The Myth of Occupied Territories

[Billo_Really]

HAMAS has made direct and indirect threats against the US and US interests. HAMAS has establish a past history of hostile actions against US citizens and its interests. It is only natural that the US would support neutralization efforts against HAMAS resources in organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating Jihadist activities and take appropriate practical countermeasures to ensure Jihadist installations or training camps, pose no further threat.

And when Hamas becomes a more moderate, political organization, does Israel encourage their actions away from terrorism? No. They threaten Hamas and tell them it doesn't matter, because Israel does not want peace.

Hamas stormed the political arena in force in 2005. In January of that year, prior to scheduled municipal elections, a report from the U.S. State Department observed that Hamas was “Neck and Neck” with Fatah, the party under the leadership of President Abbas, with “a majority of both [Fatah] and Hamas supporters” backing “a continuation of the ceasefire, ongoing talks with Israel, and a two-state solution.” It noted that Palestinians “tend to see Hamas as more qualified to clean up corruption, resist occupation, and uphold societal values”, and that the “lack of hope in the peace process may also contribute to support for Hamas.” In other words, by rejecting the two-state solution, Israel was effectively helping, once again, to empower Hamas. A little over a week later, Hamas won an overwhelming victory in the municipal elections, gaining 75 out of 118 seats in 10 local councils, and with Fatah winning only 39 seats.

Hamas continued to gain council seats in further municipal elections in May. But rather than encouraging Hamas’s engagement in the political process, Israel continued to seek to isolate the group. Instead of encouraging Hamas to moderate its behavior, Israel continued to attempt to provoke the group into a violent response. Israel sent the message to Hamas that its steps towards moderation and political engagement would bear no fruit. When Hamas cleaned the streets, Israeli bulldozers and tanks destroyed them, and when Hamas erected streetlights, Israeli soldiers shot them out.

So, even when Hamas does play by the rules, Israel makes sure they don't benefit from it.

BTW, shooting out street lights in Gaza after they've been erected, is just plain mean.

You keep pointing to a 3-decade old Charter as proof of the Hamas threat, but you conveniently dismiss public statements to the contrary that call for peace.

The head of the political bureau of Hamas, Khalid Mish’al, wrote in The Guardian that Hamas was “ready to make a just peace”, saying that “The day Hamas won the Palestinian democratic elections the world’s leading democracies failed the test of democracy. Rather than recognize the legitimacy of Hamas as a freely elected representative of the Palestinian people, seize the opportunity created by the result to support the development of good governance in Palestine and search for a means of ending the bloodshed, the US and EU threatened the Palestinian people with collective punishment for exercising their right to choose their parliamentary representatives.” He closed by saying, “We shall never recognize the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights…. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.”

And of coarse, Israel doesn't want a long-term truce, that's why they break every ceasefire they enter into.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, this is were we seriously disagree.

The illegal government in the West Bank was installed by the US. The US is the division. The US is the chaos. The illegal government will not allow constitutional procedures to move forward.

(COMMENT)

The US didn't install the West Bank (Fatah) government. What nonsense is that. While it is true that the US favors the lesser terrorist supporting of the two choices, it did not alter the election process, or alter the PLO-Executive Committee outcomes.

Who is the "illegal government?"

I don't understand your interpretation of external interference.

(COMMENT)

All governments that interact with external governments (during the normal course of diplomatic and commercial relations), are influenced to some degree. Even HAMAS is influenced by the interaction it has with Egypt, Iran and Syria (as examples).

HAMAS has made direct and indirect threats against the US and US interests. HAMAS has establish a past history of hostile actions against US citizens and its interests. It is only natural that the US would support neutralization efforts against HAMAS resources in organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating Jihadist activities and take appropriate practical countermeasures to ensure Jihadist installations or training camps, pose no further threat.

Most Respectfully,
R

And that leads us back to the question you have been ducking.

"Fatah lost the elections. How did it get to be the government in the West Bank?"

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, this is were we seriously disagree.

The illegal government in the West Bank was installed by the US. The US is the division. The US is the chaos. The illegal government will not allow constitutional procedures to move forward.

(COMMENT)

The US didn't install the West Bank (Fatah) government. What nonsense is that. While it is true that the US favors the lesser terrorist supporting of the two choices, it did not alter the election process, or alter the PLO-Executive Committee outcomes.

