An interesting recent survey of opinion among (camp-residing) Palestinian refugees in Lebanon found that,
- Hamas leads the Palestinian polls with 48 percent, followed by Fatah with 24 percent and the Popular Front ranking third with 12 percent. More than 83 percent of the Palestinians support Hamas’ stance of not recognizing Israel, and about 86 percent support maintaining martyrdom operations within 1948 lines.
(I note that Hamas, like the central leadership of Fateh– though not the militant Fateh offshoots– until now remains committed to the self-restraining tahdi’eh agreement concluded in March 2005, under which signatories unilaterally suspended their operations inside the 1948 line.)
The pollsters found more support for the PFLP in the north, and more for Hamas in the south.
Precisely. Confirming the notion that the problem with the Palestinians is not 1967, but 1948. It is not occupation, but rather Israel’s creation.
Davis, what is the point of this statement? Are you suggesting that there is no point to pursueing a negotiated settlement along the lines of a two-state solution?
I missed any analysis of direct Hamas or Fatah presence/representation inside the area under survey. Any take?
“Davis” (a.k.a. our old commenter David), the Palestinians’ claims from 1948 have not simply gone away, just because Israel and its supporters might have wished fervently that that happen. If the victims/survivors of the pre-1945 Nazi era in Europe are still today able to have their claims addressed and largely satisfied, on what basis should one not even talk about the Palestinians’ claims from 1948? What a bizarre (or highly discriminatory/racist) idea.
Israel has had 39 years to conclude a final peace agreement with the Palestinians and other Arabs based solely on the 1967 lines. But it has evaded every opportunity it had to do that– and moreover, has worked long and hard to erase the 1967 line by implanting 450,000 settlers and all their supporting and highly discriminatory/racist infrastructure inside the occupied Palestinian territory. (As in the occupied Golan.)
And yes, the claims from 1948 still exist. They could potentially be met in a number of different ways– but they can’t be silenced and ignored completely.
Nearly all the Palestinians in Lebanon are refugees precisely from the 1948 uprooting… Those who supported the Fateh two-state project showed great political/personal flexibility and graciousness in doing so. And what did they get in return? Arafat and Abu Mazen stymied and humiliated by Israel at every turn.
Tasneem, I don’t have the data you’re seeking. Looking purely at the reported regional difference in Hamas/PFLP representation I would say that is related to the greater influence of Hizbullah in the south and the greater wariness around the northern camps of the Syrians who would not be happy to have a lot of pro-MB influence up there…
edq,
Not wanting to speak for Davis, but…
The main point is that there is no real settlement to the dispute if – as he and I believe and the data appear to show – the issue is 1948. That does not mean it is not worth trying to reach a settlement but only that it is not likely to succeed if such data are reliable.
I might add another point. 48% of such Palestinian Arabs polled evidently favor a party committed to barbarism on principle. 83% evidently believe in barbarism.
Or, let us put the matter into a more modern perspective: 83% of such Palestinian Arabs have no problem at all about violating International law. 83% of such Palestinian Arabs believe that massacres are a legitimate form of warfare.
The polling certainly shows that the Palestinian Arab cause is not a just war by any ordinary understanding of what a just war is (i.e. a legitimate cause pursued by legitimate means). The cause fails on two grounds, at the very least: (1) a just war must seek only the minimal viable objective (i.e. what is necessary, rather than what is desired, if the party fighting is to have what is needed, not what is desired, in order to live a good life), not the maximum objective and not an objective which would destroy what the other party needs in order to live a good life; (2) a just war must be pursued by the legitimate means, which means that a strategy which involves, primarily, attacks on civilians can never be legitimate and just. If we follow Kantian theory, the Israelis are within their moral rights to crush such a cause without showing any mercy.
The polling is more than enough ground for any decent person to write off the Palestinian Arab cause. Since that is not going to occur, perhaps the friends of the Palestinian Arabs might mention, just occassionally, what might be a just cause for Palestinian Arabs.
Surely the friends of the Palestinian Arabs – and that includes our amiable host Helena – could distinguish a just cause for the Palestinian Arabs from the cause actually espoused by Palestinian Arabs. Maybe that would help settle the dispute. Certainly the absence of any comment about the actual cause of the Palestinian Arabs serves only to encourage barbarism.
Helena,
People who want to settle disputes do not let humiliation get in their way. Stop making excuses. The proposal in December of 2000 was more than sufficient to settle the dispute. Arafat did not want to settle the matter, exactly as Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia states.
2006-04-04 The residence of Abbas attacked http://inplainview.monitor.us.tt/comm.ME06.htm
Henry James,
The articles you cite do not support what you state. There was no attack on Mr. Abbas’ residence.
