Hamas confronting Islamic Jihad rocket launchers

Hamas members foil attack on IDF forces

Palestinian sources report members of Hamas' security force arrested Islamic Jihad member as he attempted to plant explosive device near border fence

Members of Hamas' special security force arrested an armed member of the al-Quds Brigades, the Islamic Jihad's military wing, as he attempted to place an explosive device near the border fence in the southern Gaza Strip on Sunday evening.

Israel has no immediate plans to re-invade Gaza, seems Hamas is being given more time.

A spokesman for the Islamic Jihad's military wing refused to confirm or deny the report. Palestinian sources, however, reported that this was not the first time Hamas members stop members of the Islamic Jihad and other organizations from firing at IDF troops or planting explosive devices.
http://www.ynetnews.com/...

Further developments:

Hamas says will replace defunct Gaza courts with legal panel

Hamas is replacing Gaza's defunct courts with a legal committee consisting of an Islamic law expert, a military court lawyer and the head of the main prison, a spokesman for the Hamas force policing Gaza announced Saturday.

Hamas said it wouldn't use the committee to impose Islamic law, a concern raised by human rights groups since the Islamic militants seized control of Gaza by force last month.
http://www.haaretz.com/...

Another good sign:

Mashaal apologizes for mistakes during Gaza takeover

Exiled Hamas leader acknowledges errors during bloody takeover of Gaza Strip, but says they were 'marginal mistakes made by individuals that do not represent our policies'

Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal apologized on Monday for mistakes made during last month's bloody takeover of the Gaza Strip, saying they were individual acts that do not represent Hamas policies.

"What happened, I swear to God and God is a witness, was loathsome for us. But it is like a medicine pill that we were forced to swallow," he said in a speech at an Islamic conference held here. Parts of his speech was broadcast on the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera satellite TV station.

http://www.ynetnews.com/...

And now, James D. Wolfensohn, ex-president of the World Bank for 10 years (1995-2005) and Special Envoy of the Quarter to Middle East (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations) finely speaks openly about his role as envoy and the currents events in Palestine, and he lays most of the blame at the feet of Elliot Abrams, national security adviser in charge of disseminating democracy in the Middle East:

Asked whether the disengagement plan was not one big mistake, because of its unilateral character and because Israel has been attacked relentlessly from the Gaza Strip since its implementation, Wolfensohn waxes nostalgic for Ariel Sharon. "I don't think it was a mistake, if it had been followed by the second part of the disengagement - to create a self-sustaining entity that could be the first step to Palestinian statehood that could allow the Palestinians to live their lives and develop a sense of national integrity. That was an opportunity that was missed, and at the heart of it was Arik [Sharon]. He was an unlikely negotiator of peace because of his record, but I have to say that personally I found him very pragmatic. I can't say that he was fond of Palestinians, but he knew that for the future, you couldn't have an Israel full of Palestinians. That demographic imperative made it essential that there would be some kind of two-state solution."

snip
At that time, Wolfensohn recalls, powerful forces in the U.S. administration worked behind his back: They did not believe in the border terminals agreement and wanted to undermine his status as the Quartet's emissary. The official behind this development, he says, was Elliot Abrams, the neoconservative  who was appointed deputy national security adviser in charge of disseminating democracy in the Middle East - "and every aspect of that agreement was abrogated."

His whole interview is worth reading:
http://www.haaretz.com/...

On the Israeli side there is good news this week. Olmert mentioned that Israel would not retain the whole West Bank, and the Homesh settlers/demonstrators were confronted:

Protesters barred from marching to ex-W. Bank settlement hurl rocks at Palestinian homes

Dozens of right-wing activists, barred by police from marching to the former West Bank settlement of Homesh on Sunday, entered a nearby Palestinian village and hurled rocks at the residents' homes.

Earlier Sunday, police forces removed hundreds of activists from a grove close to the ruins of Homesh, one of four northern West Bank settlements evacuated when Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip during the 2005 disengagement.
http://www.haaretz.com/...

Still not much news on Blair's role and doings.

•  Elliot Abrams..neoconservative extraordinaire

  and he lays most of the blame at the feet of Elliot Abrams, national security adviser in charge of disseminating democracy in the Middle East:

  Iran-Contra affair
  During investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair, the special prosecutor handling the case prepared multiple felony counts against Abrams but never indicted him.[14] Instead, Abrams entered into a plea agreement that ultimately led to a conviction without imprisonment on two misdemeanors of withholding information from Congress.[15] He was fined $50, placed on probation for two years, and assigned 100 hours of community service. This was Chief Judge Aubrey Robinson's way (1) of indicating that a moment's error of judgment (in not telling Congress quite all he knew) should not expunge twelve years of honorable service to the country, and (2) of telling the special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, to shut down his operations. After five years and $50 million, his office had achieved practically nothing: Oliver North and John Poindexter were free; Robert McFarlane, like Abrams, had received the lightest of sentences. Which may explain why President George H. W. Bush pardoned Abrams along with a number of other Iran-Contra defendants shortly before leaving office in 1992.

