Israel cooperated in the action by arresting a large number of recently elected members of the legislature and, in some cases, held them for long periods of time. This effectively prevented the recently elected legislature from holding any formal meetings.
The historical background of the current Fatah-Hamas standoff was presented in careful detail in a New Republic article, February 13, 2013 by John B. Judis, entitled, Clueless in Gaza: New evidence that Bush undermined a two-state solution.
Judis turns first to Elliott Abrams to examine what became the official narrative of the start of the Palestinian government split in 2007. He also reports on an effective debunking of that narrative. He begins:
"A decisive turning point in the recent political history of Palestine came in June 2007, when Hamas defeated Fatah's security forces in Gaza and took over uncontested administration of the strip. This was the moment that Palestine became divided in two with rival governments in charge -- Hamas in Gaza and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority in West Bank -- which meant the end of a single, coherent Palestinian leadership that could negotiate with the Israelis."
The political effects of "Hamas' ousting of Fatah are clear enough," writes Judis, who then traces the birth of the "prevailing narrative" in the Fatah-Hamas split."
Washington's prevailing narrative about that version of the narrative has been "self-serving," Judis writes, in a book written by Elliott Abrams, Tested by Zion: The Bush Administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
Abrams worked for George W. Bush's National Security Council, supervising American policy in the Middle East. His book offers the standard line,
"...charging that Hamas staged a 'coup' in Gaza because it feared that 'time might bring greater strength for what Hamas saw as Fatah and we saw as the legitimate PA national security forces.' Abrams acknowledges that Hamas leaders might have believed there was 'a conspiracy to crush it,' but dismisses the possibility that there actually was one, and that the United States might have played any role in it."
Abrams' account, Judis writes, "is in marked contrast with the testimony put forth independently by two journalists, Paul McGeough and David Rose, by a former British intelligence official, Alistair Crooke, who had served as a special advisor on the Middle East to the European Union, and by UN Under-Secretary General Alvaro de Soto..."
"Key parts of the this alternative narrative have been confirmed by leaked government documents and contemporary newspaper accounts and by David Wurmser, who was Middle East advisor at the time to Vice President Dick Cheney."This version of events is considerably more damning about Washington's role in the events leading up to the Hamas 'coup.' According to the alternative narrative, the Bush administration blundered at every turn in its dealings with the Palestinians.
"It encouraged an election on the assumption that Abbas and Fatah would win. When Hamas was victorious, it sought to nullify the results and to block a unity government between Fatah and Hamas, even though such a government might have actually become a credible partner in peace negotiations.
"And the Bush administration helped arm Fatah's security forces against Hamas, which stoked the civil war and led to Hamas taking over Gaza. According to this narrative, Hamas was basically right about American intentions.
"... Abrams' reputation is tarred by his admission that he withheld documents from Congress during the Iran-Contra investigation. On the other side, Rose published credulous accounts in 2001 linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.
"But I believe that the alternative narrative fits the outward events much better than what Abrams recounts in his book."
The remainder of the Judis article puts these conflicting narratives in the context of contemporary American diplomacy.
It is not a pretty picture, both because of the impact of the Bush and Abrams 2007 record, and because Judis demontrates what an Israel-U.S. controlled narrative, dutifully reported and maintained by western media, does to hold the western public in bondage to Israel's grip on public opinion.
Jimmy Carter remains as one of the very few American public figures willing to break with that grip and broker a unity agreement between Hamas and Fatah.
The fact that Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to meet with an ex-U.S. president, and prevents any of Israel's leaders with even a courtesy visit with Carter, is but one more sign of Israeli disdain of any and all, who do not embrace Netanyahu's vision of Israel's exceptionalism.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
