Hamas-Fatah Unity Government Rejects West's Demands
Hamas and Fatah have formally created the unity government that has eluded them ever since Hamas unexpectedly won a majority of seats in the Palestianian Authority parliament. Palestinians hope that the new government will achieve two goals -- to end the civil war that has bubbled below the surface, and to restore the Western aid that keeps the PA afloat. It has not succeeded in the second:
The Hamas-led Palestinian government, boycotted by the West since its election more than a year ago because of Hamas’s support of terrorism, announced Thursday a unity coalition with the more moderate Fatah movement in hopes of ending the boycott.But the political document guiding the new government does not fulfill the international community’s three demands — to recognize Israel, forswear violence and accept previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements — and Israel announced that it would therefore not deal with the new government or any of its ministers, Hamas or not. The United States is expected to follow suit but the European Union will face a fierce internal debate about whether to continue its isolation of the Palestinians.
Miri Eisin, a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said Mr. Olmert would continue “to maintain dialogue with the elected Palestinian president,” Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, known as Abu Mazen, “who does accept the three principles.”
Other Israeli officials complained that Mr. Abbas had failed to make good on his promise to Mr. Olmert last week that a captured Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, would be released before a new government is formed. “If Abu Mazen could deliver Shalit, he would, but he can’t,” an Israeli official said. “So it raises new questions about his ability to deliver,” meaning that Mr. Olmert’s discussions with him will be limited, the official said, “to the improvement of the quality of Palestinian life.”
The formation of the government represents a minor miracle in itself. Hamas and Fatah had conducted running gun battles, assassinations, and kidnappings until almost the moment the two sides put pen to paper in Mecca. Egypt and Saudi Arabia had tired of the internecine warfare in Gaza and the West Bank, and apparently made both sides an offer they couldn't refuse. It demonstrates that while Hamas gets funding and direction from Iran, the two Sunni Arab nations can still have a great deal of influence on Palestinian affairs.
However, they either cannot or will not get the PA to comply with Western demands for responsible statesmanship. Their unity document addresses none of the issues on which the West halted aid to the Palestinian Authority. It does not recognize Israel, nor does it reject violence. Indeed, it explicitly calls for violence as a means of further resistance, and it contains the demand for the Palestinian right of return that would destroy Israel as a political entity.
Israel has, of course, rejected the unity government on those bases, as well as on their failure to return Gilad Schalit. They will not remit the tax collections to this government that they have withheld from the previous Hamas administration for the same reasons. The US has supported Israel's position on aid. The EU may be another story. France has already announced that they believe the new government offers an opportunity for international relations -- by the same man, Philipe Douste-Blazy, who once called Iran a source of "stability" in the Middle East.
The West has to stick by its conditions. Demanding that a government abide by the treaties signed by administrations before it, unless formally withdrawn, is the basis of all diplomacy. One cannot allow a government to say that a treaty is invalid merely because a prior administration ratified it. Rejecting violence should be the minimum prerequisite for Western aid, regardless of the cause involved; legitimate resistance does not include purposely blowing up hundreds of civilians at falafel stands and pizzerias. If the Palestinians can't recognize that much, then they have no business asking for our money.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on March 16, 2007 6:36 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (11)
Posted by dave![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2007 3:38 AM
CheckSum:
“Typical left-wing intellectual dishonesty.”
I was checking out the “Terror Free Tomorrow” website. The author of the article we are discussing in the founder and director of Terror Free Tomorrow. So guess who is supporting the author of this “typical left-wing” and “[intellectually dishonest]” author? John McCain is on the advisory board:
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/template.php?section=AU
“Actually, without seeing the whole survey question…”
Here’s the question:
“Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified or never justified?”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0228/p08s01-cole.html
“The article doesn't say what the other 32 percent believe.”
The other 32 percent believe that "suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians” is “rarely justified”.
“How does 24 percent become, in your words, ‘A majority of US citizens’ or ‘54%’?”
This is how. 54% of Americans think that “suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians” is either rarely, sometimes, or often justified. I think that if you support terrorism, even in rare instances, you are still supporting terrorism. Do you disagree? When 56% of Palestinians say they “support attacks against Israeli civilians”, maybe many of them only support these attacks if they occur “rarely”. Does that make it better?
Rashta:
“Second, the phrase ‘bombing and other attacks aimed at civilians’ is VERY open to interpretation by various cultures.”