  Is that an echo I hear...I wonder what Judge Robinson might think today about Mr.Abrams errors in judgement..

  Through Senator Moynihan, Abrams was introduced to Rachel Decter, the daughter of Moynihan's friend, Norman Pohoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine and the "godfather of neo-conservatism. They were married in 1980

  by ohcanada on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:24:35 PM PDT

  •  abrams is a piece of shit...

    ...a felon, always wrong, an idiot, and the perfect bush crime family representative...

    here is his take, for example, on the post-saddam iraq:

    "We recognize that military action in Iraq, if necessary, will have adverse humanitarian consequences," Abrams said at a news conference Monday. "We have been planning over the last several months, across all relevant agencies, to limit any such consequences and provide relief quickly."

    Abrams said the U.S. military plan was "carefully tailored" to limit the displacement of Iraqi civilians and damage to the country's infrastructure in hopes of minimizing the humanitarian crisis.

    i am certain that he, along with ms rice, will bring such intuitive brilliance to any further i/p conference planned for this autumn...

    recall also that this filthy bastard was knee-deep in blocking/censoring the leverett letter regarding iran.

    Mr. Pollack also supports the administration's reluctance to engage with Iran, in contrast to my consistent and sharp criticism of that position. It would seem that, if one is expounding views congenial to the White House, it does not intervene in prepublication censorship, but, if one is a critic, White House officials will use fraudulent charges of revealing classified information to keep critical views from being heard. My understanding is that the White House staffers who have injected themselves into this process are working for Elliott Abrams and Megan O'Sullivan, both politically appointed deputies to President Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley.

    Their conduct in this matter is despicable and un-American in the profoundest sense of that term. I am also deeply disappointed that former colleagues at the Central Intelligence Agency have proven so supine in the face of tawdry political pressure. Intelligence officers are supposed to act better than that.

    by james risser on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:25:42 PM PDT

    •  And would you doubt they knew about

      Plame's involvement with IRAN. They play several moves ahead.

      by mattes on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:56:15 PM PDT

    •  And another, Edelman:

      He was close to Richard Perle, among the inventors of the warmongering Neoconservative ideology. In 1992 he was part of the Neoconservative team (which included Paul Wolfowitz) that co-authored a security doctrine for the United States that aimed at perpetual hegemony and implied perpetual aggression to prevent the emergence of "peer" powers.

      He served as Dick Cheney's national security adviser in the early zeroes and, along with convicted felon Irv Lewis Libby, was heavily involved in getting up the fraudulent and illegal Iraq War.

      He was then sent as ambassador to Turkey to shore up that front in the war effort, after the Turkish parliament denied the US military permission to march through Anatolia into neighboring Iraq. He was denounced by Turkish commentators for behaving in Ankara like a colonial viceroy rather than like an ambassador. And then when arch-Neocon and then deputy secretary of defense Doug Feith was forced out under a cloud after one of his subordinates was caught spying for Israel, Edelman was installed as his successor. In other words, Cheney arranged for one Neoconservative to replace another.

      Lest anyone doubt Edelman's conversion to the Neoconservative cause, it should be remembered that when the Government Accounting Office lambasted Feith's open interference in intelligence analysis and his practice of actually briefing his superiors on intelligence (which is forbidden to and probably illegal for defense department bureaucrats), Edelman wrote a long defense of Feith's corrupt practices and forced the GAO to drop actual policy recommendations for ensuring they did not recur.

      In my view, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates should have fired Edelman on the spot, since his subordinate was basically announcing his commitment to the kind of shady and illegitimate practices that Feith (whom then Secretary of State Colin Powell called 'a card-carrying member of the [Israeli] Likud [Party]') and his allies such as Cheney used to drag the United States into an Iraq War.
      http://www.juancole.com/

      Will any of these men ever be held accountable?

      by mattes on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 03:12:27 PM PDT

      •  of course not...

        by james risser on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 03:21:54 PM PDT

•  Are you horny baby?

  Sorry, I just couldn't resist. You might want to consider changing "turning" to "cracking down" in your title. The way it is now can be interpreted in many ways, and definitely not how you meant it.

  by jhecht on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:39:17 PM PDT

  •  Better?

    by mattes on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:55:31 PM PDT

    •  Don't you think?

