, this piece on the BBC about President Bush's trip to Australia. The description of the security around the trip (the 2nd half of the article) caught my eye. These incredibly elaborate security regimes tend to make my skin crawl. There seems to be a general trend over the past 5-10 years (possibly starting after the Seattle WTO protests) to isolate and insulate the powerful people of the world from the rest of us. Combined with the equally pronounced trend of the powerful people consolidating ever more wealth and power, its, well... creepy. These sorts of trends don't often come with happy endings.

:: Joe 1:23 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: One state solution Gaining Ground::

If I read him right, Joe's premise is that the Palestinian people and government want a two state solution to the conflict, while the Israeli people and government don't. In actuality, both populi are divided on the issue between the hardliners and the moderates. Among the Palestinians, this divide is between the Islamists (with Hamas the largest player) and the secularists. From everything I've seen, since the 1993 Oslo accords, the Israeli population has moved toward acceptance of the two state solution, while the Palestinian population, spurred on by Hamas, has moved away. I suppose that's the "losing interest" of which Joe speaks.

What has actually happened is that Hamas and its supporters made an organized decision in the wake of the Oslo accords to oppose and undermine any efforts to actually bring about a separate Palestinian state. The Hamas charter claims all lands which have ever been under Muslim control as Muslim lands and vows to secure them via jihad. While presently applied to the entire state of Israel, the logic could be applied to Spain, Greece, and a host of other sovereign countries. An English translation of the charter can be found at www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/hamas.htm.

Since the Oslo Accords in 1993, Hamas has steadily and successfully done three things to force an all out war for Israel: 1. Undermine and render ineffective any Palestinian Authority government; 2. Use terrorist acts to weaken moderate Israeli leadership and cause the Israelis to respond in kind, enabling international onlookers to find sympathy for the Palestinian side; and 3. Use its massive financial resources to build in the Palestinial community and, in so doing, indoctrinate the population. Today, I would bet that if an honest, somehow binding vote were taken of both populations on the question: Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders and the remaining lands become a Palestinian state, resolving all disputes and ending all violence?, the Israelis would overwhelmingly vote yes while the Palestinian vote would be very close. And every day Hamas is at work, the numbers drop further.

I'm not saying that the Israelis don't have their own hardliners standing in the way of peace and the two state solution. One killed Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. I am saying that the bigger obstacle to peace is Hamas, a sort of combination terrorist group/mafia/religious cult. That they have turned Israel into the party in the wrong in the eyes of so many in the West goes to their effectiveness.

However, their dreams of dominating all of Israel are still farfetched. Regardless of what Israel does, the U.S. will back them up until the end of time, and despite the current U.S. blundering, I don't see the rest of the world taking on the U.S. over this issue. Nor do I see the pro-Israel influence within the U.S. fading any time soon, especially after 9/11. Especially since the powerful traditional pro-Israel lobby has gained two new and unexpected allies: the neoconservatives and the Christian Right.



:: David 5:34 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: One state solution Gaining Ground::

Dave, I had written a lengthy response, but my computer crashed and I lost it, so I'll give the shorter version here. First with regards to my initial post, I want to clarify my premise. I believe at this point that the vast majority of people on each side (including the current leadership of both sides) favor a two-state solution. I also, however, believe that Ariel Sharon's government, despite their ultimate belief in the necessity of the 2 states, is resolutely unwilling to take the steps necessary to implement one. Further, I believe that this is a very stupid decision on their part, because the Palestinians can afford to wait, but the Israelis cannot.

The reason there is no peace is not Hamas. Oslo failed because it was a completely one-sided deal. The Palestinians were expected to surrender all of their bargaining chips in exchange for some limited civil control over certain areas of the occupied territories. They were also supposed to have some military control over areas of it, but Israel never honored that, nor do I believe they meant to. The Israelis always maintained the right to move their military into any area of the occupied territories as and when they pleased. Essentially Oslo asked the Palestinians to surrender all of their bargaining chips in exchange for a small slice of what they wanted. There was no requirement for a sovereign Palestine, for removal of settlements, for release of political prisoners, for right of return, for free travel and commerce through and between the territories, no guarantee of a Palestinian half of Jerusalem. Oslo was never, ever going to fly, regardless of Hamas' actions. And the roadmap failed, not due to anything Hamas did, but because Sharon's administration is too dependent on the extreme right to be able to take any action whatsoever against the settlements. They were unable to deliver anything resembling the promises for their side of the roadmap.

