It would appear at this early date that June 12, 2007 will be remembered as the day the Palestinian Civil War began. Fighting escalated so horribly in Gaza today that the entire world media is calling the situation "brink of civil war", "almost a civil war", or "near-civil war". Hamas has taken northern Gaza and the unity government construed at Mecca is dead.

Is this for real or will it fizzle out like last summer's Israel-Hezbollah War?

I dunno if it is a civil war or even if it is one it will either just fizzle out or go on, The only I am certain is that part of the world is in the early half a third turning.

Originally Posted by 1990

It would appear at this early date that June 12, 2007 will be remembered as the day the Palestinian Civil War began. Fighting escalated so horribly in Gaza today that the entire world media is calling the situation "brink of civil war", "almost a civil war", or "near-civil war". Hamas has taken northern Gaza and the unity government construed at Mecca is dead.

Is this for real or will it fizzle out like last summer's Israel-Hezbollah War?

One day isn't a war, but it's getting close. It's not worth mentioning that they are in a 4T.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I dunno if it is a civil war or even if it is one it will either just fizzle out or go on, The only I am certain is that part of the world is in the early half a third turning.

So, Israel/Palestine's last 4T was in the 1950s???

You probably consider the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-49 a 4T catalyst rather than climax, then.

Originally Posted by 1990

So, Israel/Palestine's last 4T was in the 1950s???

You probably consider the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-49 a 4T catalyst rather than climax, then.

I don't mean to take a potshot (really), but Tristan typically takes only one event and draws conclusions from it. I believe he is referring to the Islamic Resurgence that took place in the late 20th century, which he believes was a 2T for the entire Middle East.

How do you tell a civil war from two gangs fighting over the same territory? In this case (as it's proven to be in many others} are they one and the same? My vote's for Fatah and Hamas playing Kilkenny Cat, the winner to take on Israel and go out in a blaze of glory.

They be 4T.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

How do you tell a civil war from two gangs fighting over the same territory? In this case (as it's proven to be in many others} are they one and the same? My vote's for Fatah and Hamas playing Kilkenny Cat, the winner to take on Israel and go out in a blaze of glory.

They be 4T.

If Hamas wins, they attack Israel and die in a blaze of glory. If Fatah wins, they attempt to settle the conflict with a two-state solution -- which Fatah has now been ready to do for years, but was stopped by everyone else -- and then someone else (Hezbollah? al-Qaeda? Syria? Iran?) attacks Fatah (and Israel) as a result.

Only a slight difference for the 4T itself, but with major consequences for the 1T.

Hamas officially has Gaza:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1929387.ece
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/wo...75b053&k=96425

Oh, shi----I mean, oh, Shi'ite! Now we're in for it. That's the faction of the armed teenagers Xenakis has been howling about. What's Arabic for "Next year in Jerusalem"?

Getting awfully interesting.

It looks like Fatah has all but surrendered Gaza and is retreating to Egypt and the West Bank. For the first time I can remember, there is little talk of truces or ceasefires to quell the violence.

According to Wikipedia, it began when Hamas party leaders accused the Fatah of attempting to kill the foreign minister.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Civil_War

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

According to Wikipedia, it began when Hamas party leaders accused the Fatah of attempting to kill the foreign minister.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Civil_War

I am fairly sure that article is brand-new, as when I searched Wiki a few weeks ago for "Palestinian Civil War" or "Palestine Civil War", or anything of the sort it said there were no results. Someone just put this article up probably this week.

Originally Posted by 1990

I am fairly sure that article is brand-new, as when I searched Wiki a few weeks ago for "Palestinian Civil War" or "Palestine Civil War", or anything of the sort it said there were no results. Someone just put this article up probably this week.

If by this week you mean December 18th, 2006, I'd agree with you.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I don't mean to take a potshot (really), but Tristan typically takes only one event and draws conclusions from it. I believe he is referring to the Islamic Resurgence that took place in the late 20th century, which he believes was a 2T for the entire Middle East.

I do not take one event, I take a lot of events and see if they make sense. I do not deny that the Israeli war of independence was a 4T event, it fits into the 1940-1960 timeframe of the last 4T there.

Which a lot of events occurred, Arab Nationalist movement, Algerian war of independence, these movements were secular nationalist. The movements which emerged after the Iranian revolution were much more spiritual. Islamism as we know it emerged in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I do not take one event, I take a lot of events and see if they make sense. I do not deny that the Israeli war of independence was a 4T event, it fits into the 1940-1960 timeframe of the last 4T there.

