Civil War

Here's a post by New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz mocking the Palestinians for the current Fatah-Hamas fighting through which they're suffering. He followed that up with a second post on the topic, and followed that one up with a third. In case you hadn't gotten the point, though, he made it four in a row on the topic.

Gone missing from this analysis is any recognition of the extent to which the current terrible situation is the result of stupid American policy choices. The dynamic on the US-Israeli side has become one of self-fulfilling prophesies, where the failure of ham-handed policy initiatives to produce the desired Palestinian quisling regime becomes the reason for more ham-handed initiatives whose failure then becomes yet another reason there can be no serious push for peace.

Comments

Matt, will you ever get around to highlighting the wonderful work the folks over at Stormfront have been doing? Maybe yuo could give us some of the insights of well-known liberal Avigdor Lieberman?

Giving attention to a raving racist like Peretz only encourages teh stupid.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | May 18, 2007 12:12 PM

Not to suck up, but the Atlantic profile of Rice has a lot of interesting things to say about this, showing pretty clearly how the US has taken all sorts of measures to split the "unity" government.

Posted by berger | May 18, 2007 12:21 PM

Ibrahim, pointing out bigotry is the only way to stigmatize it.

Matt, you do get that the entire idea was to not create peace, right? This has been going on for too long for it to be simple stupidity. This is pure malice. The Israeli elite are willing to sacrifice a number of that nations citizen so they can steal land. Just as the American Elite are willing to let some of our citizens die in terrorist attacks so that they can continue to play god in other countries.

Posted by soullite | May 18, 2007 12:39 PM

Re mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari

Although Ms. al-jafaari takes a shot at Avigdor Lieberman, placing him in juxtaposition with the neo-nazi Stormfront crowd, I would like to point out that Mr. Lieberman is one of the few Israeli politicians to address the economic aspects of the Israel/Palestinian issue. As may be seen from the attached link, Mr. Lieberman sensibly says that any solution that does not provide Israel with security and the Palestinians with prosperity is doomed to failure. It would be nice to hear comments like that from the Israel bashers on this blog and, for that matter, from any Israel supporters who may be lurking.

http://blogcentral.jpost.com/view.php?cat_id=6&blog_id=52&blog_post_id=1004

Re Yglesias

Mr. Yglesias, as usual, blames Israel and the United States for the current incipient civil war brewing in the Gaza Strip. This is complete balderdash. What we see there is a struggle for power between two factions that don't like each other (much like the the Sunni/Shiite strife in Baghdad). Like Saddam in Iraq, the late and unlamented Yasir Arafat was able to more or les keep the peace. With him gone, there is nobody strong enough to do the same. See attached like for an analysis.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178708634132&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | May 18, 2007 12:46 PM

Matt,

I posted on this earlier, but my comment has apparently not gotten through yet. You should definitely check out Tony Karon's blog on "The Palestinian Pinochet." The gist of it is that the Palestinian civil war is not simply an unintended consequence of Bush Administration policy; rather, civil war is a consciously-designed outcome.

Posted by Peter H | May 18, 2007 1:13 PM

This is the Tony Karon article I mentioned:

http://tonykaron.com/2007/05/15/palestinian-pinochet-making-his-move/

Also, this article provides some excellent background:
http://conflictsforum.org/2007/elliot-abrams-uncivil-war/

Posted by Peter H | May 18, 2007 1:19 PM

"The Israeli elite are willing to sacrifice a number of that nations citizen so they can steal land."

There's a little teeny-weeny flaw in that statement: Israel gave the land in question (Gaza) back to the Palestinians. You can't steal land by giving it away.

The truth is that Fatah has never been anything close to a competent governing organization. Palestinian Authority government served mainly to create jobs for ministers, deputy ministers, clerks, security men, etc., and to distribute money from international donors.

Hamas has more hands-on experience with social services, but its insistence on continuing to launch rockets into Israel from Gaza and refusing to acknowledge that Israel exists (the most extreme and foolish non-negotiating position in any conflict on earth) has dried up foreign aid.

So both Palestinian factions bear the lion's share of the responsibility for their civil conflict.

Posted by Harry | May 18, 2007 1:19 PM

Desired quisling regime? Really over the top. Almost despicably so, as it implies that the Hamas government is something honorable. Nothing wrong with wanting a government that isn't Hamas.

The US could have done more over the last six years, but in the intra-Palestinian conflict responsiblity rests with the Palestinian factions much more than Israel or America.

I'm not a fan of Mr. Peretz on this issue, since he's fairly obviously racist, but you have some red flags of your own in this post...

Posted by Count | May 18, 2007 1:20 PM

I thought "desired quisling regime" was the best line in the post. Try to imagine, based on these and his myriad other posts, what sort of Palestinian regime would be acceptable for Marty Peretz to say, "OK. It's time to negotiate."

His problem isn't with Hamas. His problem is with the existence of a Palestinian state that does anything other than take orders from Tel Aviv.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 18, 2007 1:32 PM

I agree with Count. Are the Palestinians NEVER to blame? It's a sickness of the Left that it consistently gives a pass to the Palestinians on their moral responsibility for their own actions.