The founder and leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, stated in 1997 that he was willing to accept a two-state solution, a statement that has been echoed by other Hamas leaders since. To insist that their actions regarding the various peace plans are motivated simply by a desire for the destruction of Israel is silly. Hamas signed on to a ceasefire for the roadmap quite willingly and without any real pressure being applied. They honored it too, until assassination attempts were made against them by the Israeli military. As far as interfering with Arafat's Palestinian Authority, I would tend to phrase it the other way around. The PA is considered by Palestinians to be horrifically corrupt. The Palestinian people really do not like Yassir Arafat at this point, but don't feel they can abandon him as long as Israeli actions allow him to play the role of the martyr. Hamas is very much in touch the Palestinian street and is quite popular among them, both for their attacks on Israelis and for their charitable work of building schools and hospitals, etc. As Arafat's PA has become more corrupt, Hamas has become more mainstream. The balance of power in Palestine is shifting, and Hamas is at least the equal of the PA, if not its superior. Hamas is who should be at the negotiating table, instead of the PA (or at least alongside the PA). Hamas would make sure they got an agreement, unlike Oslo, that the Palestinian people could live with, and Hamas, unlike the PA, would have the ability to deliver on their agreements. If this conflict is to be solved before the Palestinians abandon the two-state solution, it will only happen if Israel and the West deal directly with Hamas (and I don't mean with missiles).

:: Joe 1:12 PM [+] ::
...

::An initially intended to be brief response::

1. I have no love for the Sharon government. I agree that they cater too much to the right to the detriment of peace. My only point here is that the Sharon administration was partially, and deliberately, brought about by Hamas through the prolonged terrorism campaign just before the last Israeli elections which finished moderate Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

2. Both sides believe that they can afford to wait; the Israelis for the U.S. neocons to extend their blundering in Iraq into an all out war against fundamentalist Islam, which would swallow up the Islamist Palestinians and enable the Israelis to deal with the remaining leadership on its terms; the Palestinians simply wait for the rest of the world to ride to their rescue against the Israel-U.S. alliance, the U.S. to fall as a world power or for the U.S. to withdraw support from Israel. Which is more imminent?

3. While not intending to completely reopen our good discussion from February on whether there is such a thing as "legitimate terrorism," the "bargaining chips" the Palestinians were asked to give up at Oslo--and agreed to by Arafat--are the terrorist acts prohibited by the Geneva convention. Rightly, the Israelis have always insisted that the cessation of terrorist acts be a prerequisite to any peace deal. Arafat was free to reject the terms at the time, but he did not. Rather, he agreed in a personal power grab and Hamas repudiated the agreement, spit on the authority of Arafat and the PA, and resumed terrorist activities. Against that background, I think the Israelis had every right to consider the agreement breached and proceed with military activities.

4. Yassin's statement that he was willing to accept a two-state solution ranks up there on the credibility scale with George W. Bush saying he's a compassionate conservative whose tax cuts help the poor and O.J. Simpson saying he's innocent and hot on the trail of the real killer. In fact, Article XIII of the Hamas charter plainly states that "initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement [(Hamas)]." Article XI begins: "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered; it or any part of it should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings or presidents, neither any organization or all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that." And for good measure, Article VII: "The prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation has said: 'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews)'"; and Article VIII (the official slogan of Hamas): "Allah is its target, the prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes." The more colloquial Hamas slogan is, and has always been, "Islamic Palestine from the river to the sea."

When Arafat began his negotiations, the PLO had a similar charter. Arafat publicly repudiated it in 1988 as a prelude to the peace talks. Noone in Hamas has even considered such a step, because no one in Hamas actually wants a negotiated peace. Any statements to the contrary are simply a public relations move for the benefit of the West.