Who is the "illegal government?"

I don't understand your interpretation of external interference.

(COMMENT)

All governments that interact with external governments (during the normal course of diplomatic and commercial relations), are influenced to some degree. Even HAMAS is influenced by the interaction it has with Egypt, Iran and Syria (as examples).

HAMAS has made direct and indirect threats against the US and US interests. HAMAS has establish a past history of hostile actions against US citizens and its interests. It is only natural that the US would support neutralization efforts against HAMAS resources in organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating Jihadist activities and take appropriate practical countermeasures to ensure Jihadist installations or training camps, pose no further threat.

Most Respectfully,
R

And that leads us back to the question you have been ducking.

"Fatah lost the elections. How did it get to be the government in the West Bank?"

The way I see it: Fatah and Hamas had a Civil War...Hamas was defeated and retreated to Gaza...Like any Civil War the victor governs what they control...Hamas does not rule the West Bank and the UN has recognized that.

 

[Indeependent]

There was a war in 1967.
The Jordanians lost.

 

[pbel]

There was a war in 1967.
The Jordanians lost.

What is your point?

 

[docmauser1]

There was a war in 1967.
The Jordanians lost.

What is your point?

The point is - life's not a computer shooter game with a Save/Reload button, of course. But arabs don't know that. Such innocent souls.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I don't know.

And that leads us back to the question you have been ducking.

"Fatah lost the elections. How did it get to be the government in the West Bank?"

(COMMENT)

I appears to be a case of chaos in the ranks.

An example of how well the Palestinians can democratically control their government.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I don't know.

And that leads us back to the question you have been ducking.

"Fatah lost the elections. How did it get to be the government in the West Bank?"

(COMMENT)

I appears to be a case of chaos in the ranks.

An example of how well the Palestinians can democratically control their government.

Most Respectfully,
R

And you pretend to know something about this conflict.

 

[docmauser1]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I don't know.

And that leads us back to the question you have been ducking.

"Fatah lost the elections. How did it get to be the government in the West Bank?"

(COMMENT)

I appears to be a case of chaos in the ranks.

An example of how well the Palestinians can democratically control their government.

Most Respectfully,
R

And you pretend to know something about this conflict.

Especially in view that we still don't know who was that shakh, sultan, emir, effendi, pasha, president, prime-minister of that "palestine" to have "international borders", "lands" and stuff, do we?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, well....

Again, I don't know.

And that leads us back to the question you have been ducking.

"Fatah lost the elections. How did it get to be the government in the West Bank?"

(COMMENT)

I appears to be a case of chaos in the ranks.

An example of how well the Palestinians can democratically control their government.

Most Respectfully,
R

And you pretend to know something about this conflict.

(COMMENT)

Two points:

• Who elects who in Palestine (Gaza Strip + West Bank) is an internal matter of a domestic political nature. It has very little to do with the origins of the conflict. There have been internal squabbles among the Palestinians for decades. To the external observer it is merely a choice between the lesser of two evils (HAMAS and the Jihadist or FATAH and the Fedayeen). The outcome is a symptom of chaos.

• For more than a week, you've been kicking me to answer the question. I've consistently said, I don't know. What I do know is that your suggestion that the US somehow convinced the Arab League, the Executive Committee and the Palestinian People to follow FATAH is absurd.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, well....

Again, I don't know.


(COMMENT)

I appears to be a case of chaos in the ranks.

An example of how well the Palestinians can democratically control their government.

Most Respectfully,
R

And you pretend to know something about this conflict.

(COMMENT)

Two points:

• Who elects who in Palestine (Gaza Strip + West Bank) is an internal matter of a domestic political nature. It has very little to do with the origins of the conflict. There have been internal squabbles among the Palestinians for decades. To the external observer it is merely a choice between the lesser of two evils (HAMAS and the Jihadist or FATAH and the Fedayeen). The outcome is a symptom of chaos.

• For more than a week, you've been kicking me to answer the question. I've consistently said, I don't know. What I do know is that your suggestion that the US somehow convinced the Arab League, the Executive Committee and the Palestinian People to follow FATAH is absurd.

Most Respectfully,
R

For more than a week, you've been kicking me to answer the question. I've consistently said, I don't know.

That is because that is the key issue. If you don't get that right, everything that follows is incorrect.

