"At first glance Hamas, a party that looks after the poor with its money and charity, appears to be playing a well-known tune on the instrument of populism. On the other hand, every major international aid organization is singing the Islamist group's praises when it comes to the quality of its work. "In the International Crisis Group's 2003 report, the most important American NGOs gave perfect marks to Hamas's work; they couldn't have achieved a better result," says Helga Baumgarten, a lecturer at Birzeit University in Ramallah.

Baumgarten believes that the success of the party, which emerged from the radical Muslim Brotherhood in 1987, is based on two factors: the highly professional work of the group's welfare agencies and Hamas's oft-cited integrity. "In fact, all studies have concluded that Hamas operates without a trace of corruption," says Baumgarten. "This has enabled it to gain the respect of the population over the years."
Nevertheless, Hamas is no moderate party. It sees itself as the spearhead of Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation. Following its surprising election victory in January, the organization refused to renounce armed conflict or to recognize Israel. Its repeated use of suicide bombings against Israeli citizens since its founding has also contributed to Hamas being classified as a terrorist organization in the West -- despite its day-to-day charitable activities."

Great post, Jo-Ann.
I'm glad Olmert didn't have to run his idea for talking to Abbas and letting the Palestinians have their own money by the organized lobby in America.
They would have gone ballistic.

By this morning they should have new talking points saying that Olmert's "gifts" (talking and their own money) demonstrates, yet again, how forthcoming the GOI is while demonstrating (yet again) that the Palestinians have no complaints about Israel.

Does Olmert have to run the $100 mill through the US House and Senate. If so, there will be a few dozen amendments attached by Tom Lantos and company including that old perennial that Palestinian first grad readers no longer be about "Mustafa and Naila" but rather "Shlomo and Daniella." And that other one that diverts several million to build Holocaust museums in Hebron, Nablus, Jenin, Ramallah and Gaza with compulsory attendance by all Pal kids on Naqba Day.

susanp

Call it an obligation, but do you honestly believe that the Palestinians have anything substantive to offer?

Israel doesn't expect money, they expect their one soldier to be returned along with a sustained peace.

Even with this obligation (or act of goodwill) on the part of Olmert, Abbas cannot guarantee a cessation in violence. Hamas cannot guarantee a cessation in violence.

The bottom line here is that even if Israel were to act prudently with regard to working toward peace, there are still Palestinian factions who would resort to violence.

In short, we all know Israel is just as responsible as anyone for bringing about the violence. Yet, one of the main reasons why Israeli political parties have trouble adopting policies of peace is simply because any Palestinian authority would be unable to meet them halfway in the event that serious overtures of peace were made.

We are still a long way from seriously renewed peace negotiations, especially considering the weakness of both Olmert's government and Abu Mazen-as one Israeli commentator noted in today's Israeli newspapers, Olmert has half a government and none of the people with him and Mazen has no government and half of the people.
But one more interesting note-Olmert's staff flew the Palestinian flag above the PM's official residence in Rehavia Jerusalem--for the first time, a Pal flag flew on an official Israeli building. At least as far as the symbols go, Olmert's folks have it right. Whether Olmert has the ability to really lead, lead, lead--well, I am sceptical but hope to be proven wrong. As for M.J.'s points, I concur fully. One can only hope that there, too, Olmert has the leadership skills lurking within to make clear that a just peace with the Palestinians is in the Israeli interest--as it surely is, too, in our own country's interest.

That's partly because the Fatah legitimacy was always gained on the back of a peace process

Huh?  What is the evidence for this rather stunning statement?

Fatah was the movement that defined Palestinian nationalism back in the 60s.  It's legitimacy in Palestinian eyes comes from that, not the peace process.  It's legitimacy in Israeli eyes comes from the fact that it has recognized Israel.  It was the only party among the Palestinians that had legitimacy on both ends and as such was in a unique position to negotiate a peace deal with Israel and - more importantly - sell it to the Palestinian people.  Instead it squandered the opportunity and now retains legitimacy only in comparison with the alternatives out there.

