Ahmed Yousef, a senior political advisor to recently ousted Palestinian Ismail Haniyeh, scored an impressive double victory today by having slightly different op-ed articles published in both the WaPo and the NYT.
More on the content of these two significant articles later. But first, we should note that the existence of these two soberly argued articles indicates a couple of very important things that are often overlooked in the US discourse: First, that the Hamas leaders are eager to reach out to and engage intellectually with the US mainstream discourse, and secondly that they have maintained a good capability to do this, even in circumstances of great tension and difficulty for all Palestinians, in Gaza and elsewhere.
Regarding their desire to engage with the US discourse, there have of course been numerous other examples of this, including earlier op-eds that Haniyeh himself, Mousa Abu Marzook, and other Hamas luminaries have published in the WaPo and the NYT. The decision to reach out and engage is not a trivial matter– and maybe, amidst all the anti-Israeli and anti-US anger that pervades much of the Hamas base, it was not an easy one to take.
Regarding the ability of the Hamas leaders to continue to pursue their intellectual-engagement decision, even in very tumultuous times, this is also significant.
A noticeable amount of the discourse in the US “big media” these days about the situation in Gaza and the role played by Hamas has focused heavily on (and quite possibly disproportionately magnifies) the negative aspects of the situation. Mainstream commentators seem to want to portray Hamas-controlled Gaza as a wild place, ungoverned except by wild men in scary ski masks, while painting the (currently Fateh-dominated) West Bank as a potential haven of stability.
However, on Monday, Karen AbuZayd, who’s the head of the UN agency, UNRWA, that’s responsible for providing basic humanitarian needs to the refugees who make up a large proportion of the Palestinian population in both areas, announced that,
- we are now operating in Gaza as we did before the recent violence… UNRWA is working at full capacity once again, delivering services to a population that has been so badly affected by chronic insecurity.
And in the West Bank city of Nablus, the World Food Program reported on Saturday that unidentified armed men “ransacked the well-marked warehouse this morning, stole several tons of WFP food and looted office equipment including computers and fax machines.”
Of course, considerable problems remain in both territories. A number of Fateh-related families and Palestinians eager to be reunited with families in the West Bank have been camped out for many days now at Israel’s dreadful, always-inhumane, cattle-yard/crossing at Erez. The plight of these families is terrible. Many of them have expressed strong (and currently, probably untestable) fears regarding their fate if they remain in Hamas-controlled Gaza; and the Israeli authorities have also treated them extremely badly, and in clear, very racist violation of all international codes regarding the obligation of states to offer a safe refuge to people suffering from a well-founded fear of persecution in their homelands.
Plus– and this is very relevant in the context of the present topic– Hamas-affiliated gunmen have attacked pro-Fateh media installations in Gaza and Fateh-affiliated gunmen have attacked pro-Hamas media installations, and one journo associated with one of these, in the West Bank. See PCHR’s report on these serious violations of the freedom of the press, here. Plus, of course, BBC’s Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston is still one of the many thousands of people in today’s Middle East who are being quite unjustifiably deprived of their liberty.
So, on to the content of Ahmed Yousef’s two pieces:
In his WaPo piece, he writes:
- The Palestinian National Authority apparently joins the list of elected governments targeted or toppled over the past century by interventionism: nations that had the courage to take American rhetoric at face value and elect whomever they would…
Hamas’s actions to secure Gaza from the horrific recent violence of the Palestinian contras have been out of self-defense. The assassinations of Hamas officials and supporters, attempts on the life of the elected prime minister, and kidnappings and bombings by some in President Mahmoud Abbas’s paramilitary groups had to stop. The PA has a clear legal right, indeed an obligation, to prevent this violence, by force if necessary, and to protect the Palestinian people.
It is not Hamas that has “outlawed” the government. (When has an elected party with a voting majority ever resorted to banning the government to get its way?) The success of the Reform and Change Party is [ i.e., the ‘front name’ under which Hamas participated in– and won– the parliamentary elections of January 2006] neither a chimera nor a momentary lapse in reason on the part of the electorate. Rather, it is the result of four decades of hard work in Palestinian society.
