Friday, June 30, 2006

Invade and Divide
Has anyone pointed out that Israel’s invasion of Gaza could have less to do with the kidnapping of an Isreali soldier than with the agreement reached by Hamas and Fatah regarding the new administration, their statement shared aims and their tentative steps towards recognising Israel? In other words, the invasion could be seen as another example of invade and divide.


Graham said...

I find this rather hard to believe. Israel was already pressing ahead with their plan to unilaterally impose a two-state solution. It's hard to see that the Isrealis would face more pressure as a result this reconciliation.

And after all, they were provoked. Palestinian gunmen snuck into Israel itself, killed two soldiers, and kidnapped a third. I don't think you're suggesting that Israel orchestrated this, but anyone who does may as well go ahead and blame Karl Rove.

Bill Peschel said...

I assume then you haven't read the document in question:

Which calls (in section one) "the right to establish their independent state with al-Quds al-Shareef as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967 and to secure the right of return for the refugees ..."

The "right of return" means that all Palestinians would have the "right" to reclaim their property within Israel.

It's like the American Indians getting the right to return to their property in Manhattan.

And section 3 calls for the right of the Palestinian people to continue fighting Israel, even after the formation of the Palestinian state: "the right of the Palestinian people in resistance and clinging to the option of resistance with the various means ..."

So, no, if they wanted peace with Israel, recognizing Israel's right to exist, with the formation of a Palestinian state, they would have stated so in far simpler terms than this.


Purge the CFR at the voting booth in 2006. America’s freedom depends on it: