A Third Intifada?

If Hamas does decide to fight a third one it will be very poor politics internationally speaking, though probably smart domestically. At the moment a great deal of hope is being bet on the idea that Hamas is ready for a deal. If Hamas dashes that with renewed terrorist attacks it will suddenly become very difficult for Western nations to criticize Israeli actions.

Hamas should not start a third Intifada but it would be absolutely foolish to give Abbas any legitimacy by reaching a unity deal. Abbas is on his way done for overdoing his collaboration and cheating the Palestinians - he doesn't understand that the Palestinians will not accept this treachery ALL the time! If Hamas supports him now, it will lose its legitimacy and will be on its way to becoming 'FATAH version 2', a new strain of in-house collaborationists and puppets of the illegal occupiers.

This article repeats the debunked fiction that Ariel Shoron's visit to the Temple Mount started the second intifada.
The week prior to Sharon's visit two Israeli policemen were murdered by PA policemen who they were with on a joint patrol, and there was a bus bombing in Azza .
A peak was reached after the Al Dura Hoax was broadcast. The Al Dura footage was part of a program of guerilla skits videoed in Azza. Each youth in turn would act out being hit by Israeli army bullets. The footage of Mohamid Al Dura being "killed" was sliced out by France's Channel Two reporter Edilin and broadcast to the world. Later the French media ohmbudsman would agree that the scene did not show anyone being killed. And Philip Karsanty would win a court case to label the scene a hoax.
Several PA politicians had said that the Intifada was planned by Arafat after he did not get what he wanted from PM Barak.

A curse on both their houses.

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Friday endorsed a report calling on Israel and Hamas to conduct credible investigations into alleged war crimes by their combatants or face possible prosecution by the International Criminal Court in the Hague. That would envisage, among others, both Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, the then Israeli prime minister and defense minster, respectively, appearing before the Court on charges of commissioning war crimes.

Twenty-five nations, including Russia and China, voted for the resolution and 16 nations abstained or did not vote. The Goldstone panel said Israel used disproportionate force, deliberately targeted civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure.

Israeli officials worry that investigations will further isolate the Jewish state and encourage private lawsuits against Israeli officials and soldiers in countries that accept jurisdiction for war crimes beyond their borders. Last month, British activists tried, but failed on account of claimed diplomatic immunity, to get a British court to order Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's arrest during his visit to London.

The US, however, has promised to use its veto in the Security Council to block any Resolution against Israel, notwithstanding that a clear majority of the world's population of 6.5 billion people, has endorsed the Goldstone report on war crimes in Gaza.

Such an action by the United States goes contrary to all democratic process and opposes the Geneva Conventions to which she is a signatory.

It dramatically highlights the urgent necessity for change in the UNSC procedures that allows one nation to impose its decision upon the world. It should be possible to pass any resolution by a simple majority of the council, in accordance with established and accepted democratic principles. The present system is anachronistic, undemocratic, encouraging to dissent and detrimental to co-existence between nations and to world peace.

If an intifada starts, Palestinians will not run short of rocks to throw at Israeli soldiers. The debris of hundreds of Palestinian homes destroyed by the Israelis provides enough material.