Ethan Bronner of the New York Times has an excellent piece today on Hamas’s arms buildup in Gaza, based on a report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.
AJC’s Terrorism Expert Yehudit Barsky examines Hamas’s quest for legitimacy, and its quest for arms, in this AJC briefing:
The repercussions of Hamas’s border breach into
Eight years ago, Mauritania became the third Arab country to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel. This momentous action occurred without fanfare, and even today is not as widely known as it ought to be.
The other two, Egypt and Jordan, signed peace treaties with Israel in 1979 and 1994, respectively, and shortly thereafter opened embassies and exchanged ambassadors. These challenged the longstanding conviction among Arab leaders that diplomatic ties with Israel would be established only in the context of a full Israeli-Palestinian peace. But, bordering Israel, and having engaged in costly warfare, Egypt and Jordan proceeded without waiting for a resolution of the Palestinian situation, which has held Arab-Israeli relations virtually hostage for 60 years.
Already in its death throes after seven years of futile struggle against Israel, the Palestinian national movement suffered a fatal blow last week, when Gaza fell in the hands of Hamas. Now, instead of a state-in-the waiting, Palestine is two failed states, under two governments at war with one another.
Hamas in Gaza might still pursue its fight against Israel; and Fatah in the West Bank might still voice the rhetoric of grievance against Israel as the occupier. But the two are now locked in a deadly struggle. Anti-Zionist rhetoric has been waving the ghost of a one-state solution - implying that Israel might disappear, replaced by a united binational state comprising the West Bank and Gaza as well as present Israel. It now looks as though there will be a one-state solution after all - Israel, alongside two failed states, both Palestinian, and fighting each other.
Tashbih Sayyed was a very special human being, a friend of the Jewish people, and my friend. I first met him seven years ago when my organization, the American Jewish Committee, was launching an interfaith effort to initiate dialogue with Muslims. In our conversations, Tashbih exuded a quiet intensity, and a determination to make the world a better place. Little by little, I began to learn more about his personal experiences in Pakistan and how those experiences had shaped him into a defender of human rights in the Muslim world.
Tashbih was not only dedicated to discussing his vision of how the Muslim world could change. He was a passionate believer in the power of the press to educate the public in order to make those changes happen. He lived and breathed journalism, and more than once described his newspapers as “my life.” For him, immigrating to the United States was the opening of a new door of opportunity to express himself through his journalism, and freedom of speech was a precious gift that should not be squandered.
As international news networks were reporting Hamas’s onslaught against Fatah, I began trawling the internet to see what, if anything, the various pro-Palestinian websites and blogs had to say about the brutal civil war raging in the Gaza Strip.
The short answer: not much.
Over at the Electronic Intifada (EI) commentators were undisturbed by the fragmentation of Gaza into a burning enclave reminiscent of Afghanistan or Somalia. Just at the moment when Hamas was blasting its way towards an intra-Palestinian version of the two-state solution, the talk at EI was of a single state between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan.
AJC Executive Director David Harris blogs for the Jerusalem Post. From his latest entry:
On May 11, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora had an op-ed in the New York Times.
It reminded me of a Cold War-era joke.
An American and a Soviet debated which country was more open. The American boasted that, without fear of arrest, he could stand near the White House and denounce President Nixon. The Soviet, clearly unimpressed, replied that the USSR was freer. He could stand near the Kremlin and assail the US leader, too. Not only wouldn’t he be seized, but Chairman Brezhnev would personally come out to thank him.
Saniora used the Winograd Commission report, a product of Israel’s democratic process, to criticize Israel, while failing to engage in any parallel self-reflection.
Saniora’s message falls short [JPost]
Complete list of Harris’s blogs [JPost]