Skip to main content

Gaza, Hamas - and the whole mess

Events have moved so quickly in Gaza and the West Bank that it now appears that Israel has an Islamic Hamas-led Gaza on its doorstep. Meanwhile, the West has already flagged its support for the President Abbas and his Fatah organisation in the West Bank. One doesn't need to be much of a political-animal to see that this just isn't going to work. What? - in effect starve out the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza?

At coincidence has it, The Spectator this week has an interview with Dr. Ghazi Hamad, official spokesman for the Palestinian National Authority, who seeks to explain where Hamas stands in the whole Gaza-West Bank-Israel mess:

"It’s a sunny afternoon in London, and I am having tea with Hamas. Or rather, I am having tea with Dr Ghazi Hamad, official spokesman for the Palestinian National Authority and the man tipped to be the new Interior Minister. Dressed in a finely tailored suit, Dr Hamad, a handsome former journalist who holds a doctorate in pharmacology and speaks fluent Arabic, Hebrew, English and French, does not look out of place in this Mayfair hotel. Nor, it has to be said, does he look like your average Muslim terrorist — although as a member of Hamas, he is classified as a terrorist by the West. There was uproar in certain quarters recently when it emerged that the Sudan-educated Palestinian had been granted a visa to travel to the UK.

But here he is, politely sipping Earl Grey and trying to convince me that his party is not a terrorist organisation. ‘Tell me,’ he asks, ‘has Hamas ever used violence against the West? No. We believe in moderate Islam. We are not Taleban. We are not al-Qa’eda.’

‘But you call for Israel’s destruction and recruit suicide bombers!’

He shakes his head at me, and I wonder if he is about to say ‘Israel? What’s that?’ Much to the frustration of the international quartet (EU, US, UN and Russia) and Israel, who claim to be ready to come to the negotiating table, Hamas has doggedly refused to accept the three conditions on which peace talks might be kick-started; one of which is officially recognising its occupying neighbour.

‘We have held a ceasefire since 2005’, he points out. ‘We fought the elections as Al-Eslah and Al-Tagheer, which means “change and reform”. We say that terrorism is not the right track to achieve goals. Our struggle is only against the occupation. Only to reclaim our homeland. Only to be able to live like any other human being.’

‘So, what, you don’t want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?’

He looks me bang in the eye. ‘We just want a state, based on pre-1967 borders.’"

Reuters reports where things stand at the moment - doubtlessly fluid, to say the least - as being this:

"Western powers rallied behind Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday after Hamas Islamists routed his forces in the Gaza Strip and began imposing a new order in the enclave after days of bloody civil war.

Despite his mandate effectively being reduced to the West Bank, Abbas named a new prime minister after firing the Hamas-led government and declaring a state of emergency.

The United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia -- the Quartet of Middle East mediators -- gave a "clear message of support" to Abbas.

Washington, Europe and Israel prepared to open the taps on financial aid to Abbas that was cut off a year ago when Iranian-backed Hamas used its popularity in impoverished Gaza to defeat Abbas's more secular Fatah in a parliamentary election.

Abbas named Salam Fayyad, a technocrat who won respect in the West as finance minister, to replace Ismail Haniyeh as prime minister, three months after Hamas brought Fatah members into a "unity" government.

But in Gaza, all but divorced now from the larger West Bank in a blow to Palestinians' hopes for a united state, Hamas leader Haniyeh refused to accept his dismissal. He set about restoring order after six days of battles that ended in revenge killings and looting at Abbas's compound."


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...