Negotiate with Hamas says US War College professor

[bemildred]

---

Here are some extracts from the report’s Summary:

Israel’s stance towards the democratically-elected Palestinian government headed by HAMAS in 2006, and towards Palestinian national coherence–legal, territorial, political, and economic–has been a major obstacle to substantive peacemaking. The reasons for recalcitrant Israeli and HAMAS stances illustrate both continuities and changes in the dynamics of conflict since the Oslo period (roughly 1994 to the al-Aqsa Intifadha of 2000). Now, more than ever, a long-term truce and negotiations are necessary. These could lead in stages to that mirage-like peace, and a new type of security regime.

The rise in popularity and strength of the HAMAS (Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya, or Movement of the Islamic Resistance) Organization and its interaction with Israel is important to an understanding of Israel’s “Arab” policies and its approach to counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. The crisis brought about by the electoral success of HAMAS in 2006 also challenged Western powers’ commitment to democratic change in the Middle East because Palestinians had supported the organization in the polls. Thus, the viability of a two-state solution rested on an Israeli acknowledgement of the Islamist movement, HAMAS, and on Fatah’s ceding power to it….

Contemporary Islamism took hold in Palestinian society, as it has throughout the Middle East and has, to a great degree, supplanted secular nationalism. This is problematic in terms of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians because the official Israeli position towards key Islamists–Iran, Hizbullah, and the Palestinian groups like HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, or Hizb al-Tahrir–characterizes them as Israel-haters and terrorists. They have become the existential threat to Israel (along with Iran) since the demise of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Israel steadfastly rejected diplomacy and truce offers by HAMAS for 8 months in 2008, despite an earlier truce that held for several years. By the spring of 2008, continued rejection of a truce was politically risky as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert teetered on the edge of indictment by his own party and finally had to announce his resignation in the summer. In fact, on his way out the door, Olmert announced a peace plan that ignores HAMAS and many demands of the Palestinian Authority as a whole ever since Oslo. If the plan was merely to create a sense of Olmert’s legacy, it is not altogether clear why it offered so little compromise….

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2009/01/05/negotiate-with-hamas-says-us-war-college-professor/

[Median Democrat]

1. How Can Hamas Negotiate Without Ignoring Its Electoral Mandate?

Hamas was elected on the platform that an armed campaign would achieve better results than negotiations. Given this democratic mandate, how can Hamas negotiate without ignoring its democratic mandate from the Palestinian electorate?

Also, doesn't agreeing to a truce with Israel undercut Hamas's power. Hamas was democratically elected on a platform that negotiation with Israel was not effective.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/18/AR2006021801571.html

/snip

RAMALLAH, West Bank, Feb. 18 -- The radical Islamic group Hamas took control of the Palestinian parliament Saturday during a somber swearing-in ceremony, and legislators from the new majority quickly made clear that they would not abide by signed agreements that recognize Israel's right to exist.

In a speech to the new 132-seat Palestinian Legislative Council, the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, staunchly defended past agreements with Israel, including the 1993 Oslo accords that created the Palestinian Authority and legislature that Hamas entered Saturday. Abbas, the Palestinian Authority's president, called for the immediate renewal of negotiations with the goal of establishing an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, declaring, "There is a Palestinian partner" for such talks.

"We, as presidency and government, will continue our commitment to the negotiation process as the sole political, pragmatic and strategic choice through which we reap the fruit of our struggle and sacrifices over the long decades," Abbas told lawmakers gathered here in the government compound known as the Muqata, as well as those who participated by teleconference from the Gaza Strip.

Past agreements with Israel were backed by Abbas's Fatah party, now a minority for the first time. Hamas, designated a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union, maintains that negotiations have failed to achieve Palestinian independence and has favored an armed campaign that has included more than 50 suicide attacks inside Israel during the most recent uprising.

/snip

[Recursion]

2. Negotiate from a position of strength

All parties in the region seem to believe in that.

[bemildred]

3. Why would they care?

Does Bush care about his "electoral mandate"? Does Olmert?

[PerfectSage]

8. Yes the Washington Post is a renowned bastion of mooney truthiness.

Well Noam Chomsky has designated the United States a state terrorist organization and I designated the neo cons as a bunch of war mongering imbeciles who couldn't win a war if I served it up to them on a silver platter.

