Conclusion

Politicians who are entrusted with securing the peace in the Middle East fail to see reality. Inasmuch as negotiators will not name the evil they confront, they remain blind to it. Enjoying the complicity of the media, leaders in the Obama administration and elsewhere refuse to refer to Islamist fascists as either Islamists or as fascists.

Such a position reflects an inexcusable, willful ignorance of the history, religion, culture, and languages that go into the making of modern jihadism. What must be understood above all is this: Hamas and Fatah have developed a theological and ideological justification that precludes any negotiations that would lead to a lasting peace with a Jewish state. At best, one can expect an application of the PLO's phased strategy, which gives the illusion of peace without renouncing its goal of Jewish extermination. Neither Hamas nor Fatah can agree in good faith to any peace with the Jews since in their eyes to do so would amount to treason or apostasy or both. What then is to be done beyond naming the evil? Simply stated, Islamist jihadism must be eliminated, and given their ideological stances, neither Hamas nor Fatah can be a viable partner in peace; therefore, their removal from power is a prerequisite to any future for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Whether the present revolutionary turmoil sweeping the Arab world will produce such a result remains to be seen.

David Patterson is Hillel Feinberg Chair in Holocaust studies at the University of Texas at Dallas. This article is based on research done for his book A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad (Cambridge University Press, 2011).


Is THAT what you all are supporting?

I don't support anyone thinking that they must eliminate anyone. That goes for both sides. Don't you get that?

Now that is classic propaganda-and a classic Godwin to boot!

On another note, it is quite revealing how you choose to completely ignore the fact that Hamas intimidated and rounded up up its political opponents both before, and after the election when it is common knowledge. Your feigned ignorance merely illustrates your bias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgl0JnE4B_4&feature=player_embedded

Nice News video.

That's not news, but merely a biased, editorial commentary. Can't you tell the difference?

I have only heard rumors of that. I don't consider it to be "common knowledge." Do you offer anything like proof to back up that claim?

Yes, it was definitely an editorial opinion piece, but it did have news. It is refreshing to hear someone else's honest opinion.

(Instead of the drab propaganda we are constantly bombarded with.)

Why? For any proof I offer you will be ignored for some fanciful reason (i.e. some specious claim that facts are only opinion, or some other sophist BS).

Meanwhile, you can try this for a start, then see how you go.

In June 2007, the Palestinian terrorist organization launched a surprise coup in the Gaza Strip, wresting control of the territory from the Fatah faction, which controls the Palestinian Authority (PA).
• In that battle, 161 Palestinians were killed and more than 700 were wounded. To make sure that the wounded did not return to the battlefield, Hamas shot dozens of their enemies in the legs and arms at point blank range to ensure permanent disabilities.
• When the dust settled, the Palestinian people were divided. Gaza (1.5 million people) remained in Hamas’ hands, and Fatah clung to the West Bank (2.5 million people).
• Since then, the two largest Palestinian factions – Hamas and Fatah – continue to be at war. They round up their political foes in these two territories. They shut down newspapers. Reports of torture are everywhere.
• Numerous attempts to reconcile the two factions have failed. Egypt, Turkey, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania have all come up short.
• However, the Palestinian civil war makes peacemaking exceeding difficult. There is not universally-recognized interlocutor on the Palestinian side.
• Today, if Israel ceded all of the West Bank, removed security checkpoints, and gave in to all Palestinian claims on Jerusalem, there would no legitimate Palestinian representative to ratify an agreement.
• The factions have been at odds over ideology since Hamas was founded in 1987. Hamas is an Islamist group, and Fatah is largely secular. The groups challenged each other politically during the 1990s.
• In the aftermath of the “al-Aqsa Intifada” of 2000, the two factions began to fight each other, even as the Palestinians fought a war against Israel.
• When Yassir Arafat died in 2004, a leadership vacuum opened. The Palestinian Authority had already been weakened by war with Israel. Hamas had grown to roughly equal strength with Fatah.
• In January 2006, Palestinians elected Hamas to power. Fatah, with backing from the United States, refused to allow Hamas to govern.
• A stalemate ensued, leading to the aforementioned 2007 civil war in Gaza.
• Currently, two Palestinian mini-states are growing in two different directions. The Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip is funded by Iran and is evolving into a dangerous terrorist state. The Fatah-controlled West Bank enjoys support from the West and Arab states.
• The Palestinians of the West Bank are now mulling a “unilateral declaration of independence.”
•This unilateral move is dangerous because it would effectively solidify the split between the West Bank and Gaza, and possibly permanently divide the Palestinians.
• Similarly, a peace process that does not first solve the Palestinian internecine conflict could permanently divide the Palestinians.

If you can put aside your prejudice momentarily, you might be able to understand the conflict in a bi-partisan fashion.

When elections don't do it, a civil war can happen.

America also had a civil war. It was a tragic event. Brother killing brother.

I don't know all the details of that either. I'm sure there was a lot of torture going on there too.


The south is still bitter about it, and some still wave the confederate flag.

But that is all it is. Propaganda crap. Is your definition of 'propaganda' only that opinion which you disagree with?

Yes, that is all common knowledge AND a Red Herring. Despite that, my original point stands and it is not merely a rumour as you attempted to dismiss it. The two parties (Hamas and Fatah) were at odds when Hamas took control of the Gaza strip.

No, it is not propaganda at all. It is clearly an editorial opinion piece backed by facts.

What we see on the major media is often lies, and they want you to believe them and accept them as fact, not opinion.

This is clearly an opinion piece. Our "news" is often vague and slanted and even fabricated.

A civil war, yes. So your only point then is that the election was not "fair?"

I think you can say that in most elections.

In America, Presidents are bought by the filthy rich. They are installed. They are also not "fair."

We are more civilized.