Earlier this week, Fatah and Hamas militants clashed violently, with Fatah members setting a fire within the Parliament building in Ramallah and gunfights that killed two and wounded fourteen. This has only been the most recent in the months of fighting between the two groups. Hamas ousted Fatah as the ruling party in elections earlier this year, which saw Palestinians favoring the terror group over Fatah, who had long been seen by Palestinians as corrupt.

Apparently, the predominantly secular Fatah is not too happy with the loss to the Islamic Fundamentalist group Hamas and many people, Palestinian or otherwise, are predicting civil war.

On a larger scale, moderate Arab Muslim governments, like Jordan and the emerging Iraqi government are continuously fighting Islamo-facists both within their borders and in collusion with their neighbors. The L.A. Times recently had a great article which brought to light the role of Jordanian intelligence in the locating and execution of the terrorist Musab al-Zarqawi**. These moderate governments see people like Zarqawi and the groups they lead as a threat to their nation's stability and soverignty and are evermore increasing their efforts to defeat them.

We've all heard of sectarian violence in Iraq between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims, and the perilous path that could lead, but...

1. Is there a larger battle looming on the horizion that pits not Shi'ite and Sunni, but Progressive and Fundamentalist (or "Regressive") Muslims and their values and politics against one another?

2. How far should the U.S. go in it's support of Progressive Muslim nations in such a conflict?

3. Should the U.S. take sides in the emerging conflict between Fatah and Hamas?






** Edit to my side note: I had heard the apparent mistranslation on a local talk radio show hosted by Captain Dale Dye (USMC Ret.), apparently he was mistaken, as am I. Thanks to Blackstone for clearing it up. I try not to use Wiki as a lone confriming source, and after looking around, there does seem to be another meaning for the term "abu" as being a holy man or saint, but apprently it has an old egyptian context. Seeing as how Zarqawi did have a son maned Musab, that context doesn't look to be applied here.

1. Is there a larger battle looming on the horizion that pits not Shi'ite and Sunni, but Progressive and Fundamentalist (or "Regressive") Muslims and their values and politics against one another?

All I can say is, I hope so. Because so far, it doesn't seem as though many Muslim countries have been taking a very strong stance against the terrorists, for whatever reason.

2. How far should the U.S. go in it's support of Progressive Muslim nations in such a conflict?

I think we should support them fully, provided that they're really on our side. One thing to watch out for is the typical Arafat ploy of saying one thing to us in English and something quite different to his own people in Arabic. They need to demonstrate that they're against the terrorists, not just give us a bunch of pretty talk.

3. Should the U.S. take sides in the emerging conflict between Fatah and Hamas?

Given that I don't think Fatah is really all that much better than Hamas (see my warning above), I don't think it would be in our interests to do that. If Hamas comes out on top, we might as well let it happen, so we can end this deception.

By the way, regarding your side note - according to Wikipedia "abu" means "father of". So abu-Musab would mean "father of Musab".

1. Is there a larger battle looming on the horizon that pits not Shi'ite and Sunni, but Progressive and Fundamentalist (or "Regressive") Muslims and their values and politics against one another?
This is typical in the Arab world. This is more a clan war than a Progressive vs Fundamentalist fight. All of the Arab countries have an ongoing feud within their countries that is cyclic. The only people that they hate more than each other is the rest of the world.

2. How far should the U.S. go in it's support of Progressive Muslim nations in such a conflict?
Cheer leading only. If we get too involved the other side will start attacking us. Oh wait they already do. There is no winning in this situation, merely survival.

3. Should the U.S. take sides in the emerging conflict between Fatah and Hamas?
Let's see Fatah is a terrorist organization that is responsible for the murder of a US ambassador in Sudan and Hamas is a terrorist organization responsible for the murder of 3 diplomatic personnel in Gaza.

I think that pretty well sums it up. We should take the side that all terrorists should die as soon as possible.

This is an interesting topic Abu Titus.

1. Is there a larger battle looming on the horizion that pits not Shi'ite and Sunni, but Progressive and Fundamentalist (or "Regressive") Muslims and their values and politics against one another?
The answer to this is yes of course. Their has been this sort of progressive v. fundamentalist battle going on for decades. Militant Islamists can normally be broken down into two camps: those who want to fight the "far enemy" (primarily USA and Israel) and those who want to fight the "near enemy" (the Muslim world's "un-Islamic" regimes). People like Osama bin Laden are a "far enemy" terrorist. He feels that the US support for "un-Islamic" regimes such as that in Egypt, Syria, Iraq (under Saddam and probably now), Jordan etc. cannot be overthrown due to the support of the US. Terrorists like Zarqawi on the other hand prefer to focus on the "near enemy" which are the same un-Islamic regimes mentioned above and pretty much anyone that doesn't follow their specific shade of Islam. The leaders of the Islamic countries have just as much at stake as we do in this because both the near and far camps have the ultimate goal of overthrowing the current government. And while it might not be apparent to BlackStone, the groups and governments have taken measures to fight back through mass arrests, banning certain organizations etc.

