Who Rules in Palestine?

by Joe Settler

This question is not about the fact that Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas aka Abu Mazen is legally no longer the president of the Palestinian Authority and that the presidency of the PA is now in the hands of Hamas.

If you think about it, this war with Hamas is more a reflection of what goes on in Arab society in general then about destroying Israel.

Only if you understand the fiction that is called Palestine, can you then understand what is really happening in the Middle East.

There has never been a Palestinian state, a Palestinian nation, or a Palestinian people. These are just recent developments and concepts that evolved more as a reaction to what I am about to discuss then from national evolution.

Look around at all the Arab states such as Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. It's all about internecine fighting and the control of one family, tribe or clan over another — and in general the brutal and oppressive methods of keeping that control.

With the exception of Iran (established 1935, but was previously Persia) and Egypt, what Arab state even existed as an identifiably unique entity 100 years ago?

Look at their dates of statehood: Saudi Arabia — 1932, Iraq — 1932, Lebanon — 1920, Jordan - 1946, Kuwait — 1961, Syria — 1946. Until then they were just a bunch of different clans and tribes under the fist of ever-changing rulers, often external ones, with no real individually unique national identity beyond Islam and Arabia.

Even Lebanon which had its period of semi-autonomy and identity was simply one family/tribe such as the Maans or Shihabs gaining temporary control over the other clans..

The people of Palestine (as they are called now), a significant majority the descendents of immigrants from Egypt and the Syrian Levant less than 100 years ago, never had any uniquely unifying elements, history, or culture to join them together as a nation or people besides the same general nebulous Arab/Islamic tribal identity that permeates the entire Middle East.

Until the Arabs attacked Israel and created the "refugee problem", there was nothing historically unique about the Palestinian people to define them as a unique people, so these internal schisms that afflicts the rest of the Middle East affects these Arabs that also live in the Land of Israel.

That affliction is the question of which tribe will rule (or at least have more control) over the others.

And while on one hand you can claim that the division is between the Islamists (Hamas) and the Nationalists (Fatah), it reality they are almost all Islamists and Nationalists.

Most likely it is due to urbanization, but the clan you are born into has become secondary as the extended family/tribal structure breaks down, while the paradigm of the tribe and clan remains in place.

Instead of the traditional family-based clan, the organizational clan has replaced it as the typical clan structure (but not as a national clan concept, just a local one). And all the while, the model of one clan trying to gain superiority over the others is just as strong as ever.

HAMAS NEEDS to fight Israel to show that it is the stronger clan than Fatah — no different than the Shiites and the Sunnis. Both (Hamas and Fatah) want to see Israel replaced by an Arab state, they just disagree on the methods, and which clan should have control.

For all their whining, crying and big talk about Palestine, you don't see a single other Arab nation coming to their aid in their war against Israel.

And why should they?

First of all, Palestine is big in their minds of the Arab people simply because their rulers use it as leverage to keep control over their populations by redirecting their citizen's anger frustration away from their oppressive and backwards regimes and against a third party enemy.

But more importantly this war isn't about defeating Israel.

This is about which clan/tribe is going to defeat the other, Israel being incidental to this battle, and as such not the fight of the other Arab nations.

Which brings us to the actual reason why Hamas is really still fighting.

Shouldn't Hamas have conceded defeat already?

Well if this war was against Israel, then yes, that would be true, but this war isn't against Israel.
THE IDF has frustrated Hamas's plan to militarily wrest control of the West Bank away from Fatah.

If Hamas can't fight Fatah directly and take over the Fatah clan by force, then the next best thing is to win over the hearts, minds and imaginations of the residents of the West Bank and show them that they will fight the common enemy between them and for them — unlike the Fatah clan.

Every day Hamas doesn't give in just means more members of Hamas tribe for them in the West Bank (and among the Arabs citizens of Israel).

No matter how bad their military losses, Hamas is achieving it goals of expanding the size of its clan simply by fighting and hanging on.

Unless Israel realizes this and totally obliterates Hamas, Hamas will have won, and will expand much more easily throughout the land.

Yes, militarily, Israel has unquestionably won, and this war will be taught in war colleges around the world as a classic case study on how a traditional military force can beat a guerilla army.

But Israel did not achieve its objective of defeating Hamas (if that was its objective).

And so while Hamas may have militarily lost this war — big time, they have achieved their objectives of remaining in power, showing they are the only clan (besides Hizbollah) to fight Israel, and most importantly expanding their fan base throughout the Land of Israel.

In short, the Fatah clan remains in power due to the graces of the IDF. If the IDF were pulled out, the Hamas clan would be in control very quickly.

And the answer to question at the top of this post is simple, there is no ruler in Palestine, because there is no a Palestine, just a bunch of clans and tribes, a bunch of loseres which can't accomplish anything in their life except death, war and destruction, fighting each other in a particular geographical region for control.




Joe Settler is a blog about the Jewish State.

The Choice of Palestinian "Democracy" Choosing to Murder Jews

The Palestinian True Face - Choosing to Murder Jews:

Sadly, the much-heralded Palestinian election was not democratic.

