Clash Between Palestinian Rivals Clouds Peace Talks With Israel

[oberliner]

May 26 (Bloomberg) -- Abu Fadi, a policeman loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, stood up among the roses and lemon trees in a Gaza garden and pulled down his trousers.

Scars on each knee and ankle and one at his right hip attested to a vicious punishment. He said the wounds were caused by gunmen from Hamas, the Islamic party that rules the sandy coastal enclave and fiercely opposes the Abbas government, which governs the West Bank. The masked men came to his house, told him he was a spy for Israel, shot him nine times from two feet away and left him in a pool of blood on his driveway.

“I will have to take revenge,” said Abu Fadi, who asked that his last name not be used. “I can never forgive and forget.” He now walks with crutches because his right leg is paralyzed.

Abu Fadi’s saga reflects the bitter power struggle between Hamas and Abbas’s Fatah party. The violent conflict is crippling efforts to reconcile the two groups, clouding prospects for possible peace talks with Israel.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a81RDhnfAilY&refer=home

[aquart]

1. Yup, that two-state solution will solve all their problems.

Kinda cute the way they never make the connection between endless vengeance and their economic woes.

[Vegasaurus]

2. There will be no peace with Israel if they can't get their own internal house in order

It;s a sham to blame all of the Palestinian internal problems on Israel.

Let's see them find unity, a collective voice, and then they can come to the bargaining table.

Until then, all talks of "peace" are nonsense, because the two sides can't even find peace with each other, which has to come first.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Many of them, yes.

The biggest strength of Hamas over Fatah is the fact that peaceful means will clearly not achieve a viable Palestinian state.

If that changed, Palestinian advocates of peace would be greatly strengthened, and advocates of violence weakened.

[oberliner]

4. You could not be more wrong

In fact, it is clear that the exact opposite of your claim is true.

It is clear that violent means will not achieve a viable Palestinian state.

If there were elections today, I believe that Fatah would win more seats than Hamas, in spite of Fatah's corruption.

This is precisely because the Palestinian advocates of violence have been weakened as a result of their violent actions which have been uniformly harmful to the well-being of the Palestinian people.

Peaceful means are the only way for Palestinians to achieve a viable state, and fortunately, your read on the situation is entirely incorrect.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. That's true too.

I fully agree with you that violent means will not achieve a Palestinian state.

That doesn't mean that peaceful ones have any chance of doing so, sadly, especially with the current Israeli government in power and the current mood among the Israeli electorate.

[oberliner]

8. Well, where does that leave things?

If you believe that neither violent nor peaceful means will lead to a Palestinian state what do you envision for the future of the region?

Presuming you feel the status quo is unacceptable, what do you feel would be the best way to bring about change?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Two rather different questions:

"If you believe that neither violent nor peaceful means will lead to a Palestinian state what do you envision for the future of the region?"

I think Israel will continue to expand and to oppress the Palestinians, killing, injuring and dispossessing large numbers of innocent civilians and impoverishing the rest, that rockets will continue to fall on Israel, killing a small but non-zero number of innocent civilians but not having that great an effect on life for most Israelis, and that the international community will continue to stand by and wring its hands.



"Presuming you feel the status quo is unacceptable, what do you feel would be the best way to bring about change?"

For whom to bring about change? If I were allowed to control the actions of all of the participants at once, I could make the Israelis and the Palestinians love one another and share a state and scones and stop being so silly, and the issue would be over. Assuming that I were allowed to "dictate the moves" of any one participant, and that all the others would react to those moves as they are likely to do:

:-Israel can have a just peace any time it wants, for the asking, if it's willing to end the occupation. If I were playing "Israel", I would withdraw to the Green Line, offer compensation and "return" to the no-longer-occupied territories to Palestinian refugees but not a right of return to Israel, and support and encourage democratic elections among the Palestinians; I would make it clear that if the Palestinian state did not take serious measures to prevent violence against Israel, I wold reinvade it. However, in practice, the moment any Israeli government proposed these moves, it would be voted out of office rapidly, so if I were just playing "The government of Israel", I would do something similar but more circumspectly - probably with secret negotiations beforehand.

:-The US may be able to force peace. If I were playing "The US", I would throw my weight behind and economic and cultural boycott of Israel until it took the steps detailed above, as was done with South Africa. If I were playing "The president of the US", I would attempt something similar, and hope I had enough political capital to force it through, although without much optimism.

:-There is no way the Palestinians can achieve peace. The best they can hope for is that if they stop resorting to violence, Israel will take some of the edge off the occupation and leave them some of their own land. I don't see any course of action that they can take that is likely to result in a viable state, however.


Incidentally, "unacceptable" is a word I hate. If I were pushed off a cliff, I might consider plunging to my death "unacceptable", but that doesn't mean I'd be able to prevent it. I think the situation in the ME is horrific, but I can't see any alternative I have to accepting it.