5. There are conflicting stories of who broke the roadmap ceasefire first.

6. I agree that Arafat is perceived as corrupt and ineffectual by the Palestinian rank and file. Another successful Hamas operation. Hell, he probably is corrupt and ineffectual without any help from Hamas. You'll notice that he's still around despite the fact that Hamas could seize control from him any time it wanted. The reason they don't is simple: they don't want negotiations to be successful. If the negotiations were their responsibility, they would be put in the box of having to negotiate in good faith (which is antithetical to their purpose) or transparently sabotage the talks. They are much happier hiding in the corner behind the straw man Arafat and throw bombs (quite literally). I agree that Hamas should be at the negotiating table. That they are not is the crux of the problem. Unless they change their ways, Israel and the West have no choice but to continue to deal with Hamas with missiles (and other devices which go boom).


:: David 10:05 AM [+] ::
...

::Re-Response::

Both sides believe that they can afford to wait; the Israelis for the U.S. neocons to extend their blundering in Iraq into an all out war against fundamentalist Islam, which would swallow up the Islamist Palestinians and enable the Israelis to deal with the remaining leadership on its terms; the Palestinians simply wait for the rest of the world to ride to their rescue against the Israel-U.S. alliance, the U.S. to fall as a world power or for the U.S. to withdraw support from Israel.

I have never gotten the impression that either side expects these things to happen. If they do expect it, these are pipe dreams at best. But demographic shifts in the region are not pipe dreams. It is quite certain that the Israeli Jews will be outnumbered by Arabs in a relatively short period of time. When that occurs, the Arabs need no longer demand an independent nation, removal of the settlements, right of return, etc, etc. They can drop all of their demands, and ask for a single thing: a vote. While the US can stand with Israel on all of these other issues, I do not believe (and I'd be surprised if you think this is the case) that the US will support Israel in denying these people over whom the Israeli government has ruled for some 30+ years the right to participate in that government. Once it comes to this demand the situation is very much analogous to South Africa, another US ally whom we eventually had to abandon once it became clear that their actions were too directly in conflict with our purported values and beliefs. Once the situation is that of a minority of Jews ruling over an Arab majority without political representation, creating essentially a caste class system, it will be politically untenable for the US to stand behind Israel. And once global political and economic pressure forces Israel (whose economy is already coming apart at the seams) to let the Palestinians vote, Israel loses. This is not pipe dreams, that's the political reality of the situation. The Palestinians can wait, the Israelis cannot.

Yassin's statement that he was willing to accept a two-state solution ranks up there on the credibility scale with George W. Bush saying he's a compassionate conservative whose tax cuts help the poor and O.J. Simpson saying he's innocent and hot on the trail of the real killer.

I find it interesting, I guess, the way you lay out some the claims against Hamas. Sure their charter says a lot of bad things, but it was written nearly 15 years ago, and most of it is rather laughable (ie. blaming Jews for carrying out the Holocaust). You do yourself a disservice if this is the basis on which you are evaluating the actions taken by Hamas. How do you explain that Yassin, despite ample excuses to back out provided courtesy of the IDF during his negotiations with Abbas, agreed to the truce? Another ploy? Like convincing the Palestinian people that Arafat is corrupt (which I have never heard a whiff of, and which your own analysis of Arafat's actions in regard to Oslo contradicts)? Or slyly convincing the West that Israel is in the wrong (something, again I have seen no evidence for)? Or putting Sharon in power? This all seems to reek of conspiracy theories. The words and actions of Hamas line up in a perfectly consistent manner to indicate they are willing to negotiate for peace in the form of a two-state solution. What, aside from a 15-year old document consisting mostly of ridiculous tripe, do you have to make you believe that the words and actions of Hamas are no more than an elaborate scheme? And if you believe them to be so supremely shrewd as to be able to pull off all of the things you claim them responsible for, how does this jive with your belief that they are so monumentally stupid as to believe all the bogus crap in their charter?

:: Joe 1:27 PM [+] ::
...

