Hamastan

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Hamastan
By BARRY RUBIN
June 15, 2007; Page A16

(snip)

In 2000, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat turned down President Bill Clinton's offer of an independent Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem and an opening offer of $23 billion in aid. Ever since then it has been clear that there is no diplomatic solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arafat's renewal of terrorist violence only reinforced this point. The problem was not just Arafat, but the overall strategy of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian movement. Since the peace process began in 1993 with the Oslo Accords, that leadership made hardly a single effort to move Palestinian society toward peace and moderation. Fatah did have an attractive alternative it could have offered: We will get a state, return the refugees to live in it, develop our economy and culture and enjoy large-scale international aid in exchange for ending the conflict.

Instead it continued to glorify violence, spread hatred of Israel and America, and raise a new generation with a belief in eventual "total" victory and the extinction of Israel. After Arafat died, Fatah remained incompetent and corrupt but lacked a strong leader. Unable to obtain a state, unwilling to make peace and uninterested in governing well, Fatah dug its own grave. Why should anyone be surprised that Hamas replaced it? At most, Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and American pressure to hold fair elections only accelerated this process.

There has been another important lesson in this recent history: Most of the Arab states and movements need the conflict to continue. After all, what would mismanaging dictatorial regimes do without having Israel as a scapegoat? If, for example, Syria made peace with Israel in exchange for getting back the Golan Heights, it would be the beginning of the end for that regime. Within weeks, its people would be demanding human rights and free-enterprise economic reforms. The regime could not use anti-Israel and anti-American demons as an excuse to continue the dictatorship, deprive its people of rights and material well-being, and mobilize support. The same applies to radical Islamist movements seeking to gain power.

(snip)

There are several key policy conclusions to be drawn from the Hamas triumph. First, Western and especially U.S. policy must get beyond an obsession with solving this conflict. It is going to go on for decades. Peace plans will go nowhere. Hamas will not be persuaded to moderate -- why should it when it expects victory at home and appeasement from Europe? Hamas is the enemy, just as much as al Qaeda, because it is part of the radical Islamist effort to seize control of the region, overthrow anything even vaguely moderate, and expel any Western influence. Second, since Palestinian politics have clearly returned to a pre-1993 status, so must Western and U.S. policy. This means no Western aid and no diplomatic support until their leaders change policies. The Palestinian movement can only earn financial help and political backing on the very distant day when it accepts Israel's right to exist, stops endorsing and using terrorism, and is serious about negotiating a real two-state solution.

(snip)

Mr. Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and the author of "The Truth About Syria" (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007).

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118186922078136232.html (subscription)

[Tom Joad]

1. Thanks for the "wisdom" of the Wall Street Journal... the paper that still loves Bush.

[question everything]

2. When you cannot comment about the message

you go after the messenger.

Easy and cheap.

[Tom Joad]

3. It has no redeeming social value. Repeating the same old lies, the same racism.

what's new? Not to mention that i can't even read the whole article. If we can't see the full article, how can we comment???

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. exactly the same old lies over and over and over again

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)."
_______________________

Even the former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami who had been a lead negotiator at Camp David stated categorically that if he had been a Palestinian, he would have rejected the Camp David offer too

-- and -- anyone is welcome to listen to his voice online right now

on Windows Media/mp3

left click to listen online or right click and press "save target as" to download:

http://www.archive.org/download/dn-finkelstein-benami/dn-finkelstein-benami_64kb.mp3

Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami debates Norman Finkelstein-

-listen/watch/or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

____________

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 who was then leading in all Israeli polls by 16% to 20% made it absolutely clear that he would not under any circumstances 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
__________________

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University of Connecticut

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/pressman.pdf


.

[AviBaruch]

12. So Dennis Ross and Bill Clinton are liars?

I'm sorry, but in the contest between Clinton, Ross and Arafat for least truthful, ole Uncle Yasser comes out the winner every time.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. believe the former Israeli Foreign Minister and lead negotiator

when he states categorically that he would have rejected the Camp David 2000 agreement if he had been a Palestinian:

and -- anyone is welcome to listen to his voice online right now on Windows Media/mp3

(he also states the same on page 270 of his book :Scars of War Wounds of Peace: The Arab Israeli Tragedy by Schlomo Ben-Ami)

left click to listen online or right click and press "save target as" to download:

http://www.archive.org/download/dn-finkelstein-benami/dn-finkelstein-benami_64kb.mp3


Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami debates Norman Finkelstein-

-listen/watch/or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml
_______

As I stated it does appear that real progress was under way at Taba, Egypt until Israel unilaterally ended the talks as their elections approached. ALL parties agree that the European Union notes are an accurate record of the events at Taba -- link to European Union notes:

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

__________

Believe Ariel Sharon who was leading in the polls by 16% to 20% at the time of Taba that he would not under any circumstances accept any agreement at Taba:

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

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

.