It's no mystery as to what's happening. Arafat died and left a leadership vacuum in his wake. The two sides are vying for power ever since. And they are killing each other as part of that process.

Or, you can just blame the Neocons. Whatever floats your boat.

Posted by David | May 18, 2007 1:56 PM

Why do you people think Hamas was elected in the first place? Yes, Fatah corruption played a role, but the major reason was the anger created by Israeli occupation and belief that the so-called peace process has only made things worse for most Palestinians.

The fact that the EU & the United States have responded to Hamas' election victory by putting even more pressure on Hamas while Israel continues its inhumane policies has only served to empower those who believe democracy is an offense to Islam and violence is the only way for Muslims to assert their will. We're already starting to see groups operating in the Palestinian territories that makes Hamas look like a bunch of choir boys.

If current trends continue, in a few years we'll be longing for the days of Hamas & Islamic Jihad.

Posted by Peter H | May 18, 2007 1:59 PM

Yglesias didn't write that Peretz desires a quisling regime, he wrote the United States desires a "quisling regime". Hamas is a terrorist organization. There's a legitimate argument to be made that negotiations should proceed anyway, but it really is a terrorist organization right now. Saying that the alternative is a "quisling regime" implies that Hamas is honorable or at least legitimate and that its tactics are honorable or at least legitimate. I doubt Yglesias believes either.

Again, i'm not a fan of Peretz. I don't think he's capable of being reasonable on the Middle East, and I say that as a generally pro-Israel Israeli-American Jew. But Yglesias should not have used that term. It makes a huge error in substance for the sake of a quick joke.

Posted by Count | May 18, 2007 2:06 PM

It's a sickness of the Left that it [a false claim]

Perhaps it's a sickness of whatever group you're a member of to deny the possibility of overlapping moral responsibility. You'd be wrong to do so. It's a long post, so to be helpful I'm referring to the part which begins, "Is responsibility zero-sum?"

Posted by washerdreyer | May 18, 2007 2:07 PM

Hamas is a terrorist organization.

I can never see my way clear to taking anyone who makes this a central part of their argument seriously. It is too concerned with establishing the moral superiority of one side over the other, and litle interest in actually making peace. (I mean, do we really have to rehearse all the nasty labels applied to the Israelis that have some grounding in truth?)

As MY and others argue elsewhere, it is essentially useless to make peace agreements between moderates. The only way it will stick is with something like an elected Hamas and someone like Sharon. People on both sides who are too interested in talking about how awful the reps of the other side are have nothing to offer any peace process. If you think that everyone being nice morally upstanding people is a prerequisite for successful geopolitical negotiations, then you need to get your head out of your ass.

And 'quisling' is precisely the word to apply to what Peretz wants.

Posted by nolaboyd | May 18, 2007 2:23 PM

Re Peretz' comment: "There were no Palestinians until there were Israelis."

So, I guess there were no Native Americans until there were European settlers here? And, I guess there were no South Africans until the arrival of the Dutch? Its an interesting world that he inhabits.

Posted by Jim W | May 18, 2007 2:24 PM

Are the Palestinians NEVER to blame? It's a sickness of the Left that it consistently gives a pass to the Palestinians on their moral responsibility for their own actions.

I'd love to see an example of Matt or anyone else around here giving "a pass to the Palestinians on their moral responsibility for their own actions. Or even implying that this is the case. Just one example.

It's amazing how the concept that blame might be shared by multiple parties is too inherently complex for some educated adults to understand.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 18, 2007 2:50 PM

NolaBoyd,

I agree with you that Hamas is the party with whom Israel must make peace if we desire to see a peace that sticks. But the problem is that Hamas does not want peace. So until Hamas comes around to reality, I see little hope in pretending that it is 1998 again, and if we just push Israel to make one more concession, peace is achievable.

Like I said in my last comment, it is Arafat's death that is the salient feature of Palestinian society today. The power struggle will have to play itself out before any discussion of peace becomes relevant again. The tragedy is that on the Israeli side, the government and population is desperate to make a deal. What kind of government Israel has by the time the Palestinians get their act together is anybody's guess.

Posted by David | May 18, 2007 3:02 PM

David, you're so busy making your own point (don't push Israel) that you're ignoring what Matt and others have said--one of the reasons there's violence (as opposed to just a power struggle, which can be conducted peacefully) in the Gaza Strip is because the US has been trying to topple Hamas and install a quisling regime.

Nobody expects Israel to make peace while the Palestinians are shooting each other and nobody thinks the Palestinians are helpless puppets with no responsibility for their own actions, but that last point also applies to us.

Posted by Donald Johnson | May 18, 2007 3:16 PM

How about pointing out that Israel originally funded Hamas precisely to divide and weaken the Palestinians.

Posted by James B. Shearer | May 18, 2007 3:17 PM

Donald Johnson,

My point is not "don't push Israel." Rather, it's that responsibility for the Palestinian violence belongs to the Palestinians. It strains creduility to search for other causes. True, the Israeli occupation is harmful as a general matter. But there is no reason to believe it's the cause of a Palestinian civil war. True, the Americans cutting off funding to the Hamas led government makes life more difficult for Hamas. But, again, that's not why there's violence.