Those of you who frequent US malls may have noticed in the past few years in December there have been carts selling Bethlehem Olive Wood, usually presided over by an owner actually from the Bethlehem (Palestine, not Pennsylvania) area. They have multiplied in recent years, and it's not been a random occurrence. Bethlehem has been and remains under an inhumane Israeli semi-starvation siege for over half a decade now. The town is heavily dependent upon tourists for its economic livelihood. Because the Israelis have deliberately choked the tourist flow off almost entirely, the many olive wood vendors from Beit Lahem (Bethlehem), Beit Jala (half of whose land or more was stolen to build the illegal Israeli settlement of Gilo), and Beit Sahour (traditional site of the "Shepherd's Field" where the abiders-in-the-field were visited by the angel who told them to visit the new baby Jesus) have turned to both internet sales and annual trips to the US at Christmas to sell their wares in malls. The Christians of the Bethlehem area frequently have relatives living abroad (Israeli wars and sieges over the past 60 years have led many to emmigrate in larger numbers than Muslims because their connections to Christian churches and diaspora communities abroad - especially in Latin America and the US - along with their generally higher levels of wealth gave them greater opportunity to escape Israeli oppression than many Muslims had) including in the US, so they have been able to get visas to go spend some time trying to get at least one month of decent sales every year. They generally show up after Thanksgiving (frequently relatives will rotate coming to the US from year to year) and work at the malls long days from open to close trying to sell a bundle of inventory they've brought.

Where are the Arabs and particularly the Palestinians in this tale? Or is it your view if only the Israelis do all you think they should do peace will break out spontaneously?

I would suggest, however a deal between the Israelis and the Syrians. The Israelis give to Syria the Golan, Shaba Farms and a free hand in Lebanon. In exchange Syria see to it that the two Israeli soldiers, or their bodies, are returned to Israel.

Additionally, after Hezbollah kills off as many of Syria's opponents and as Syria chooses they will cut off weapons to Hezbollah, push Hezbollah away from Israel's border and understand any attacks on Israel from Lebanon will be seen as originating in Syria.

Similarly with Hamas. Syria will see to it that Shalit is returned to Israel and Israel will release all its Palestinian prisoners. Syria will force Hamas' acceptance of the Taba deal and once signed Israel will released all of the funds it is holding to the PA. Then in some reasonable time Israel will remove the settlements from the West Bank and allow the corridor through Israel connecting Gaza and the West Bank. If Israel wants to build a fence that is up to them. Again, any attacks by the Palestinians will not only be met directly but seen as an attack by Syria on Israel.

This way Syria gets want it wants, there is a Palestinian State and Israel gets a peace deal with both Syria and Hamas and the PA.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I was wondering if you are familiar with the work of Alan Dowty or Michelle Gawwerc? In 2001 they wrote a piece in the Middle Eastern Review of International Affairs , Vol. 5, No.3 (September, 2001) discussing the Second Intifada.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

And the title of the article you link to?

"Bethlehem - the last place you would want to be for Christmas".

Let me recommend that others here read the whole thing.

For years Hezbollah limited it's attacks to military targets and Hamas held a unilateral ceasefire; but the building on the west bank continues, the Palestinians grow more desperate.

Now Bushmert will see Fatah as a new version of the Contras, and The US seems to be implementing "the El Salvador option" in Iraq.

"However as one of the residents said Fatah and Hamas should stop fighting each other and fight the Israelis."

I'll agree with that.

"Hezbollah (Iran)"

Hezbollah is not Iran.

I believe that while Hamas is Sunni Hezbollah is Shi'ite and the latter has been closely aligned with Iran since the mid-1980s.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Hezbullah is Shiite (and aligned with but not controlled by Iran)

Hezbollah is funded and inerently supported by Iran. Moreover, Iranian soldiers fight alongside Hezbollah guerillas.

If you want to be technical, Hezbollah is not Iran, but in all reality they're one in the same.

"Hezbollah on the other hand, proved a very hard target. It was the new center's first attempt to penetrate a committed Islamist terrorist organization that engaged American citizens. The experience offered ill omens for the future. A radical Islamic Shiite faction in Lebanon's civil war that began to serve as s proxy force for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Hezbollah had become a terrorist branch of the still churning Iranian Revolution." (Coll, Steve "Ghost Wars" pp. 142-143).

Prior to this paragraph Coll recounts that number of Americans killed at the hands of Palestinians and those killed by Hezbollah in Lebanon including the CIA station chief in Beirut, the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon and 241 Marines. From then on the U.S. government and in particular the CIA added the Palestinians and Hezbollah to their list of enemies of Americans.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Coll's book was recommended by Anne-Marie Slaughter but many other people here who said it was the definitive book about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan from the Soviet Invasion on.

"The terrorist attacks came one after another during 1985, all broadcast live on network television to tens of millions of Americans. In June two Lebanese terrorists hijacked TWA Flight 847, murdered a Navy diver on board and negotiated while mugging for cameras on a Beirut runway. In October the Palestinian terrorist Abu Abbas hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro in Italy murdered a sixty-nine year old Jewish American tourist, Leon Klinghoffer, dumped his body overboard and ultimately escaped to Baghdad with Egyptian and Italaian collaboration. Just after Christmas, Palestinian gunmen with the Abu Nidal Organization opened fire on passengers lined at El Al ticket counters in Vienna and Rome, killing nineteen people, among them five Americans. One of the American victims was an eleven year-old girl named Natasha Simpson who died in her father's arms after a gunman unloaded an extra round in her head to make sure. The attackers, boyish products of Palestinian refugee camps, had been pumped full of amphetamines by their handlers before the holiday attacks.

