Arafat's Heirs
Hamas gunmen in Gaza marked Yasser Arafat's Nov. 11 "yahrtzeit" by shooting over 90 members of the Fatah movement, killing at least 7. Fatah-backers had rallied in Gaza City flaunting mounted portraits of the late Palestine Authority Chairman as if to say
" We are Arafat's true heirs."
Hamas shot them as if to say "We are in power here now."
Often the death of a charismatic and unifying leader is followed by a power-struggle between two of his disciples.(1) But which of these two Palestinian groups is more fit to carry Arafat's mantle?
Arafat's Legacy
The United Nations proposed creation of a Palestinian state in 1947, but the land assigned to it was gobbled-up by Jordan (2) and Egypt. In 1959 Yasser Arafat and a few friends founded Fatah, dedicated to establishing such a state in the entire Palestine Mandate territory. Five years later, Arafat formed and led an "umbrella organization" composed of all Palestinian groups entitled the "Palestine Liberation Organization" or PLO. Since Israel had no "occupied territories" at that time, the land to be "liberated" was Israel itself.
At first the program of PLO was supported only by the Arab League, but after Israel took Gaza and the West Bank in the 1967 Six Day War, the concept of a Palestinian state gained increasing support throughout the world. It was the work of PLO, which included bombings and plane hi-jackings, that made the Palestinians major players in the Middle-East conflict in the eyes of the world.
After Hamas (a subsidiary of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) ignited an uprising in Gaza and the West Bank, Arafat and PLO ostensibly made peace with Israel in 1993. In exchange, PLO was granted limited authority to govern the two Palestinian areas. Today the concept of a sovereign Palestinian state is accepted by the whole world, including the Government of Israel.
Yasser Arafat never groomed a successor. When pressured by the United States to appoint a prime minister, he choose Mahmoud Abbas, an academic with no charisma or following. After Arafat died on Nov. 11, 2004, Abbas (aka "Abu Mazen") became President of the Palestine Authority (PA).
Hamas = Fatah ?
No, for two reasons:
Islam: Arafat considered Christian Arabs (about 10% of the West Bank) an important part of PLO. Although a devout Muslim, Arafat attended church services at Christmas in Bethlehem as a sign of solidarity with the Christian population. Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, has no use for Christians or other infidels. If Hamas ever takes full power in the West Bank, Muslim law (Sharia) will be imposed, and Christians will be reduced to the status of "dhimmi", powerless residents.
The Peacemeal Process: By appearing to accept the existence of Israel, Arafat won control of most of the Palestinian population. In 2000 he was offered a State of Palestine on nearly all the land Israel seized in 1967, but refused the deal.
President Bush has arranged a Peace Conference in Annapolis, Maryland, for later this month to create a Palestinian state. Hamas will not be attending this conference, as the movement steadfastly refuses to accept Jewish sovereignty in any part of "Palestine". The continuous rocket-fire from Gaza is evidence that Hamas still wants to liberate all of Palestine by armed struggle.
West Bank: The Next Gaza?
The leaders of Hamas took control of Gaza from Fatah in June, 2007, by force . They could not have seized this power while Israel still held the territory, but took over easily after it was quit-claimed to the Palestine Authority. Had Hamas controlled the PA in 2005, Israel would not have withdrawn. Thus, Fatah-rule was an unavoidable transition phase between Israeli occupation and Hamas rule.
Perhaps Hamas sees the same opportunity presenting itself in the West Bank, following the same scenario. First, Hamas maintains its ideological purity by refusing to negotiate with Israel. Meanwhile, Israel cedes territory to the "moderate" Fatah government of the PA in the face of heavy US arm-twisting. Then, with the Israelis safely out of the way, Hamas could use its considerable political and military power to seize the West Bank.
But would Yasser Arafat approve such a coup?