His arguments are interesting. Of course, parties or states that go to war against others always claim that they do so out of justified self-defense. There were, surely, many other ways in which the Hamas leaders could have “defended” themselves against the attacks they were suffering– and the even larger-scale attacks that the Fateh extermists were apparently planning against them, with the backing of Israel and the US– than simply by “going in for the kill” against the Dahlanist extremists who had dug themselves into the so-called “Preventive” Security Force in Gaza?? Sometime I would love to have all the books opened regarding how all the decisions on all these sides were taken over the past few weeks.
Anyway, Yousef goes on to argue– fairly successfully, in my view– against critics who argue that “Hamas and [the Hamas-dominated Palestinian] parliament are a stalking horse for Salafi jihadists”, or Al-Qaeda. I really do think many in the west still need to learn a lot more about the difference between those Islamist organizations (like Hamas, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Lebanon’s Hizbullah, or Turkey’s Justice & Development Party) who have built strong constituent bases by providing real services to the people, who become elected by them, and retain a strong degree of accountability to a settled constituent base– and those like Al-Qaeda whom one could describe as the most nihilistic, extremist, and irresponsible kind of “rootless cosmopolitans” whom one could imagine…
For more on Hamas’s record in this regard, go read the longish article I had on the topic in Boston Review in May/June 2006– or the JWN post I had describing the interview I had with infuential Gaza Hamas leader (and later, Foreign Minister) Dr. Mahmoud Zahhar, in March 2006.
All of that post is worth re-reading (and I hope to try to reflect on some of what Zahhar said there, and on what I wrote in the BR piece, in a future JWN post.) One small portion of what I wrote there was this:
- I asked [Zahhar] about Hamas’s relations with Al-Qaeda. He said,
- I want to tell the American people: we are not against the American people, but we do note those individuals who support Israel’s aggressions against us.
The Muslims are not against any other people. In history we have been the most tolerant, and we have had relations with all other civilizations. We believe in cooperation, not conflict.
Americans should understand: We are a moderate organization. We are not Qaeda at all.
… I found Zahhar to be forthright, smart, self-confident, and fairly inflexible. But above all I found him determined. Earlier, one of his colleagues in the Hamas leadership had expressed quiet satisfaction to me that, though in 2003-2004 the Israelis tried to wipe out all of Hamas’s top leadership– and in the course of that, they did succeed in killing Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and four or five other top leaders– “Still, we not only survived that wave of assassinations, but we also, in the election, showed that our organization emerged from it intact, and strong.”
Anyway, back to Ahmed Yousef and his WaPo piece today. He wrote, interestingly:
- Palestinians want, on their terms, the same thing Western societies want: self-determination, modernity, access to markets and their own economic power, and freedom for civil society to evolve. Those who warn of “failed states” and “Hamastan” as a breeding ground for terrorism forget where blame for failure belongs — at the feet of the American administration, which has chosen to isolate, rather than deal with, the elected government.
He held out some hope of reconciliation with Fateh:
- it remains that Hamas has a world in common with Fatah and other parties, and they all share the same goals — the end of occupation; the release of political prisoners; the right of return for all Palestinians; and freedom to be a nation equal among nations, secure in its own borders and at peace. For more than 60 years, Palestinians have resisted walls and checkpoints intended to divide them. Now they must resist the poisonous inducements to fight one another and resume a unified front against the occupation.
His piece in the NYT was much shorter. Once again he gives the narrative of how Hamas felt itself “forced” to fight against a growing threat from some elements in Fatah:
- For 18 months we have tried to find ways to coexist with Fatah, entering into a unity government, even conceding key positions in the cabinet to their and international demands, negotiating up until the last moment to try to provide security for all of our people on the streets of Gaza.
Sadly, it became apparent that not all officials from Fatah were negotiating in good faith. There were attempts on Mr. Haniya’s life last week, and eventually we were forced into trying to take control of a very dangerous situation in order to provide political stability and establish law and order.
(I note that some people in Fateh have also been saying that there have been attempts on Abu Mazen’s life. It would be very interesting of both the parties making these potentially incendiary accusations would reveal their evidence for it.)
