I'm not at all embarrased to say I'm a grown man who watches the news fairly regularly and can usually figure stuff out, but the Middle East is confusing... Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine, West Bank, Hamas, Fatahs, Sunni, Shiite, Kurd It's tough just getting familiar with all the names. Then you have to try and decipher what each group wants, why, and how it makes no logical sense I don't know how anybody can claim which "side" is right, or claim to have answers, or claim to understand any of it, really...
It is sad. The poor inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank killing each other over the meager power available. Also sad to think of the Jews who once were enclosed by the Warsaw Ghetto, now have become for the most part the persecutors of the Palestinians. The best anlaogy I can think of for this moral descent by the Jews of mainly European origins, is that children who are abused often grow up to be abusers. On a more generic level, violence begets violence.
Um...lol...Hamas goes beserk on their own people, killing them and such in what appears to be an attempt to install a radical Islamic government in power in Palestine and your post is one aimed at discussing moral decline in the Jewish state?
You clearly know nothing about the situation or the background of the recent violence, or Palestinian politics to begin with. They're not trying to "install" anything, they were already VOTED into power. Fatah is refusing to hand authority over to the winning party, they want their own security forces and they want to get all the funding (it's always about money and money means power). Fatah is corrupt as hell, they've been so even before Arafat passed away. They're using the West's refusal to deal with a Hamas-led government as an excuse to have the money funneled through them, which of course they reroute to their European bank accounts. Why do you think Hamas was elected, to fight Israel? They were elected to 'clean house' and end the massive corruption that's going on. Only one small problem: they can't assert their authority if Fatah -- under the stooge Abbas' leadership -- is basically refusing to turn over any authority to Hamas. The Hamas leadership tried to negotiate and work with Abbas and his crooks, but they're more interested in a power-grab and doing things the 'old way' to keep their pockets full. Fatah wants to be yet another tin-pot dictatorship in the Middle East, they look around them and they want to be like Mubarak and Abdullah and the rest of the lot, and they repeatedly 'warned' the West about pushing for democracy because they knew they would lose, the Palestinian people lost faith in them a loooong time ago, they just respected Arafat because he was such a towering figure in Palestinian history and politics, so they couldn't do anything about him. It's very difficult to blame Hamas for this, it's clearly a mess of Fatah's own doing because they're envious of the surrounding regimes in Egypt, Jordan and Syria and insistent on violating the democratic outcome. Of course, the current administration is doing its part (financing, military aide even) to prop up Fatah and undermine its own "Great Middle East Initiative" policy that was supposedly a change of how we will go about dealing with the ME from now on...so much for that. Would they do the same thing if the Brotherhood came to power in Egypt? Most likely, yes. Hypocrisy is the first rule of international relations...
To stay abreast of the Middle East and Indian subcontinent, you can't depend on mainstream television to keep you informed. The internet is a treasure trove of information because most everything that happens gets reported somewhere. Some of the major news-sites have sections that deal with that part of the world and significant news often never gets put on their website's home page. If you really want to know what's going on, maybe go to Wikipedia (which BTW I never use) and look up the terms you mention above. Then search out news on that region at least a couple of times a week to see what's going on. There are smaller, more focused websites that are good too. Honestly though, it going to take time and you will get bored if it doesn't interest you. I'm a news junkie that is never satiated. That part of the world is so fascinating once you reach a certain level of knowledge about it. The value systems are so different than here it will blow your mind, but if you look close enough, the conflicts have a lot in common with what goes on here and other regions of the world. Sometimes right and wrong seem very clear; other times it's hazy. IMO, it's mankind's fallen nature acting itself out.
I agree with much of what you say except Hamas must renounce their publicly stated goal of destroying Israel. Like I said earlier, I hope Hamas wins and then moderates enough to be a negotiating partner. Their refusal to back down from this is why outside states will have nothing to do with them. So I do Hamas for being a major part of the problem. It's one thing to provide goods and services to areas you influences and another to govern responsibly. They must make a decision to take the next step. Fatah is definitely pure garbage and they have no credibility whatsoever. Perhaps if they were crushed Hamas would feel secure enough to moderate without fear of losing the support of their own militants. Just a thought.