I trust you no the differences among an office attacked, a place near an office attacked, an abandoned office and a residence attacked. In this case, neither Mr. Abbas’s residence nor office was attacked. And, he was no where near the place attacked at the time since he was working in his main office in Ramallah, not Gaza in a long abandoned office in Gaza. According to the Jerusalem Post article you cite:
Also according to the same quoted article (i.e. the article you cite):
There is a reason why Israel’s friends scream foul at the supporters of the “Palestinian cause.” It is because those supporters feel no constraints in manipulating facts.
The articles you cite do not support what you state. There was no attack on Mr. Abbas’ residence.
Corrected. Talking to pro-Israelis makes your language as sharp as a blade 😉
2006-04-04 PA campus attacked
Henry James,
You still have it wrong. It was not an attack on FATAH at all. Again, there was no office involved, the office nearby was long ago abandoned and FATAH is no longer located in that abandoned office which was not, itself, attacked in any event.
So, you have not found the correct motive. You merely are making things up.
You still have it wrong. It was not an attack on FATAH at all. Again, there was no office involved, the office nearby was long ago abandoned and FATAH is no longer located in that abandoned office which was not, itself, attacked in any event.
Campus != office, what else do you want?!
Neal,
As quoted: “The missiles landed at the Ansar 2 compound about 100 meters from Abbas’ office”
So, let me ask this ignorant’s question: What’s the difference between Israeli missiles
plowing some soil near Palestinian compound, and Palestinian missiles (mostly) plowing ground near Israeli settlements ? No big deal, because no one
was (presumably) hurt, nothing destroyed ?
Andrew and Henry James,
The Israeli attack was near an abandoned office/cmapus. No one works there.
So, your points rather miss the mark.
Again, the paper Henry James cites states:
That is an important point since Henry James was suggesting an attack on FATAH or on Abbas, when, in fact, the attack was on an abandoned area.
Neal,
I’m affraid you didn’t get my point, which implicitly was: Missiles were fired into Palestinian area, and launching missile, or mortar, or dropping bomb into someone else backyard is not ‘no-big-deal’ affair, and I’m sure you would agree with me as soon as it would be your backyard affected and you/your family endangered.
Neither side should do it.
And by the way, I just wonder what was then the whole purpose of this Ansar 2 compound attack ? Some gift of fireworks from the neighbour or unearthing burried treasure ?
Andrew,
I do not know what the Israelis were up to. I was merely posting the innacuracy of what Henry James wrote. He had the Israelis attacking Abbas’s residence and then, when I showed him that his own sources said something different, he had Israel attacking Abbas’ compound, which also was nonsense.
The wisdom of what Israel did was not my point. What they did may or may not be wise. However, people cannot have a discussion about a matter if they turn it into something it was not, which is what Henry James did.
I note: if my neighbor were a country run by the likes of HAMAS, I would not be too worried about whether it is tit for tat. The tats will come as HAMAS’ ideology makes such a necessity. Just read the group’s covenant. It is chilling and nauseous document.
“Davis” (a.k.a. our old commenter David), the Palestinians’ claims from 1948 have not simply gone away, just because Israel and its supporters might have wished fervently that that happen.
I tried to make as close to David hoping to maintain the identity for my readers. About a month ago Helena started removing every posting by David. Everything. The lady professing tolerance can’t tolerate dissent.
My point is that like the Hamas election the poll confirms that 1948 is the problem. A rational observer would conclude that 1948 is a much less tractable problem than 1967. A rational Israeli would conclude that short term concessions based on 1967 status will be used as a stepping stone to fight the 1948 problem when Hamas feels they are ready. Just a dose of reality.
Some interesting advice to try from the Egyptians (from Haaretz).
El Baz says he met with Haniyeh for four hours shortly after the PA elections, and was impressed by his seriousness and courage in seeking an agreement with Israel.
“We in Egypt told Haniyeh that he must learn from our experience in contacts with Israel,” El Baz said. “We told him, ‘Persuade the Israeli public of the sincerity of your intentions. Stop the violence and then see what you get in return. And even if the Israeli government does not respond in kind, the Israeli public will force its desire for peace on its government.'”
Advertisement
“We told him, ‘Be sincere in your actions,'” El Baz continued. “‘Speak with clarity, not vagueness, when you speak with Israel.'”
El Baz said that Haniyeh and other senior Hamas officials fear giving up violence without getting anything in return from Israel.
“There must be reciprocity, concessions from the Israeli side and a willingness to reach agreements and understandings,” El Baz said. He added that Egypt spelled out to Haniyeh and his colleagues the need to promote agreements with Israel.
“I told him to be brave and resolute, not to give in to the extremists,” El Baz added.