      Though dosing the entire region might not be a bad idea.

      by jhecht on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:09:15 PM PDT

•  Cheers, mattes

  I'm surprised at Hamas confronting Islamic Jihad. What's up with that? Maybe they're trying to avoid giving Israel an excuse to invade? Or maybe they still have some deluded hope that theere is a chance the "international community" will take them seriously if they 'behave'? Or maybe they read the latest opinion polls which show that most Palestinians, though not most Hamas-supporters, disagree with the rocket attacks against Israel? (then again, this wasn't a rocket attack).

  I dunno. They all seem quite implausible to me.

  by heathlander on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:18:41 PM PDT

  •  of course...

    ...this now sets a precedent for hamas that they will live to regret.  the meme will become if hamas could control i/j once, they should be able to do it ALL the time. no?

    recall one of the dozens of 'cease-fires' that were prematurely ended by i/j attacks? at that time, we were saying that i/j is a separate entity outside control, and outside the parties who had signed off on the cease fire.

    now, what this says to me is that in the future, hamas will be held accountable for i/j...  

    that will be used against them and will be used as a pretext for further attacks, in my opinion...

    by james risser on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:31:17 PM PDT

    •  Probably so, but that comes with the territory

      Taking control also entails taking a certain amount of responsibility for whatever happens in the area, regardless of whether you are involved or not.

      The real concern (to me) is: will elements who are dissatisfied with Hamas rule in Gaza intentionally provoke the Israelis into reinvading in order to disrupt Hamas and even the playing field?

      by scharrison on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:59:01 PM PDT

    •  Perhaps some here already regret it,

      and I wonder, do you think rockets should continue to be fired into Israel?

      But a real government, if that is what they aspire to be, and one that seeks to differentiate itself from Fatah, should have been controlling all military activities in areas under their control already... for their own good and their peoples.

      by Eric S on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:08:38 PM PDT

  •  Wanting to be the...

    only armed faction in Gaza is my guess.  A successful political entity must have the monopoly on legitimate violence in its territory, so Hamas needs to wipe out all other armed militias in Gaza in order to establish any real control over it.

    by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:48:21 PM PDT

  •  Personally, I think the Hamas politicians

    have wanted a long term peace since they were elected. With a bit of a carrot they would have gladly endorsed a two-state solution long ago. Just reading between the lines.

    by mattes on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 03:03:40 PM PDT

    •  Right because Hamas is peace and light

      but Fatah are just collaborators with those evil bloodthirsty Jews?

      If Hamas wanted peace, why did they take 120+ million from Iran and not put it towards paychecks, instead using it to buy weapons and explosives for the past two years?

      If Hamas wanted peace, why the bloody coup?  why the nails?  why did they kill so many associated with Fatah... down to throwing a cook off the roof?

      by Pumpkinlove on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 03:58:14 PM PDT

      •  Did you read the Wolfensohn interview?

        Hamas is not monolithic. And Fatah is corrupt.

        by mattes on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 05:30:07 PM PDT

        •  Fatah is a terrorist organization

          and Hamas, despite everyone's pretense that the political, charitable and terrorist wings are seperate, is a single organization under a single, anti-Semitic charter.

          by Pumpkinlove on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:10:45 PM PDT

          •  Get over the Charter already

            Hamas have.

            by heathlander on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:40:33 AM PDT

            •  Hamas has never renounced their charter.

              Please show me where they have ever made such a statement.

              And the fact they refuse to recognize Israel is part and parcel of their continued mission.  Just because their charter is an embarrassment to your pov, doesn't give you the right to make things up.

              by Eric S on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:43:40 AM PDT

              •  It is an embarassment to +them+

                not me. Read, for example, the words of the respected Hamas scholar (that is - a scholar of Hamas, not a scholar who's a member of Hamas), Khaled Hroub:

                "It is true that many 'anti-Jewish' statements do exist in the Hamas Charter of 1988. Not only is it also true that years later these statements are largely irrelevant to the present Hamas party, the Charter itself has become largely obsolete. The Charter was written in early 1988 by one individual and was made public without the appropriate general Hamas consultation, revision or consensus, to the regret of Hamas's leaders in later years. The author of the Charter was one of the 'old guard' of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza Strip, completely cut off from the outside world...

                Hamas leaders and spokespeople have rarely referred to the CHarter or quoted from it, evidence that it has come to be seen as a burden rather than an intellectual platform that embraces the movement's principles. The sophisticated language of the Hamas discourse on the eve of its assuming power after the 2006 elections, and the lnaguage and discourse of the Charter of 1988, almost appear to describe two completely different movements.

