Two Palestinian States?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

I wouldn't trust Hamas's lack of public opinion support to last if Israel was to wage open war in Gazah.

Theres open war, and open war.

I dont think Israel will reoccupy Gaza, and I think responses to Qassam attacks will be "proportionate", but stronger than theyve been before.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
This polarisation might end up as a blessing in disguise if Hamas moves to Gaza and vice versa for many of the reasons Eli pointed out - apart from the open war bit!

Then of course Israel can treat the nice Fatah run WB nicely by removing all the settlers, knocking down the wall and returning to pre '67 borders, seeing as all the bad guys will be penned into Gaza whose borders are now effectively defined.

Cue: Squadrons of Flying Pigs!

I think the first Israeli steps wrt to the WB should be turning over money from tax collections that is supposed to go to the PA. Second would be reducing the number of checkpoints, and improving conditions at checkpoints. Third would probably be allowing more Pal workers access to Israel. WRT to the security barrier, if things go well after the above actions, I could see Israel suspending further construction of the barrier.

Further confidence building could set the stage for a final deal on mutually agreed borders, and on the withdrawl of Israeli settlers from settlements that would be in Pal territory based on those borders, but that would take some time. Among other things, since the quid pro quo to Israel for that would be a final end of the conflict, it will have to be established that the PA govt in the WB has sufficient legitimacy to grant that, despite not controlling Gaza.

[Frozzy]

A few questions:

1) Is the relative strengths of the two sides in their respective zones equivalent to their public support in those areas?

2) Should Israel not play its cards right and Hamas ends up gaining sympathy in the Arab world, what impact would this have on Fatah and its relations with the outside world? If Fatah has little Arab support does its role as the internationally accepted PA become untenable? Does pressure then come on Israel to deal with Hamas?

3) Related to 2: What does Hamas have to do to come out on top of Fatah in terms of standing with the international community? What does it have to do to be considered the PA?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Frozzy
A few questions:

1) Is the relative strengths of the two sides in their respective zones equivalent to their public support in those areas?

Dont know. IIUC Hamas has more support in the WB than it has fighters there. OTOH, the situation is fluid, IIUC. As someone quoted in the press in Gaza said, "we go with the winners, and Hamas has won". Lots of people voted for Hamas in 2005 just to "throw the rascals out", and much of that support probably didnt last. The question now is which is effecting WB opinion more, the nastiness of Hamas is displaying, or the weakness Fatah is displaying.

2) Should Israel not play its cards right and Hamas ends up gaining sympathy in the Arab world, what impact would this have on Fatah and its relations with the outside world? If Fatah has little Arab support does its role as the internationally accepted PA become untenable? Does pressure then come on Israel to deal with Hamas?

Fatah has extensive support from Arab govts, esp Egypt and Jordan. KSA attempted to reconcile the two, a project that failed, and its not clear where KSA policy goes from here. IIUC the "arab street" is divided.

The immediate pressure on Israel to deal with Hamas comes not from the question of who is the PA, but from the need to avoid a huminatarian crisis in Gaza, where supplies of fuel and milk are running short, with the Karni crossing closed. Its being suggested that Hamas will appoint some non-Hamasnik to talk to Israel, so they can arrange essential deliveries.

Meanwhile there is the question of Galid Shalit, an Israeli soldier kidnapped in Gaza and beleived to be held by Hamas.

Is negotiations on Shalit progress, and if there is no escalation of Qassam attacks, I doubt Israel will attack the strip in the short run. If things get very bad, though, in terms of attacks on Israel, its hard to see Israel continuing to supply electricity and water. How the world reacts will be very interesting, to say the least.

3) Related to 2: What does Hamas have to do to come out on top of Fatah in terms of standing with the international community? What does it have to do to be considered the PA?

At a very minimum Id think theyd have to accept the Oslo accords that created the PA.

But Im not sure that would be enough.

Remind me how the international community determined that the PRC in Beijing, and not the ROC in Taipei, was "China". De facto control of most of the territory, IIRC. Of course China was an independent state, and neither Fatah nor Hamas has declared independence. A UDI, would be a complex matter - what area would Hamas declare independence for? Gaza? Gaza and the WB? Unitary Palestine, from the Jordan to the sea?

[lord of the mark]

JP

"on Wednesday when it raided the Shati refugee camp in central Gaza and rounded up female members of the Baker clan, known Fatah supporters. The women surrendered, were ordered outside their homes, and Hamas gunmen executed three of them, aged 13, 19 and 75. "

[Frozzy]

Thanks for your comments, LOTM. Most interesting and certainly noted.

Remind me how the international community determined that the PRC in Beijing, and not the ROC in Taipei, was "China". De facto control of most of the territory, IIRC.

I think it was more to do with aid, money and the decline of Western (read - ROC supporting nations) power in the UN

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Az
Last Conformist: what public opinion are we referring to, btw? the Palestinian one, or the world one?

Eli wrote "world public opinion", and that's the context I was responding in.


I suppose it's a moot question whether "world" public opinion includes Bolivians, Sub-Saharan Africans, and other third-class citizens of the world ...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Frozzy


I think it was more to do with aid, money and the decline of Western (read - ROC supporting nations) power in the UN

Nope, the western powers, notably Britain and France, recognized the PRC long before the PRC took China's UN seat. The US did not, but then we're eevil cowboy neocons who defy international law

[MOBIUS]

The new 'government' of Gaza...

[Az]

Eli wrote "world public opinion", and that's the context I was responding in.


I suppose it's a moot question whether "world" public opinion includes Bolivians, Sub-Saharan Africans, and other third-class citizens of the world ...

It is interesting how "the world" wants to handle this.

[Sirotnikov]

I think that this means another one-sided withdrawal will be politically impossible, which is bad.

The settlers have plenty of PR ammunition against another pullout in the west bank, because they are "the only thing stopping from another Hamastan" forming.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I think that this means another one-sided withdrawal will be politically impossible, which is bad.

The settlers have plenty of PR ammunition against another pullout in the west bank, because they are "the only thing stopping from another Hamastan" forming.

My impression was that the Hamas electoral victory, and the Qassams, and the Lebanon war, had killed any chance of another unilateral withdrawl.

[Sirotnikov]

My impression was that the Hamas electoral victory, and the Qassams, and the Lebanon war, had killed any chance of another unilateral withdrawl.

Not if Hamas would have curbed under a Fatah hegemony in Gaza.

Then Olmert could have claimed that there were difficulties, but in the end it is not so bad.

I don't think Olmert gave up on at least a partial withdrawal from the WB. He just waits for a better political moment.

I also hope he didn't, because frankly, I'm waiting for him to kick some more settler ass out of stupid outposts all over the WB.

[DinoDoc]

Well at the very least he could either expel the ones in the illegal settlements or simply just withdraw any IDF protection they might be recieving.

[Eli]

Sorry Siro, but what kind of utter idiocy is this?

I still fail to understand how the hell it became reasonable to simply give up on territory, prestige and bases to operate from, not to mention the damage to internal cohesion caused by forcibly moving citizens. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, unless this territory cannot be defended, which is definitely not the case.