I think he would love it!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Examples:
A. Russia, where Stalin and Trotsky claimed the mantle of Lenin.
B. China, where Mao ZeDong and Chiang Kai-Shek were both followers of President Sun Yat- Sen.
C. US, where two of Franklin Roosevelt's Vice Presidents (Henry Wallace and Harry Truman) ran against each other and others in 1948.
(2) Created by the British in 1922 as Transjordan, the name was changed to Jordan after the West Bank take-over. The name has stuck, even though the present boundaries are the same as they were before 1948.
" We are Arafat's true heirs."
Hamas shot them as if to say "We are in power here now."
Often the death of a charismatic and unifying leader is followed by a power-struggle between two of his disciples.(1) But which of these two Palestinian groups is more fit to carry Arafat's mantle?
Arafat's Legacy
The United Nations proposed creation of a Palestinian state in 1947, but the land assigned to it was gobbled-up by Jordan (2) and Egypt. In 1959 Yasser Arafat and a few friends founded Fatah, dedicated to establishing such a state in the entire Palestine Mandate territory. Five years later, Arafat formed and led an "umbrella organization" composed of all Palestinian groups entitled the "Palestine Liberation Organization" or PLO. Since Israel had no "occupied territories" at that time, the land to be "liberated" was Israel itself.
At first the program of PLO was supported only by the Arab League, but after Israel took Gaza and the West Bank in the 1967 Six Day War, the concept of a Palestinian state gained increasing support throughout the world. It was the work of PLO, which included bombings and plane hi-jackings, that made the Palestinians major players in the Middle-East conflict in the eyes of the world.
After Hamas (a subsidiary of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) ignited an uprising in Gaza and the West Bank, Arafat and PLO ostensibly made peace with Israel in 1993. In exchange, PLO was granted limited authority to govern the two Palestinian areas. Today the concept of a sovereign Palestinian state is accepted by the whole world, including the Government of Israel.
Yasser Arafat never groomed a successor. When pressured by the United States to appoint a prime minister, he choose Mahmoud Abbas, an academic with no charisma or following. After Arafat died on Nov. 11, 2004, Abbas (aka "Abu Mazen") became President of the Palestine Authority (PA).
Hamas = Fatah ?
No, for two reasons:
Islam: Arafat considered Christian Arabs (about 10% of the West Bank) an important part of PLO. Although a devout Muslim, Arafat attended church services at Christmas in Bethlehem as a sign of solidarity with the Christian population. Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, has no use for Christians or other infidels. If Hamas ever takes full power in the West Bank, Muslim law (Sharia) will be imposed, and Christians will be reduced to the status of "dhimmi", powerless residents.
The Peacemeal Process: By appearing to accept the existence of Israel, Arafat won control of most of the Palestinian population. In 2000 he was offered a State of Palestine on nearly all the land Israel seized in 1967, but refused the deal.
President Bush has arranged a Peace Conference in Annapolis, Maryland, for later this month to create a Palestinian state. Hamas will not be attending this conference, as the movement steadfastly refuses to accept Jewish sovereignty in any part of "Palestine". The continuous rocket-fire from Gaza is evidence that Hamas still wants to liberate all of Palestine by armed struggle.
West Bank: The Next Gaza?
The leaders of Hamas took control of Gaza from Fatah in June, 2007, by force . They could not have seized this power while Israel still held the territory, but took over easily after it was quit-claimed to the Palestine Authority. Had Hamas controlled the PA in 2005, Israel would not have withdrawn. Thus, Fatah-rule was an unavoidable transition phase between Israeli occupation and Hamas rule.
Perhaps Hamas sees the same opportunity presenting itself in the West Bank, following the same scenario. First, Hamas maintains its ideological purity by refusing to negotiate with Israel. Meanwhile, Israel cedes territory to the "moderate" Fatah government of the PA in the face of heavy US arm-twisting. Then, with the Israelis safely out of the way, Hamas could use its considerable political and military power to seize the West Bank.
But would Yasser Arafat approve such a coup?
