The coming of the third intifada?
Since its establishment, the State of Israel has largely depended on its security forces and intelligence agencies to ensure its national security. Today, Israel believes that diminished Palestinian attacks is a result of the successful efforts of its security and intelligence forces. Israel began building its intelligence and security forces even before the declaration of the state of 1948. Jews in Palestine did not trust the Arabs who lived among them, and often offered bribes to the Arab population in exchange for information about Arab plans in Palestine. The Israelis also went about recruiting inside the Arab world, across the Middle East, and around the world. A new chapter in US-Arab relations?
The US has been showing brave policy shifts towards the Muslim world and the Israeli-Arab conflict. This change is mostly noted in America's view on the importance of finding a solution for the Israeli-Arab conflict. The changes started as soon as President Obama took office. Both Europe and America have indicated that ending the conflict in the Middle East would be beneficial to the Western world and would help bring about international security. Is it real silence..or silence before a real storm?
The relative quiet we've seen so far with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to be coming to an end. The new Israeli government has been formed and the international community wants to see real progress in the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. During his recent visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, US Middle East envoy George Mitchell said that the two state solution is the only way to end the conflict. Avigdor Lieberman, the new Israeli foreign minister, stated in the presence of Mitchell that Israel will work to improve the Palestinian economy. The latter responded by saying that the Israeli plan to improve the Palestinian economy must be a part of a complete plan to end the conflict by having two states for the two peoples. In a meeting held between White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Jewish leaders in the United States, Rahm stated clearly that the interest of the White House is to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a period of four years with a result that includes two states; one Israeli and one Palestinian. Answers to readers' questions
Following last week's invitation to submit your questions about anything related to Israel-Palestinian relations to our Palestinian blogger Ziad Khalil Abu Zayyad who writes on BlogCentral's The Other View, Ziad has patiently answered every question sent in. The exchange is below. Dear Readers I want to make several points clear. First of all I do not represent Hamas nor anyone else. I have answered you based on what I hear in the Palestinian community and people's reactions to the conflict. Some answers will be also based on what Palestinians consider beliefs. Thank you for your questions; it was interesting. Ziad ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Is there any indication that talking to Hamas would make it stick to its beliefs less than it has up until now, as you claim in your post The price of political stubbornness? Is there any reason to believe that its continuous glorification of killing is just a failure of communication? Like it or not, Hamas' terror is itself a form of communication. It is they who have chosen the form of "dialogue" -- a dialogue of raw force -- that Israel has had to respond to in Gaza. Fed Up, Barcelona Answer: The reason I wrote in that post that Israel has to change its way of communicating with Hamas was to try and show an alternative way of thinking instead of launching a war which, in the end, brought no benefits for Israel nor for the Palestinians. There is reason to believe that Hamas continued to fight and launch missiles because of a failure of communication between it and the West. The Palestinian Liberation Organization held beliefs that invited the Palestinians to fight Israel until the last inch of the land of Palestine is liberated but this changed after signing the Oslo agreement. It shows us that even a system built on religious beliefs that convinces its followers that it is their duty to fight in the name of God, can be changed. The United States, Israel, and the West in general refused to communicate with Hamas because they considered it an organization that is similar to any other terrorist organization in the world. In the eyes of the Arab world, Hamas differs from Bin Laden and al-Qaida since Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular consider it a movement that fights in a Holy land that has been occupied. Therefore any lack of communication with Hamas or a siege around it does not weaken it but indeed makes it more popular, more justified in the eyes of the Arabs, and stronger within the Palestinian community. * * * 2. Hamas defines its identity as the "Islamic Resistance Movement". Its charter says very clearly that they believe negotiations are worth nothing, that only "jihad" will bring the Palestinians what they want. And what does Hamas want when it refers to the residents of Sderot as "settlers" and refuses to accept Israel's right to exist? We can hardly dismiss Hamas rhetoric, but at the same time take them serious as negotiation partners. Petra, Bat Yam The war is over, now what?
The main goal of the Israeli operation in Gaza was not to weaken Hamas but to try and affect Palestinian public opinion since it is the Gazan population that elected Hamas and supports its agenda. Although the Israeli government claimed victory in this war, nothing has changed in reality; Hamas still has power, the tunnels are being re-built as we speak, and the people are still supporting it, not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank and in the Arab world. War achievements...or illusions
Israel's decision to go to war in Gaza should be analyzed in order to understand the real reasoning behind it and to examine what results following the war were promised to the Israeli public. The Israeli leadership stated at the beginning of the war that it was acting to protect its citizens from the Kassams and Grad missiles launched by Hamas and other factions on the cities in the Gaza periphery. The price of political stubbornness
Some states' political positions, such as Israel's, not to negotiate with "terrorists" can cause severe damage. One of the main obstacles that resulted in the latest confrontation between Israel and Hamas is the lack of 'connection' between them. Israel considers Hamas a terrorist organization and does not want to give it legitimacy through opening diplomatic channels, and Hamas considers Israel an occupier that must be only faced with force. Israeli and Palestinian civilians are paying the price despite the fact that some would consider third-party negotiations (through Egypt, for example) and contact a form of communication. However, this is not sufficient. |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (66)