::I guess I have to respond::

I was going to leave this one alone, but the tone of the last post forces me to respond. I apologize. As Joe correctly guesses, I base my views of Hamas on much more than their charter. For example, government wiretaps of the Hamas leadership meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 discussing their strategy post-Oslo and specifically agreeing on each of the "conspiracy theory" elements. I'm not sure if the transcripts are public records yet, but they are part of the report prepared by FBI counterterrorism director Dale Watson on U.S. organizations' funding of Hamas. The report is part of the administrative record in the HLF v. Ashcroft case. I will find out if it is public record, and if it is I will share it. Also, every year at least until Hamas was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organization by the U.S. government in 1995, Hamas-supporting organizations held a convention in different cities in the U.S. in which various speakers including actual veiled terrorists spoke in front of a banner reading "Islamic Palestine from the river to the sea" and demanded the blood of the Jews. One such charming gathering, I believe in 1993, featured children singing on this topic and punctuating their song with choreographed knife thrusts.

A good source for an overview of evidence on Hamas, which I know isn't priveleged, is the Hamas chapter of Steven Emerson's book "Jihad in America." Suffice it to say, from everything that I have seen, there is ample evidence that Hamas is no more than an intractable fundamentalist terrorist organization which believes that it can eradicate Israel through drive-by shootings and suicide bombings. I realize that I'm sounding like Bush when I say, "I've seen the information. You can't. Trust me," but this case I'm working on really did change my views on the topic. I used to agree with you.

I gather from your tone that you really feel strongly about this one and think that anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot. However, I want you to consider for a minute the possibility that the weaker force isn't always in the right. I can give you my response to your incredulous questions, but I fear that this is one on which we may have to agree to disagree as so many people before us have. Anyway, here goes:

1. How do you explain that Yassin, despite ample excuses to back out provided courtesy of the IDF during his negotiations with Abbas, agreed to the truce? Another ploy?

Hamas is all about the PR. They wanted to look like they were being super cooperative to gain support from people like you who are watching internationally. They know a truce is meaningless, as they have never kept one, so what was the harm of staying in (especially since the IDF actions would provide cover for breaking the truce at any point). Essentially, your question is: why would Hamas take a free public relations opportunity in which they had to concede nothing meaningful to them and had the opportunity to gain world support? I never said they were stupid, just evil.

2. Like convincing the Palestinian people that Arafat is corrupt (which I have never heard a whiff of, and which your own analysis of Arafat's actions in regard to Oslo contradicts)?

This is one of the strategies explicitly agreed upon in Philadelphia in 1993. It's actually pretty logical. They needed to discredit Arafat before he completed a lasting peace agreement, but could not oppose the process directly because the world was unanimously behind it (except Syria, whose sole importance in the Middle East is the fact that it can, and routinely does stir up Palestinian attacks on Israel--also discussed in the meeting). Thus, just attack the messenger, and don't do it directly. Instead, turn the vast influence you have over the Palestinian people to discrediting Arafat. Do I have direct proof of this? Like a leafletting campaign? Or a witness who says that a Hamas guy showed up at his door and talked down Arafat? No. What I do know is this: The PLO and Hamas have always been rivals. The Oslo accords threatened both Hamas' goals and political power. The leadership of Hamas met to discuss how to deal with them. They decided to discredit Arafat as corrupt with the Palestinian people. Arafat has been to some degree discredited as corrupt by the Palestinian people--although the current situation has resurrected him somewhat.

I simply don't understand what the second part of your question means. Arafat probably signed the accords for a variety of reasons: he wanted peace, he wanted to be an international hero (maybe even win a nobel prize), and he wanted to consolidate his own power. Whether that makes him corrupt and/or whether Hamas subsequently embarked on a campaign to discredit him are neither here nor there. I don't understand the claimed contradiction.

3. Or slyly convincing the West that Israel is in the wrong (something, again I have seen no evidence for)?

Again, a strategy agreed upon. It seems to me to be a successful one; you, for one, are convinced.

4. Or putting Sharon in power?

This alone among my claims was a stretch. There is no explicit call for getting Israeli hardliners into power--just a desire to derail the peace process and force a conflict. I took that in conjunction with the calculated attacks on the eve of the election to infer that that was the strategy.

