Let’s Fight Over a Big Plan

[Shaktimaan]

Iran’s strategy, explains Grinstein, is simple: Destroy Israel through a combination of asymmetric warfare — like Hezbollah’s war from South Lebanon and Hamas’s from Gaza; delegitimize Israel by accusing it of war crimes when it combats Hamas and Hezbollah, who fight while nested among civilians; “religiousize” the conflict by making it Muslims versus Jews, focusing on symbols like Jerusalem; and, finally, suck Israel into “imperial overstretch,” e.g., keep Israel occupying the 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank, which Iran & Co. believe will lead to “Israel’s implosion.”

Therefore, today, Fayyadism, which aims to replace the Israeli occupation of the West Bank with an independent Palestinian state, is the biggest threat to Iran’s strategy. So the smart thing right now would be for the other three parties to have a clear strategy to back Fayyadism. If only. ...

Ever since Israel occupied the West Bank and its Palestinian population in 1967, Israelis have faced a dilemma: Do they want a Jewish state, a democratic state and state in all of the land of Israel (Israel plus the West Bank)? In this world, they can have only two out of three. Israel can be Jewish and democratic, but not if it keeps the West Bank, because the Palestinians there plus all the Israeli Arabs will eventually outnumber the Jews. It can be Jewish and keep the West Bank, but then it can’t be democratic; Arabs will be the majority. It can be democratic and keep the West Bank, but then it can’t be Jewish.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/opinion/17friedman.html?ref=opinion


Great article illustrating the challenges faced by all parties involved.

[kayecy]

1. I must have missed something....What is the challenge faced by Fayyad or the Palestinians?....n/t

[Shaktimaan]

2. well...

The Palestinian political system is split between Fayyad and the Hamas "coalition" as described in the article. The two have political goals that are in opposition to each other. So there's that basic challenge.

More troubling is that this might mean that Fayyad would lack the political juice to fully back any reasonable peace arrangement, should one even be in the offering. Complicating this is Bibi's position of late, which makes the possibility of any deal that the larger Arab street (not to mention the Palestinians) could back unlikely.

So Bibi's policies are strengthening the "wrong" party in Palestine for advancing both Israel AND Palestine's long term interests. Ultimately this affects Fayyad and his supporters in a very direct way, assuming that their goals include the peaceful establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The more Bibi's policies strengthen Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran the more they threaten Fayyad and the Arab moderates.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Good point

The Israeli Right and Hamas have for a long time been reinforcing each other's goals, just as quarrelling members may in a dysfunctional family. And it is all at the expense of the long-term interests of Israelis and Palestinians.

Ironically, both Hamas and the Israeli Right may be currently regarding Obama as a 'PLO agent'.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. If you're interested in the Palestinian political spectrum, read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x304848

These are not Hamas supporters. I share the view of that article, and hardly support Hamas.

Your depiction is inaccurate and simplistic.