                Indeed, just two years after the publication of the 1988 Charter loaded with anti-Jewish rehtortic, Hamas published documents in 1990 distancing itself from what had been included in the Charter. Emphasizing that its struggle has been merely against Zionists and Zionism, not against the Jews and Judaism, it drew a clear distinction between the two:

                'The non-Zionist Jew is one who belongs to the Jewish culture, whether as a believer in the Jewish faith or simply by accident of birth, but... [who] takes no part in aggressive actions against our land and our nation...Hamas will not adopt a hostile position in practice against anyone because of his ideas and creed but will adopt such a position if those ideas and creed are translated into hostile or damaging actions against our people.'

                Discussing this differentiation with the author, one of Hamas's leaders went so far as to say that 'being Jewish, Zionist or Israeli is irrelevant, what is relevant for me is the notion of occupation and aggression. Even if this occupation was imposed by an Arab or Islamic state and the soldiers were Arabs or Muslims I would resist and fight back.'' {Hroub: pp. 33-34)

                See also comments like this one, made by Mohammed Ghazal, a Hamas candidate representing Nablus, speaking to Reuters in late 2005:

                "The charter is not the Koran...Historically, we believe all Palestine belongs to Palestinians, but we're talking now about reality, about political solutions...The realities are different...[If Israel reached a stage where it felt able to talk to Hamas] I don't think there will be a problem of negotiating with the Israelis."

                See also the work of Avraham Sela and Shaul Mishal, two Israeli experts on the movement, who conclude that Hamas "is not a prisoner of its own dogmas. It does not shut itself behind absolute truths, nor does it subordinate its activities and decisions to the officially held religious doctrine." On the contrary: Hamas possesses an "ability to justify controversial political conduct in religious terms" and a "willingness to exist with internal contradictions." Mishal and Sela conclude that, "[w]e cannot rule out the possibility of a significant shift in Hamas' relations with Israel to the point that what seems ideologically heretical in the present might become inevitable in the future."

                And indeed there has been an unmissable (for those with their eyes open) ideological shift in the Hamas movement in recent years. Indeed, without this shift Hamas would not have even participated in last year's elections, let alone won them. Hamas has, in practice, said that it recognises the "reality" of Israel within the 1967 borders. It hasn't recognised the legitimacy of that Israel, but so what? Why should it? The concept of a state having 'legitimacy' is, as Jonathan Cook as written, not only strange but alien to international law.

                Hamas views 'recognition' as something that comes out of negotiations, not a prelude to them. To support this view, it cites the PLO's experience - Arafat recognised Israel, and in return all he got was more settlements.

                You evidently want to ignore the complexities of the Hamas movement, about which books have been written (but, in your case, evidently unread), and just point and say: "terrorists, want Israel's destruction, want to kill all the Jews, no point talking to them, they must be destroyed". Luckily, for everyone, the reality is quite different.

                by heathlander on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:25:33 AM PDT

                •  None of which constitutes a renunciation, which

                  along with recognizing Israel's right to exist are words they could easily speak if they cared to.  But they do not care to and there are significant and inescapable reasons that such words cannot be uttered.  No amount of dancing around these words is equal to speaking them.

                  And Hroub, who I am quite familiar with, is saying nothing above, except Hamas is more careful about what they say these days.  In "Hamas, Political Thought and Practice." he has described how Hamas tailors both their actions and their message to whatever may be the current exigencies - I can't blame them.

                  So, they have grow more sophisticated in their propaganda, good for them.  When they really change their minds and recognize Israel, then I will gladly reconsider.

                  by Eric S on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:24:02 AM PDT

                  •  Why do you think Israel constantly

                    blocks final status talks?

                    by mattes on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:45:35 AM PDT

                    •  Why did you uprate this?

                      As long as your changing the subject, you uprated this, which besides being a hijacking of your own diary, is an accusation against me that has no merit.  

                      And if you think it has merit, please explain why, because after searching every comment I have made in the last six months, mentioning "hamas," all 39 of them, I can't find a single response to stupidasshole nor even a hint, I have accused him of anything.  Or is it as simple as your not liking me or my politics?

                      As far as final status talks, I don't think it is a simple matter of Israel blocking them, but I am hopeful they will begin when there is either a new Israeli government or a new Palestinian government.

                      by Eric S on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:09:35 AM PDT

                      •  I seem to remember something about

                        it but since there is no link, I'll remove it.

                        Seriously, think about it. Why is final status...ALWAYS off the table?

