Comments by new Jihad Watch News Editor Marisol Seibold:
Not unlike Iran, the Palestinian Authority under Hamas continues the practice of talking out of both sides of its mouth: one can expect another outburst of threatening language to follow this vague diplomatic overture in short order. From Haaretz: "Haniyeh: National accord document deserves study":
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh responded publicly for the first time yesterday to the "national reconciliation" drafted last week in the Hadarim prison by Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti and Sheikh Abdel Halek Natshe of Hamas."We always demanded Israel's recognition of Palestinian rights and the establishment of a Palestinian state, and if Israel recognizes these
principles, then we will decide on our position on the matter," Haniyeh continued.
Give me ambiguity, or give me something else.
"The Zionist project is on the wane and its principles are becoming shaky, while the Palestinian and Arab project in Palestine is in an upward momentum, the results of which will be liberation of the land and Jerusalem and the realization of the right of return," Haniyeh told the conference. "We saw what happened to the occupation in Sinai, Lebanon and Jordan and the withdrawal from Gaza, and they are also considering additional withdrawals from the West Bank. All of this proves that there is a decline in the settlements project and an undermining of the occupation mentality..."
There you have it, not from the pundits, but from the highest levels of the Hamas leadership: withdrawals and land concessions -- any and all of them to date -- are read as a sign of weakness. Taking up the cause of the 1967 borders is only of use to Hamas in further chipping away at Israeli territory, until there is none left.
It is simply a re-wrap of the same old stuff. Concessions are demanded of the Israelis, while the Palestinians obligate themselves to simply think about reciprocating. The West likes to subsidize Palestinian instransigence for who knows what reason. Only a real end to all but the most rudimentary humanitarian assistance will affecct any change.
Welcome Marissa,
"...withdrawals and land concessions -- any and all of them to date -- are read as a sign of weakness." Land for peace has never worked...Ever. India patitioned itself and gave Pakistan An Islamic Republic, now they want Kasmir. If Jerusalem fall into Hamas's hands Israel will cease to exist. Last week was the time to say "No More", but as usual we folded like cheap suit. All we need now is Haniyah's Dawat ul Islam and then here comes the war. Israel better put their foot down Now, Before it's too late.
The more Israel concedes to the Palistinians the bolder they are going to get and the more they are going to demand.
There has to been a line drawn in the sand where Israel says enough you are getting no more and they need to do it sooner than later.
Welcome, welcome, Marisol! I'm thrilled you have joined us here at JW in addition to the fine work you do over at New English Review.
Celebration time! Hugh, bring in that bottle of champaign, will you?
Palestine without Jews! It does sound like a program Himmler would have approved of.
Marisol S.-
Welcome and a suggestion for an article:
THE INSPIRING AND BEAUTIFUL THINGS COMING OUT OF MODERN DAY ISLAM.
In 250 words or less.
For instance...
uh... give me a minute...
(Somehow the only image that comes to mind is a crowd in Pakistan burning a statue of Ronald McDonald... although for the wrong reasons... so I guess it doesn't quite count.)
Well, I'm sure with a little research you'll come up with something.
Maybe how they brought women out of the 7th century... and into the 8th?
The reason that Israelis are pulling out of West Bank and did so from Gaza is because it is no feasible to protect settlements of a max of few 100,000 (8,000 in Gaza) people against millions of hostile Palestinians. Militarily speaking, it is the correct move. Israelis will be stronger if they concentrate themselves in one area.
Skeptic's military reasoning is simplistic. Settlements can also dominate territory in a military sense, especially if they are on a height. The retreat is not being carried out because the settlements are hard to defend. That is simply an excuse. Don't believe it. By removing settlements, the Olmert-Sharon govt make it harder to defend the rest of the country. See what happened in Gaza after the retreat of last summer.
Moreover, there is the issue of human and civil rights of the Jewish inhabitants in Gaza, which were obviously vitiated in this case --ostensibly in the name of "anti-racism." Further, there are the national rights of the Jewish people to the Gaza area as established in ancient times and recognized by the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations. Sharon-Olmert are destroying the human and civil rights of Jews throughout the world by their outrageous Gaza action --which of course was approved by the EU fascists.
What happened in Gaza? I do not recall it getting worse thats for sure. It may not be any better, but certainly Israel was not worse off. Plus if needed, Israelis have the capability to strike anywhere in Palestine. If they consolidate their people it is much easier to defend them and less costly as well. It is a logical move. And doubt it is land for peace. West Bank and Gaza are useless strips of land because of the Palistinians live there do little to improve it. Considering the fact that moving the Pals is implausible then Israel should abandon most non-strategic points of the West Bank as well. As an unintentional plus, the world has less of an excuse to critize Israel.