When the question specifically says “suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians” and later refers to “this kind of violence” and specifically mentions the violence in relation to Islam, do you still think the question is unclear? The question does not mention violence in the sense of "bombing Berlin in a time of war", but in the sense of “suicide bombing”. Do you still have a problem with definitions? Do different countries have different definitions for the term “suicide bombing”????
Time to go back to the technique of claiming bias and ignoring the article. Or simply say that they lied. Pathetic.
Posted by dave![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2007 4:45 AM
Rashta:
“That you have to go to an organization [B’Tselem] that has been labelled anti-israeli…”
On February 23. 1995, Isabel Kershner wrote an article titled “The PLO Twilight Zone” in The Jerusalem Report. It talked about the Palestinian secret police rule in Jericho nine months after the Israeli army pulled out. In the article, they quote Bassem Eid, a B’Tselem staffer:
“’But terrible as Israel's guidelines are, at least they exist!’ declares Bassem Eid, a staffer at B'Tselem, an Israeli watchdog organization. ‘When Israel kept people for 18 days without a court ruling, the Palestinians went mad and filled the High Court. Now a detainee in Gaza can go for 70 days or a hundred. It's a disaster…. The whole attitude of the Palestine National Authority is one of Don't interfere in the affairs of the regime', he complains. ‘It's like Syria or Iraq. We're still in the Arab mind-set, which has no idea of the meaning of the word democracy.’”
He is quoted again here:
“’The truth is, I always expected this to happen,’ says Bassem Eid, shaking his head. ‘But I never expected it to happen so quickly.’”
I guess B’Tselem is not too biased for The Jerusalem Report, as long as they say what they want to hear. Strange that the Jerusalem Report would quote anti-Israeli organizations.
This Jerusalem Report quote was used by Morton A. Klein, the National President of the Zionist Organization of America, when he wrote a report titled “PLO Self-Rule in Gaza and Jericho After One Year, May 4, 1994- May 4, 1995: An Assessment of PLO Compliance With the Israel-PLO Self-Rule Accords” (see footnote 112).
I guess B’Tselem is not too biased for the Zionist Organization of America, as long as they say what they want to hear. Strange that the Zionist Organization of America would quote anti-Israeli organizations.
The report that was written by Klein was present in the US Congress session that was reporting on the PLO rule:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- House
Wednesday, June 28, 1995
104th Congress 1st Session
141 Cong Rec H 6483
B’Tselem quotes seem to get around in some pretty non-leftist circles. I guess the source is not biased all the time, huh.
Posted by ERNurse![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2007 6:26 AM
Dave, you are conveniently glossing over an important point. I will ask the question for all and sundry here to ponder.
When a cease-fire between Israel and the PA is called, who fires the rocket that breaks the cease fire? Israel or the PA?
Yep. I thought so.
Posted by CheckSum![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2007 8:27 AM
Sorry Dave, but John McCain doesn’t help your argument. He may not be typical left-wing, but in my opinion, intellectual dishonesty still applies.
No Dave, I don’t agree. I think the poll was designed to get a desired result. I don’t believe a majority of Americans, or even a sizable minority, would answer an honest survey and say they supported terrorism.
Posted by dave![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2007 11:25 AM
CheckSum:
The exact result I expect. You did not dissapoint me.
"I think the poll was designed to get a desired result."
What was wrong with the wording of the question?
" I don’t believe a majority of Americans, or even a sizable minority, would answer an honest survey and say they supported terrorism."
Keep that mind shut tight.
Posted by dave![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2007 12:46 PM
Michael Smith:
“Is there a vast international conspiracy against Israel?” -Dave
“Yes. It is called the United Nations.”
I looked into that UN conspiracy thing. I guess there is one. For some reason, the US and Israel (plus a couple stragglers if they can get them) seem to be alone in the voting in the GA. The rest of the world is just jealous.
Here’s some votes from 2006 only. After the voting result, I included the unofficial comment from the US on the particular issue.
GA/10562:
Dec 19. 2006
The draft resolution on the rights of the child
185 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(Since when do children have rights?)
GA/10562:
Dec 19. 2006
Draft resolution on the right to food
185 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(You have the right to food, if you have the money for it.)
GA/10566:
December 22, 2006
Draft resolution on Financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon
100 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(Let’s let the US be in charge of all military occupations)
GA/10566:
December 22, 2006
The draft resolution on implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
100 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(Sorry, all must answer to the US)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on developments in information and telecommunication in the context of international security
176 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(We don’t like to talk to other nations)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons
119 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(But we have the nukes, and we want to use them!)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space
178 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(But we’re winning the race!)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on convening a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament
175 in favour to 1 against, (United States)
(They’ll have to pry my weapons from my cold dead fingers)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control
175 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(We’re not interested in ‘norms’, we’re special!)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on the relationship between disarmament and development
178 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(The relationship is, no development, no arms)
.