                        by mattes on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:41:55 AM PDT

                        •  Because terrorism hasn't stopped.

                          by Pumpkinlove on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:57:53 AM PDT

                        •  It hasn't always been off the table, and

                          as I said, "I am hopeful they will begin when there is either a new Israeli government or a new Palestinian government."

                          Let us hope that Mr. Barak accedes to the position of Israeli PM, and the Palestinians cobble together some kind of responsible leadership, and maybe, just maybe, things will improve.  

                          But realize, we are talking about politics, where the game is always dirty, and politicians, who rarely display courage or foresight.

                          by Eric S on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:00:21 PM PDT

                          •  Have the Israelis ever agreed to borders

                            in black and white? Closest with Clinton, but no final borders. It's going to take an act of god to move those settlers.

                            They need to sit down with the unity government and once in for all, hammer out the borders.

                            by mattes on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:11:33 PM PDT

                            •  Feeling glum, eh?

                              Things will change.  It wasn't so long ago you probably could not have imagined Gaza without settlers.  And Clinton was working with Barak, right?

                              by Eric S on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:18:37 PM PDT

                              •  Hey, Eric, are you still online?

                                I owe you an apology:

                                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                                I was a bit of a dick to you yesterday because I confused you with someone else. Feeling bad about it, so I just wanted to apologize.

                                by StupidAsshole on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:00:29 PM PDT

                                •  Well thanks for that.

                                  And moving on slightly, but just slightly.

                                  One thing I find interesting here, is the line drawn in obeisance to the strictest partisanship.  Above we have your apology, with recommends from mattes and rusty, no doubt for your "doing the right thing."  

                                  However, neither were possessed to have given a recommend to any of my comments - me, the far more restrained, offended party.  Not even to the original comment, which was a clear attempt by me to offer up something positive - positive to both sides.

                                  Or by mattes, who was at first so willing to uprate against me (though to her credit, did remove the uprate when its outrageousness was pointed out), but was not too impressed in my attempt directly above to engage her across the divide of our differing viewpoints.  Too many hurt feelings, I suppose.

                                  For my part, I have tried (perhaps not well enough), but tried against my own partisan nature to find comments in the opposing camp, neutral enough and worthy on their own merits.  (That includes recommends for:  howardx, sofia, Brecht, rusty pipes, paleoamerican , even litho, in the last two weeks; not a lot, but better than a zero.)  Even as I continue to jump down litho's throat, I shall try harder to move in that direction, whether or not there is reciprocation.  

                                  No saint I; not expecting anyhing; just musing in the context of this apology.

                                  by Eric S on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:44:36 PM PDT

                                  •  Nothing against you. My mind's on other

                                    things. I appreciate your effort.

                                    I believe our goals are the same, the greatest peace for the greatest amount of people. Life is hard enough even when we are peace.

                                    One of the most important steps is to validate both side's narrative and history. Not the first time the Education Secretary, or whatever her title is has done the right thing. I believe she was involved in adding the 1967 border to Israeli school books.

                                    by mattes on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:59:51 PM PDT

                      •  Hey, Eric. I owe you an apology

                        It wasn't you who accused me of being a Hamas supporter, it was Mike S (I got confused by the first name+S moniker). Please accept my apology.

                        by StupidAsshole on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:23:32 PM PDT

                    •  Because the POL can't offer a final status

                      The Palestinians are completely disjointed.  Until there is one government who is willing and able to do hard job of policing their own people so that they don't violate the final status agreement there is no point in discussioning one.

                      And Israel isn't constantly blocking final status meetings.  Olmert can't deliver final status on the Israeli side because he has zero political capital.  Israelis don't trust Olmert to negotiate a final status.  Israel needs needs new elections.

                      by hadees on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:45:53 AM PDT

                      •  And impossible bar.

                        Destine to fail.

                        by mattes on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:55:45 AM PDT

                        •  If it is impossible why even bother...

                          signing a peace agreement if they have no intentions of honoring it.  Thats how land for peace works.  No peace then no land.  If the Palestinians are willing to offer peace they have to back it up.

                          by hadees on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:50:19 AM PDT

                      •  Yeh, and that's impossible

                        under conditions of military occupation. Jesus, did we expect the Algerians to run what would be essentially their own state effectively whilst still under French occupation, and moreover condition the end of the French occupation on this? It's absurd.

                        by heathlander on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:12:53 AM PDT

                        •  Gaza isn't occupied by Israel, lets start there

                          It is awfully convenient to say it is impossible but thats how land for peace works.  If there is no peace then there is no land.

