Hamas-PA “deal,” because Syria is crumbling! But, will Iran step in?

Since Hamas leadership, and source of power is in Syria, with Syria crumbling the present Gaza authority must find an ally in order to remain a viable entity. With Abbas being the weak leader that he is, an agreement with the Palestinian Authority (PA) will serve to make Hamas the stronger force within whatever will become of “Arab Palestine,” even if is ultimately annexed to a new democratic Jordan.

Adding to the changing situation are the changes in Egypt which could have an effect on the Hamas governce of Gaza. Should the Egyptian unrest remain, and its economy continue to suffer, Gaza’s economic problems will simply continue to grow, and an alliance with the PA may add fuel to the fire, since Israel will not likely to step in to fill the void without an outright recognition of its right to exist as a Jewish state, by both Hamas, and the PA.

Harsh times are ahead for Hamas and the population of Gaza since the PA has its own problems, and neither Syria, nor Egypt, are in a position to offer significant help. Adding fuel to the fire is the democratization of the Arab Middle East. Should Jordan’s “Monarchy,” fall, the likelihood of a sovereign Palestine will diminish, the area will simply be annexed to a new Jordan, and perhaps, the Gaza strip, to Egypt.

The PA Hamas reconciliation may be a very short-lived since the arrangement is forced on the two parties by circumstances what is happening in Syria, Egypt, and the rest of the Middle East.

Another player who may elect to enter the arena is Ahmadinejad, a man who, in spite of leading a non-Arab country, has visions of leading the Muslim world. Iran’s control of Hezbollah, is a case in point. With Syria crumbling, will Iran attempt to increase its influence on the Palestinians, and will it try to do so through Hamas, who like Iran, is on record as wishing to destroy Israel?

US + allies = Nuevo Imperialism: “In the name of [world] peace.” Libya, a case in point.

The “Nuevo-Imperialism!” Libya, a sovereign state, and a member in good standing of the United Nations, never requested external help to change its regime. The Twenty-first Century Nuevo-Imperialists took that role upon themselves, a dangerous behavior that may return the global community to hinder-years when such an unacceptable behavior was the norm for political powers of the time.

The United Nations organization does not have authority to authorize the use of force, its Security Council may have some marginal, and very limited authority to approve some military action. The Security Council authority is only a “back door,” authority; in the recent case of Libya it used its authority to approve the “protection of civilians,” a vague and very unprecise action.

Since the United States and its allies are calling for a change of regime in Libya, and because their actions are designed towards that objectives, their bombing of Libya is clearly illegal.

Additionally, had the “rebels” in Libya asked for United States, The United States Security Council, or Nato’s help, the situation might have been different. But the Libyan rebels have no face, no identity, they are neither homogeneous, nor the representatives of the Libyan people, and therefore had no legitimate authority to formally request, or receive international help for their largely undefined goals.

US and Nato activities in Libya are shades of French, Dutch, and British imperialism of old. The United States and their allies seem to feel that they have the right to determine the rights and wrongs of political regimes. George W. Bush, with Tony Blair in Iraq, followed into Afghanistan, neither were at the request of the sovereign, were a beginning of today’s “Nuevo imperialism,” which seem to guide the international behavior of the United States and it allies. No international law, norm, or rules of acceptable behavior apply to the new imperialism of the Western powers in today’s world…