Here are two reports from two different people from two different countries.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utKgXMedqpk]American Sabotage of Palestinian Democracy - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNJud3yXsqg]Laila El-Haddad reporting on Gaza violence - YouTube[/ame]

 

[docmauser1]

For more than a week, you've been kicking me to answer the question. I've consistently said, I don't know.

That is because that is the key issue. If you don't get that right, everything that follows is incorrect. Here are two reports from two different people from two different countries. American Sabotage of Palestinian Democracy - YouTube. Laila El-Haddad reporting on Gaza violence - YouTube

Both being consistently drivel, of course.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I don't know.

And that leads us back to the question you have been ducking.

"Fatah lost the elections. How did it get to be the government in the West Bank?"

(COMMENT)

I appears to be a case of chaos in the ranks.

An example of how well the Palestinians can democratically control their government.

Most Respectfully,
R

And you pretend to know something about this conflict.

It's apparent you draw the wrong conclusions about the conflict and about facts and continuously get your chain pulled.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I don't know.


(COMMENT)

I appears to be a case of chaos in the ranks.

An example of how well the Palestinians can democratically control their government.

Most Respectfully,
R

And you pretend to know something about this conflict.

It's apparent you draw the wrong conclusions about the conflict and about facts and continuously get your chain pulled.

Name one.

 

[Hossfly]

And you pretend to know something about this conflict.

It's apparent you draw the wrong conclusions about the conflict and about facts and continuously get your chain pulled.

Name one.

Outdated, invalid and obsolete documents and proclamations you cling to. Lord Brandywine don't mean diddley squat.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It's apparent you draw the wrong conclusions about the conflict and about facts and continuously get your chain pulled.

Name one.

Outdated, invalid and obsolete documents and proclamations you cling to. Lord Brandywine don't mean diddley squat.

Name one.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a crafty shifting to the issue.

For more than a week, you've been kicking me to answer the question. I've consistently said, I don't know.

That is because that is the key issue. If you don't get that right, everything that follows is incorrect.

Here are two reports from two different people from two different countries.

• American Sabotage of Palestinian Democracy - YouTube
• Laila El-Haddad reporting on Gaza violence - YouTube

(COMMENT)

Reports - Putting in Context

These are reports concerning the 2008 clash between HAMAS and FATAH elements. It should be noted that the clash did not effect the change (a HAMAS Government in Gaza and a FATAH Government in West Bank); that was already there.

Misrepresentation of what Keith Dayton {(Lieutenant General United States Army - Retired) [former U.S. Security Coordinator for Palestinian Authority (USSC)]} role was - relative to being responsible for training Palestinian Paramilitary and Police forces for both Gaza (HAMAS) and the West Bank (FATAH). It should be noticed that LTG Dayton's training program was not appreciated by the Israelis, most notably by Avi Mizrahi (Major General. Israel Defense Forces, former Head of Israeli Central Command - Retired). As stated in the one news report cited above, the documents (2006 era - two years afterwards - in Rush Limbaugh style reporting) [(sometimes known as the "Palestinian Papers")(Document 1 and Document 2), and Document 3)] make it clear that there was a genuine concern for the need of weapons within elements of the National Security Force (NSF), particularly with respect to its relationship with the Presidency of the Palestinian Authority (PA); including the Palestinian Police, the Presidential Guard, and Force 17. While the documents were confidential and the specific weaknesses gone un-amplified, this general need was not unknown to the Quartet (United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and Russia) or the media. The mission of LTG Dayton was not unknown. Nor was the political distaste the US harbored for HAMAS and political preference for FATAH. But it is also important that it is understood that the Palestinian Papers covered much more than just the needs for weapons and additional training support. The Palestinian Papers also covered improve security at border crossings, and discusses the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza as a result of Israeli management of the crossings (some say non-compliance), especially in Gaza and especially relative to the Karm Abu Salem crossing.