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects 176 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(The only thing the US manufactures any more is arms!)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on a Fourth Disarmament Decade
123 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(Sorry, I already said we’re not giving them up)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities
178 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(We’re confident we can kick your ass from space!)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures
179 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(Peace. Don’t be silly.)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on “Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms”
153 in favour to 1 against (United States)
(Why isn’t our ally Israel voting with us?)
GA/10559:
Dec 14. 2006
The draft resolution on assistance to Palestine refugees
173 in favour to 1 against (Israel)
(If you don’t vote with us, we won’t vote with you)
GA/10559:
Dec 14. 2006
The draft resolution on the occupied Syrian Golan
163 in favour to 2 against (Israel, Tuvalu)
(So I see you got Tuvalu to vote with you. We’re not jealous.)
GA/10562:
Dec 19. 2006
Draft resolution III on global efforts to eliminate racism
179 in favour to 2 against (United States, Israel)
(I guess it took stopping efforts to eliminate racism to get us together.)
GA/10559:
Dec 14. 2006
The draft resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories
179 in favour to 2 against (United States, Israel)
(It’s so great to be together.)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
172 in favour to 2 against (United States, North Korea)
(Uh-oh. We might not look good hanging out with an ‘evil’ country)
GA/10564:
Dec 20. 2006
“The draft resolution on international trade and development (document A/61/420/Add.1)”
129 in favour to 2 against (United States, Moldova)
(That’s better. Everyone likes Moldova)
GA/10566:
December 22, 2006
The draft resolution on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon
145 in favour to 3 against (United States, Israel, Palau)
(The duo is back, along with the powerhouse Palau!!)
GA/10559:
Dec 14. 2006
The draft resolution on implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
176 in favour to 3 against (United States, Israel, United Kingdom)
(Once again, colonialism is good. We keep having to repeat things.)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on the Central Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone
141 in favour to 3 against (United States, France, United Kingdom)
(I think we have nukes there. If so, I’m sure we should keep them there.)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere
167 in favour to 3 against (United States, France, United Kingdom)
(Why not let the South have some fun, too)
GA/10562:
Dec 19. 2006
Draft resolution I on the inadmissibility of practices fuelling contemporary forms of racism
121 in favour to 4 against (United States, Japan, Micronesia, Marshall Islands )
(Racism is good for deflecting blame of citizens discontent)
GA/10529
Nov 8, 2006
The draft resolution on the necessity of ending the financial embargo on Cuba
183 in favour to 4 against (United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)
(Everyone knows Cuba is evil.)
GA/10562:
Dec 19. 2006
Draft resolution IX on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and importance of family reunification
122 in favour to 4 against (United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)
(Fine, if you have the money for a ticket)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons
167 in favour to 4 against (United States, North Korea, India, Pakistan)
(Please stop asking to take away our weapons)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East
166 in favour to 5 against (United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau)
(If we don’t let Middle East countries pursue nukes, what reason will we have to attack them?)
GA/10562:
Dec 19. 2006
Draft resolution III on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination
176 in favour to 5 against (United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau)
(Israel can be in charge of Palestinians, they’re our buddies)
GA/10564:
Dec 20. 2006
The draft resolution on permanent sovereignty of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources
164 in favour to 6 against (Unites States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Australia, Palau, Micronesia)
(Israel needs all the water for their swimming pools.)
GA/10564:
Dec 20. 2006
The draft resolution on the oil slick on Lebanese shores
170 in favour to 6 against (United States, Israel, Australia, Canada, Marshal Islands, Palau)
(The seals will soak it up)
GA/10559:
Dec 14. 2006
The draft resolution on persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities
170 in favour to 6 against (United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau)
(I don’t remember that.)
GA/10559:
Dec 14. 2006
The draft resolution on operations of the UNRWA
169 in favour to 6 against (United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau)
(What’s UNRWA?)
GA/10559:
Dec 14. 2006
The draft resolution on Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues
170 in favour to 6 against (United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau)
(Israel will take that, thank you. Maybe it will trickle down.)
GA/10543:
Dec 1. 2006
The draft resolution on the Syrian Golan
107 in favour to 6 against (United States, Israel, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau)
(Israel got that fair and square.)