[AviBaruch]

16. well, he's one person

and he's entitled to his opinion. However, whether he'd accept it or not, I'd like to believe his response would not be to organize a violent uprising and shun his negotiating partner to the point that he is left politically dead.

It goes well beyond the parameters of the offer as to why Arafat is accountable for the current problems.

[oberliner]

28. Stop mis-representing Ben-Ami's opinion

If you read the entire book and the countless other statements Ben-Ami has made instead of just the one sentence and the one exchange with Finkelstein then you would have a much better understanding of what his take on Camp David was.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. Mr. Ben-Ami made it absolutely clear that if he had been a Palestinian

he would not have accepted Camp David. That is a fact whether you like it or not.

and again and -- anyone is welcome to listen to his voice online right now on Windows Media/mp3 -- link:

http://www.archive.org/download/dn-finkelstein-benami/dn-finkelstein-benami_64kb.mp3

And indeed people should read his book, "Scars of War Wounds of Peace: The Arab Israeli Tragedy" by Schlomo Ben-Ami. From page 248 to page 254 he goes into details and puts forward a number of nuances which cast blame on both the Palestinian and Israeli negotiating team. However, in final analysis he acknowledges on page 270 that the offer could not have been acceptable to the Palestinians. And he has publicly acknowledged that he would not have accepted the Camp David 2000 offer if he had been a Palestinian. He does say that the Clinton Parameters and the Taba talks were a different story. And one should read the E.U. notes (link below) that all sides acknowledge to be an acurate representation of what transpired at Taba, Egypt in January 2001. But let us remember that Mr. Sharon was at that point leading 16% to 20% in Israeli polls for elections that were only days away. And Mr. Sharon was adament that he would not accept any treaty signed at Taba.(link: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html )

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Scars-War-Wounds-Peace-Israeli-Arab/dp/0195325427/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181931039&sr=1-1

And again one only needs to compare what was offered by Israel at Camp David and compare it with what was discussed at Taba to see just how disingenuous the Camp David 2000 offer really was.

.

to quote By Akiva Eldar at the time the EU notes from Taba were first published:

Ha'aretz
14 February 2002


"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."

.

[oberliner]

33. The Palestinians did not engage in a dynamic of real negotiations

That is what Ben-Ami says again and again.

The Camp David proposals were not ideal, but there was never a counter-offer made.

That was what was frustrating for Ben-Ami.

That is why he calls Camp David a lost opportunity and why some Palestinians, like Nabil Amar, agree.

http://www.mec.utah.edu/Lectures/2004%20lecture%20pages/Lecture%20pdf/Minister%20Shlomo%20Ben.pdf

[barb162]

25. Of course not.

Though our beloved Bill did like to discuss definitions of a certain common word pertaining to matters outside of his presidential duties, I believe he never lied about matters pertaining to his job as president or as a negotiator/ facilitator at the Camp David meetings. He wanted a deal desperately and blamed Arafat for not doing the deal, for not compromising.

And here is Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar on the subject: snip
In late 2000 the efforts focused on the Palestinian track. Following the failure of the Camp David summit and the outbreak of the intifada, Bandar tried to pressure Yasser Arafat to accept the Clinton Initiative. In retrospect the prince considers Arafat's failure to accept the offer as criminal.
snip
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/832361.html

[AviBaruch]

so the list now grows to include Bandar Bush

[barb162]

30. Prince Bandar Bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia

http://www.saudiembassy.net/Country/Government/BandarBio.asp

the ex-Ambassador to the United States

[AviBaruch]

26. so the list now grows to include Bandar Bush

[barb162]

23. Really? I remember several years before the pedophile priest

story became a cause celebre, the WSJ was running page A1 articles on the problem.

Why the story never really took off then, I don't know. They were way ahead of everyone else on that social justice story.

[azurnoir]

4. Israel was/is willing to

give Syria back the Golan Heights, in exchange for peace??? Now that is news

[question everything]

7. Not if you have been following recent news

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/09/wmid109.xml

[azurnoir]

21. An uncomfirmed rumour is not news

but is a propaganda tool, as is shown in the article.