                          by hadees on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:48:23 AM PDT

                          •  It's not convenient

                            it's obvious, and is accepted by virtually everyone. You've evidently got 'land for peace' wrong. 'Land for peace' does not mean that the Palestinians have to give up the fight and surrender in the hope that at some point in the future, Israel will deign to return their stolen land. The Palestinians are not that stupid. Land for peace means that as a result of negotiations, Israel will withdraw to the Green Line in exchange for peace. The 'peace' will not come first.

                            by heathlander on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:58:52 AM PDT

                            •  Did you even read my posts?

                              My entire argument is that until the Palestinians can actually offer real peace as part of negotiations there will be no deal.  And the PLO can't offer that unless they are willing to enforce it which I don't see them being willing to do now.

                              by hadees on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:18:07 PM PDT

                              •  They can offer peace

                                but that's not what you were saying. You weren't saying that a deal is only possible if the Palestinians are able to offer peace through negotiations. You were saying that a deal is only possible if Palestinians can offer peace before negotiations, which, as I pointed out, is nonsense.

                                by heathlander on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:52:51 PM PDT

                                •  Don't put words in my mouth

                                  I think you need to reread the posts

                                  The Palestinians are completely disjointed.  Until there is one government who is willing and able to do hard job of policing their own people so that they don't violate the final status agreement there is no point in discussioning one.

                                  No where did I say they have to do it first although it is simple human decency that they should only attack military targets and leave the civilians alone.

                                  by hadees on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:24:32 PM PDT

                                  •  But surely the implication was that

                                    since they have not been "willing and able" to do it so far, it shows that Israel could not trust the current Palestinian leadership (or any of the previous ones, presumably) enough to make a peace with, because there'd be no guarantee that they would stick to it. Isn't that what you were arguing?

                                    As for this:

                                    "it is simple human decency that they should only attack military targets and leave the civilians alone"

                                    I totally agree.

                                    by heathlander on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:06:24 PM PDT

                  •  As I say, Hamas will not 'recognise Israel'

                    prior to negotiations. It would almost certainly recognise Israel as a result of negotiations, but of course there's only one way to find that out for sure. Hamas isn't prepared to make the same mistake as Fatah, and 'recognise' Israel (a huge concessions, in their eyes) only to receive more settlements in return.

                    Not to mention that the very fact that Israel is insisting of 'recognition' as a precondition to negotiations with Hamas (it didn't with the PLO) shows that it isn't interested in serious negotiations, so Hamas and the Palestinians would gain nothing by acceding.

                    As for Hroub - perhaps you're not that familiar with him. He says explicitly, for example, that Hamas is "anti-Zionist, not anti-Jew" (p. 33). He, like Sela and Mishal, recognise that Hamas is a pragmatic movement, not a prisoner of its previous ideologies. In other words, it's open to change. As Hroub wrote,

                    "It is safe to say that the longer Hamas remains in power, the more tensions will appear between its religious and nationalist constituents, with the probable pragmatic outcome pushing the movement to a more politicized nationalist leaning."

                    Obviously, he was writing that last year - but he was right. Hamas did undergo a shift, and it was towards the pragmatic, political side. Of course, all Hamas' overtures were ignored and it was simply met with flat rejection and hostility by everyone. If, as is a real possibility, Hamas is forced out of what power it has, no doubt any ground gained by the pragmatists and nationalists in the movement will be lost.

                    by heathlander on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:18:34 AM PDT

                    •  That explains why Hamas

                      targeted those Jews in Argentina, right.. they were zionists???

                      by Pumpkinlove on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:58:49 AM PDT

            •  Link showing Hamas renounced charter?

              by Pumpkinlove on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:04:23 AM PDT

            •  document, please

              They already have.

              Link to a statement from either Haniya or Meshal renouncing the charter in its current state and promulgating a new one?

              by zemblan on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:01:16 AM PDT

•  Before you get flamed

  for saying something positive about Hamas, know that there are many of us here who don't get into the I/P flame wars, it can cost major mojo. But if you are attacked, keep in mind that the many who agree with you just aren't posting on the topic.

  The vast divide between supporters of Palestinian rights and defenders of Israeli policy threatens to make us less effective in 2008 and hopefully won't tear the community apart.

  by MakeChessNotWar on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:23:25 PM PDT

  •  I think it's important enough to keep

    posting.

    It's our number one national security problem. And time it was solved.

    by mattes on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:58:04 PM PDT

•  good for them

  now if they can keep this up we might be able to get somewhere.

  by Doughnutman on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 03:03:50 PM PDT

•  Thanks for the diary, mattes!

  It's good to see you posting today.

  by Rusty Pipes on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 04:09:29 PM PDT

•  And yet more good news from Israel,

  From today's NYT:

  JERUSALEM, July 22 — Israel’s Education Ministry announced Sunday that it had approved a textbook for use in the state’s Arab schools that for the first time described Israel’s 1948 war of independence as a “catastrophe” for the Arab population.

  This one's for third graders and includes neither martyr mice nor bomber bees.

  by Eric S on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:16:41 PM PDT

  •  Note that the new, balanced textbook...

    ...has not been approved for use in Jewish schools, only in Arab schools. Israeli Jews will continue to be force-fed a diet of Nakba-denial.

    by StupidAsshole on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:46:46 PM PDT

    •  Did you notice why? The article said why.

      No news is good enough for stupid asshole.  He thinks that third graders are ready for two completely different explanations of history and that they can sort such things out.  I have a fourth grader in the house.  I can tell you, they are right.  What can you tell me?

      by Eric S on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:08:38 PM PDT

      •  Clearly you were only ever given one...

        ...explanation of history--and it shows. It would be nice to see future generations grow up with the ability to question the histories composed by those in power--an ability which you clearly lack.

        by StupidAsshole on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:24:15 PM PDT

        •  You have children? Teachers' credentials?

          A degree in education or child psychology?  Do you know anything about children?  Do you know anything about me?  Do you know anything?

          Maybe you think seven year olds are ready for the debates here at dKos.  I'm not sure you are.

          by Eric S on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:53:46 PM PDT

          •  Actually, I've come across plenty of overgrown...

            ...children on here--usually representing the I side on I/P debates.

            by StupidAsshole on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:59:58 PM PDT

            •  That's 3 profoundly ignorant comments in a row.

              Having a problem tonight?  

              by Eric S on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 08:26:37 PM PDT

              •  Case in point n/t

                by StupidAsshole on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 08:38:29 PM PDT

                •  I get it now. You are a one man truth squad,

                  out to set things right.  I just spotted some of your fine (hidden) efforts at stalking jritz.  Before you get back to your good works, let me tell you two little things:

                  1. My first comment regarding good news from Israel, should be understood as good news for all concerned.  At minimum, it offers something to Palestinian children and demonstrates that those who administer Israeli education are standing up to their right wing.  Furthermore, it could easily have been posted by mattes herself within this diary.

                  2. Your response are trollish, ill-informed, tedious and retaliatory, despite my not recently having words with you.  Your really deserve a few TRs.  Let me think about it.

                  by Eric S on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 08:52:33 PM PDT

                  •  Your petty-mindedness is really showing through..

                    ...tonight. TR away, if you can't win the argument with words.

                    BTW, aren't you the person who accused me of being a Hamas supporter a while back? That really attests to your ignorance and lack of maturity.

                    by StupidAsshole on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:01:18 PM PDT

                    •  I've already won the argument with words. n/t

                      by Eric S on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:09:13 PM PDT

                      •  So it WAS you who accused me of being a...

                        ...Hamas supporter. Do you honestly believe that I (an atheist, married to a Jew, with an extensive network of family and friends in Israel) really support Hamas? Can you not recognize that decent people can have different opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue than yourself without "supporting the terrorists" (to quote a right-wing meme to which you appear to be beholden)?

                        by StupidAsshole on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:14:15 PM PDT

                        •  Weren't we were talking education policy?

                          I don't know you.  I don't want to know you.  And it appears you are capable of saying anything.  

                          If I suggested you were a supporter of Hamas, sometime in the past, I am quite sure you provided more than ample provocation for that statement, just as you are all about provocation right now.

                          I am not in the least bit interested in participating in your hijack of this diary today.

                          by Eric S on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:23:55 PM PDT

                          •  I guess it's not surprising that you would...

                            ...resort to such pathetic right-wing ploys as accusing those who disagree with you of being terrorist supporters. After all, your position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue appears to be to the right of even the Bush administration's. You even posted a diary that derided the idea of a two-state solution as "onanism": http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            by StupidAsshole on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:39:40 PM PDT

                            •  You entirely misread that diary, and I'm going

                              to bed.

                              Have a good night.

                              by Eric S on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:43:34 PM PDT

                              •  Sweet dreams! n/t

                                by StupidAsshole on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:48:40 PM PDT

            •  I wonder if the Irony of how childish...

              that comment is, is lost on you.

              by hadees on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:28:52 AM PDT

              •  Mr. Asshole. . .

                (I don't call him Stupid because we're not on first name terms) does not do irony very well.

                by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:03:36 PM PDT

•  Cough.