Yousef ends the NYT piece thus:
- We reject attempts to divide Palestine into two parts and to pass Hamas off as an extreme and dangerous force. We continue to believe that there is still a chance to establish a long-term truce. But this will not happen unless the international community fully engages with Hamas.
Any further attempts to marginalize us, starve our people into submission or attack us militarily will prove that the United States and Israeli governments are not genuinely interested in seeing an end to the violence. Dispassionate observers over the next few weeks will be able to make up their own minds as to each side’s true intentions.
Once again, there, a request for the “international community” to engage with Hamas. Will we see it happen? I don’t see the Bush administration or its various junior partners around the world taking any steps to do this. It is not completely improbable, however, that Israel might take some initiative to do so. (In which case, as with the Oslo Accords of 1993, the US administration and congress, might be expected to come running along behind.) Not a huge probability of this, in my book. But if you want to see something of the reasoning behind why it just might happen, go read my BR piece.
As of now, though, the Israelis are battering southern Gaza pretty hard.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/21/africa/ME-GEN-Palestinians-Poll.php
If new presidential elections were to be held, 49 percent would vote for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Fatah movement, and 42 percent would vote for his political rival, deposed Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, the survey said…Seventy-five percent of Palestinians support holding early elections.
Interesting figures. Thanks for the link, Vadim. To me, if they indicate anything (see below), it is that neither of these two main parties can be marginalized from national decisionmaking. Also, the question was about “president”, while under the Basic Law the PM is supposed to have fairly strong executive powers (as the US wanted it, back in the day when Abbas was PM); so we do not know what the answer would be if the question were about the premiership. My sense from the Hamas people I talked to last year is that many of them were then fairly happy to have Abbas doing the (to them distasteful) job of interfacing directly with the Americans and the Israelis… Of course, their attitudes on this may be different now.
One final caveat. I would have strong doubts about the credibility of any opinion poll conducted, as the report says this one was, “during and after” clashes as intense as the ones were last week in Gaza. How did they conduct them? Door to door? By telephone? Through random street samples? I truly don’t see how any sampling system of integrity could have been applied under last week’s circs in Gaza. So at best these results are possibly indicative of something. Let’s see how the future unfolds… (One Palestinian friend averred to me today that the whole set of clashes in Gaza last week was quite likely a matter stage-managed between the bosses of the two parties, who jointly wanted to get rid of Dahlan and some of the other emerging warlords in Gaza… Who knows?)
Guys
wrong stream and all but Jazeera reports on closing Guantanamo.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CFF18549-03EE-4082-8F40-D5CC5F8ADD3F.htm
MSM have not reported this yet
One aspect of the current chapter in the Palestinian crisis which may be significant is that Abbas has quickly and clearly junked the agreement brokered in Mecca by King Abdullah. The course taken, instead is that supported by the Dallas Cowboy fan Bandar ibn Sultan. Is this significant? Does this suggest simmering discontent, of the tooth grinding kind, in Riyadh? Has Bandar won a struggle for influence in Arabia or has the Saudi position simply been ignored by the US of Israel? And, since the oracle is being invoked, will the extent of BAE’s largesse to Bandar be a surprise to anyone in Riyadh/
Well, it is worthwhile looking at the the entire poll:
For example:
“If the competition was between Marwan Barghouti and Ismail Haniyeh, non participation would drop to 31%. Among those who would participate, 59% would vote for Marwan Barghouti and 35% for Haniyeh. In the Gaza Strip, Barghouti wins against Haniyeh by 55% to 41%.”
Does that mean we can start calling Ismaiel Haniya “Mr. 35%” (and dropping)?
But there’s more. For example, we also find that Hamas support in the Parliament has dropped from its 44% “plurality” in the elections, to 37% three months ago, to 33% now. (Which goes to Helena’s question about premier. Under the Basic Law Palestinians vote for the party, not the Prime Minister.) At the same time Fatah support has remained at 43%, according to the poll.
But most interesting of all is what Palestinians today see as the greatest threat to their wellbeing:
“The greatest threat to Palestinians today is infighting and lack of law and order in the eyes of 56% followed by poverty in the eyes of 21%, Israeli occupation (12%) and international sanctions and boycott (10%).”