The shock of these events followed the 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Lebanon, which claimed the lives of some of the CIAs brightest minds on the Middle East and the 1984 bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut in which 241 Marines died. The Shite terrorist orpanizations Hezbollah bad seized American hostages in Lebanon. Casey and Reagan had been galvanced by the voilence in Lebanon against official American and journalists. Now they confronted a new wider wave of attacks targeting American civilians and tourists."(Coll, Steve. "Ghost Wars" pp137-138).

These are not about Israelis but about Americans murdered. I will confess that my brother was in the same class and Leon Klinghoffer's daughter, and I knew Ilse fairly well myself. I regret to say I am not so easily cavalier about the murder of Americans.

If you don't feel the Coll book is adequate this is from a July 17, 2006 Backgrounder from the "Council On Foreign Relations"

"Hezbollah and its affiliates have planned or been linked to a lengthy series of terrorist attacks against the United States, Israel, and other Western targets. These attacks include:

"....
* the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, which featured the famous footage of the plane’s pilot leaning out of the cockpit with a gun to his head;
* two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina—the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy (killing twenty-nine) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing ninety-five).
* a July 2006 raid on a border post in northern Israel in which two Israeli soldiers were taken captive. The abductions sparked an Israeli military campaign against Lebanon to which Hezbollah responded by firing rockets across the Lebanese border into Israel. "[http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/]

I don't know if this avoids your view of BS but it does seem to be a pretty serious set of facts.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Looking at it from the perspective that Iran is increasing its regional influence, I think it would be fair to say that Syria is part of the Iranian 'bloc' at this stage.

Is there any proof to indicate that Damascus operates independently from Tehran?

Mort and Rosenberg -- our resident useful idiots.

This recent round of talks does seem to be accompanied by more than the usual amount of Israeli cynicism. When the news about the WH plans to give Bush a "success" in the ME is taken into account, the idea that the talks were pushed on both Abbas and Olmert by Washington does seem a likely scenario.

Here's the plan:

"The meeting between Olmert and Abbas Saturday evening, say political sources in Jerusalem, fits the first part of the plan: At the end of the meeting a series of goodwill gestures was concluded, which primarily included easing Palestinian movement and providing direct economic assistance to the Palestinian president.

Incidentally, the lion's share of the funds the cabinet is set to "release" to Abbas will in fact remain in Israel as payment of debts to Israeli suppliers such as the Israel Electric Corporation and petrol providers. The remaining part of the funds will be used to strengthen the presidential guard.

The second phase of the plan comprises measures aimed at strengthening Abbas' Fatah movement. At this stage experts at the State Department are talking about the internal Palestinian rift, including the possibility of an armed clash that would ultimately result in – or so they hope - the establishment of a Palestinian state that would recognize Israel.

The third stage would be talks between Abbas and Israel. The outcome of the talks would be put to a referendum in the territories, and in its wake a Palestinian state would be established within temporary borders."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3344370,00.html

Not only do the visionaries in this administration hope that there will be a civil war between Fatah and Hamas, they're actively training and arming Fatah militants, bringing in PLO members from Jordan, and encouraging Egypt and the Saudis to supply "lethal" weapons to Abbas.

I have a hard time believing that the Israelis really think that a civil war is in Israel's best interests. But as with the war on Iraq, this wouldn't be the first time Israel's American "friends" have pushed their version of what's REALLY good for Israel.

There is, as always, the possibility that Islamic Jihad's rockets (fired in response to IDF activities in the Occupied territories) and the end of Israeli "restraint" in responding to them will short circuit the "peace process".

The news that new settlement construction has just been approved doesn't help. Perhaps some journo who has a clue about what's really going on in Israel will press Miss Condi for her thoughts about what the Israeli media calls a "broken promise" to the US re the new construction in the West Bank.

After deciding that Israel cannot maintain indefinitely left-hand traffic, Olmert courageously decided to let one type of trucks follow right-hand rule. Statesmanship demanded however to allow more cars to follow left-hand rule.

Jo-Ann: "but it's pretty obvious that Olmert, leading a weak government, needed to institute some drastic measures to strengthen Mazen, in an even weaker position"

so Olmert decided to follow as non-drastic measures as he could get away with -- except that authorizing a brand-new settlement is pretty drastic.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a cautious praise of Olmert.

Sage: "Suasion, yes; diktat, no." I recall that during dictatorship in Argentina a head of police explained to a reported that "we prefer suasion". Now, I see the word for the second time. Does it mean "why resort to diktat if you have thumbscrews?" or "suave tortures"?