5. And if you believe them to be so supremely shrewd as to be able to pull off all of the things you claim them responsible for, how does this jive with your belief that they are so monumentally stupid as to believe all the bogus crap in their charter?

This one is where the true problem comes out. You are so anxious to see Hamas as a rational Western-style actor that you automatically dismiss the charter as "monumentally stupid" and just assume that anyone intelligent can't believe it. Therefore, Hamas must either be unintelligent or they don't believe it. This is a dangerously naive view, and one that ignores history. Was Hitler monumentally stupid? How about Stalin? Tojo? History is filled with intelligent, capable people who have subscribed to an ideology committed to the inferiority of one group of people compared to another--and a desire to eliminate the undesirables. Often, these people subscribe to dogma filled with "ridiculous tripe."

In fact, Hamas' leadership are both intelligent and fanatical. They believe their charter because it is part of their religion. There are countless references to religious dogma in it, and the things in it have been ratified by religious scholars through fatwas.
I think at the end of the day, you either have to believe that Hamas is capable of compromise, or it isn't. That they would make a deal with Israel or they wouldn't. Anyone's individual evaluations of these two questions determines whether they see Hamas as part of the problem or part of the solution. We clearly come down on opposite sides of that question.

However, I think that we do agree that a peace agreement creating a Palestinian state should happen and that each side bears some degree of the blame for the fact that it has not gotten accomplished in the past 36 years.

:: David 11:04 AM [+] ::
...

::Israel--Palestine: Who's really to blame?::

I want to jump in briefly to say that I have really learned a lot from reading you two debate this issue, and that the level of discussion far surpasses anything I have come across in the mainstream media. I fear that the vigorous nature of each argument may have caused both of you to entrench into your positions, when really I think there is a lot in common. With your patience here is a brief attempt to summarize the debate as it has developed thus far. I am sure that neither of you would agree with all of my characterizations, but here is how I saw things unfold, anyway:

Joe started by saying that Palestine has a limited patience (if any) for a two-state solution, as it is only a matter of time and sex before Arab Israelis gain insurmountable numbers, and Israelis are right (in Joe's opinion) to question its government's current approach.

Dave seemed to agree that it is in the best interest of both sides to work toward a two-state solution quickly, and that the moderates in each camp favor this approach. Dave raised the challenge that both sides face from extremists and their ability to stall or destroy any progress by terrorism. Dave argues that (moderate) Palestinians should be just as anxious to get to a two-state solution because Hamas has been successful at marching the population farther away from compromise by drawing more aggression from Israel, weakening the Palestinian Authority, and seeding their ideas in the minds of the public (both in and outside Palestine). Dave forecasts that Hamas's all-or-nothing approach will never succeed, as the United States will probably never abandon Israel and the rest of the world will probably not choose to come to blows over this issue.

Joe disagreed that Palestine has any urgency on its side, and emphasized that Israel should take its share of the blame for the failure of Oslo and the road map and less should be placed on Hamas. Joe agreed that Hamas has been successful at achieving popularity in the populace, and argues that Hamas even reflects many of the mainstream positions (like a two-state solution, not to mention charity work throughout the state). Joe suggests that any peace-brokering must be done with Hamas at the table because they better represent the public and because they could actually enforce the agreement, compared with the Palestinian Authority, who in his view has only grown farther from the public (and has grown more corrupt along the way).

The following appears to be where the biggest rift has formed. Joe suggested that Hamas (and the Palestinian people, presumably, to the extent the group reflects the public will) is rightly hesitant to give up its only "bargaining chip" for a deal that is less than fair, which I take to be Joe's characterization of Oslo.

Dave agreed that there is plenty of room for criticism in the Sharon administration and argued that terrorism may be partly to blame for the right-wing administration, as the attacks immediately preceding the election probably weighed heavily on the minds of the Israelis when the went to the booth. Dave replied to Joe's contention that Israel can't wait but Palestine can by noting that a two-state and one-state Palestine solution are not the only options--a third (Palestine wiped off the face of the earth by the mighty U.S.) should provide good cause for concern that waiting may not be in the best interest of the Palestinians, either. Dave seemed to hold that Oslo was a good bargain for both sides and suggested that terrorism should never be used as a bargaining chip and certainly (from Dave's point of view) Israel should not be faulted for insisting on the end of terrorism as a condition for peace. I take it Dave holds that terrorism to achieve peace is a method that can never (never?) be justified. Dave also challenged the legitimacy of Hamas and its expression of mainstream views, and wondered aloud why Hamas has not taken the step of repudiating its charter, which would always stand in the way of ever earning a seat at the bargaining table.