Maybe the neo cons should try terrorism and conduct more than 50 suicide attacks on Hamas since their idiot loser ideology sucks and we'd all be better off if they were dead.

[Median Democrat]

9. Uh, Many Americans Voted For Bush and the Neocons...

"Maybe the neo cons should try terrorism and conduct more than 50 suicide attacks on Hamas since their idiot loser ideology sucks and we'd all be better off if they were dead."

Also, a lot of Americans believed the propaganda, and supported the Iraq war at its inception. Thus, why is it so hard to believe that Palestinians might be voting for their version of the Neocons, who believe that you can kill your way to peace? Many Americans bought into the message. Why should other populations be so different?

I am sure that Hamas is now using Israel's attacks as proof that the solution is more suicide bombings and rockets attacks just like Bush saying that they hate us for our freedom. Likewise, I am sure the pro-war faction of Israel is going to use Hamas's retaliation as evidence that Israel needs to further militarize.

In the end, I think the one truth is that it is imperative that the U.S. work towards energy independence so that it does not depend on interfering in middle east affairs.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. Regardless of your link, everyone knows that Hamas was elected on an anti-corruption mandate.

There was lots of soft support for Hamas, that came as a result of utter disgust for the corrupt puppets of Fatah.

[Median Democrat]

17. Bush Was Elected On The Premise That He Would Bring Integrity to The White House

My point is I don't see Palestinians as all to different from Americans. Also, are you seriously arguing tbat Hamas's positions on Israel were not a significant factor in Palestine? Seriously? Israel is only on their freakin border, and you are suggesting that Palestinians were one issue voters on the single subject of corruption?

If so, that would make them even more hard headed than the most fervent right to life voters who vote based on the abortion to the exclusion of everything else.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. I am absolutely arguing that Hamas won a plurality of legislative seats because they were NOT

corrupt like Fatah.

No one with any knowledge questions this.

[Median Democrat]

21. Wow! So, you ARE saying that Palestinians Lack Individual Preferences

You have stated that "everyone knows that Hamas was elected on an anti-corruption mandate."

So, what about the Palestinians who voted for Fatah? Are they "pro-corruption"?

You state:

"I am absolutely arguing that Hamas won a plurality of legislative seats because they were NOT corrupt like Fatah.

No one with any knowledge questions this."

Well, that assertion is very Cheney-like. There is no back-up. Also, if someone disagrees with your bald assertion, then they lack knowledge. I have to say that these absolutisms do not really help your argument, and suggest that you do not know what you are talking about.

Personally, I think the reasons why Palestinians may vote a particular are a little more complicated than you suggest, unless you are now going to argue in typical black-white fashion that the people who voted for Fatah like corruption and are pro-corruption. Perhaps you are going to denigrate a large segment of the Palestinian population by claiming that anyone who voted for Fatah was on the take?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. Any commentator, scholar, journalist, blogger with 2-bits of knowledge about this

situation knows this is true.

Believe whatever you want.

Geez, even LITHOS will state it unequivocally. You make it sound as though to report that reality is to be pro-Hamas. That's plain absurd.

[Median Democrat]

24. LOL - Nice Ad Hominen Attack - So Why Did Some Palestinians Vote For Fatah?

All you are offering is personal attacks and absolutist statements. It reminds me of a Republican responding to my criticims of Bush by questioning by patriotism and knowledge. I at least provided a link to an article, as well as an attempt analysis. So, let me help you out:

* * *

Mahmoud Khalid al-Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader, told al-Jazeera the group also advocates:

Cutting all ties with Israel, and instead strengthening relations with Arab countries through contacts in Egypt and Jordan;
Building an independent Palestinian economy;
Building an effective education system;
Reconstructing the Palestinian infrastructure; and
Establishing an efficient healthcare system.

* * *

Also, does Hamas's charter call for the destruction of Israel or not?

I am not arguing that corruption was a key component of Hamas's victory. However, it is not the only component according to Hamas's own leaders.

So, please respond with another ad hominen attack if you want to concede that your position lacks merit.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. Huh?