Olmert didn't authorize the settlement the Labor Defense Minister Peretz did. It is unclear whether Olmert can undo it.

However, Abbas told Egypt he is ready to engage in "backdoor" diplomacy. The Egyptian Foreign Minister was just in Jerusalem. He thanked the Israelis for their restraint in the face of the continuing rain of qassam missiles. Now that two children have been injured the IDF is going afte r the launchers.

Olmert is going to Egypt sometime next week. The settlements are seem to be much more of an American issue than one in the Middle Est. If a deal can be reched as with Sinai and Gaza the Israelis will leave. If there is no deal Israel will pick a border and defend it. Islamic Jihad and Hamas can try to derail negotiations and the truce and if they do this debate will be going on for decades as a Greater Israel gets more and more established.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The last time I checked, Olmert was the boss, and Peretz was not an independent prince. That Peretz meticulously breaks promises made to be elected the head of Labor is a related issue. He and Olmert are stewing in the same pot, making half-steps in opposite directions.

Why the cease-fire was not offered for West Bank? West Bank is in the same universe as Gaza, with the same organizations etc. Ceasefire in just one of these places makes no sense, unless withdrawal from Gaza is meant to be made-up with additional land grabs in West Bank, hardly an attractive reason to stick to a ceasefire, if you are a Palestinian. With the announcement of the new settlement, Peretz put a dot over iota.

Then he announced that out of 540 checkpoints that make life of West Bankers miserable he will dismantle 40. Wow! Wow! Reminds me a story of Mark Twain how the entire Heaven rejoiced when the most greedy and miserly man on Earth gave a nickel to a poor person.

On top of everything, this government is not much more politically successful with Israelis as it is with Palestinians. Both nations are radicalized. Is it a plan of Olmert and Peretz to avoid decisions and commit political suicide, Barak style?

Perhaps it is too much to ask for the level of boldness that David Grossman called for in his speach at Rabin's memorial. But a ceasefire in ALL territories, dismantling of ALL illegal (by Israeli standards) outposts, dismantling most of the checkpoints and making the rest less onerous, release of Barghuti (and a bunch of other prisoners), release of all money that is owed, relaxation on the flow of goods to and from of teritories --- perhaps staggered in some clear stages, but not too long, over the duration of ceasefire --- this could create some momentum. Something that hints and feints cannot do.

It is a sad joke.

The PLO was created in 1964 when there were no settlements. They were a tool of Nasser's, the Soviet
s and the Arab League.

Sadat made his deal wiht Israel and had the Sinai returned but left Gaza to Isreal.

The Saudis spent billions fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan but gave the Palestinians next to nothing and have barred them from the Gulf after Arafat supported Saddem's invasion of Kuwait.

So you care more about the settlements that most people in the Middle East. They had their usefulness when the Arabs were going to try to rid the region of Israel. Now that the Sunni Arabs are terrified that the U.S. will leave the Mid-East and them to the Iranians the Arabs are working very hard to make sure that Israel is in a position to deal with Iran.

I will predict what the joke will be. If the Arabs have to choose between stopping Iran or sacrificing the Palestinians the Palestinians will be thrown over the side.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

It's rather silly to pretend that Olmert has nothing to do with signing off on the building of new settlements. Yes he is a weak PM, but the notion that the even weaker Peretz is calling the shots is ludicrous.

BTW,Grossman's words about the current Israeli leadership set off reverberations of agreement throughout ALL segments of Israeli society:

"One of the most difficult outcomes of the recent war is the heightened realization that at this time there is no king in Israel, that our leadership is hollow. Our military and political leadership is hollow."

Amos Gilad is full of crap and your failure to provide a link to the contradictory article you quote at length is a curious oversight. The US, with Israeli compliance, is the prime mover instigating the arming and training of the Luntzian "forces of peace" that they hope will take on Hamas in an out and out civil war. The Egyptians are johnny-comes-latelies to this fine concept. Jordan actually signed on a few months ago.

Even Abbas is so far pretending that the four trucks loaded with 2000 AK-47s and a million rounds of ammo never crossed the border and delivered their goods.

While Americans who are dependent on their own media for information about what's going on in Israel can be persuaded that we and the Israelis will have had little or nothing to do with a civil war in the Occupied territories, the rest of the world knows very well where the idea was conceived and who has the bloodiest hands.

> > It is my understanding that Olmert has virtually no say in the settlement

That's odd. It was MY understanding that Ehud Olmert was the Prime Minister of the State of Israel.

> "Arafat had to shore of his position"
To shore of his position? Since your bio section claims you have three university degrees, shouldn't you at least TRY to make your posts more comprehensible?