It's an old fashioned power struggle. That is the simplest and most correct explanation. We're conditioned to believe that if only the Americans did this or that, it would all be better. That we have the power to effect outcomes. I think the last six years have shown that that power is extremely limited.

And as for the policy vis-a-vis Hamas, I'd like to strike a distinction no one seems to be making. Personally, I think the Israeli and Americans should be talking to Hamas, terrorist organization notwithstanding. But funding them? Funding for the Palestinian Authority began with Oslo, and was predicated upon its renouncement of violence and committment to a two state solution and end of conflict negotiations. We were tying our charity to policy goals, as we do all the time. Absent the P.A.'s committment to those goals, why on Earth would be fund it? If you want to answer with pointing to a humanitarian crisis, then fine, but we already provide money for that via other channels.

Posted by David | May 18, 2007 3:30 PM

So I'll speak for this pro-Israel American Jew-me-
Zionism is a terrorist ideology if you happen to be a Palestinian native in the crosshairs of those who would dispossess and dominate you. If that's Israel's choice of ideology (as it has been) its citizens will prove to be their own worst enemy. Time is now to put an end to partition and co-opt extremists in all camps. United you stand, divided you fall. Remember that the wisdom of Solomon was finding the real mother by threatening to cut the disputed child in half. That was OK by the imposter but unacceptable to the actual mother. Same goes for peace. From those who would cut the country in two won't come peace.

Posted by The Other Alan | May 18, 2007 3:36 PM

Wow, a few more people use the "quisling regime" line. A moderate government isn't a quisling regime. It'd be far better for the Palestinians themselves, obviously, and "quisling regime" implies something about the morality of Hamas and the alternative that's pretty disgusting.

"I can never see my way clear to taking anyone who makes this a central part of their argument seriously. It is too concerned with establishing the moral superiority of one side over the other, and litle interest in actually making peace. (I mean, do we really have to rehearse all the nasty labels applied to the Israelis that have some grounding in truth?)"

I'd say that the moral superiority of one side over the other matters when discussing a phrase such as "quisling regime", which makes a moral judgement.

Hamas is undoubtedly a terrorist organization. It's listed as such by the EU, which I would assume has the stance towards Israel/Palestine that most people here like. Hamas's beliefs and actions are not exactly a secret. And it's not unreasonable for Israel to refuse to negotiate with Hamas, or to support an alternative government.

"As MY and others argue elsewhere, it is essentially useless to make peace agreements between moderates. The only way it will stick is with something like an elected Hamas and someone like Sharon. People on both sides who are too interested in talking about how awful the reps of the other side are have nothing to offer any peace process. If you think that everyone being nice morally upstanding people is a prerequisite for successful geopolitical negotiations, then you need to get your head out of your ass."

The question isn't whether Hamas is "nice", it's whether they'll meet Israel's entirely reasonable preliminary demands before negotiations can start.

I don't think you or Yglesias are necessarily wrong: negotiations might be for the best, and Hamas might reform (though the line that peace comes from hardliners strikes me as quite often wrong- usually hardliners act like hardliners). But it isn't just Peretz who thinks otherwise, and the blame for the current factional fighting lies with the factions, not Israel or the United States.

"And 'quisling' is precisely the word to apply to what Peretz wants."

Except Yglesias was writing about what the United States and Israel want, not Peretz. In that context (or even if he was talking about Peretz, really, given the morality of Hamas) it's a very inappropriate phrase.

"It's amazing how the concept that blame might be shared by multiple parties is too inherently complex for some educated adults to understand."

It's rare that blame is shared equally by multiple parties, and I wouldn't jump to accuse the United States or Israel when it comes to this particular conflict.

PS: ho

Posted by Count | May 18, 2007 3:47 PM

Wow, a few more people use the "quisling regime" line. A moderate government isn't a quisling regime. It'd be far better for the Palestinians themselves, obviously, and "quisling regime" implies something about the morality of Hamas and the alternative that's pretty disgusting.

"I can never see my way clear to taking anyone who makes this a central part of their argument seriously. It is too concerned with establishing the moral superiority of one side over the other, and litle interest in actually making peace. (I mean, do we really have to rehearse all the nasty labels applied to the Israelis that have some grounding in truth?)"

I'd say that the moral superiority of one side over the other matters when discussing a phrase such as "quisling regime", which makes a moral judgement.

Hamas is undoubtedly a terrorist organization. It's listed as such by the EU, which I would assume has the stance towards Israel/Palestine that most people here like. Hamas's beliefs and actions are not exactly a secret. And it's not unreasonable for Israel to refuse to negotiate with Hamas, or to support an alternative government.

"As MY and others argue elsewhere, it is essentially useless to make peace agreements between moderates. The only way it will stick is with something like an elected Hamas and someone like Sharon. People on both sides who are too interested in talking about how awful the reps of the other side are have nothing to offer any peace process. If you think that everyone being nice morally upstanding people is a prerequisite for successful geopolitical negotiations, then you need to get your head out of your ass."

The question isn't whether Hamas is "nice", it's whether they'll meet Israel's entirely reasonable preliminary demands before negotiations can start.

I don't think you or Yglesias are necessarily wrong: negotiations might be for the best, and Hamas might reform (though the line that peace comes from hardliners strikes me as quite often wrong- usually hardliners act like hardliners). But it isn't just Peretz who thinks otherwise, and the blame for the current factional fighting lies with the factions, not Israel or the United States.

"And 'quisling' is precisely the word to apply to what Peretz wants."

Except Yglesias was writing about what the United States and Israel want, not Peretz. In that context (or even if he was talking about Peretz, really, given the morality of Hamas) it's a very inappropriate phrase.

"It's amazing how the concept that blame might be shared by multiple parties is too inherently complex for some educated adults to understand."

It's rare that blame is shared equally by multiple parties, and I wouldn't jump to accuse the United States or Israel when it comes to this particular conflict.

PS: ho

Posted by Count | May 18, 2007 3:47 PM

Wow, a few more people use the "quisling regime" line. A moderate government isn't a quisling regime. It'd be far better for the Palestinians themselves, obviously, and "quisling regime" implies something about the morality of Hamas and the alternative that's pretty disgusting.

"I can never see my way clear to taking anyone who makes this a central part of their argument seriously. It is too concerned with establishing the moral superiority of one side over the other, and litle interest in actually making peace. (I mean, do we really have to rehearse all the nasty labels applied to the Israelis that have some grounding in truth?)"

I'd say that the moral superiority of one side over the other matters when discussing a phrase such as "quisling regime", which makes a moral judgement.

Hamas is undoubtedly a terrorist organization. It's listed as such by the EU, which I would assume has the stance towards Israel/Palestine that most people here like. Hamas's beliefs and actions are not exactly a secret. And it's not unreasonable for Israel to refuse to negotiate with Hamas, or to support an alternative government.

"As MY and others argue elsewhere, it is essentially useless to make peace agreements between moderates. The only way it will stick is with something like an elected Hamas and someone like Sharon. People on both sides who are too interested in talking about how awful the reps of the other side are have nothing to offer any peace process. If you think that everyone being nice morally upstanding people is a prerequisite for successful geopolitical negotiations, then you need to get your head out of your ass."

The question isn't whether Hamas is "nice", it's whether they'll meet Israel's entirely reasonable preliminary demands before negotiations can start.

I don't think you or Yglesias are necessarily wrong: negotiations might be for the best, and Hamas might reform (though the line that peace comes from hardliners strikes me as quite often wrong- usually hardliners act like hardliners). But it isn't just Peretz who thinks otherwise, and the blame for the current factional fighting lies with the factions, not Israel or the United States.

"And 'quisling' is precisely the word to apply to what Peretz wants."

Except Yglesias was writing about what the United States and Israel want, not Peretz. In that context (or even if he was talking about Peretz, really, given the morality of Hamas) it's a very inappropriate phrase.

"It's amazing how the concept that blame might be shared by multiple parties is too inherently complex for some educated adults to understand."

It's rare that blame is shared equally by multiple parties, and I wouldn't jump to accuse the United States or Israel when it comes to this particular conflict.

PS: ho

Posted by Count | May 18, 2007 3:47 PM

Wow, sorry about that.

My PS: was going to be,

PS: how do the html tags work? I've been trying with the format i'm used (trying and failing).

Posted by Count | May 18, 2007 3:48 PM

There's a nasty tradeoff between resolving this conflict any time in the near future and honoring the results of the last Palestinian elections.

The idea of engaging Hamas and attempting to sift out the "political" and "military" wings is risky and by no means guarenteed to suceed. More importantly, such a transformation of Hamas into a purely political Islamist movement with a creative re-interpretation of its views on dar-al-Islam would take decades to accomplish.

But as most of the critics of U.S. policy argue - time is of the essence. The Israeli occupation needs to be ended as soon as possible. Well, if that is the case, then we don't have time to see if the Hamas democracy experiment works. A Fatah regime, as flawed as is, opens the doors to partnerships with Egypt and Jordan that are the only way to stabilize the territories sufficient to end the Israeli occupation and move to a resolution.

Most progressives take the view that a strongman in Iraq was preferable to what we now have, a combination of elected Islamism, chaos and occupation. We have pretty much the same options on the table in Gaza. As much as it pains me to say it, Fatah is the best option we have right now.

Posted by mhp | May 18, 2007 3:55 PM

You know, I realized that most of the people on both sides of this debate are talking about who's to blame for the Gaza violence, the U.S., Israel, or the Palestinians. The implicit assumption seems to be that whoever started this mess is responsible for fixing it.

Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. If I drop a glass, that doesn't mean I have magical glass-repairing powers.

The U.S. may have been neglectful of the Palestinian issue in the past, but what do we do now? If Saudi Arabian diplomacy can't broker an end to the Hamas-Fatah fighting, what reason is there to believe U.S. diplomacy would fare better?

So what options does that leave us? Pump more aid money into Gaza? Pressure Israel to reoccupy? Call in UN peacekeepers?

Really, I don't see any viable way for the U.S. to end the Gaza violence, regardless of our role in letting it happen in the first place.

Posted by Mr. Noah | May 18, 2007 4:01 PM

The bantustans in South Africa were also crowded, poor, corrupt, internally disordered, used to barrack the indigenous population and support the argument that the blacks would fuck it all up if there was ever a negotiated solution to share power. For Gaza, think Transkei. For those who mock the Palestinians for the current Fatah-Hamas fighting through which they're suffering, think the apartheid sympathiser in Kent, chortling over his cornflakes at the natives' chaotic ways.

Posted by otto | May 18, 2007 4:03 PM

"Rather, it's that responsibility for the Palestinian violence belongs to the Palestinians. It strains creduility to search for other causes."

On the contrary, it strains credulity to assign responsibility for the current violence solely to the Palestinians. They have no effective sovereignty, and both the U.S. and Israel have worked to undermine the duly elected Hamas government both internally and externally.

Posted by mq | May 18, 2007 4:23 PM

Anyone who read The Bret Stephens Column saved here wouldn't be surprised by the chaos in Gaza.

Posted by The Not Ready for Prime Time Palestinians | May 18, 2007 4:35 PM

Mr. Noah,

Agreed. As the Saudis are finding out (I suspect they already knew), the violence will end when the Palestinians decide to end it. There is very little any outsider can do. The best anyone can do exert efforts to calm things down when they get really bad.

My hope is that as Hamas stays in government, factions within it will eventually open up to the idea that compromise is within their own interest. If Hamas splits, and the hardcore rejectionists are relegated to just 15% or 20% of the overall population, then negotiations will become possible again, and this time, have a better chance than did Oslo.

But all this is waaaaay into the future. For now, we'll have to live with the violence. Eventually, they'll tire out.

Posted by David | May 18, 2007 4:49 PM

Harry said:"There's a little teeny-weeny flaw in that statement: Israel gave the land in question (Gaza) back to the Palestinians."

I find this oft-repeated statement about Gaza endlessly idiotic. Israel controls the borders of Gaza, the air, the Palestinians have SEVERELY restricted freedom of movement outside of their territory. There is no autonomy in Gaza by any meaningful definition. It's essentially a concentration camp. If we had any sort of personal experience of the kind of control and oppression that the Palestinians live under...
You treat human beings like sub-human savages long enough and then, oh gee, it's not all crumpets and scones and tea with the Queen. Give me a break.

And Count, I agree with you that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Hamas is a terrorist organization as much as Israel is a terrorist state. Actually, if you take an Enlightenment Universalist stance of regarding all human life as equal--regardless of ethnicity, religion, etc., then you would be forced to conclude that Israel is the greater terrorist threat in the conflict. Let's see, how many Palestinian children did Israel slaughter last year? You should read the great journalist Chris Hedges on the subject of the IDF targetting Palestinian children. Quite something.

Posted by Warren | May 18, 2007 4:50 PM

I'd say that the moral superiority of one side over the other matters when discussing a phrase such as "quisling regime", which makes a moral judgement.

No, neither side is entitled to assert moral superiority. Blowing yourself up is a bus or crowded cafe is an unequivocal war crime. So is turning Southern Lebanon into a free-fire zone or bombing Gaza's only power plant. In fact, Ehud Olmert has been responsible for the deaths of vastly more civilians since he came to power than Hamas has been since it was elected.

Posted by Peter H | May 18, 2007 4:56 PM

I cannot for the life of me understand the impulse to defend Hamas, an organization whose GOAL is to kill as many civilians as possible and who rejects a two state solution and end of conflict negotiations. And, by the way, making arguments that Israel is morally equal to Hamas qualifes as defending, given that Israel accepts a two state solution, desires an end to the conflict and does not adopt the killing of civilians as its goal. Maybe Warren can explain that to us.

Posted by David | May 18, 2007 5:10 PM

Are the Palestinians NEVER to blame?

Yes, that's right: I think the Palestinians are never to blame, until Israel is in full compliance with 242, 193, ICC and all the rest.

One side is the perpetrator and the other side is the victim there and that's all there is to it.

Posted by abb1 | May 18, 2007 5:19 PM

Agreed. As the Saudis are finding out (I suspect they already knew), the violence will end when the Palestinians decide to end it. There is very little any outsider can do. The best anyone can do exert efforts to calm things down when they get really bad.

Israeli policies have devastated Gaza's economy. The cutoff of aid, and Israel's refusal to transfer customs to the Palestinian Authority, has prevented the PA from functioning. The US plan to strengthen Fatah at the expense of Hamas has aggravated tensions between those 2 groups. I don't see how you can say a devastated econony, a breakdown of authority, and an external plan to deliberately weaken Hamas have played no role whatsoever in encouraging civil war. That's obtuse, to say the least.

Does that mean Hamas & Fatah should be absolved of responsibility? Of course not. As WasherDryer said above, we can acknowledge multiple layers of responsibility. But let's not pretend external factors have had no role in provoking civil war.

My hope is that as Hamas stays in government, factions within it will eventually open up to the idea that compromise is within their own interest. If Hamas splits, and the hardcore rejectionists are relegated to just 15% or 20% of the overall population, then negotiations will become possible again, and this time, have a better chance than did Oslo.

A much more likely outcome is that Palestinians will become more radicalized. We're already starting to see Al-Qaeda cells gain a presence in Gaza. As I said above, if present trends continue in Palestine, we will see groups emerge that will make Hamas & Islamic Jihad look like a bunch of choir boys.

Posted by Peter H | May 18, 2007 5:19 PM

I'm certainly not defending Hamas. My point is that Hamas' popularity is the direct function of the brutality of Israel's occupation. It's Palsetinian anger & frustration that enabled Hamas to win in the first place. If Israel & the US (and the EU & the UN) manage to weaken Hamas, then another more radical, violent & uncontrollable group will supplant it.

The international boycott of Hamas is futher corroding Palestinian institutions and only radicalizing Palestinians even more. Recognizing the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority doesn't mean giving up trying to pressure Hamas to change its policies; there are other measures of doing this. Talking to Hamas doesn't mean accepting its ideology & tactics any more than recognizing Israel means accepting the Occupation of the West Bank, Gaza & East Jerusalem.

Posted by Peter H | May 18, 2007 5:42 PM

How about mentioning the recent revelations that showed the US was supplying Fatah militants with weapons and material support in order to explicitly destabilize the democratically-elected Hamas government?

As another poster noted, US/Israel has a history of playing divide and conquer with factional groups in Palestine. Such observations do not preclude prudent criticism of Palestinian militants, however, as some have suggested.

Posted by ChrisC | May 18, 2007 5:55 PM

Apparently, some of the Israel bashers on this thread persist in living in a dream world. Their apparent position is that if only the US forces Israel to completely withdraw from the West Bank (they have already withdrawn from the Gaza Strip) and Issreal stops being beastly to the Palestinians, somehow peace will prevail and negotiations can begin. I would suggest that they read commentary by the real power in Hamas, namely Khaled Mashaal, currently a guest of the terrorist government in Syria, after being expelled from Jordan. Mr. Mashaal has made it perfectly clear over and over again that a two state solution is unacceptable and nonnegotiable. His position is that the current State of Israel must go out of business. Period, end of story. Since he is calling the shots, and the State of Israel stubbornly refuses to go out of business, what is there to negotiate about?

Re Peter H

The Government of Israel acts in a beastly manner toward the Palestinians because being nice to them is seen as a sign of weakness and only encourages terrorist actions on the latters' part. In fact, the Israeli actions are far too lenient. The Government of Israel would be well advised to consider the actions of Hafaz Assad on the City of Hama in 1982 which were far more effective.

Re Warren

The statement that Israel is a terrorist state is a god damn f***ing lie of the sort one might see on David Dukes' web page.

Re the other Alan

Mr. Alan apparently favors a one state solution. It worked so well in the former Yugoslavia and is working so well in Lebanon so lets try it in Palestine. Not.

Posted by SLC | May 18, 2007 6:49 PM

SLC,

I notice that you take my statement out of context and re-construct it to your own polemical advantage. This is the typical mode of a propagandist. And comparing me to David Duke is despicable, just beneath contempt. My worldview is the diametric opposite of someone like David Duke's. I have said nothing in my comments that would allow you to remotely draw such a comparison.

Do you really wonder why the thoughtful progressives on this blog don't take you seriously? I would say you need some clinical help. And intellectual mediocrities like yourself really belong over at some Kahanist or other brain-dead site. Why don't you let the grown-ups rationally debate, okay? Run along now. The idea that you actually think you're a liberal is so laughable, I don't even know what to say...

Posted by Warren | May 18, 2007 7:23 PM

Re Warren

This is a copy/paste of what Mr. Warren said in a previous comment. "And Count, I agree with you that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Hamas is a terrorist organization as much as Israel is a terrorist state."

I don't think there can be any doubt that this statement is tantamount to Mr. Warren labeling the State of Israel a terrorist state and that his complaint is nothing but nitpicking.

1. Excuse me. David Duke also claims that Israel is a terrorist state, as do neo-nazi sites like Stormfront. Now Mr. Warren throws a hissy fit because he resents being juxtaposed with Duke. I don't blame him. As a life long supporter of civil rights for black Americans, and as somebody who has a number of Arab acquaintances, I don't like being labeled a racist Kahanist but, hey, if one is going to dish it out, one had better be prepared to take it. By the way, the late and unlamented Rabbi Kahane favored an Eichmann solution for the Arab problem in Palestine. Thus, calling somebody a Kahanist is tantamount to calling him/her a supporter of genocide.

2. Apparently, Mr. Warren thinks that Israel bashing is a litmus test for being a progressive. Sorry to disappoint him but he doesn't make the rules.

Posted by SLC | May 18, 2007 8:32 PM

What's the moral difference supposed to be between collective punishment and terrorism?

Posted by SqueakyRat | May 18, 2007 9:02 PM

"In an article in Friday's Jerusalem Post, Khaled Abu Toameh declared Palestinian affairs to be "a Mickey Mouse unity." An interesting piece. This will annoy what's his name who blogs a lot about me. Has he nothing better to blog about? Actually, that's how makes a living: by writing about people who are smarter than him and know more about the world than him. And since neither smarts not knowledge carry much caché with the left blogosphere (also not with the right blogosphere) its stars like what's his name ridicule the writers whose arguments he can't quite grasp."

LOL Marty is trolling Matt.

Posted by Eric864 | May 19, 2007 12:46 AM

Warren,

Claiming that Gaza is a "concentration camp" is the kind of crazy, over-the-top claim that causes people to compare you to David Duke.