Which a lot of events occurred, Arab Nationalist movement, Algerian war of independence, these movements were secular nationalist. The movements which emerged after the Iranian revolution were much more spiritual. Islamism as we know it emerged in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution.

But here you assume the entire Middle-East is on one timeline. What if 4T events that occurred elsewhere in the ME had nothing to do with Israel?

Fatah to Abbas: Order us to fight to the 'last drop of blood'

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

This is a good example of events being out of the control of a politician's hands. Abbas is an Artist but even he cannot stop the rolling ball.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

But here you assume the entire Middle-East is on one timeline. What if 4T events that occurred elsewhere in the ME had nothing to do with Israel?

I do not see any events in the Middle East currently which seem to show a 4T mood.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I do not see any events in the Middle East currently which seem to show a 4T mood.

So if the new Palestinian Civil War is early 3T, that would mean it sharpens cultural divisions and darkens the mood, but in the end little changes. The war should be fought, as S&H said of 3T wars, with high enthusiasm but low patience. And when it's over (which should only be a couple years at most), Palestinian politics will return to being divisive, shrill, whiny, but complacent.

But if it's early 4T instead...oh, boy.

We'll see who's got this right.

Hamas has pretty much completely taken Gaza, Abbas is declaring a state of emergency, and Fatah is trying to rout Hamas militarily in the West Bank the way Hamas routed them in Gaza.

The media is mostly focusing on how this means the end of any hope for a Palestinian state comprising both territories, saying the rift between Hamas-controlled Gaza and the Fatah-run West Bank is too deep to overcome. But indeed, things could still get a lot worse if:

1) Israel intervenes
2) The U.S. intervenes
3) Egypt intervenes
4) Jordan intervenes
5) Anyone intervenes

Am I really the only one who does not think this is a Civil War?

Sheesh, you guys throw that term around fast. This is a factional disagreement. Give it some time.

I think there is a lack of Civil in the Palestinian Situation that precludes it being a Civil War. You have a Marxist Kleptocracy fighting the Religious Creature begun with the aid of Israel for the right to rule rubble.

Just as the War of Northern Aggression in Our Commercial Republic wasn't a Civil War as it would be today, I don't see this as a Civil War.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I think there is a lack of Civil in the Palestinian Situation that precludes it being a Civil War. You have a Marxist Kleptocracy fighting the Religious Creature begun with the aid of Israel for the right to rule rubble.

Just as the War of Northern Aggression in Our Commercial Republic wasn't a Civil War as it would be today, I don't see this as a Civil War.

Well, if you can define away the term "civil war" in that way, I suppose this isn't a civil war. It's merely an armed struggle for power between factions within a single nation with separate territories and separate understandings of the nature of their national direction.

But that can't be a "civil war", now can it?

----

In other news, it has been announced that the removal of Hamas from the official Palestinian government will mean the release of money from foreign accounts to "the emergency Palestinian government", which in effect now means Fatah. Hamas will get no aid from the West, of course; any money it receives will be from Islamist channels, primarily Iran but also the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus the Palestinian civil war becomes a proxy conflict of the "war on terrorism".

In fact much of the Mideast is now part of that war, which is also the long described war to "rid the lands of Islam of foreign influence". The theory is that "ridding the lands of Islam of foreign influence" will lead to an Islamic Renaissance; it will in fact only increase power struggles among factions.

The Arabs have once again forgotten that they are their own worst enemy. It was their factionalism that prevented them from being a power before the Prophet; the moment Islam had unified the Arab people, they burst forth to conquer the entire Middle East. It was factionalism that slowed that same advance. It was factionalism that allowed the Crusaders to waltz in and take Jerusalem (no one could agree who would command the counterattack). It was factionalism that similarly doomed the defense against the Mongols. It was factionalism that prevented the Arabs from putting up much of a defense against the West as well.

Muslims are great when they are united, but the Arabs find unity very difficult to acheive. As far as I can tell, the real hopes for the Islamic Renaissance are to be found in the United Arab Emirates, among the youth of Iran (but that will be a secular renaissance, if and when it happens), and in Turkey (if the religious/secular divide there doesn't cause another civil war).

I hate it when I double post.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I don't mean to take a potshot (really), but Tristan typically takes only one event and draws conclusions from it. I believe he is referring to the Islamic Resurgence that took place in the late 20th century, which he believes was a 2T for the entire Middle East.

It's not just Tristan. A great many Middle East scholars talk of a religious awakening occuring throughout most of the world of Islam in the late 20th century. An older order came under attack in those decades, broadly speaking. This week's events in Gaza just underline how the old order's secular nationalism is crumbling.