I never said no Palestinians voted for Fatah, I said Hamas' victory was attributed to Palestinians who voted for them, not for their militant stance vis-a-vis Israel, but rather as a protest against Fatah corruption.

No time or patience for this nonsense today. Believe whatever you wish.

[Median Democrat]

26. Strike Three! Try Again - So Why Did Some Palestinians Vote For Fatah?

You have repeatedly attributed Hamas's victory to a single issue: corruption. I don't dispute that the issue of corruption may have been a factor, but also note other elements of Hamas's platform, which you do not deny. Yet, you continue to suggest that Palestinians voted for Hamas in spite of their militant vis-a-vis Isreal. To quote:

"I said Hamas' victory was attributed to Palestinians who voted for them, not for their militant stance vis-a-vis Israel, but rather as a protest against Fatah corruption."

Where is your support for the bolded comments? Also, why did some Palestinians vote for Fatah? Are you suggesting that people who voted for Fatah were pro-corruption?

Your answers so far have been intellectually dishonest, because you fail to back-up or explain your contention that Palestinians voted for Hamas "not for their militant stance vis-a-vis Israel." Do you have a Gallup poll among Palestinians during the 2006 election in support of this statement?

I have now provided (1) a Washington Post article, and (2) quotes from a leader of Hamas stating its platform. You have provided squat, except bald assertions and insults, which is a pretty clear concession of the lack of merit of your arguments in my book.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. I'm OUT!!! You have exposed me! All Palestinians love terror!!!!

Sorry, dude, but you are truly showing your ignorance. I'm sure you can find a link to anything you want.

The reality remains that prior to the election, which Hamas did not expect to win, there was not minority support for Hamas. Hamas ran on a clean-up campaign, not a "destroy Israel" campaign.

There were enough cross-over voters to give them a plurality.

Look it up.

[Median Democrat]

31. There you go again, Painting All Palestinians With A Broad Brush

"Look it up."

Let me get this straight. You want me to find support for your arguments? Okay, looked it up. You're wrong. See link in my OP.

"I said Hamas' victory was attributed to Palestinians who voted for them, not for their militant stance vis-a-vis Israel, but rather as a protest against Fatah corruption."

Again, where is your support for the bolded comments? Also, why did some Palestinians vote for Fatah?

Also, I said, "So, please respond with another ad hominen attack if you want to concede that your position lacks merit."

And you said, "Sorry, dude, but you are truly showing your ignorance."

So, thanks for conceding that your arguments lack merit. :rofl:

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. Are you illiterate?

I am not painting anyone with a broad brush. Enough people were on the fence about Fatah to vote for Hamas...

I don't know what your rationale for this is. You sure are weird.

[Median Democrat]

39. Look at the title of your prior post..."All Palestinians love terror!!!!"

You said, "I am not painting anyone with a broad brush." I was referring to the title of your post, which was, "All Palestinians love terror!!!!"

Now, if saying "All Palestinians love terror!!!!" is not painting with a broad brush, I don't know what is.

Also, still don't know why you are unwilling to concede that people who voted for Fatah were not simply voting for corruption, and that perhaps they were voting against Hamas's policies on Israel. Likewise, is it so hard to admit that many of the people who voted for Hamas might actually agree with Hamas's policies regarding Israel?

I think these are reasonable propositions similar to the notion that a lot of the people who voted for Bush might actually agree with his foreign policy.

So, I having fun with the fact that you have argued yourself into a corner without any back-up for your contention in bold that:

"I said Hamas' victory was attributed to Palestinians who voted for them, not for their militant stance vis-a-vis Israel, but rather as a protest against Fatah corruption."

You still have yet to back-up the idea that Palestinians who voted for Hamas, but did not support their militant stance vis-a-vis Israel. I guess you would also agree with Republican arguments that Obama's election does not constitute a repudiation of Republican policies?

You keep on saying it is corruption, which is why I keep asking why did people vote for Fatah, because they were for corruption?

[TomClash]

19. This is ridiculous

Hamas was elected because Fatah was seen as corrupt, not because of "armed struggle." Hamas dropped its call for destruction of Israel during the campaign and upon attaining power Mashal proposed a conditional truce with Israel.

You can accuse Hamas of a lot of bad behavior and absurd policies, but not this.