I think he would love it!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Examples:
A. Russia, where Stalin and Trotsky claimed the mantle of Lenin.
B. China, where Mao ZeDong and Chiang Kai-Shek were both followers of President Sun Yat- Sen.
C. US, where two of Franklin Roosevelt's Vice Presidents (Henry Wallace and Harry Truman) ran against each other and others in 1948.
(2) Created by the British in 1922 as Transjordan, the name was changed to Jordan after the West Bank take-over. The name has stuck, even though the present boundaries are the same as they were before 1948.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:54 AM
3 Comments:
Hamas=Fatah
1. Mr Glazer states that Fatah respects Christians and Christianity and that this distinguishes Fatah from Hamas. Well then how does Mr Glazer explain the persecution of Christians in the West Bank, the land of Fatah. There are hardly any Christians left in the Werst Basnk, Fatah controlled city of Bethlehem and The following articles are proof but I could list dozens more:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={1ECB3814-85EA-4188-9972-A1E5E73A8D97}
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7BBBA7075E-B5C6-42CE-953D-0480F0B784EC%7D
Arafat courted Christians as a war tactic. Arafat knew that he could get Western approval and appeasement if he showed sympathic or friendship toward Christians. This was a LIE and a DECEPTION like all of his other political moves. This is a well known tactic of Muslims durign war and Arafat was a Muslims. I am shocked that Mr Glazeer fell for this deception.
2. Mr Glazer suggest that the desire of Hamas to liberate all of Israel what separates Hamas from Fatah. Well if thsi is so that how does Mr Glazsr explain the Charter of the PLO, which calls for the libweragtion of all of Israel. The PLO is the politcal arm of Fatah.
Here are the first two articles of the PLO Charter:
Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
The British Mandated land of Palestine included all of Israel.
Again I am shocked at Mr. Glazer's apparent succombing to the deceptions of Arafat and Fatah.
Hamas=Fatah
The ONLY difference between Hamas and Fatah is that Hamas says the same thing to everyone, but Fatah tells the West one thing and its followers the opposite. The difference is that Hamas is honest.
There is one major issue I forgot to address and that is why are Fatah and Hamas fighting each other if Hamas=Fatah?
They fight each other not because of ideology, but for power. This is like Iraq. They all hate USA and Israel, but still they fight each other.
Fatah=Hamas not in all issues and all things, but in all things related to Israel which is OUR concern. The point is for their relationship with Israel and Jews, Hamas=Fatah. Whether the Arabs are led by Fatah or Hamas the result will be the same for Israel. If this is not true then show me where a difference has occurred in action on the ground. Has Fatah murdered fewer Jews?
When you look at the facts on the ground Hamas is a far more preferable enemy. Hamas is very different than Fatah with regard to honesty. We all know where Hamas stands on everything, because they say ther same thing to whomever they speak.
On the other hand, Fatah and especially Arafat say one thng to the West and the total opposite to their supporters. They tell the West what the West wants to hear but they did not and do not have any intention of keeping any promises they make. Proof of this is Oslo. The PLO and Fatah who made that agreement kept NONE of their promises.
Fatah=Hamas with respect to Israel except for honesty, and in that regard Hamas is far more reliable.
One more thing: mathematics
In mathematics there are two indications of sameness: equality (=) and equivalence (three bar sign).
Equivalence means = in all respects and under all conditions; i.e identical.
Equals means = in the limited condiitions of the expressions stated. For example, two expressions may have the same value for all positive numbers, but not negative numbers.
Hamas is not equivalent to Fatah. Examples of this are that when given a choice in an open and free election the Palestinian Arabs chose Hamas over Fatah in a landslide. In addition, as explained previously Hamas is far more honest and far less corrupt (the reason the Arabs prefer Hamas) than Fatah.
However, Hamas = Fatah under the conditions of their relationship with Israel.
Mr Glazer used the expression = not equivalence and he discussed the relationship of these groups with Israel; therefore
Hamas = Fatah
Post a Comment
<< Home