BTW, to answer Helena’s question, the poll was conducted June 14 – 20, so, for Gaza at least, the results reflect polling that took place pretty much after all the Fatah men were gone, dead, under arrest or being paraded through the streets in their underwear.
And needless to say, there’s no connection – no connection whatsoever – between that “lack of law and order”, their “poverty”, etc. and what the Zionists have wrought there over the past four decades.
Needless to say, from the way that the question was posed and the responses, those surveyed don’t, apparently, make such a connection. I believe that they are rational adults, and that they clearly see that their leadership has failed them and made them victims in what is, essentially, an internal power struggle.
This isn’t the fault of the Zionists, any more than it was the fault of the Zionists in 1947 when the Palestinian leadership simply fled, rather than deal with the issues constructively and then blamed the Palestinian people for not standing up and fighting.
I think that it’s telling that 75% of those questioned want new elections – i.e. they want to undo the mistake they made last year when they brought into power a reactionary, religious movement that has squandered whatever money it has had to purchase arms, ammunition and explosives. Equally interesting is the fact that Azati’s are just as likely to support Barghouti over Haniya as are Nabulsis or al-Khalilis. And, in contrast to the glorification of Hamas we’ve seen here, the vast majority (59%) say “a pox on both their houses” and label both sides in the conflict as “losers” (71%).
It’s a tissue of lies, JES. And I’m sure you know it is. Apparently the important thing is that the rest of us don’t see the thing for what it is. Well, I’ve got news for you, pal – those days are over. It ain’t never gonna be glad clear morning in Exodus-land again. In fact, it ain’t never gonna be Exodus-land again, period.
There’s lots of “long marches” taking place. The Israelis are on one. The Palestinians are on one. The rest of the Arab world is on one. The Americans are on one. The Europeans are on one. The rest of world Jewry is on one. The Chinese are on one. The rest of the world is on one.
Amongst much else, “perceptions of what’s going on in your part of the world” are an important part of those “long marches”, those transformations.
And if you think the Exodus schtick is going to be able to make that long march, well, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I’ll be happy to sell you at an unbeatable price.
Maybe what the rest of think – and want – is of no importance. Maybe it is. Or will be – as the valence changes, as it inevitably will.
What I can tell you is what this “outsider” would like is some truth, some telling it like it is, some common sense.
Starting with, in this instance, an answer to the questions: how would you like it if you were treated the way the Palestinins have been treated? If you had your land stolen? And your water? If you had your olive groves cut down? If you had a foreign army jack-booting your existence, day in and day out?
Would you blame your “leadership”? And think that your misery had nothing to do with the land grab and the foreign army, etc. etc.?
I don’t think so. And I don’t think you think so, either.
The problem is it just gets more and more threadbare. There’s the vast, “open air concentration camp” that a whole people – millions of them – have in a sense been shipped off to – which is the effect of that wall, and virtually all of the rest of your country’s policies toward the indigenous people in the Occ. Terr. and Gaza.
But the other side of the coin is the mental wall that you yourself are behind. You can’t seem to see how it looks to the rest of us.
And over the long haul that’s surely a very dangerous thing. For everybody concerned.
Very eloquent Maurice… very emotive… almost poetic. (I particularly liked the “Exodus-land” remark. Who the hell still uses that imagery anyway?)
However, we were discussing a poll conducted by a Palestinian public opinion institute, and the results there indicate what the Palestinians questioned think. Not what I, and Israeli, think. Not what you, or what a host of other “progressives” think. Not what the “long marchers” think (and I think that Mao’s long march has miserably failed, considering the exploitation and virtual slave labor in todays Communist State, but that’s another argument).
At any rate, to get back to the point, you can shout all you want about how you see the reality that the “childlike” (that’s the only way I can interpret your reluctance to accept their own views) Palestinians are not capable of seeing themselves; but they are the ones who are living that reality, and they are the ones who have been victimized by the recent violence, and, most important, they are the ones who appear to be fed up with their leadership for taking them on this “long march” to poverty and suffering.
KISS. Just answer the questions, please.
Oh really? You don’t want to? I can’t imagine why not.
Maurice,
I was so overwhelmed by your verbal skills….