Joe did an excellent job summarizing the escalation of the conflict and derailment of the roadmap, and I will let his factual contentions alone other than to say that Joe persuasively argues that Hamas's recent conduct demonstrates a calculated and rational organization and not the extreme group as many portray it. Joe then again stressed his viewpoint that Palestine can afford to wait much longer than Israel and downplayed the threat that America would use its force for anything that far outside what the majority of Americans believe (cough, Iraq, cough). Joe agreed that Hamas's charter does not help its cause but argued that the group itself has come along way since then and the group should be judged on its contemporary actions and words, which demonstrate a willingness toward peace.

Dave took a cautioned approach toward Hamas's rhetoric and conduct, contending that there is ample reason to doubt that a lasting two-state peace is really what they are after.

So where does that leave us?

In all candor, I don't care who caused the latest unraveling of the peace process, and I don't care who--between Israel and Palestine--can hold their breath the longest (although amongst us boys, I am sure that my lungs are far bigger than any of yours. It all comes from having a big mouth). I want to get to a lasting peace, and I think there were excellent points raised that suggest some of the things that must be considered along the way:

1) A one state solution means the other state loses entirely. Neither side will give up without a lot of bloodshed, and I contend that bloodshed is a bad thing. Therefore, two states are better than one.

2) The moderate majority on both sides want peace, and recognize that a two-state solution is the only way to get it.

3) Palestinians have two bargaining chips: time and terror. Although both together may provoke response from America in its all-out "War on Terror" (Copyright 2003, CNN).

4) Israel has all the traditional measurements of power and sovereignty, but cannot survive forever on its current path. Undoubtedly, the people recognize that their existence is fragile and want to work toward peace, but accepting terror as a legitimate method of accomplishing one's political objectives seems too much from the Israeli perspective.

Ultimately, both sides must refrain from retaliatory conduct and commit to a two-state solution. If a compromise is struck that the majority on all sides agree is "fair," and any actions taken by extreme segments of society are immediately rejected as wrong and punished by a third-party magistrate (the International Criminal Court seems to me the most likely candidate), there may be a way out of this mess. Thanks Joe and Dave for the amazing debate and for allowing me to add my thoughts to the mix.


:: Barry 2:54 PM [+] ::
...

::Is Hamas Irrational?::

(Barry's effort to make peace notwithstanding, I wrote most of this last night and am going to post it anyway. Try a roadmap next time, buddy.)

Dave, obviously your information is different from mine. Your position is certainly a valid one. I will freely admit there may be things I do not know. It is difficult to find relatively unbiased and well-researched material on the subject, and it is not one I have invested any great time in. What I know comes from links, the likes of these: Hamas Overview, Hamas & Fatah, and the BBC. I will acknowledge that it is entirely possible that behind the scenes this group is just a virulent and single-minded as the day they were founded. I, however, will continue to operate under the knowledge that is available to me, and as such will wait for Hamas to prove through their actions that they are other than they make themselves out to be, that being aggressive, ruthless, and violent, but ultimately rational. I just have a couple final points by which I support my position:

1. This is a dangerously naive view, and one that ignores history. Was Hitler monumentally stupid? How about Stalin? Tojo? History is filled with intelligent, capable people who have subscribed to an ideology committed to the inferiority of one group of people compared to another--and a desire to eliminate the undesirables. ... In fact, Hamas' leadership are both
intelligent and fanatical.