[AviBaruch]

22. It's been discussed in many papers

over the last few weeks. And it has, in fact, been confirmed that at least back channel negotiations have begun.

[azurnoir]

24. If that is true

then no conclusions have been reached.

[AviBaruch]

29. No one said that there was a conclusion

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. there are approximately 20,000 Israeli settlers in the Golan Heights

With plans to double the number to 40,000. It would take a fair amount of political will to change that agenda and even more to move the settlers. It's not impossible, but it would be very difficult.



From Washington Post:

Golan Heights Land, Lifestyle Lure Settlers
Lebanon War Revives Dispute Over Territory

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 30, 2006; Page A01

link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/29/AR2006102900926.html

snip:"The pace has picked up in recent years. Now, for the first time, the number of Jewish settlers in Golan may soon exceed the nearly 20,000 Arab residents whose families remained here after the war. The milestone may have already been passed, Arab leaders concede, with 400 Jewish families moving into Golan each year.

Since the Lebanon war ended on Aug. 14, settler leaders have launched a $250,000 advertising campaign to attract young Israelis with the lure of free land and a lifestyle ethic that blends Marlboro Country, Napa Valley and the X Games. Their goal is to double the Jewish population in Golan to 40,000 within a decade through an appeal that emphasizes cowboy hats over skullcaps"

link to full article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/29/AR2006102900926.html

.

[azurnoir]

10. Thank you

forgot the :sarcasm: , the author of the article uses a hypothetical situation pulled from some bodily orifice to deride the leader(s) of Arab countries.

"If, for example, Syria made peace with Israel in exchange for getting back the Golan Heights, it would be the beginning of the end for that regime. Within weeks, its people would be demanding human rights and free-enterprise economic reforms. The regime could not use anti-Israel and anti-American demons as an excuse to continue the dictatorship, deprive its people of rights and material well-being, and mobilize support."

[AviBaruch]

13. It has been on the table as a bargaining chip

ever since it was seized in 1967. Golan is more strategically important than Gaza was, but far less than the West Bank is. It would be easier to give up if they knew Syria was comitted to ending it's support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

[Scurrilous]

5. Hamastan...

...catchy!

Is that anywhere near Likudnikland?

[Tom Joad]

8. The whole point for the fascist twit who wrote the typical WSJ article

is to do everything possible to dehumanize the Palestinians. They must not be seen as families, as shopkeepers, farmers, fisherman (unable to fish due to Israeli restrictions) as kids going to school, but must be seen as terrorists. Doing everything possible to make sure America only hates them, and keeps the arms flowing.

Fellow probably owns lots of stocks in the arms industry.

[AviBaruch]

14. Calling the author a fascist

doesn't make him one. If the roles reversed and the author said the same about Israel, would you call him a fascist? My guess is no. And in light of that, it appears that your real beef is the target, not the content.

[Tom Joad]

17. How do i know what he said... only subscribers to the rightest paper know what he said.

[AviBaruch]

18. Then how can you call him a fascist?

It seems you are judging him based on his affiliation with a newspaper rather than the content of anything you read. That's awfully narrow minded. And btw, the meat of his comments are in the initial post.

[Tom Joad]

19. The few paragraphs gave a clue. The hate is clear, the

support for militarism and occupation is clear. I expect if we were able to see more, it would just be more of the same.

[AviBaruch]

20. No, none of that is clear. There is nothing

either hateful nor supportive of the occupation in his text. Nor is there anything that would lead one to believe that further text would change this.

So, there must be some reading into being done by you to get to that point.

[barb162]

27. The Kadima party is in charge, not Likud , last I looked

Yes, but Hamastan is catchy, which I guess is why so many people are using it so quickly, including the Guardian Mideast editor.

[AngryAmish]

11. You won it Hamas, now go rule it

First, should the international community recognize a government built at the point of a gun? Sure, because every government was built that way at some point.

So Hamas is responsible for the people. They must provide peace, defense of the borders, system of laws, forms of redress, etc. Don't start wars - that is bad form. Make sure people can eat.

So now what would be a better role model for Gaza: Singapore or Switzerland? Will Gaza be like these places in 50 years?

[razzleberry]

31. Hamas' goal --> keep power

I wouldn't assume Hamas want to run Gaza,
any more that Fatah wanted to.