My answer: Of course I wouldn’t like it. How’s that?
Your questions are stupid. Moreover, they are not relevant.
“Elephant on the patio? Come on, you know as well as I do that’s completely irrelevant to this patio tea party. It’s not just a faux pas to ask about it – it’s completely stupid.”
But of course. Silly me.
There’s a difference between glorifying Hamas and saying they can’t be ignored. They clearly can’t be ignored if Hamas does so well against Barghouti. I’d always had the impression Barghouti was the youngish Palestinian political superstar. Hamas was the victor last year because of Fatah corruption, not because the majority of Palestinians are Islamic fundamentalists.
Oh, yeah, Barghouti is also in Israeli prison for his part in killing civilians, I gather. In all seriousness (no snark intended), does anyone know if the evidence shows he is clearly guilty? Not that he’d be any worse than any Israeli leader in recent times.
The other point regarding Hamas and Fatah is that Palestinians are simply revealing commendable political maturity in disliking both Fatah and Hamas. But they’re not likely to be the sort of idiots we find in the US, the kind who ignore the American and Israeli role in sponsoring Dahlan, a rather corrupt Fatah personality with a rotten human rights record. I’m glad (and not surprised either) that the majority of Palestinians are disgusted with both sides. They should be. I don’t think, though, that it’s likely that they’ve taken leave of their senses and applaud the US attempt to hurt Palestinians for voting against Fatah in 2006. Nor will they be fooled by Americans who pay lip service to the notion of helping Palestinians and don’t follow through.
I’m not sure how clear I was in the last post. I think it’s great that Palestinians blame both Fatah and Hamas. It’s also good that they seem to prefer a secular moderate sort like Barghouti (leaving aside the fact that he’s in an Israeli prison). But there are still a significant number that support Hamas even against Barghouti
It’d be sort of ironic if the there were new elections and Barghouti ran and won. Would he go along with whatever the Israelis and the Americans tell him is a generous offer that he can’t refuse? My impression is no, and if he is so popular with Palestinians then it is probably their impression also.
What is impressive about Barghouti is that he’s already demonstrated surprising political skills by brokering an agreement in prison last May between Fatah and Hamas prison leaders on general principles to apply in negotiations with Israel.
Now this “agreement” was disavowed by Khaled Mashaal, the hard line Hamas leader in Damascus, but it was a remarkable accomplishment on Barghouti’s part nonetheless.
While the poll results are interesting, lets not forget that the US pressed Israel to let Hamas participate in the last elections because of intelligence estimates (poll results ?) that said Fatah would win and Hamas would end up a minor player. The only poll results that matter (particularly in a place like Palestine or Iraq) are the real votes. Who did the poll? How was it conducted? How were the questions framed? How were the respondents selected? etc.
Who’s Responsible For The Palestinian Political Crisis?
By Jamal Juma’
http://www.countercurrents.org/juma230607.htm
The question where the responsibility lies, with Hamas or Fatah, is utterly out of place. The real plotters of the current situation are Israel, the US and Europe
Um, Hamas and Fatah thugs committed actual war crimes. I don’t doubt that the US, Israel, and the EU have blood on their hands, but that doesn’t get Hamas and Fatah off the hook.
Only 12% of Palestinians blame the Occupation? Only 10% blame the international boycott?
How is this to be explained?
Seems a disconnect between how the Palestinians see things and how it is seen by their western and Arab supporters?
Here is Congressman Kucinich’s statement on the current Palestinian quagmire:
Contact: Natalie Laber 202-225-5871
Hamas Victory Is The Result of Bush Strategic Political Failure
Washington, Jun 15 – WASHINGTON, D.C. — In response to news reports about ongoing violence in Gaza, Rep. Dennis Kucinich released the following statement.
“The chaos and factional violence in Gaza that ultimately led to the Hamas military takeover of the Presidential Compound and the National Security Guard building demonstrates a failure of President Bush’s strategy in matters relating to Hamas.
“The humanitarian, economic and political boycott imposed on the elected Hamas government were meant to force Hamas to accept U.S. and Israeli conditions or alternatively to force it out of power.