But were they irrational? (Hitler in the later days was arguable both insane and monumentally stupid, but the others?) My reading of history says that it is generally more dangerous to assume fanatacism and irrationality in an adversary than to assume rationality, even when their actions are difficult to understand. The former frees you from the need to try to understand your opponent or even treat them as a human being, since clearly there nothing that can be done with them short of total obliteration. It also generally leaves you misjudging and underestimating your opponent. Many of the most awful acts of history have been carried out by people who saw their targets as less than human, or somehow less human than they themselves are (including those examples you listed). Unless there is overwhelming evidence to prove that this group of people is essentially insane (or tightly under the grip of insane leadership), I will always assume the opposite. After our own isolated encounter with terrorism I had sit by and listen to more discussions of turning "the Middle-East into a parking lot" and other sordid idiocy than I can count out here in suburbia. While we have done our share of stupid things, we have not turned the Middle East into a parking lot, nor do I think we intend to. That the Palestinians, after 30 years of violence and oppression, have developed a culture where similar remarks are commonly made about Israel hardly surprises me, nor, I think, does much to condemn them. East, west, north, south, people are people.


2. Hamas has grown in stature and their role in the Palestinian community has changed over time. It would seem strange to me if their leadership and values did not reflect this. Hamas is not the small militant group that it was in the late 80's and early 90's. They, according to many commentators, now surpass Arafat's Fatah in power and popularity. With growth generally comes mainstreaming. The "Hamas & Fatah" link above brings this out in particular. In the "Impact of Oslo" section it discusses divisions within Hamas as to how to deal with the follow-ups to Oslo, and divisions with regards to how to deal with the elections for the PA, and it suggests that Hamas took it easy on Netanyahu, all indicating they have already at times contemplated softening their hard line to play for mainstream power. In fact, that article (which I had never seen until today) pretty neatly covers my views on the group, particularly their analysis of the present conflict and Hamas' prospects in it at the end of the article. This is why when Nassin and other Hamas leaders make statements about accepting a 2-state solutions, and perform actions of goodwill in order to facilitate negotiations, I tend to take them at face value. They are becoming the dominant political power in Palestine, and there is a certain level of pragmatism that often goes with that. All of the evidence available to me suggests that this is the case. If there is some critical information out there, hidden from me, I could be totally wrong. But I don't think I am being unreasonable in thinking as I do. If by their words and actions they can continue to fool me for some long period of time, so be it. If by all observable actions they counterfeit, over a period of years, the appearance of a more moderate organization, interested in peace, the results may eventually be the same as if they were, in fact, that. If they walk like a duck, and quack like a duck...



:: Joe 9:36 AM [+] ::
...

::A quick clarification (honest)::

I didn't intend to imply that Hamas was irrational or insane; just inflexible, fanatic, and willing to die before compromising its principles--the main one of which is the elimination of Israel. Will they accept half a loaf if it's offered them now that they have grown and possibly become more pragmatic? I don't know, but I doubt it. Hopefully, we'll get to find out. Sorry for any confusion.

:: David 1:16 PM [+] ::
...

::Dissent::

I'm not sure which is more impressive, four former heads of Israeli security blasting Sharon's security policies, or Senator Fritz Hollings' verbal assault on the Iraq war. While I'm not fan of Hollings, whose record on copyright issues is awful (on /. they refer to him as the Senator from Disney), that's a hell of a speech. Wouldn't it be remarkable for something like that to be carried on broadcast news? From a quick google, I can find no website larger or more mainstream than tompaine.com (which is neither large nor mainstream) which carries this speech. So Americans may never hear or read a powerful and critically important message from one of their highest elected officials. While we may not get this information, I promise that our friends in Iraq will.

:: Joe 9:33 AM [+] ::
...

::Clean Up Your Own Mess::

The International Red Cross has announced that it will discontinue its food aid to the occupied Palestinian territories. The program was an emergency one begun in mid-2002 after violence escalated between the Palestinians and Israelis. I think this is a good decision on their part. I hope other agencies will follow, at the same time putting pressure on Israel to maintain stability and health in Palestine, as should be its obligation. My only concern is that Israel, content with its wall, will refuse to step in, and other agencies or countries (like the US) will fail to notice it or care. Should that be the case, the Palestinians will suffer unduly.

:: Ryan 12:18 PM [+] ::
...