It is "very" important to point-out that the US, as the papers also illuminate, was the grave concern that the PA President (Abu Mazen) "terminated the delegation of his powers by reasserting his legal authority over the National Security Force." This was of particular to the Israelis as emphasized by MG Mizrahi, Israeli Central Command, and the US Congress. "Since Hamas took over the internal administration of Gaza in 2007, the assistance of the USSC and the EUPOL COPPS mission has been limited to the West Bank." (At the time these news videos were made, the USSC was still providing support to Gaza and the West Bank.) The concern was not over the potential for an outbreak of hostilities between HAMAS and FATAH (Palestinian on Palestinian) but the concern that the US and donors (Western and Arab) were directly involved in training a potential adversary of Israel. At the time (2006-2007), a confrontation and outbreak of hostilities between FATAH and HAMAS would have been the best of both worlds. The Arab dictatorships and Kingdoms would still have potential radicals pinned-down in a confined space, not affecting their internal security. Confrontational pressures on Israel would have been relived as the targets of hostilities shifted to Palestinian on Palestinian. And the overall scope and nature of the conflict would have changed face, bringing a new emphasis on the attraction for peace between the parties concerned, potentially starving both sides of the insurgency of indigenous support while attrition takes its toll on Jihadist and Fedayeen.​

Point on Point: It is extremely important to note that there are other concerned players, interested in the status quo and the continuation of the conflict; beyond that of the goal of regional peace by the Quartet. At this time in history, the Regional Arab Governments see absolutely no political advantage or additional internal security stability improvements by a Israel-Palestinian settlement or a reconciliation between confrontational Palestinian factions; none at all. Thus, a dribble of support (financial, political, and material) is much more cost effective in radical containment than the cost predicted should a general peace settlement free these Islamic radicals to roam or migrate elsewhere in the region to creating havoc; as Izz ad-din al-Qassam did in the 1920's -- as -- Hezbollah and al-Qaeda do today in Syria. This does not include the Persian influence which wants to promote conflict to limit any defenses that might be resistant to future al-Quds Force operations and intrusions; once the free of Syrian entaglements.

The training, arming and equipping of the PA NSF, is a separate and distinct issue, very different from the conflict; as it effects the domestic aspects of the Palestinian and the internal dispute the have among themselves relative to their own leadership. Who the Quartet gives support to has very little effect on who the Palestinians themselves favor in a general election. And as predicted, whichever side wins the general election, once in power, they will resist any change to that power --- even if it means placing barriers up against future elections. While it does happen from time to time, historically, Arabs change their leadership in an environment of violence; and not through democratic means; with a tendency to lean in the direction of a Ruling Elite.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a crafty shifting to the issue.

For more than a week, you've been kicking me to answer the question. I've consistently said, I don't know.

That is because that is the key issue. If you don't get that right, everything that follows is incorrect.

Here are two reports from two different people from two different countries.

• American Sabotage of Palestinian Democracy - YouTube
• Laila El-Haddad reporting on Gaza violence - YouTube

(COMMENT)

Reports - Putting in Context

These are reports concerning the 2008 clash between HAMAS and FATAH elements. It should be noted that the clash did not effect the change (a HAMAS Government in Gaza and a FATAH Government in West Bank); that was already there.

Misrepresentation of what Keith Dayton {(Lieutenant General United States Army - Retired) [former U.S. Security Coordinator for Palestinian Authority (USSC)]} role was - relative to being responsible for training Palestinian Paramilitary and Police forces for both Gaza (HAMAS) and the West Bank (FATAH). It should be noticed that LTG Dayton's training program was not appreciated by the Israelis, most notably by Avi Mizrahi (Major General. Israel Defense Forces, former Head of Israeli Central Command - Retired). As stated in the one news report cited above, the documents (2006 era - two years afterwards - in Rush Limbaugh style reporting) [(sometimes known as the "Palestinian Papers")(Document 1 and Document 2), and Document 3)] make it clear that there was a genuine concern for the need of weapons within elements of the National Security Force (NSF), particularly with respect to its relationship with the Presidency of the Palestinian Authority (PA); including the Palestinian Police, the Presidential Guard, and Force 17. While the documents were confidential and the specific weaknesses gone un-amplified, this general need was not unknown to the Quartet (United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and Russia) or the media. The mission of LTG Dayton was not unknown. Nor was the political distaste the US harbored for HAMAS and political preference for FATAH. But it is also important that it is understood that the Palestinian Papers covered much more than just the needs for weapons and additional training support. The Palestinian Papers also covered improve security at border crossings, and discusses the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza as a result of Israeli management of the crossings (some say non-compliance), especially in Gaza and especially relative to the Karm Abu Salem crossing.

