By Ted Belman
With the fighting between Hamas and Gaza, the left in Israel are worried about the survival of Fatah and the PA.
Herb Keinon in JPOST writes What a PA collapse would mean for Israel
[..] For the spiraling anarchy inside Gaza is not something Israel can watch from outside. A collapse of the PA as a government, something that the events of the last few days have shown is a real possibility, would have far-reaching strategic ramifications for Israel and could fundamentally change the two-state concept that has underpinned Israeli policy since 1993 and the Oslo Accords.
For me, that’s good news.
Ami Isseroff in Fatah is dead, what next? argues its too late to save it.
An Israeli reoccupation of Gaza cannot save Fatah. If Fatah, with all the aid that it gets, cannot defend its positions, then it is no longer a viable political force and it is not worth saving.
If Fatah cannot save itself, Israel certainly cannot save it. Fatah “saved” by Israel would probably become a discredited movement, viewed as traitors by Palestinians. It could not make peace with Israel and could not keep order without Israeli occupation troops. An alternative outcome was illustrated in 1970, when Israel gave a haven to PLO terrorists escaping from Jordan. They went to Lebanon and formed the infamous Black September movement. That is the logic of “resistance” movements. Israel should not have illusions that it can help Fatah. The fact that Shimon Peres supports this idea is hardly a recommendation.
Unfortunately he has no fall back position.
We must hope that in the fullness of time, Islamism will go the way of pan-Arab nationalism, and a way will be found to cope with Syrian and Iranian influence.
Why not annex Judea and Samaria and get on with building a country. End the “peace Process”.
A “peace process” exists only in relation to Islam. Bat Ye’or has described in detail in her books what it is about, and what the inevitable result must be. In a “peace process” (following jihad) you trade away your land in exchange for a conditional right to continue living there (“peace”). To retain your right to live, you have, inter alia, to pay both your land tax and your poll tax showing submission (the jizya, according to Sura 9:29).
This principle strictly contradicts the Charter of the UN, which presupposes as default everybody’s right to live in peace and security within their boundaries. Nevertheless, the UN is today one of the most ardent promoters of the Sharia based land-for peace “peace process”.
Even stranger is the fact that the Government of Israel, together with a considerable part of its urban population, openly subscribes to this part of the Sharia law, which was originally designed by the “prophet” Muhammed to justify the enslavement of Jews.
If Jews (and Europeans) continue to believe in and practice this commandment by “Allah”, one should not wonder why the Muslims do. After all the Muslims have been made to believe they have a right to sponge on others, and when the others confirm by submitting to their demands instead of kicking the shits out of them, then what else could one expect?
Randy, you get the prize. LOL
Typically “Peace Process” has referred to the various versions of the land-for-peace-promise approach, which has pretty much been the only approach on the table, and this article seems to be suggesting (and I agree), that Israel should reconsider one-sided land concessions for paper peace. The process has involved supposed trust-building measures to create a climate for peace, supposed reciprocal phases, and now the talk is of “benchmarks,” but the problem is that one party’s idea of “peace” is not just nonviolent, tolerated coexistance, but life without the existence of Israel. We don’t have to guess this, it’s been stated repeatedly. My idea of a “peace process” would include educating Israelis about the ideology of Islam, so that they would understand that while it’s true some Islamic sects are more violence-promoting than others, Islam in general teaches that Israel cannot exist where it is, and in particular cannot possess Jerusalem. When the average person understands this they will be more supportive of the unilateral measures that Israel must take.
Can anyone tell me [what] a â€peace PROCESS†is?
Yes. Killing terrorist.
Can anyone tell me a .”peace PROCESS” is? I always believed peace was an absolute. Either therfe was peace or no peace. To me peace process sounds very orwellian and as far as I know only created for Jews.
with hindesite it neve ceases to amaze me how the media continues to employ, quote and give such respect and credeance of commentators and so called experts who at best have been less than 50% wrong and at worst 100% wrong. I think they truly beleive that the readership public is totally stupid or so little focused on what was said or predicted that it matters little what flows like running sueage from there heads, at least eal sueage one can detect immediatly.
Like Ted, I use “quotation” marks when referring to the “peace” process, although I only use them on the word “peace” — For it is a process, but it will not ever bring peace. The process is to weaken Israel to the point a fatal blow can be administered. For Islamic extremist and antisemites the process is nothing less and nothing more than that.