Hamas Through Marxian Lenses

I have always been of the opinion that, if you want peace between Israel and Palestine, then the way to go about that is, one, shut off ALL funding for Palestine, two, give full support to Israel in their military response to any and all attacks, and three, wait for the Palestinians to revolt against the radicalism of Hamas and then come to us with a peace deal. Anything less in light of what has transpired since Camp David has no realistic chance of creating real peace.

Funding funneled from the West allows Hamas and other radical factions to maintain a modicum of civil order while freeing up funds for their military effort. If they can afford to buy bullets while feeding their population of human shields, then they need no funding from the West, humanitarian or otherwise. The Salafi/Wahhabi religious dogma of Hamas is identical to that of al Qaeda. Hamas is Hitlerian in its psychopathic hatred of Israel and quite willing to fight to the last civilian shield in Gaza in order to wipe Israel off the map. Only when the civilian shields decide otherwise might things change permanently.

In all of that, I seem to be in agreement with Charles Krauthammer who, today, explains why the Obama efforts to force Israel to make peace with Hamas is deadly fantasy. That said, I think that the fantasy derives from Obama's marxian world view, as I explain below.
____________________________________________________________

This today from Charles Krauthammer:

. . . The Times conducted a five-hour interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal at his Damascus headquarters. Mirabile dictu, they're offering a peace plan with a two-state solution. Except. The offer is not a peace but a truce that expires after 10 years. Meaning that after Israel has fatally weakened itself by settling millions of hostile Arab refugees in its midst, and after a decade of Hamas arming itself within a Palestinian state that narrows Israel to eight miles wide -- Hamas restarts the war against a country it remains pledged to eradicate.

There is a phrase for such a peace: the peace of the grave.

. . . [Hamas] sees the new American administration making overtures to Iran and Syria. It sees Europe, led by Britain, beginning to accept Hezbollah. It sees itself as next in line. And it knows what to do. Yasser Arafat wrote the playbook.

With the 1993 Oslo accords, he showed what can be achieved with a fake peace treaty with Israel -- universal diplomatic recognition, billions of dollars of aid, and control of Gaza and the West Bank, which Arafat turned into an armed camp. In return for a signature, he created in the Palestinian territories the capacity to carry on the war against Israel that the Arab states had begun in 1948 but had given up after the bloody hell of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Meshal sees the opportunity. Not only is the Obama administration reaching out to its erstwhile enemies in the region, but it begins its term by wagging an angry finger at Israel over the Netanyahu government's ostensible refusal to accept a two-state solution.

Of all the phony fights to pick with Israel. No Israeli government would turn down a two-state solution in which the Palestinians accepted territorial compromise and genuine peace with a Jewish state. (And any government that did would be voted out in a day.) Netanyahu's own defense minister, Ehud Barak, offered precisely such a deal in 2000. He even offered to divide Jerusalem and expel every Jew from every settlement remaining in the new Palestine.

The Palestinian response (for those who have forgotten) was: No. And no counteroffer. Instead, nine weeks later, Arafat unleashed a savage terror war that killed 1,000 Israelis.

Netanyahu is reluctant to agree to a Palestinian state before he knows what kind of state it will be. That elementary prudence should be shared by anyone who's been sentient the last three years. The Palestinians already have a state, an independent territory with not an Israeli settler or soldier living on it. It's called Gaza. And what is it? A terror base, Islamist in nature, Iranian-allied, militant and aggressive, that has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortar rounds at Israeli civilians.

If this is what a West Bank state is going to be, it would be madness for Israel or America or Jordan or Egypt or any other moderate Arab country to accept such a two-state solution. Which is why Netanyahu insists that the Palestinian Authority first build institutions -- social, economic and military -- to anchor a state that could actually carry out its responsibilities to keep the peace.

. . . Meshal's gambit to dress up perpetual war as a two-state peace is yet another iteration of the Palestinian rejectionist tragedy. In its previous incarnation, Arafat lulled Israel and the Clinton administration with talk of peace while he methodically prepared his people for war.

Arafat waited seven years to tear up his phony peace. Meshal's innovation? Ten -- then blood.

The problems on the horizon for Israel stem from an Obama world view that is skewed. Obama has long given clues that he interprets the world through a marxian lens such that economics is the decisive issue whereever there is unrest.

For but three clear examples, in his first public comments after 9-11, Obama spoke of the need to solve poverty in the Middle East, since, he said that was the incubator for terrorism. During the Presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly said that he would woo the mad mullahs of Iran by granting them economic concessions, such as membership in the WTO. And during the campaign, he speculated that people only cling to religion and guns because of a lack of economic opportunity. But economics plays next to no role in driving radical Islam, whether it be the Wahhabists that make up Hamas and al Qaeda, nor the Shia's of Iran who hold to the velyat a faqi. Obama is supremely misguided on this issue. Let us hope his education does not come, if come it must, at the expense of Israeli blood in the streets.