  So, in short, Hamas is imposing illegal courts without any basis in law and further usurping the authority of the legitimate authorities,

  Hamas is replacing Gaza's defunct courts with a legal committee consisting of an Islamic law expert, a military court lawyer and the head of the main prison, a spokesman for the Hamas force policing Gaza announced Saturday.

  ...and moving on to acknowledge what some here have denied ever happened or ever mattered:

  "What happened, I swear to God and God is a witness, was loathsome for us. But it is like a medicine pill that we were forced to swallow,"

  Point of fact, it wasn't medicine they swallowed, it was shooting people in the streets and throwing other people off roofs. There's not even regret in that statement - all he feels sorry for is Hamas, not their victims.

  Now, as we know from Litho's earlier diary and the poll linked there, Hamas has the support of 16% of Palestinians. Why are they being allowed to illegally hold the people of Gaza hostage? When a plurality of the people there actually support their rivals of Fatah? How much longer will the occupation of Gaza go on?

  by MBNYC on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:21:34 PM PDT

  •  re

    'So, in short, Hamas is imposing illegal courts without any basis in law and further usurping the authority of the legitimate authorities,'

    Well, given that Fatah has closed down the courts, there's little else they could do. Of course, you will say that they should give up control of Gaza completely, but given that they aren't going to do that without negotiations, they still have to manage daily life there - that involves setting up an alternative to the courts.

    'and moving on to acknowledge what some here have denied ever happened or ever mattered:'

    Only in your fevered head, mate.

    'Now, as we know from Litho's earlier diary and the poll linked there, Hamas has the support of 16% of Palestinians.'

    Interesting - I thought you said you knew something about polls? Surely you're aware that this has been taken after a year of absolute misery deliberately imposed on Palestinians by foreign powers, with the explicit message that it will continue if they stick with Hamas and that it will all end if they don't? As for "how long" will Hamas remain in power in Gaza - well, who knows?  The only sensible way to deal with this is through negotiations.

    by heathlander on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:48:22 AM PDT

    •  Do they need negotiation? Why won't elections do?

      Why does Hamas have to have negotiations to give up Gaza?  If they are truly as popular as some on here think they are then elections should only strengthen their position.  

      Of coarse if they are not they would have to give in to the will of the Palestinian people and let whom ever they elected run Gaza, even if that turns out the be Fatah.  Maybe thats why they won't let the people decide.

      by hadees on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:34:27 AM PDT

      •  Didn't we just go through this? Hamas was elected

        to represent the people and were immediately told that their election wouldn't be recognized.  To ask them to stand for election without anything changing in that environment would be like asking someone to step in front of the bus, again.

        Makes no sense.  Something has to change both internally, and externally to get Hamas to re-engage in the whole process.  This diary and Eric S's comment upthread seem to suggest that something may be changing.  Positive signs observed by hopeful non-participants, anyway.

        by Terra Mystica on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 03:29:41 AM PDT

  •  Gaza is now under Sharia.

    Isn't Hamas wonderful?

    /snark

    by Pumpkinlove on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:07:43 AM PDT

•  Hamas does not want peace

  Those who think they do are living in a fantasy land.  Hamas is a terrorist group, that has a racist, non-democratic, and violent ideology.  No one in their right mind should think that they will help the Palestinian people, or make peace with Israel.

  http://antiracistblog.blogspot.com/

  by Anti Racist Blog on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 08:18:45 PM PDT

  •  Only if you conclude that most of

    the experts on Hamas are not in "their right mind[s]".

    by heathlander on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:49:18 AM PDT

    •  What consitutues a Hamas expert?

      Liking Hamas?

      by hadees on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:35:34 AM PDT

•  All Hamas has to do...

  ...is 1) recognize Israel, 2) renounce violence, 3) agree to abide by all previous agreements.

  The bar is so frickin low for these guys and they still can't clear it.

  Meanwhile, Hamas acknowledges that they'll talk to Blair.  They'll talk to ANYONE, in fact!  As long as it's not Israel.

  Funny, how the people who want to talk to Hamas excuse the fact that they wont talk to the entity that they must make peace (not a hudna) with.

  by JPhurst on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:21:22 AM PDT

  •  You could say the same thing for Israel.

    -Recognize the right for the Palestinians to live in their own state and withdraw.

    -Renounce violence as a means of enforcing the occupation; and,

    -Abide by all previous agreements.

    Seems the bar is pretty low for both sides, if that is the way you think about these things.

    by Terra Mystica on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 03:35:20 AM PDT

•  Great Positive Diary (GPD?) mattes. Thanks.

  Great comment thread too.

  by Terra Mystica on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 03:38:12 AM PDT