This article highlights U.S. reaction to recent developments as well as since Hamas won the elections... US sticks by Palestinian president http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast WASHINGTON - The violent crisis in Gaza has led the White House to reconsider tentative plans for President Bush to give a major address this month on his hopes for Mideast peace. Bush's speech would mark the fifth anniversary of his call for a separate, independent Palestine alongside Israel. He was the first U.S. president to back that notion so fully and publicly. But his administration has taken heavy criticism for letting the peace process drift while conditions worsened for the impoverished Palestinians. On Thursday, the administration gave hearty support to beleaguered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas amid the deadly chaos in the Gaza Strip and insisted that Washington will not give up on hopes for Mideast peace. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Abbas has complete U.S. backing for what was widely interpreted as a desperation move to head off an internal political crisis that escalated into an effective civil war. She had little other choice. Although weak, the secular Abbas remains the only top-level Palestinian leader with whom the U.S. will deal. The U.S. considers Hamas, the Islamic radical group fighting Abbas, a terrorist organization. "President Abbas has exercised his lawful authority as president of the Palestinian Authority, as leader of the Palestinian people," Rice said. She endorsed Abbas' move to declare a state of emergency and sack a partnership Cabinet he formed with Hamas this spring. "We fully support him in his decision to try and end this crisis for the Palestinian people and to give them an opportunity ... to return to peace and a better future," Rice said. U.S. and other Western officials speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said Bush and his advisers have not decided if the Gaza crisis makes a new statement of Bush's commitment more or less suitable. It is also possible that an official such as Rice could mark the occasion of Bush's June 24, 2002 call for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, or that there will be no speech at all, a senior administration official said. "Events on the ground are fluid," the official said. "We'll wait and see." The address, if it happens, is not expected to lay out specific U.S. proposals for a final peace settlement. It would be a "prelude" to a U.S.-backed initiative that the administration could begin before Bush leaves office in January 2009, one official said. Chances that Israel and the Palestinians could resume substantive peace discussions have appeared dim for months. They are further complicated by the Gaza violence and the Palestinian political disarray. "Just because we have these challenges does not mean that you give up on the Palestinian people," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. "That is not what President Bush — that is not what Secretary Rice — is going to do." Israeli officials said that when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert meets Bush in Washington next week, he will recommend a policy aimed at preventing Hamas from capturing the West Bank. The Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Olmert favors cutting contacts between the two Palestinian territories, which are separated by 25 miles of Israeli territory. Abbas said he will form a new government. He also is considering early elections, something his U.S. backers have not expressly endorsed. (of course not, he would lose) Behind the scenes, U.S. officials have hoped for a political reversal ever since Hamas stunned Fatah with a victory in 2006 parliamentary elections. The U.S. has tried to starve out Hamas with an aid boycott while shoring up the moderate Abbas with money, diplomatic rhetoric and military aid. Abbas tried to end the impasse when street fighting broke out this year. He formed a partnership with Hamas that dismayed the United States and set back Rice's efforts to relaunch meaningful cooperation toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Hamas fighters took nearly total control of Gaza this week in a swift, organized and well-armed series of assaults on Fatah forces loyal to Abbas. Hamas seized two security command centers Thursday, effectively defeating Fatah and prompting Abbas to dissolve the Hamas-Fatah coalition government. About 90 people, mostly fighters but also women and children, have been killed since Sunday. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, leaving the Palestinians responsible for the first time for running their own day-to-day affairs. Israel maintained control of Gaza's airspace and coastal waters, and monitors the Gaza-Egypt border by video-link.
well, i have kept fairly abreast of situations there. It's nto that I don't understaind those terms, who these countries an peoples are, etc., just that I only have my understanding of it, which is clearly 10000x off what a person living in the Middle East would think. IMO, if you truly want a fresh prespective on all of it, read some of the books about the Crusades. I have done this. You might say, how can that be a fresh perspective...it's ancient history we're talking about. Having read some of these books, though, it's not that I want to just outright forget about the region - point of clarification, I am Jewish (100%, been Bar Mitzvah'd, etc.) by birth - just that you really come to realize how ancient these conflicts are, despite the changes in terminology. Moreover, you realize there are equally serious problems in other parts of the world - Africa, Indonesia, Global Warming, American poverty, etc. I appreciate every one with a righteous call, and every fighting for something GOOD, but just wanted to point out how truly difficult it is to make heads or tails of good or evil, or right or wrong, of honor or disgrace, of righteousness, or wrongfullness in situations like the Middle East, or Africa. It's just all a bumble****...pardon my french. It's not clear there are any answers, at least not in the short term (i.e. - my lifetime).
I'll echo the other poster, how is this a Jewish problem again? They left Gaza and gave it to the Palenstinians didn't they? What else do you want from them? You're pushing the anti-Jewish thing a little too much. Step back form the ledge a bit.
anyone think fatah might try to do something to hamas in the west bank? maybe this is a lil gesture to stop that from happening? post