2. How far should the U.S. go in it's support of Progressive Muslim nations in such a conflict?
None. Our track record of supporting anyone in the Middle East isn't so hot and in my opinion is what got us in this mess in the first place.

3. Should the U.S. take sides in the emerging conflict between Fatah and Hamas?
Nope.

I disagree with you. There hasn't been any battle, whatsoever. What there has been is regimes/goverments who have allowed these groups to operate because of indifference, fear of security, or outright support and the groups operating without restraint. That is, until recently. Only since 9-11 have certain nations begun to take a look at what kind of folk operate within their borders.

We're also seeing a new generation of Arabs/Muslims who are able to communicate and interact with the West far more than in years past. More people are seeing what kind of freedoms are provided for in other nations. Freedoms they want to experience.

Iranian Women Protest

Here we are seeing events that one would never see ten, fifteen, and certainly twenty years ago.

We saw Afghans help us defeat the Taliban. We're seeing Lebanese and Iraqis seek peaceful democratic change surrounded by Islamo-fascists who'd just as soon restore the Caliphate. Under threats of bodily harm and death Iraqis voted.

So, to answer my first question, yes, I do think there is a battle looming, and we need to nurture this change for the better.

To answer that second question, we should slowly start to aid these movements to undermine oppressive regimes and to continue to eliminate those wh wish to destroy us. One will aid the other's progress.

3. Should the U.S. take sides in the emerging conflict between Fatah and Hamas?

Well, I asked this question because I do see a civil conflict between these two and I know that the U.S. will have a vested interest in who comes out on top. No one wants to support either group, but pragmatically at this point, I think the U.S. would look at Fatah as the lesser of the two evils, they being the *relatively* lesser Islamic fundalmentalist of the two. Should they, though? Well, I may have asked a paradox of a question. Again, no one wants to really support, in any fashion, either group. But, again, these two groups will fight, one will come out superior, and during that fight, Americans in our government will have to be thinking, "well, it's better X than Y".

And if civil war does break out, and Al-Qaeda gets involved, and favors Hamas over the secular leaning Fatah, what then? If that's the case, we should take a side. I think we should support Abbas as he is the current PM. While Hamas controls the legislature, Abbas is the one the administration will talk to. Abbas understands that any war would ravage the West Bank and Gaza, and he'll do anything to stop it.

I hope so! It would save us the bother if they sorted this mess out for themselves!

It strikes me that the west has already spent billions and billions on helping those Muslims who were termed 'progressive' and much good it has done us. The common mood of the Muslim world seems to ignore this generosity and as we saw in Palestine, will rather vote to elect regressive governments.

I'm not sure how the Palestinian example fits the picture though. Fatah and Hamas are neither particularly progressive (Hamas is certainly not) and aiding either side would just as likely back fire as it recently did for Israel.


Well, considering the USA has already spent the lives of 2,500 soldiers in Iraq, I don't see that the Muslims can expect much more help than they are already receiving. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and several other Arabian states already receive healthy aid on the grounds of promoting progressive, or at least non regressive governments.


No.

1. Is there a larger battle looming on the horizion that pits not Shi'ite and Sunni, but Progressive and Fundamentalist (or "Regressive") Muslims and their values and politics against one another?

Maybe so, who knows? It seems to make sense that this might happen, but then all I know is that they all seem to be crazy and into sadism.

2. How far should the U.S. go in it's support of Progressive Muslim nations in such a conflict?

Enough already. Let them fight their own battles.

3. Should the U.S. take sides in the emerging conflict between Fatah and Hamas?

No.

The less interest we have in the ME, the better. I think most Americans have figured this out. We don't want them running our ports or anything else, and we sure don't want to go over there for summer vacationing.

I don't know which groups and governments you're referring to, but if you're referring to Fatah at all, then all I see from them is a big shell game. They'll make some prominent arrests for show, but then other factions within their own movement (such as the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade) will carry out terrorist attacks on their own. And their "educational" materials have been a near-constant barrage of anti-Semitic and pro-terrorist propaganda. Other nominally pro-Western Arab nations have official news organs which put out anti-American propaganda. For an example, see here. Footnote 17 puts a fine point on it all: