June 15, 2007
BLURRY VISION:
Takeover by Hamas Illustrates Failure of Bush's Mideast Vision (Glenn Kessler, June 15, 2007, Washington Post)
Five years ago this month, President Bush stood in the Rose Garden and laid out a vision for the Middle East that included Israel and a state called Palestine living together in peace. "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," the president declared.The takeover this week of the Gaza Strip by the Hamas militant group dedicated to the elimination of Israel demonstrates how much that vision has failed to materialize, in part because of actions taken by the administration. The United States championed Israel's departure from the Gaza Strip as a first step toward peace and then pressed both Israelis and Palestinians to schedule legislative elections, which Hamas unexpectedly won. Now Hamas is the unchallenged power in Gaza.
After his reelection in 2004, Bush said he would use his "political capital" to help create a Palestinian state by the end of his second term. In his final 18 months as president, he faces the prospect of a shattered Palestinian Authority, a radical Islamic state on Israel's border and increasingly dwindling options to turn the tide against Hamas and create a functioning Palestinian state.
Palestinian statehood hopes in peril: Factional clashes could turn Gaza and West Bank into ministates ruled by Hamas and Fatah (Ken Ellingwood, June 15, 2007, LA Times)
It is possible that the two Palestinian factions can find a way to govern together after the fighting, which Hamas characterizes as an effort to weed out troublemakers intent on toppling the government it heads rather than as a bid to eradicate Fatah. A Hamas triumph could bring a halt to the chaos that has made Gazans miserable for months.The crisis has forced Palestinians to face how far apart the West Bank and Gaza really are, though separated by just 20 miles of Israeli territory at the narrowest point. Israeli restrictions prevent most Palestinians from traveling between the two areas. Palestinian legislators gather via video link because Hamas lawmakers are prevented from traveling across Israel.
"We already see the separation taking place on the ground," said Samir Said, 55, a grocer in Ramallah. "This is really bad for the Palestinian cause. We can see the Palestinian state vanishing."
Gaza, by far the poorer and more pious of the two areas, is Hamas' stronghold, though Fatah had long dominated the established security forces there. The West Bank, especially urban Ramallah, is more liberal-minded. The secular Fatah is the dominant political force, though Hamas enjoys support in some of the bigger towns, such as Hebron and Nablus.
Gaza bears the conservative markings of its years under Egyptian control before its capture by Israel during the 1967 Middle East War, while the West Bank has deep ties with Jordan, said Ali Jarbawi, a political scientist at Birzeit University near Ramallah.
"There is almost total separation," Jarbawi said.
The distinctions have been evident during the current fighting, with Hamas showing the might of its militias in Gaza and Fatah hitting back in the West Bank, where the Islamist movement is weaker.
A lasting split between the West Bank and Gaza could force Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, of Fatah, to consider whether to talk to the Israelis about peace steps limited to the West Bank, such as terms under which Israel would withdraw from isolated settlements, but short of establishing a Palestinian state, said Yossi Alpher, an Israeli analyst.
"Will Abu Mazen be willing to talk to us about the West Bank alone?" Alpher asked, using Abbas' nickname. "If he is, this could open up some possibilities."
The political crisis has propelled a debate among Palestinian intellectuals over whether Palestinians might be better served by dumping the trappings of the 1993 Oslo peace agreement, which created the enfeebled Palestinian Authority, and leaving themselves under Israeli occupation without their own government.
This would, in effect, swap the two-state solution for a one-state vision in which Arabs might someday achieve a demographic majority in the region that includes Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The idea has gained momentum since the power-sharing agreement reached in February between Hamas and Fatah failed to get the international community to end its ban on aid to the Hamas-led government.
"One cannot exclude such a possibility: that this is the end of the two-state solution," said Yitzhak Reiter, a fellow at Hebrew University's Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace in Jerusalem.