[Median Democrat]

23. So, Why Did Some Palestinians Vote For Fatah?

Are you suggesting that they were pro-corruption? Or, perhaps that they pro-Fatah Palestinian voters were on the take?

Is it possible that the reasons why Palestinians vote a certain way are at least as complex as those of Americans?

Finally, do you have a link to an article in which Hamas has rescinded its call for the destruction of Israel? If not, what is there current platform, and what are the stated differences between them and Fatah, particularly with respect to Israel? I doubt that Fatah promotes itself as the pro-corruption party

[TomClash]

30. Here we go again

Yes, it is obvious that people voted for many reasons. However, it is pretty clear at the time that Fatah was seen by the voters as corrupt and Hamas was not. This was widely reported. Few Palestinians believed Israel was willing to negotiate in good faith with anyone.

Here's your link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/12/israel

[Median Democrat]

32. My Point Is Simple - Perhaps Many Palestinians Support Hamas's Policies Toward Israel...

...and this also played a large role in their support for Hamas during elections. Thus, perhaops there is a democratic mandate in support of this current conflict. As late as 2007, Hamas refused to recognize Israel's right to exist:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/world/middleeast/16mideast.html

/snip

The Hamas-led Palestinian government, boycotted by the West since its election more than a year ago because of Hamas’s support of terrorism, announced Thursday a unity coalition with the more moderate Fatah movement in hopes of ending the boycott.

But the political document guiding the new government does not fulfill the international community’s three demands — to recognize Israel, forswear violence and accept previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements — and Israel announced that it would therefore not deal with the new government or any of its ministers, Hamas or not. The United States is expected to follow suit but the European Union will face a fierce internal debate about whether to continue its isolation of the Palestinians.

/snip

What I find interesting is how people continue to argue that Hamas does not represent the views of Palestinian voters with respect to policy regarding Israel. Isn't it possible that the democratic process does work, and Hamas strident language against Israel is based on an electoral mandate by Palestinian voters? If so, then what is the proper approach?

Israel has its settlers who want occupy and kick out Palestinians out of their homes. Palestinians have Hamas who refuses to reconize Israel's right to exist. At the root of the issue, is what do the people want, and I think election results are pretty good barometer.

[TomClash]

36. I never made such an argument

I only said Hamas won primarily because of Fatah corruption. Hamas may very well represent the views of some voters - but if an election were held now (or at least before the Israeli invasion), public opinion polling suggests that Hamas would lose by double digits. Look it up on the PSR website.

I'm not really sure who you are arguing with.

[Median Democrat]

40. Thanks for the reasoned response...

My response to your post was really directed to arguments in this same thread by PM:

"I said Hamas' victory was attributed to Palestinians who voted for them, not for their militant stance vis-a-vis Israel, but rather as a protest against Fatah corruption."

It reminded me of Republican arguments that Obama's election is not a mandate to reverse Bush's policies, so I tend to demand proof that the election of person or party does not actually represent the support of the electorate for that leader's policies.

[Kurska]

4. How can you negoitate with a enemy that says they will eventually destroy you?

Any peaceable period is just going to be viewed as a chance to rearm, followed by another war. Thats exactly what happened in this case, What does Israel have to gain by restraining herself again only to allow hams to lick it's wounds and come crawling back into the ring?

[bemildred]

5. Pretty much the same way as with any other enemy.

Most enemies say they will destroy you, until you work out a deal, then they stop saying that.

[aranthus]

6. Hams is different.

Hamas is a religiously inspired organization. Their internal requirement that they destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamist state, is a religious doctrine. That is why the most that they will offer Israel is a long term truce, which Israel would be insane to accept. There may be things that can be negotiated with any enemy (including short term cease fires, time to withdraw wounded, prisoner exchange, and the like). However, Hamas has said rejected a truce that does not include open borders (which would allow Hamas to import more sophisticated and numerous weapons). No dice.

[bemildred]

7. Bullshit. Nobody is different.

Religion is not different, threatening to destroy your enemies is not different, nothing is different.

[henank]

10. That's where you're wrong

To give you credit, you're not the only one. It is a severe failure of Western-culture imagination that there can exist an ideology-religion which views the total extermination of The Other as an imperative, even at the risk of their own economic well-being, health and their lives themselves, as well as those of their children, families and communities.

