View Story | 185 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
by Dcoronata on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:44:23 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
to ensure that infighting amongst the Palestinians continues, as a weak Palestine is seen as less of a threat (which it may likely be).
So it isn't far fetched that the US, Israel, Egypt, even Syria have fomented suspicion and anger between Palestinian factions.
Four Legs Good
by Spud1 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:21:20 AM PDT
or the weaking of the Palestinian government as such. The goal is to have a Palestinian government that isn't led by a party on record as officially wanting to destroy Israel. And I can't say I blame them.
In memory of Tom Disch.
by zemblan on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:33:54 AM PDT
goal; but in fact can be seen as a tactic for what you suggest as their goal.
by Spud1 on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:44:54 AM PDT
in the peace process!
by Dcoronata on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:56:47 AM PDT
Some Israeli leaders did, notably the Labor Party leaders, and most especially Rabin.
You know what happened to him.
Other Israeli leaders most certainly did not want a strong, stable partner.
-5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!
by neroden on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:59:42 AM PDT
The goal is to have a Palestinian government that isn't led by a party on record as officially wanting to destroy Israel
the goal is to have the other in charge.
As far as I know, ain't nobody else but the "new bitch" or the "old bitch".
"It takes two to lie. One to lie, one to hear it." Homer Simpson
by Euroliberal on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:34:09 AM PDT
by unfounded on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:29:58 PM PDT
Nah. All Hamas needed to do was drop this silly "destroy Israel" thing, and the "we're tearing up every agreement the previous Palestinian government made" thing, and they'd have been just fine. That's why the US and the EU spent so much energy pleading with them, and only redirected their funding away from Hamas (though not, as the myth has it, away from Palestine) when Hamas said "no."
by zemblan on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:38:29 PM PDT
the question.
If Hamas isn't the one Israel wants, then all that's left is Fatah. Black or white.
Then, if this is the goal, I presume they are "acceptable". Or, is there is anything else they have to do to receive acceptance?
by Euroliberal on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:04:30 PM PDT
you didn't answer the question.
I rejected your false dichotomy.
Israel's decisions are plainly driven by one overriding factor: Israel's security. Hamas isn't a threat to Israel's security because it's Hamas; Hamas is a threat to Israel's security because it's pretty plain about its intention to eradicate Israel. That's why they have been such a terrible step backwards for the Palestinian people.
Israel wouldn't have any problem with a Hamas state, as long as that Hamas state recognized Israel's right to exist and didn't lob rockets into it whenever the mood moved them.
by zemblan on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:12:44 PM PDT
we can't even pretend to have an intelligent conversation.
There was nothing false about my "dichotomy" as you say.
The original statement again:
Hamas doesn't satisfy that goal. The only alternative is Fatah. Where is the "false dichotomy"?
If Fatah satisfies those conditions today, aren't they good enough so as to be Israel's choice?
Or, as your last response implies, Israel may wait until Hamas reforms their positions and then make the choice between the two?
Why are my questions tricky?
by Euroliberal on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 12:39:53 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 185 comments