The vision was mostly clear, the President just failed to comprehend that Hamas is going to govern the eventual nation of Palestine and was unprepared to deal with that fact when they won. The joint American, Israeli, Fatah attempt to thwart Hamas has had predictably bad results for all concerned. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 15, 2007 6:44 AM
How can a policy which results in terrorists murdering each other be seen as a failure?
Posted by: erp at June 15, 2007 3:22 PMBad results for Fatah, certainly. Not sure how bad for us and the Israelis.
Seems like the beginning of a true "two state solution", Gaza and Eastern Palestine.
Israel should seize the moment. Unilateral withdraw from all of Eastern Palestine except for Jerusalem and a joint Israel/US declaration of recognition of Eastern Palestine as a "soverign" state. Send them about $10 billion US to seal the deal. How can Fatah turn it down?
Posted by: Bob at June 15, 2007 3:24 PMBecause all that delaying the creation of coherent nations in the surrounding neighborhood does is postpone the day when Israel can return to normalcy.
Posted by: oj at June 15, 2007 4:11 PMThe Fatah state would not be able to withstand elections, demographics nor nationalism.
Posted by: oj at June 15, 2007 4:13 PMHamas is never going to 'create a coherent nation'. They're a bunch of terrorist hard boys, good for hijacking European donations, sending women and children off to be splodydopes and having gun sex.
But they can't and won't do a single thing to create a nation, unless it's a nation of terrorists. They can't and won't run a government that deals with the mundane things of making a nation work. They won't treat with their Arab neighbors -- remember, they're in league with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and that won't end well for that country.
Anyone see them coining money? Issuing postage stamps (death to Israel, and for overnight delivery, it's death to Israel twice)? Running a coast guard? A forestry service? A school (okay, they'll get the kids to chant death to Israel). Not a chance.
The Palestinians have to hit rock bottom, and they're not there yet. When they do get there, they'll get rid of both Hamas and Fatah (and Islamic Jihad, and the Peoples Front of Judaea) and start to be realistic about what they have and what they can offer Israel for a little peace.
Posted by: Steve White at June 15, 2007 8:13 PMThen they'll lose elections. It's pretty basic. But Palestine won't hit rock bottom until they try.
Posted by: oj at June 15, 2007 10:22 PMWhen, a big if, they hit rock bottom, they'll just continue to blame someone else, like Bush and the great satan.
Posted by: Genecis at June 16, 2007 1:16 PMBush wouldn't meet with Arafat - a bold (and excellent) move.
Will the next President meet with Haniyeh (or his boss from Damascus)?
Posted by: ratbert at June 16, 2007 7:41 PMGaza is probably going to become something from a post-apocalyptic horror movie.
Pop quiz - when will the next election occur in Gaza? 2008? 2009? Not until after the fall of Damascus and an implosion in Tehran?
Take your pick.
Posted by: jim hamlen at June 16, 2007 8:32 PMWithin a year or two suffices. It's Fatah that can't ever hold one. They'd lose.
Posted by: oj at June 16, 2007 10:19 PMSure, blame Bush if one must. (And one, it seems, must. Absolutely)....
And speculate about all the possible positive outcomes of the latest butchery. Sure, why not? (What are the knitted brow brigades for, when all is said and done?)....
Most important of all: continue to ignore, or deny, Hamas's (and her handlers') intention and attempts to obliterate Israel---even to the point of having first to destroy the Palestinian people first in order to achieve that lofty goal. (For what could be more virtuous than destroying the Zionist Entity? And if the people must become shaheeds in the process, how much greater the virtue?)....
Meanwhile, Iran is making preparations for lots of shaheeds. (But then, what were---are---the Palestinians for, anyway?)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at June 17, 2007 1:37 AMTheir intentions are meaningless. They lack the capability. The fact is that Israel has rather easily denied them a state and maintained one of their own for decades while the Palestinians have no power to do the opposite.
Posted by: oj at June 17, 2007 6:50 AM