“The boycott has accomplished neither goal and instead has created a severe humanitarian crisis that is now marred by political factionalism, violence, and unrest.
Since the suspension of aid to the Palestinian Authority began in April 2006, one out of every fifteen families in the Occupied Territories has run a debt exceeding $25,000 typically for water, electricity, and food. The number of people living on less than 50 cents a day has risen to more than a million. The Palestinian Authority budget has shrunk from $1.5 billion annually to $500 million. This has created a dire situation when the Palestinian Authority is responsible for 1,600 schools and 400 hospitals and medical centers.
The UN Middle East envoy, Alvaro de Soto, claims that the conditions set by the Quartet, the EU, the US, the UN, and Russia, are “unattainable.” Additionally, a leaked memo written in May and printed in the Guardian this week, de Soto confirmed that the US pressured Mahmoud Abbas to refuse Hamas’ initial invitation to form a “national unity government.”
If we are to return to the path of Middle East peace, Congress must pressure the Administration to:
1. Announce that the U.S. will immediately extend diplomatic recognition to the former national unity government coalition of Hamas and Fatah;
2. Ask for the reconstitution of the coalition government;
3. Initiate high level diplomatic talks in the region, including representatives chosen by the coalition government;
4. Send emergency food and medical aid to Gaza, under auspices of UN and NGOs.
BB–It’s entirely sensible that Palestinians would be disgusted by the fighting between the two parties and see that as the chief threat to their future right now. If they can’t stay unified and have to live under thugs like Dahlan (the hero supported by the US and Israel) and his counterparts in Hamas, then they are in real trouble.
Divide and rule, of course, has always been a favorite strategy of imperialists. It’s why I’m not so sure this current mess is actually a “failure” from the standpoint of rightwing Israelis and the Bush Administration. So long as the Palestinian political factions are engaged in civil war, there’s a ready-made excuse to postpone a fair solution. They probably don’t want the violence to go too far–just far enough that (they hope) the ordinary Palestinian will be willing to accept anything to get out of the current situation.
The only poll results that matter (particularly in a place like Palestine or Iraq) are the real votes. Who did the poll? How was it conducted? How were the questions framed? How were the respondents selected? etc.
You can find most of those answers at the site of the institute that carried out the poll:
http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/methodology.htm
You can also direct questions to those responsible for the poll: Dr. Khalil Shikaki, or Walid Ladadweh at tel 02-296 4933 or email pcpsr@pcpsr.org. (This is directly from their Web site and their press release on the poll results.)
If the only poll results that matter are those on election day, then I think we should extend that same logic to George Bush and Ehud Olmert, and stop referring to them as “Mr. 30 %” or “Mr. 3%” However, I do think that these polls are important as a guage of how and what people think (particularly, when there are so many third parties trying to tell us how and what other people think.)
Fair dues. So can we count on your support, JES, for a poll asking Palestinians whether the Zionist project has been good for them? Or not good, as the case may be.
Nice try JES. unfortunately your prominently hyperlink on the poll leads to nowhere like much of your posts.
So can we count on your support, JES, for a poll asking Palestinians whether the Zionist project has been good for them? Or not good, as the case may be.
By all means! It’s funny that you relate to me as if I initiated, sponsored or carried out this poll. The poll was carried out by a legitimate Palestinian institute (whose other poll results I believe have been cited here before).
Jack, rather than making accusations, you might have just gone to my original link, or simply backed up on the URL to get to the previous page. At any rate, here is the corrected link:
http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/methodology.html
I don’t get why people are objecting to these poll results. They’re entirely understandable–ordinary Palestinians are disgusted by the fighting between Hamas and Fatah. They hate the occupation, but this stupid civil war makes them ashamed and presumably outraged at the Palestinians who are more interested in acquiring scraps of power rather than fighting for their rights. Yes, the US and Israel and the EU all plotted for something like this to happen, but it wouldn’t have happened if there weren’t Palestinian factions stupid and greedy enough to fall right into the trap. Ordinary Palestinians apparently understand this. Good for them.
Naturally Israel supporters will try to make use of the polls for their own purposes, to distract attention from the occupation and the cynicism and brutality of their favored thugs in the US and America. What else is new?