I am not flame-baiting here, nor being racist. Just read the Hamas charter. Then read the Israeli declaration of Independence.

[delad]

12. I think it would be more

fair to say "read the Likud charter" than the Israeli declaration of Ind. And please do read the Likud charter. while it may not be as ostensibly venemous as the Hamas Charter, it explicitly refuses to acknowledge a Palestinian state west of the Jordan, is rancid with implicit racism and claims to retain the right to colonise the WB, therefore fundamentally refusing to accept the right of a Palestinian state to exist. And yet the international community has the gall to *demand* from Hamas (a group, not a state) that it acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a precondition to talks? pull the other one please.

[oberliner]

20. Likud is not in power in Israel

They are the main opposition party.

[bemildred]

16. You're a bigot.

I don't care what the "Hamas Charter" says. I don't care what any other political document says. They are people just like all the other people in the world. Anything else is bullshit and bigotry. There are no special people, good or bad.

[aranthus]

28. He's not a bigot. You're naive.

Neither he nor I am claiming that all Arabs believe this way, or even all Palestinians or Gazans. Hamas does. Would you say that the Nazis were just people like all the other people in the world? They are the historical antecedent for what Hamas has been doing. The Nazis actually, knowingly hurt their own war effort against the Allies to be able to kill more Jews. Hamas has been damaging the Palestinian cause to do the same thing.

I'm not even saying that Israel shouldn't negotiate with Hamas. But Hamas' raison d'etre is the destruction of Israel. And not as a political doctrine as it was for the PLO. What is Israel going to give them short of national suicide that is going to make Hamas stop wanting to fulfill it's own mission? what could you offer the Catholic Church to stop being Catholic? Maybe there's something, but I honestly don't see it.

[bemildred]

33. You're a bigot too.

And yes, Nazis were people just like everyone else too. What else would they be? Some other species? Why do people believe this crap? Do you think Hamas invented religion? Or terror? All of this is just as old as "civilization". Read your own Torah, or Bible, or get a clue.

Just by the numbers, the IDF is doing way the heck more killing than Hamas does, so are they like the Nazis too?

I've had long "discussions" here with people who think the Nazis were unique. Now you come along and want to say that Hamas is even more unique than the Nazis were.

Google up Godwin's Law.

[aranthus]

35. You don't get it.

Of course the Nazis were people! They were people consumed by an evil ideology that led them to hurt their own cause so they could pursue what they considered to be the higher goal of killing Jews. And yes, there were negotiations with the Nazis. But ultimately they had to be destroyed (but not the Germans). What I'm asking is specifically, what is Israel supposed to offer Hamas to get them to stop? It's a simple question. Do you have an answer?

[bemildred]

37. You are fucking well right I don't get it.

Why the hell are you asking ME that question? Ask Hamas. That's what the thread is about. Livni doesn't want to talk to them because it will give them "legitimacy". I used to have some respect for her. She blew that away. She doesn't give Hamas legitimacy, that is not in her power. How many people have to die to shore up her ego? She ought to be willing to talk until the cows come home if it will keep people from getting killed.

[aranthus]

41. Like I said.

<Why the hell are you asking ME that question?>

To expose your ignorance, foolishness and lack of critical thought. It's real easy to call for negotiations when you don't have to conduct them. I've been a litigator for over twenty years. I argue and negotiate for a living. The fact is that there are fools, ideologues and morons who are incapable of compromising. I've opposed some, and had the misfortune to represent some. I also know that you don't go into a negotiation or stay in one without having some idea that the other side is serious, and without a plan to get them to agree to something.

Ask Hamas? They've already stated what they will agree to. They want everything that they would need to win a war to get, just to agree to a long term truce. They want open borders in exchange for a truce so that they can import better weapons. And you call me a bigot for taking Hamas at its word?

[bemildred]

42. I called you a bigot for being a bigot.

You said that Hamas is the successors to the Nazis. That is ignorant, bigoted twaddle.

