mears said:
If you believe the agressor is Israel than what about the responce of the Palestinians?
Why not try a new way of playing defense? Because right now the world is leaving Hamas behind. US, EU and it seems the gulf states. Because money more than anything talks and wealthy Gulf countries are not yet stepping in to fill the funds withdrawn by the west. Why not?
Whatever the Palestinians are doing to resist is clearly not working.
thing is it wasn't working whent hey played ball either.
the whole PA vs the PLO ideals for a start the fact that the PA was set up to be a transitional organiseational administrative wing for the upcoming (6 months later at the time) elections which have only just been had which swept hamas to power.
In that time the PA had to give up the right to return (no small thing when 2 thirds of your population has been dispossed and is outside of the country) and many other consessionary things had to fall in order for the supposed help and funds to keep flowing.
It never came in on time or in the right areas and has ultimately lead the palestinans world wide to say enough. The elections which were not only for those in the current palestine area but also for those dispossed palestinians too voted in hamas. Has anybody thought about asking why if the majority of your population are in fact else where in the world, some in arab states but many more in western states and are capable of seeing the world via wetern eyes why there would still be an overwhelming majority of the population who still voted hamas?
there reason is quite simple, it is not an islamic mandate, nor is it a mandate to destroy isreal. Hamas didn't poll on either of those options.
What they polled on was the right of return, polling for the rights of all palestinians not just the ones in the west bank and gaza, something the PA had stratigically forgotten.
Hamas effectively said sod this let's stick the clock back to before the dissolution of the PLO and let's start again as clearly the PA doesn't work and is not good for us. Most palestinians agreed. they got in.
so you are right what they have been doing by way of attempting to have a dialogue has utterly failed. so perhaps going to a postition of no negotiation is the way forward. certainly this is what the western powers appear to be pushing for; total islolation, this of course then gives rise to the old arabs are hard to work with overtones etc.
so in answer to my other question; why would hamas not wish to recognise isreals legitimacy? well simply put this is a question of sheer weight of numbers:-
A two party state 1 isreal 1 palestine, means that concessions have to be made, likely this will include the abandonment of east jerusalem and the entrenchment of mala addumim which effectively cuts the west bank into two it will also more than likely mean that the jordan valley will also go to isreal. this will in effect mean that any palestinian state would esentially be nothing more than a tourist stop on an isreal map. it would be unable to function as a state control it's boarders or do anything leigitimatly with out isreal allowing it to function.
going back historically, to the green line (1967 boarders) this would still mean that over a thrid of palestinians (if not more) would have lost land from the nakba again issues of the disporia would need to be resolved in order than the refugee camps could finally be disbanded after some near 60 years.... (palestinians make up around 2% of the total world wide refugee population)
so this solution would not be acceptable either really as it still disposses a large number of palestinians.
also due to the intrests of the west the two state solution has always been tipped in favour of isreal and against the palestinian state. There is a great deal of talk about arafat having thrown away the last great chance for peace at camp david but this is all spin on what was a wholley and unilaterally dishonest document which would have allowed the peppercorning of the remaining palestinian land into nothing more than small holdings which were surronded by the greater isreal.
so what's the alternative solution?
isralestine? Palesreal?
the one state solution.
if there is a flat refuseal to acknowledge the 2 state solution as is currently being advocated by hamas, and was previous advocated by the PLO. Then you are left with the simple battle of economics and population. Sure israel wins hands down economically, but not in population growth. palestinians out number isrealis around 3 to 1 this is an increasing gap.
in a one state solution sooner or later those in power will have to acknowledge the largest section of their population and grant them equal access to all areas. Not to do so would be political suicide and also potentially cause a civil war. which would of course then mean palestinians could enter all the areas which they are currently banned from in terms of physical location and also public office. It would be one country one people different ethicities. it would essentailly also almost certainly stop being a western ally into the middle east.
this is the bigger fear of the west.