Putting it more succintly, maybe ordinary Palestinians see their leaders as traitors to the cause, more interested in acquiring power than helping their people.
I’m also not sure that this is a defeat for the US and Israeli leadership. If they were interested in a fair and just solution, yeah, but it’s pretty clear they’re not. Infighting among Palestinians is fine with them, so long as it doesn’t spill over into Israel on a much larger scale than it has so far. The Alvaro de Soto document shows at least one US diplomat was thinking that way. A Palestinian puppet would be still better from their viewpoint and obviously that’s what they’re trying to get.
An interesting article by a Palestinian–
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/850/op13.htm
There are several other equally interesting articles there.
Its looks very surprisingly and opening our eyes to see the same group who stand a long time refusing and deigning any data that produced by Palestinians officials, Palestinians groups or study comities that listed the crimes and the violations against the Humans Rights for Palestinians and Palestinians land crabbing that occupiers stealing every day and the destruction of Olive grooves by Israelis, now they come one body and agree about a single poll about the recent developments inside occupied Palestinians land?
There is only one answer for that, the answer is:……….
And 41% of the Palestinians questioned would like to see the PA replaced by an international trusteeship or, astonishingly, a return to the Israeli Occupation??? 41%!
The poll is also a reminder Hamas only got 2% more than Fateh of the popular vote in the elections. Not enough of a margin surely to justify expelling the PNA security forces from Gaza, mounting a tunnel raid into Israel itself and kidnapping a soldier provoking massive Israeli retaliation last year or refusing to endorse the previous agreements signed between the PLO, PNA and Israel and provoking the financial boycott? Especially when Hamas had not even campaigned on the issue, but on “reform and change”. Perhaps a large number of Palestinians feel they’ve been had?
I think Hamas has been acting very hubristically in regard to both the PLO and Israel and its behaviour over the last 16 months has been disgraceful.
Here’s another Ahmed Yusuf intellectual exercise. Perhaps he should try and “reach out” with these messages for Americans:
D.C. Newspaper Editor Ahmad Yousuf: Israel is Behind 9/11 Like the U.S. Was Behind Pearl Harbor
The following are excerpts from an interview with Ahmad Yousuf, editor-in-chief of the Washington, D.C.-based Middle East Magazine:
Yusuf:These events [9/11] were preceded by very detailed planning, conducted by strategists who wove the strands of this plot. Some people were probably recruited, and, as has been pointed out by a certain Western intellectual, Israel excels at espionage within the U.S., and is capable of disguising many operations as Islamic. In other words, Israel is capable of penetrating certain Islamic circles, of directing and running them behind the scenes, so that they will conduct operations from which Israel benefits. Anyone who considers the events of 9/11 cannot say that the Muslims gained anything. There’s another dimension, which some people may have noticed. No one could have captured the pictures [of the attacks] so perfectly except for the cameras in the hands of several Mossad agents, who were near the scene of events and succeeded in filming the scene so that it will always serve Zionism to remind the world of the Arabs’ and Muslims’ crimes against America. These pictures were filmed very expertly so that they would be a constant reminder to America and the Western world that Islamic terrorism is a threat to their culture, their ideals, and their values.
Host: Regardless of who the perpetrators were…
Yusuf: Today, there is much evidence casting doubt on the ability of these Muslims, with their meager means, to carry out such an operation, and there are others… Who profited from this operation more than the Zionist movement? Since the end of the Cold War, Israel has been trying to attain a position that would allow it to direct American policy, because Israel found it impossible to confront the Islamic enterprise and the Islamic resistance. Therefore, it had to drag America into the region. This was the grand scheme – and American right-wing forces may have participated in it, and Evangelical Christians agreed to it. All of them agreed that this scheme should be carried out in this way in order to push America into war.
We are told by many Americans that even Pearl Harbor… In order to bring America into the war… There is much talk about a plot that was hatched to bring about the attack on Pearl Harbor, so that the U.S. could justify entering this war and so that it would be easy to convince the American people to pay the billions of dollars and sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives – to wage this war, so that some U.S. corporations and individuals will protect their interests, in this war with Japan and Germany.