GA/10547:
Dec 6. 2006
The draft resolution on the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation
120 in favour to 7 against (United States, Israel, Marshal Islands, Micronesia, Andorra, Palau, United Kingdom)
(Unilateralism!! Unilateralism!!)
GA/10562:
Dec 19. 2006
Draft resolution I on the human rights situation arising from Israeli military operations in Lebanon
112 in favour to 7 against (United States, Israel, Australia, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau)
(They were using human shields!)
GA/10562:
Dec 19. 2006
Draft resolution IV on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
118 in favour to 7 against (United States, Israel, Australia, Canada, Japan, Marshall Islands, Micronesia)
(We can be in charge of human rights worldwide. If we see a problem, we will drop bombs on them)
GA/10559:
Dec 14. 2006
The draft resolution on the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories 165 in favour to 7 against (United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu)
(That title was too long)
GA/10543:
Dec 1. 2006
The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
157 in favour to 7 against (United States, Israel, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau)
(Palestinians don’t want peace, so we will not even bring it up)
GA/10559:
Dec 14. 2006
The draft resolutions on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan
162 in favour to 8 against against (United States, Israel, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu)
(We don’t care if the World Court said the settlements are illegal. Israel can keep them. What? The US judge in the World Court also said the settlements are illegal? Fire him!)
GA/10559:
Dec 14. 2006
The draft resolution on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
157 in favour to 9 against (United States, Israel, Australia, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu)
(No comment)
Posted by Rashta![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2007 1:10 PM
Thank you Dave for proving some things. First, thanks for proving that Hamas and other terrorists use human shields. You had been asking others to provide the info, but you obviously found it for yourself in B'Tselem.
Second, you might want to recheck my link to you. NGO is quoting a B'Tselem publicity spokesperson. My point stands.
Third, thank you for showing your bias when you tell us to keep an open mind, and then do precisely the opposite of your counsel.
Lastly, the phrase "suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians" comes from the poll conducted by Mr. Ballen's organization in Indonesia, etc.. He never tells you what the question was for the PIPA poll of US citizens. Coincidentally, I have checked PIPA's archives for the time frame Mr. Ballen references, and there is nothing that refers to terrorism or bombing in there. I can only assume that he broadly interpreted some other question, and then "compared" his findings with it. A very questionable practice, at best, and downright dishonest at worst.
Posted by dave![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 17, 2007 2:36 PM
Rashta:
"He never tells you what the question was for the PIPA poll of US citizens..."
You are unique on this blog, I can say that. Unlike some, you write in a coherent way, but the content of your posts is amongst the most idoitic there is. You're Dale in Atlanta writing in complete sentences.
The question is as I showed it! They did not ask different questions in different countries! Are you that stupid? Wake up!
Yes, the poll is not published yet. Wow.
Posted by Rashta![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 20, 2007 10:03 AM
I see the Mr. Ballen confused you with his rhetoric. Look at his article carefully. He refers to two sets of polls. The first poll was done in America by PIPA.org and yields the 46% number, per his claims. The second set of polls was done in a number of Muslim countries and was conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow (Mr. Ballen's organization). This is the point, however, where he slyly associates the polls together by inferring that PIPA's poll used the phrase "bombing and other forms of violence against civilians" when it was the TFT polls that used this phrase. I can find some of the TFT polls, but PIPA does not have a poll that uses that phrase in a question. This can only lead me to assume that Mr. Ballen is taking some other question asked in some PIPA poll and twisting the meaning to equate his poll numbers. I can see how his dishonest phrasing could confuse anyone.
Posted by dave![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 26, 2007 9:09 AM
Rashta:
I see you entered any ridiculous post a few days after the thread was dead. Just for posterity sake, here is reality:
You are a complete idiot. Terror Free Tomorrow had PIPA run the poll, and the same question was asked of everyone. NGO's don't run their own polls, but they often commission polling organizations to run a poll for them. So Terror Free Tomorrow had PIPA run a poll for them, and the question that was asked was what I showed. You have got to be the stupidest person I've ever dealt with on this site.
Posted by Rashta![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 3, 2007 1:42 PM
Again you resort to name calling when reason and logic don't serve you. The TFT poll and the PIPA poll are two different polls. TFT didn't have PIPA conduct a poll for them, they conduct their own, and place them on their website. PIPA conducts polls and publishes them on their website. PIPA has no poll on their website that has asked such a poll question. The only place the question shows up is on the TFT site, but TFT only polls non-U.S. countries. You dispute my reasoning by calling me an idiot and "the stupidest person I've ever dealt with on this site" yet you haven't even put together a reasoned argument.