It is "very" important to point-out that the US, as the papers also illuminate, was the grave concern that the PA President (Abu Mazen) "terminated the delegation of his powers by reasserting his legal authority over the National Security Force." This was of particular to the Israelis as emphasized by MG Mizrahi, Israeli Central Command, and the US Congress. "Since Hamas took over the internal administration of Gaza in 2007, the assistance of the USSC and the EUPOL COPPS mission has been limited to the West Bank." (At the time these news videos were made, the USSC was still providing support to Gaza and the West Bank.) The concern was not over the potential for an outbreak of hostilities between HAMAS and FATAH (Palestinian on Palestinian) but the concern that the US and donors (Western and Arab) were directly involved in training a potential adversary of Israel. At the time (2006-2007), a confrontation and outbreak of hostilities between FATAH and HAMAS would have been the best of both worlds. The Arab dictatorships and Kingdoms would still have potential radicals pinned-down in a confined space, not affecting their internal security. Confrontational pressures on Israel would have been relived as the targets of hostilities shifted to Palestinian on Palestinian. And the overall scope and nature of the conflict would have changed face, bringing a new emphasis on the attraction for peace between the parties concerned, potentially starving both sides of the insurgency of indigenous support while attrition takes its toll on Jihadist and Fedayeen.​

Point on Point: It is extremely important to note that there are other concerned players, interested in the status quo and the continuation of the conflict; beyond that of the goal of regional peace by the Quartet. At this time in history, the Regional Arab Governments see absolutely no political advantage or additional internal security stability improvements by a Israel-Palestinian settlement or a reconciliation between confrontational Palestinian factions; none at all. Thus, a dribble of support (financial, political, and material) is much more cost effective in radical containment than the cost predicted should a general peace settlement free these Islamic radicals to roam or migrate elsewhere in the region to creating havoc; as Izz ad-din al-Qassam did in the 1920's -- as -- Hezbollah and al-Qaeda do today in Syria. This does not include the Persian influence which wants to promote conflict to limit any defenses that might be resistant to future al-Quds Force operations and intrusions; once the free of Syrian entaglements.

The training, arming and equipping of the PA NSF, is a separate and distinct issue, very different from the conflict; as it effects the domestic aspects of the Palestinian and the internal dispute the have among themselves relative to their own leadership. Who the Quartet gives support to has very little effect on who the Palestinians themselves favor in a general election. And as predicted, whichever side wins the general election, once in power, they will resist any change to that power --- even if it means placing barriers up against future elections. While it does happen from time to time, historically, Arabs change their leadership in an environment of violence; and not through democratic means; with a tendency to lean in the direction of a Ruling Elite.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am trying to find something in all this that refutes the illegal government in the West Bank.

Could you try to narrow it down?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah! You replied with the videos, and I responded to the allegations in the videos.

Again, I don't know the answer. I'm not sure that either (so called) government is really legitimate in a western democratic sense. But the FATAH Government has more legitimacy than the HAMAS, if for no other reason than it is PLO and the Executive Committee approved it.

• American Sabotage of Palestinian Democracy - YouTube
• Laila El-Haddad reporting on Gaza violence - YouTube

I am trying to find something in all this that refutes the illegal government in the West Bank.

Could you try to narrow it down?

(COMMENT)

The election is history. The terms have expired. But the PLO is recognized by the Arab League as the legitimate voice of the People, so they have some minor legitimacy. As much as any Arab Potentate.

What do you that is current that says otherwise?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah! You replied with the videos, and I responded to the allegations in the videos.

Again, I don't know the answer. I'm not sure that either (so called) government is really legitimate in a western democratic sense. But the FATAH Government has more legitimacy than the HAMAS, if for no other reason than it is PLO and the Executive Committee approved it.

• American Sabotage of Palestinian Democracy - YouTube
• Laila El-Haddad reporting on Gaza violence - YouTube

I am trying to find something in all this that refutes the illegal government in the West Bank.

Could you try to narrow it down?

(COMMENT)

The election is history. The terms have expired. But the PLO is recognized by the Arab League as the legitimate voice of the People, so they have some minor legitimacy. As much as any Arab Potentate.

What do you that is current that says otherwise?

Most Respectfully,
R

The constitution does not give a specific term of service for the PM and his Ministers. They hold office until they are replaced.

The PLO or the Arab League have nothing to do with it.