[oberliner]

10. I appreciate the thoughtful response to the questions

Your vision for the future of the region is quite glum, though I cannot say your pessimistic attitude is not unwarranted. I am still frustrated with the way the Israeli election procedure led to Netanyahu being able to form the government even though Livni got more seats. I presume you are not a Livni fan either; however, I think with her as PM there would be greater cause for optimism than with Netanyahu who could not even bring himself to utter the phrase "Palestinian state" after his meeting with Obama. One of the more positive features of Israel's strange electoral system is that unpopular governing coalitions do not always last very long. Perhaps when the Israelis see that this one is most likely leading them to a place they do not want to be, the electorate will take action.

I guess with my second question I meant what can you or anyone else as a progressive do to change the situation? What sort of actions do you support to bring about a better future? Presumably, based upon your comments in your "playing US" paragraph, you support boycotting Israeli economically and culturally? Is that accurate?

Regarding your other hypothetical scenarios, I must thoroughly reject the premise with which you begin your "playing Israel" paragraph. I really do not believe it is at all clear that Israel would automatically have peace were the occupation to end. Especially since there are (and always have been) forces within the Palestinian community who believe that all of Israel is Occupied Palestine, not just what is beyond the Green Line. You indicate, in fact, that you would invade your newly created Palestinian state were they to engage in violence against Israel. I think that this would be a more than likely scenario and therefore would plunge the region back into conflict.

And I would dispute your all or nothing thinking in your Palestinian (as in your Israeli) hypothetical scenario. The idea that Israel could have peace instantly whereas Palestinians could not have peace under any circumstance does not truly reflect the realities in the region, in my opinion. The Palestinians could take steps that would lead to an immediate peace with Israel and the creation of an independent state. For example, they could drop the right of return demand or they could be willing to exchange land with Israel to allow for Israeli control over the settlements around Jerusalem. You may not think those actions are fair, but they could be done and they could certainly lead to a Palestinian state being created.

I think it is long past time that all parties involved took a serious look at the Geneva Initiative. Compromises must be made or we will see the pessimistic future that you outlined in your reponse to my initial question. I am hopeful that Obama can help guide the powers that be to make the difficult compromises that will be necessay.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. It depends what you mean by "peace".

If you regard "the status quo, but with no missiles falling" as peace, then yes, the Palestinians can have peace if they want it.

If, like me, you regard the rule of the Palestinians and their homeland by Israel as an act of war then no, I don't think there is any way the Palestinians can have peace - Israel simply will not withdraw to its own borders or allow a viable Palestinian state, no matter what the Palestinians do, I think - there is virtually no popular support even for stopping expanding the settlements, let alone for shrinking or removing them; the removal of Gush Katif is regarded as a national catastrophe.




I am not 100% confident that Israel ending the offer would bring about functional peace; I'm pretty close to 100% confident that it wouldn't bring about total peace immediately - there would be a few isolated individuals who would still continue violence - but giving the Palestinians a viable alternative to violence (N.B. I don't view violence as a viable alternative to non-violence, but "we are fighting, even though we have no chance of winning" is a stance that plays far better to oppressed people than "we are not doing anything") would strengthen those advocating non-violence and weaken those advocating violence so greatly that I think we can be pretty confident that Palestinian violence against Israel would drop from the current state of near-war to the level of sporadic, isolated incidents - not a perfect solution, but far, far better than anything else available.



I think that for a boycott of Israel to achieve anything it would have to be on a larger scale than is currently feasible, but I think it's the least implausible of all the implausible tracks leading to peace that I can see.




I actually think the chances for peace with Netanyahu and Lieberman in government are better than they were under Livni. Neither group was going to make peace voluntarily; an externally-forced peace seems more likely against Likud than Kadima. Livni was good enough at talking the talk to shift blame for lack of peace onto the Palestinians; Netanyahu is so obviously not interested in peace that the US may put pressure on Israel.

In the long run, I think the loyalty oath and banning commemorating the Nakba may conceivably actually help the Palestinians.

I'm far more depressed by what the election said about Israeli public opinion than I am by who got to form the government. From that, and from what I see in articles and still more in talkbacks at Ynetnews, Jerusalem Post and even Haaretz, and from the pro-Israeli posters here on DU, it seems that the peace movement in Israel - always small - is now almost completely dead, and utterly despised by the rest of the country. There seems to be near unanimous agreement in Israel that territorial concessions are a bad thing and won't help achieve peace.

You say that when the Israeli electorate see that this coalition is leading them to somewhere they don't want to be they may change their mind. I think this coalition is leading exactly where most of the Israeli electorate want to be, sadly - I see as much concern that it's not hardline enough as I do concern that it's too hardline.



The only glimmer of hope is that Obama seems to be willing to put pressure on Israel. I don't think he has the political capital to manage it, though, sadly.

I think that at this stage, any peace plan based on Israel willingly making compromises is completely dead - I don't agree with you that "the parties looking again at the Geneva initiative", or any other consensual approach, has any chance of success, I'm afraid. The only possible routes forward are through external pressure dragging Israel to peace kicking and screaming, and I think it enjoys too much support in the world's only superpower for that to happen.

