The fact is, that both Olmert and Abbas are so weak, neither of them can negotiate an acceptable agreement--and their weakness can only be supplemented by U.S. strength.

I submit that they are weak leaders because neither of them have led.

Joanne: Just letting you know that the link you posted to your American Prospect article is bad. (The article can be found here.) 

Now I'll go read it... 

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Great article. I think this says a whole lot about both sides:

as in their tendency to conduct negotiations among themselves and then feel as if they've accomplished something in the long march to peace

Any US role in negotiations must be predicated on the existence of one consolidated voice for each side, and any attempts by one Side to fragment the other need to be opposed explicitly.

Seems pretty obvious that the next steps involve a prisoner swap that will include Bhargouti who will lead a united Palestinian side.

There isn't anybody who can lead a united Israeli side. But if we are talking about serious negotiations in which Israelis actually agree to get out rather than cosmetic Oslo style agreements for PR purposes while expanding settlements, Israeli disarray rather than strength and confidence is a necessary precondition. It is after all the Israeli side that has to retreat, not the Palestinians and retreat isn't done by confident united national leaderships.

In a relatively short period Israel has moved from refusing to deal with Fateh unless it smashes Hamas as a precondition for serious talks, to regarding Fateh as their best hope and being about to resume relations with the Hamas led Palestine Authority with the idea of smashing Hamas having now faded along with the idea of smashing Hezbollah.

Compare with the very long period between treating Fateh and the PLO as criminal terrorist organization to being willing to even consider dealing with them at all, even cosmetically and pretending that "Jordan is Palestine". Things are actually moving along much better than they were with more "helpful" (to Israel) US administrations.

The principle of international forces providing security around Israeli borders has now been accepted ("demanded") in south Lebanon and is equally applicable to the West Bank and Gaza as proposed long ago by the PLO.

So far Olmert has still only mentioned that major settlements are on the table but has not yet taken the final step necessary for serious negotiations to begin - accepting that the 1967 borders are the basis for negotiations.

Expect more intense shouting about Iran as preparation for that essential step.

Prick a Palestinian ,doth he not bleed ?

There are indeed far too many who , tragically , are willing to sacrifice their children for their goal . How awful .

And there are others who pour their children's cereal in the morning and wouldn't dream of that. But who , sadly , probably hate the Israelis as much as you hate the Palestinians. But you could
change your mind in time and so could
at least some of them .

Hamas is not as fundamentalist as other Islamic movements in the region. They are no angels, believe me, but they are politically malleable.

Hamas says that they will never recognize Isreal, amd that there is no Isreal. What part of "No, not only no, but HELL NO" do you not understand? Hamas is an abolitionist organization. They want to abolish Isreal. Why won't you believe them?

The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir

Hamas is not monolithic: there are extreme elements, true, but there are also more moderate elements within Hamas. It is perhaps this composition that may ultimately lead them to moderate their views and compromise, as Mort suggests.

As a bit of an aside, it's quite interesting to note that it was actually Israel whose actions brought Hamas to power anyway, as this February 12th, 2007 Reuters article describes:

Olmert accused Netanyahu in parliament of unwittingly helping Hamas transform itself from a grassroots Gazan charity-cum-militia into a major Middle East player with sponsors like Iran.

"This is the man who propped up Hamas and revived it. He is the one who freed Sheikh Yassin and gave Hamas the option to thrive thanks to the silly business that happened when he was prime minister," an Israeli official quoted Olmert as saying.

(Olmert is referring above to a failed Israeli assassination attempt in Jordan under Netanyahu, and his subsequent freeing of a Hamas leader in 1997, in order to molify the Jordanians.)

Hamas emerged in the first Palestinian revolt of 1987-1993, and later made international headlines with a wave of suicide bombings aimed at scuppering interim peace deals between Israel and the more secular Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

Prior to that rapprochement, Israel saw Hamas as a useful rival to the PLO. Historians say Israeli officials often turned a blind eye to Gazan Islamists -- the forbears of Hamas -- in the early 1980s in order to foster tensions between factions.

 

 

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Just as exists in Israel today, there is polarization in the Palestinian public. That being the case, it's not at all surprising or strange that Haniyeh would want to ensure the agreement of Meshaal prior to signing off on the deal.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

As a bit of an aside, it's quite interesting to note that it was actually Israel whose actions brought Hamas to power...

Actually it was a Palestinian election.

The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir

I offered quite a bit of information suggesting that it was Israel itself that transformed Hamas from a relatively insignificant militia/human services organization into what exists today. All you offered in reply was this:

 Actually it was a Palestinian election.

So, are you denying the impact of Israeli meddling in the rise of Hamas? Are you saying that you think a relatively insignificant political movement, as Hamas was before the Israelis decided they needed a rival to Fatah, would have been in any sort of position to win the Palestinian election?

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Regional history here has to be evaluated in phases. For example, some of the pre-partition agricultural settlements enjoyed peace with their neighbors, but others clearly did not. Ironically, it was a British-organized force with Zionist fighters, the Special Night Squads under Orde Wingate, that initiated a policy of flattening suspect residences -- except they would be entire villages nearest to pipeline sabotage.

The Arab world certainly did not accept partition, and, in reality, the UN was even less of a world government than some see it to be today. Before partition, there was terror by both sides.

I don't believe that the Arab world took Israel as extremely competent militarily until 1967, with some second looks in 1956. The initial Egyptian successes in 1973, I believe, allowed Sadat to make peace overtures when his domestic politics would not have begun to allow it beforehand. Obviously, it still cost him his life.

I only speak a few phrases of Arabic and no Farsi, but fluent friends have told that what may seem a dire death threat when translated are, in the context in which they have been said for domestic consumption, more expected rhetoric than serious plans. At the same time, I don't approve of suicide attacks on civilians, but I have some understanding of them from a partially parallel course with the Japanese.

The kamikaze were generally well-educated young men who believed, for multiple reasons, that they would unquestionably die in the war. Given that assumption, they wanted to make their death meaningful within their culture, and have as much control over it as possible. While the Japanese did commit many atrocities on civilians, I don't know of any suicide attacks on civilians; the special attacks (to use the usual Japanese term) were as warriors against warriors.

Palestinians conditioned to believe that there is no possibility of a meaningful future might make similar choices about their own deaths, although Islamic theology does not begin to approve of such to the extent that State Shinto approved. Realistically, a suicide bomber is not going to get an opportunity to attack Israeli military targets. Before you say that he should not attack civilians, remember Sir Arthur Harris' bombing campaign to "dehouse" civilians. Whether it makes sense or not -- the dehousing program was established not to have broken German morale -- attacking civilians may be the only option that seems available to a desperate, angry man.

Understanding does not mean approval. Understanding is, however, a requisite for developing strategies that have any chance of success.

How can Israel ever negotiate peace with people that will never deviate from this single-minded goal to drive every Israeli from the land and wipe Israel off the map?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*