International politics is not tort law, you can negotiate because it beats the heck out of war. You can negotiate to stall. You can negotiate because it looks good on TV. Hamas is just a bunch of people, and their word can change any time if is in their interest to do that. Any competent lawyer ought to understand that perfectly well. This war is a negotiation, right now.

[aranthus]

43. That isn't true.

<You said that Hamas is the successors to the Nazis.> No I didn't. I said, "They are the historical antecedent for what Hamas has been doing." In particular, I pointed out that like the Nazis, Hamas has been willing to damage its position and Palestinians in order to pursue what it sees as a higher goal. I was using the Nazis as an example of how fanatics can pursue their goals beyond reason. Hamas is a fanatic organization, but I certainly don't think that they are the literal successors to the Nazis, and I nevber said that they were.

Negotiation is negotiation. Of course, you can negotiate during a war, and war while you negotiate. What matters is the parameters of the negotiation. If Hamas wants to talk within reasonable parameters (as the PLO eventual was), then more substantive talks can proceed. For now, if Hamas wanted a truce on reasonable terms, then it just might happen.

[bemildred]

44. Have a nice day Sir.

I'm glad you are not my lawyer.

[StudsT]

45. Hamas and Israel have the same policy for each other currently - but the only constant is change

I think we need to beyond the infinite loop of who wants to destroy the other more as it is irrelevant.

they both need to be forced (if necessary) to the negotiating table.

StudsT

[delad]

11. that's just pathetic

isn't that what the nazis said about the Jews and rascists say in general, that they are 'different'? They are Israel's mortal enemies, as was Fatah some years ago but now Israel "talks" to Fatah (who have recognised Israel and received sweet fuck all in return). You talk to your enemies. Your attempt (not just you but most of the Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd) to conflate Hamas with Nazi ideology is tired, old and threadbare. Hamas wrote their charter under *occupation*, its hardly going to consist of bunnies and 'hello kitty'

[aranthus]

29. Apparently you don't understand the power of religious conviction.

I'm not even saying that Israel shouldn't negotiate with Hamas. But Hamas itself has set down as unbreachable principles that it will not recognize Israel or sign a peace agreement with Israel. That's not merely political rhetoric. Hamas sees that as a religious duty. That's why Hamas is different. What can Israel give Hamas that would get them to give up a religious duty?

[StudsT]

48. the same can be said about the leadership in Israel... it is time to move past this

as it doesn't work as we can see on our teeVees daily.

time to give up ALL excuses for NOT talking.

StudsT

[StudsT]

47. everyone is different - that doesn't mean we can't talk and negotiate

if i remember correctly they were asking for the embargo to be lifted... sounds like a great opening to me.

does that mean borders can not be policed, of course not, but it shows that there is room for talks.

not willing to compromise is by definition an extremist position that has not worked for decades... time for a change.

StudsT

[Recursion]

49. Who else do you need to negotiate with?

Seriously, what do you think negotiations are for?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. Another blurb: "US Army speaks up for Hamas"

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/node/10703

The Army War College chose this week to release a report that has some surprisingly kind words for Israel's foes in the Gaza Strip: "HAMAS' political and strategic development has been both ignored and misreported in Israeli and Western sources which villainize the group, much as the PLO was once characterized as an anti-Semitic terrorist group," writes Sherifa Zuhur, a research professor at the War College's Strategic Studies Institute. "Negotiating solely with the weaker Palestinian party-Fatah-cannot deliver the security Israel requires. . . . The underlying strategies of Israel and HAMAS appear mutually exclusive . . . . Yet each side is still capable of revising its desired endstate and of necessary concessions to establish and preserve a long-term truce, or even a longer-term peace."

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. Anyone who is interested in the history of Hamas, must know about the US' role in its development.

http://www.alternet.org/audits/116855/?page=3

[ShadesOfGrey]

38. Thanks for the link...

Very interesting read. Amazing how this info is hidden from the general public.

[ohio2007]

46. It should read "Negotiate with Israel says US War College professor"

Contemporary Islamism took hold in Palestinian society, as it has throughout the Middle East and has, to a great degree, supplanted secular nationalism. This is problematic in terms of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians because the official Israeli position towards ..


Wish a Hamas neighborhood was one mile from that dumb asses house. Maybe he would read the charter everybody outside the middle east refuses to believe about Hamas

jmo