It is unthinkable for a democracy to allow a terror organization that is armed with its own military wing to participate in the election process.

This would never happen in any real western-style democracy. Can you even imagine such a phenomenon in the U.S, U.K, Sweden or Israel?

The result of the Palestinian election proves, once again, that the Palestinian people do not really want an independent state, but rather seek the destruction of the state of Israel.

With their vote, they chose murder and hate...
over dialogue and peace.

It was said by Abba Eban:
"The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity," and many repeated it.

But did they ever really want an opportunity?

* 1947 - NO to the UN partition plan.
* 1967 - Three NO's of Khartoum.
* 2000 - NO to Clinton.

Is Israel willing to give land for peace?
* Israel's peace with Egypt.
* Israel's peace with Jordan.

Israel is willing to give a LOT for a real sincere peace.

Just remember all the land that Israel willingly gave up for peace Egypt (Sinai), including settlements and many resources.

Israel made many sacrifices for peace with both Egypt and Jordan. If the Palestinians truly want peace, they can find a real partner in Israel.

Only recently, in August 2005, Israel completed its historic withdrawal of over 7,000 civilians from 25 settlements in Gaza and the northern West Bank.

Israel proved that it is willing to give up territories for peace.

Gaza is now completely free of any Israeli soldier or checkpoint.

The Palestinians got a chance to prove their sincerity in Gaza.

A chance to start fresh, and build a new and free democratic society.

And the outcome?

Palestinians started to shoot dozens of missiles at Israeli cities.

The Palestinians have never proven that they are willing to fight terrorism, as required by the first paragraph in the Quartet (U.S, EU, UN, Russia) - sponsored Road Map.

Nt only that, both former president Yassir Arafat and now Mahmoud Abbas, have declared that they will not collect the illegal weapons which terror organizations use to murder Israeli civilians.

Much of the billions of dollars of foreign aid the international community gave to the PA mysteriously disappeared, leaving Palestinian citizens living in poverty and despair. Suha Arafat benefited from this corruption with her extravagant lifestyle in Paris.

Many analysts have noted that a lot of Palestinians voted for Hamas in order to punish Fatah - the organization that was in power for many years - for its corruption.

This may be true, but what these analysts fail to mention is that there was another alternative.

The third way, led by former Palestinian Authority Finance Minister Salam Fayyed and former Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi.

Here's a party headed by clean, straight and uncorrupt people who also speak out against terrorism.

The Third Way received two percent of the Palestinian votes.

Some of Hamas' popular support derives from the fact that, in addition to being a terror organization, it also provides social services, such as health, education, and welfare.

However, if the Palestinian people really sought peace, in addition to an end to corruption, surely many more of them (more than 2%!) would have supported the Third Way - a secular, uncorrupt, peaceful alternative.

But no.

The Palestinians preferred Hamas -- listed as a terror organization by the United States, the European Union and others, and responsible for the murders of hundreds of innocent Israeli citizens.

"Tell me who your friends are . . . "

Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi: "The Islamic republic of Iran congratulates Hamas and all the Palestinian soldiers and the great Islamic people. The Palestinians have voted for the resistance and have shown their loyalty."

Other world leaders have reacted differently to the Palestinian election results:

U.S. President George W. Bush:
"I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you know you can't be a partner in peace if you have -- if your party has got an armed wing... I have made it very clear however that a political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of a platform is a party with which we will not deal."

U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice: "You can't have one foot in politics and another in terror. "

Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi:
"If the news was confirmed, everything we had hoped for, the chance for peace between Israel and Palestine, is postponed to who-knows-when."

Swedish Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds:
"It is not possible for the EU to cooperate with a regime that does not dissociate itself from using violence and does not acknowledge Israel's right to exist."

Denmark's foreign minister Per Stig Moeller: "Hamas must stop the terror, they must put down the arms, they must accept a negotiated solution before the rest of the world can include them in the peace process."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw:
"Hamas has to understand that with democracy goes renunciation of violence. It is up to Hamas to choose. We will have to wait and see, the international community will want Hamas to make a proper rejection of violence and to acknowledge that Israel exists."

EU Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighborhood Policy Benita Ferrero-Waldner:
"We'll be happy to cooperate with any government on the condition that it is peaceful."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan:
"Any group that wishes to participate in the democratic process should ultimately disarm because to carry weapons and participate in a democratic process and sit in parliament, there is a fundamental contradiction and I'm sure they (Hamas) are thinking about that too."

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert:
"Should a government be established in the Palestinian Authority with Hamas leading or participating, the PA will become a sponsor of terror. The world and Israel will ignore it and it will become irrelevant. "

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa: "Hamas will have to accept the Beirut initiative, which calls for full Arab recognition of Israel, despite its declared stands."

The Quartet: "that there is a fundamental contradiction between armed group and militia activities and the building of a democratic state. A two-state solution to the conflict requires all participants in the democratic process to renounce violence and terror, accept Israel's right to exist, and disarm, as outlined in the roadmap."

With the world reaction to the Mavi Marmara incident one wonders if these firm reaction are holding, particularly under current U.S president Barack Hussein Obama.