Regarding the claims that Israel is engaging in "terrorism," does anyone seriously deny that if Hamas stopped launching rockets at Israel, Israel would immediately stop bombing Gaza?

Posted by Ragout | May 19, 2007 1:36 AM

Ragout,

To clarify, it was one person who drew that fallacious guilt-by-association, but I see where you're coming from, after cooling off a bit. Comparing Gaza to a concentration camp *is* a bit over the top. I guess in my frustration over the situation the Palestinians are in, the rhetoric can get overblown. I was thinking of the term in the context of how it originally entered the vernacular--the Boer War--when the British put Dutch civilians into tight, controlled spaces in South Africa. But given the immediate and understandable connotation of the Nazi death camps and the Holocaust generally, that's naturally the comparison drawn and I do recognize the problem and offensiveness there. I'm actually of the school that believes it's inadvisable to compare Israeli behavior with the Nazis. So point taken.

Further, I meant the terrorism comment in a snarkier sense than was evidently received. It certainly was not meant as an *isolated* judgement of Israel, per the clear context given. But I'll tone down the rhetoric.

Still, comparing me to David Duke displays fundamentally abysmal logic, and it did really upset me. I think it's indicative of the ideological bubble surrounding the U.S. that my comments, though harsh and perhaps deserving of mitigation after reflection, are part of the open, accepted discourse in Europe and most of the rest of the world (trust me, I've been there), but there are clear demarcation lines in America--really *unique* to America--about what is "acceptable" and "un-acceptable" to say. Tony Judt is the most eloquent and compelling voice on this subject. By the way, he's really a phenomenal thinker and scholar for those unacquainted with him, and a treat to read for a Franco-phile like myself (his specialty is French intellectual history and Europe more generally).

Posted by Warren | May 19, 2007 3:17 AM

David Duke also claims that Israel is a terrorist state, as do neo-nazi sites like Stormfront.

Therefore... what exactly? Could you elaborate, please.

Studs Terkel once asked: "Well, suppose communists come out against cancer. Must we come out for cancer?"

Posted by abb1 | May 19, 2007 4:35 AM

The launching of rockets in Gaza are themselves in response to Israeli attacks in the West Bank. Hamas & Islamic Jihad (both of whom whose policies, I emphasize, do not approve or condone) have called for extending the truce to the West Bank. For some more background:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=12659

Posted by Peter H | May 19, 2007 4:48 AM

Sheeshh, that last comment of mine was tediously verbose and long-winded. I gotta stop posting in the wee hours when I'm half awake.

Posted by Warren | May 19, 2007 5:46 AM

Good news: A truce!

Since the Israelis were responsible for the Palestinian civil war, are they also responsible for the cease fire? Or do Palestinians have some agency after all?

BTW, Kudos to the Palestinians in how they have been fighting their civil war so far -- basically by having gunmen abduct or kill other gunmen. Far better than their Iraqi brethren who murder women and children by the dozens with car bombs.

Posted by Harry | May 19, 2007 10:46 AM

Harry,

Do you understand what "overlapping moral responsibility" means? If you don't, you should read the Obsidian Wings post, "Is Responsibility Zero-Sum", that WasherDreyer linked to above. None of us who have pointed out the external factors that have provoked the Palestinian civil war are absolving the Palestinians factions of any blame.

Posted by Peter H | May 19, 2007 11:53 AM

Peter H.,

You write: "Hamas & Islamic Jihad ... have called for extending the truce to the West Bank." But this is entirely irrelevant, since other West Bank terrorist organizations have continued fighting and have scorned a truce.

You are confused, and the reason is that you believe Z Magazine, which is not an honest source. The Znet article discusses fighting between Israel and the "AMB" in the the West Bank. But who is AMB? Znet doesn't spell out the acronym.

So let's turn to the original source for the article that Znet is reprinting, which does spell out the acronym. Here you find that there's been fighting in the West Bank between Israel and the "Fatah-linked Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades (AMB)." The AMB is only partly controlled by Fatah, is obviously not connected to Hamas, and has not signed on to the truce.

Posted by Ragout | May 19, 2007 12:51 PM

It seems glaringly obvious that there can't be any progress toward a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinians as long as there is no monopoly on the use of force on both sides. You've already got that monopoly on Israel's side: despite the objections of the Gaza settlers to abandoning Gaza to the Palestinians, the Israeli government made that happen.

On the contrary, if Israel were to negotiate a final settlement with, say, Fatah HQ today, Fatah would have no means of delivering by making its various splinter groups, Hamas, etc. adhere to the terms. To that extent, civil war among the Palestinians -- if it leads to a clear victor who has a monopoly on the use of force -- is probably a necessary step to Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Posted by Fred | May 19, 2007 5:09 PM

"Matt, will you ever get around to highlighting the wonderful work the folks over at Stormfront have been doing? Maybe yuo could give us some of the insights of well-known liberal Avigdor Lieberman?" mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari

mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari, stormfront is more likely to post articles by Muslim Jew haters like yourself than by Jews.

They are and anti-Jewish nazi group and they love Arabs like the later Mufti of Jerusalem and all Palestinian Arabs who also hate Jews.

Posted by dubin | May 19, 2007 5:15 PM

Well, Fred, what's there to negotiate, what is this "final settlement"? Why wouldn't Israel simply compensate the refugees to their satisfaction and withdraw its troops into its own borders as required by law; and after that who cares whether Palestinian government has the monopoly or not?

As for

despite the objections of the Gaza settlers to abandoning Gaza to the Palestinians, the Israeli government made that happen.

- how is it Israeli government's business where these people live? If they want to live in Gaza it's between them and Gaza's government; all that was required from Israeli government was to pull its troops out of Gaza; this could've been done in a few hours and without any drama.

Posted by abb1 | May 19, 2007 5:33 PM

abbl:

"Well, Fred, what's there to negotiate, what is this "final settlement"? Why wouldn't Israel simply compensate the refugees to their satisfaction and withdraw its troops into its own borders as required by law"

Defining Israel's borders (and, by definition, the Palestinian's borders) will of course require final settlement negotiations. After all, the pre-1967 borders don't represent any Platonic ideal -- they are merely the armistice lines from 1949. Compensation of refugees, on both sides, would of course have to be determined by some sort of negotiation, wouldn't you think?

"...and after that who cares whether Palestinian government has the monopoly or not?"

Well, I imagine the Israelis would, if after coming to an agreement on borders and refugees with the Palestinian leadership, rejectionist Palestinian factions were still launching rockets into Israel and attempting suicide bombings in Israel.

"how is it Israeli government's business where these people live? If they want to live in Gaza it's between them and Gaza's government; all that was required from Israeli government was to pull its troops out of Gaza; this could've been done in a few hours and without any drama."

In order for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, governments on both sides need to be able to exert control over rejectionist elements. If the government of Israel decides to cede land to the Palestinians, it's not enough for Israel to simply withdraw it's military; it also needs to prevent its minority of rejectionist citizens from obstructing the state's policy. Similarly, if and when the Palestinian government agrees to a peace treaty with Israel, it won't be enough for the Palestinian government's military to refrain from committing acts of war against Israel; they will have to prevent other Palestinian armed groups from doing so. Otherwise, there would be no point in negotiating with them.

Posted by Fred | May 19, 2007 6:03 PM

Ragout,

First of all, the article was originally published in the Journal of Palestine Studies. While the Journal of Palestine Studies obviously is not an impartial source, do you have any reason to question the veracity of its news roundups?

I agree that the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades (as well as Islamic Jihad) did not agree to the original November 26 truce. I never said otherwise. However, the reason for that refusal was that Israel refused to extend the ceasefire to the West Bank. At the time, Hamas said the ceasefire would not be sustainable unless it included the West Bank. If you don't trust Znet on this, will you trust the Jerusalem Post:?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378487760&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by Peter H | May 20, 2007 3:07 AM

Fred,

Statehood is normally a prerequisite to having a monopoly on force, not the other way around.

Posted by Peter H | May 20, 2007 3:24 AM

Fred,

Statehood is normally a prerequisite to having a monopoly on force, not the other way around.

Posted by Peter H | May 20, 2007 3:24 AM

Peter,
obviously, in any reasonable scenario the first step is for Israel to pull the troops from the occupied territories (all of them, including Golan heights and Sheba farms) and compensate the refugees - or at the very least - to announce its firm intention to do this.

To 'negotiate' for different borders (or for anything else) the sides should have equal political status, two equal states should negotiate.

To negotiate for compensation to the refugees, Israel doesn't need any functioning Palestinian government; it was just a coincidence that the PLO used to be both the ruling party on the territories and the representative of the refugees; it doesn't have to be this way, the refugees can be represented by an international organization (like the victims of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait) or just a bunch of lawyers.

There are better ways to insure that nobody shoots rockets or fly military jets across the border - that's what UN troops in Southern Lebanon are trying to do. Works fine with the rockets, if not with the jets.

So yes, that's right - I don't think there is any point of negotiating anything before Israel is brought to compliance and fully independent Palestinian state comes to exist within pre-six-day-war borders - better in reality, but at least on paper.

Posted by abb1 | May 20, 2007 4:29 AM

Peter H:

"Statehood is normally a prerequisite to having a monopoly on force, not the other way around."

In the specific case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the reason the PLO/PA was allowed to bring 40,000 gunmen into Gaza and the West Bank was precisely so they could achieve a monopoly of force.

You and abb1 seem to have agreed on a solution to the conflict, but in the real world, the warring parties are the ones who need to agree. If there is no one on the Palestinian society who has the power (monopoly of force) to offer peace to Israel, it's pointless for Israel to do any of the things you suggest. Israel would still be attacked by Palestinian groups with even more extreme demands than yours.

Posted by Fred | May 21, 2007 3:07 AM

zprtea ahdokr gjpniux khdofwsg rucew yuklzip jsgwk

Posted by skxcpj fvyiczlas | June 11, 2007 12:52 PM

ywtruqzei oeukxiybl rdvmklbof cxfpbnhkg icvefunr kbmdqcer naxlkr http://www.bflus.ezxfqukbv.com

Posted by rgozih pmxb | June 11, 2007 12:52 PM