[LeftishBrit]

5. I disagree - or rather it is one side of a destructive impasse

'The biggest strength of Hamas over Fatah is the fact that peaceful means will clearly not achieve a viable Palestinian state.

If that changed, Palestinian advocates of peace would be greatly strengthened, and advocates of violence weakened'

Many Israelis might say similarly:

'The biggest strength of the Likud is the fact that peaceful means will clearly not achieve Israeli safety.

If that changed, Israeli advocates of peace would be greatly strengthened, and advocates of violence weakened.'

And both sides would be right in a sense (violence on each side does make it harder for the other to support peace) and wrong in the crucial sense that when they act on these conclusions, they are just perpetuating the vicious circle.

Certainly, the Israeli Right have helped by their actions to build up Hamas, as Hamas have helped by their actions to build up Likud - nonetheless, Hamas are quite unpopular and I suspect will not get in again, with fair elections.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. I disagree - Israel could achieve security through peace.

I do not think the situation is symmetrical in the way you suggest.

If the Israelis offer to end the occupation if the Palestinians offer peace, it will strengthen Fatah, because they will be able to say "look, we can achieve our goals through peace".

If the Palestinians stop the violence, it will be taken by most Israelis as evidence that Likud's hardline policies work; if they offer to do so if Israel ends the occupation (which they have repeatedly made and had rejected in the past, and many are currently willing to make) then it will be rejected.

[Shaktimaan]

25. Well, I don't know.

Let's look at what was inferred by Israel's leaving Gaza. In that case it was hoped that making such a concession would result in more support for Fatah, for the reasons you suggest. But in the end Hamas was able to claim that they essentially drove Israel out and they were swept to victory riding a wave of popularity based largely on Israel's actions.

My point here is that it is all but impossible to predict what kind of reaction any given policy in the middle east will have. People who post here who seem to have it all figured out are the ones I tend to respect the least. Only because anyone with any real knowledge of the history of this conflict would know that all the predictions and hopes of this region's leaders have rarely ended up quite how anyone thought they would.

[Shaktimaan]

26. Question...

The biggest strength of Hamas over Fatah is the fact that peaceful means will clearly not achieve a viable Palestinian state.

Have the Palestinians ever truly attempted using peaceful means to achieve their goals? If so, then when?

[Violet_Crumble]

11. What peace talks? Israel is opposed to a two-state solution n/t

[Shaktimaan]

13. Israel is opposed to a two state solution? since when exactly? np

[azurnoir]

14. Your right in fact 53 MK's suggest a 2 state solution right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x276646

[Shaktimaan]

15. Yes, I'm aware of that.

From Israel's POV, it is probably the most favorable solution. I'm not surprised that they support it at this point. But since it's been roundly rejected by the Palestinians and Jordanians both it is clearly a non-starter and everyone knows that. This proposal was surely more about making a statement for internal political reasons.

As far as I'm aware it doesn't alter Israel's official position, which is support for a two state solution.

To be totally honest, I think the Jordanian option would probably be the best thing for everyone involved; assuming someone could convince Jordan to become democratic that is. Both Israel, Palestine and Jordan have the same problem with ending the occupation, after all. How do you keep Hamas from taking over the West Bank unless Israel is there to physically prevent them from doing so?

[azurnoir]

17. The best solution for everyone or for those who desire a

"Greater Israel"?

[Shaktimaan]

18. Well, for everyone BUT them.

You see, if the west bank and Jordan are folded together into a single state then it would completely foil the goal of greater Israel proponents. You know... because the land they want would immediately become part of Jordan and they wouldn't be able to ever settle it.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. No, the proposal is that the West Bank becomes part of Israel...

That's why the proposal is called "two states for two peoples on the two banks of the River Jordan" And the Palestinians get either Israeli or Jordanian citizenship, and there's no doubts at all that Israel would give many at all Israeli citizenship. Which is why there's support for the proposal for the supporters of a Greater Israel. They get what they want. The West Bank becomes part of Israel and given Israel's treatment of Palestinians, those with Jordanian citizenship would sooner or later be expelled to Jordan, and then 'supporters' of Israel would turn up on message boards all over the net acting all outraged that anyone would dare to criticise Israel when Israel has every right to not allow citizens of other countries to live there...

[Shaktimaan]

23. Yup, you are totally right.

My bad. I didn't read the entirety of this new plan for a mixed Jordan/Palestine. I assumed it was the same one I was familiar with from several years ago. You're right. I'm wrong. In this case at least.

[azurnoir]

22. I don't think that giving the WB to Jordan

is what the MK's had in mind

[Shaktimaan]

24. Yup.

You're right. My bad.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. since nutty won the election n/t

[Shaktimaan]

19. Did he change Israel's official position on the two state solution?

[Violet_Crumble]

20. The Israeli govt is opposed to a two-state solution. Why on earth would you deny that?

That's a really unsustainable stance to try to take, Shakti. Netanyahu's govt is firmly opposed to a Palestinian state, or are you by chance confusing him with Obama, who strongly supports a two-state solution?