>> with them to identify the policies that can most effectively defend america and also to preserve our freedom and civil liberties. within this context i welcome

our good friend and it the acclaimed middle east analyst and author of the new book "hamas vs. fatah" the struggle for palestine" comment jonathan schanzer. thank you so much for being here today. jonathan is the executive director of the jewish policy center and worked at the office of intelligent and analysis at the u.s. treasury and served as a research fellow at and author of the allocate army, study arabic at the american university in cairo, a ph.d. candidate at cannes' college documenting history of the united states congress he has published many scholarly articles and featured on tv in this country, europe also in the arabic me and has traveled

widely to egypt, ed turkey jordan the palestinian territories. and those that make back most of us think of the struggle for palestine we think of israelis and arabs and jews and muslims but if i understand correctly you suggest there is another struggle as significant as violent and read it will take between place between palestinian. >> what i argue the arab-israeli conflict has been to a certain extent eclipse the by the buy that conflict between hamas and fatah. the reason i say this is we continue to hear from the current and last administration that it is time to go back to the negotiating table they need to start discussing peace after eight or nine years of violence and

altered peace talks. but we can now say with certainty is on the one hand we have an israeli spokesperson in the person of that nazi on who the new prime minister but on the other hand, we do not know the palestinian side. we have hamas which controls the gaza strip when a half million people in elected government but not when the international community we'll work with but on the other hand, you have fatah which is in control of the west bank, two 1/2 million palestinians that are recognized by the international community but not legitimate government. they are at war with each other widowhood if peace talks resume who will represent the palestinians? the struggle has eclipsed, this has to be solved first before

reconvening get to the palestinian-israeli negotiations. >> host: you describe this as a war, and that is a few or a revelry or to political parties the republicans and democrats, fighting for control, that is normal but a war is something very different. are you overstating it when you say it is a war? >> guest: absolutely not. started late 1987 early ada as a political struggle between fatah which always purported to represent the palestinian people. with the launch of the armed uprising of the palestinians, they took control of all of the rock throwing and tire burning and shooting and all of the things that have come to be associated. but what happened in early 1988 s new organization a splinter of the muslim brotherhood hamas was formed they began to challenge fatah

or foot -- open the they dropped leaflets and organized strikes and did this as a direct political confrontation to for top. over the next 10 years as fatah engaged in a piece process of hamas continue to challenge although they challenged israel more than fatah that you saw this rash of suicide bombings and other attacks. not until october 2000 that we began to see the two sides openly clashing in the streets progress chaos consumed the west bank in the gaza strip we saw more clashes between 20 and and family and tribe associate with one faction or the other come in malays on university campuses and a continued to spiral out of control until the election in 2006 that hamas one and finally the 2007 coup that brought them to control by levy in the gaza strip.

also the all out for that i discuss we now call the second six-day war the conflict in the gaza strip was characterized by awful acts of violence 300 palestinians were killed, a double was injured, palestinians were thrown off of tall buildings and being shot point-blank to ensure permanent injuries of the things we would not just say maybe a minor conflict for good is all out war and we continue to see torture on both sides, we continue to see people being rounded up without cause this is a full-blown conflict and our media failed to cover this properly. >> host: fatah members in gaza say are you in danger every day? >> guest: absolutely. there are fewer some have been transferred to the west bank and others have gone to egypt but we do know there are a

great number of members who have been tortured, there is a list just from the operation december 2008, january '09 there were members listed by human rights organizations and fatah faction in itself that were killed or injured. we continue to see the people being pulled off the streets had to shave, mustaches is shaped, coming back with broken that limbs indications of torture and the fatah members along with christians and other minorities continue to express their concerns for their own safety teeseventeen operation led the incursion in response to the missile attacks. what about the other way around? a hamas member in the west bank is the in as much danger? >> guest: absolutely that is underreported right now we put all of the eggs in one basket saying fatah is the peaceful

alternative to hamas which is of course, is that the islamic suicide bombing at -- in organization that violates human rights but fatah is also engaging in a lot of the same acts of violence acts of retribution today i was reading in one of the palestinian sites that four people were kidnapped in gaza and to kidnapped in the west bank just a day from opposite factions. this continues to happen. it is not easy being eight hamas member on the west bank because the help of cut-off faction get from israel with counter-terrorism operations and trying to clean up the streets. the bottom line is real and united states and international community is interested in a stable peaceful west bank that does not include the presence of hamas. >> host: it seems to me that

we seem very much about this more about these killings, this torture and human rights violations in the media. we have not seen as much at if i am wrong, from amnesty international and other ngos, they have not been focusing on is certainly not to the extent that refocused on israel and what ever it does you raise 2. six human-rights organizations have been fairly good. there is a palestinian center for human rights which has done good work. the red cross has done a little bit but there are regular reports of chastising israel for a disproportionate force which we would expect and gaza but then the warfare that there have been good reports on that. but i was struck by the first week of coverage of the

operation which we've just discussed, the headlines were huge and splashed everywhere talking about is really is going into the gaza strip or erred in the gaza strip and if you compare casualties and the kind of violence, the palestinian war that broke out june 2007 paled in comparison to the arab-israeli conflict. it underscores a point* that i talked about in my book. that is it is very easy for those in the mainstream media to cover the arab-israeli conflict. we know it is easy, it sells them it can make headlines and grab people's attention. to go and cover the palestinian conflict is a lot more challenging and requires journalists going into dangerous places, requires them to know the landscape, it means knowing the right people to bring you into these places that will show you hamas and

fatah are in conflict one thing i try to underscore is the palestinians are ashamed of this conflict this destroys the notion of the palestinian identity what media analyst talk about the palestinians try to cover this up. they do not want the world to know about this purpose is much harder as a journalist to cover this conflict and as a result it is a factor of laziness. if you rely on that he will not to get to this story. >> host: speaking as a former correspond it is very difficult and dangerous to go in to replace light gaza without a fixer or minder who affords you protection or translates but also if the reports on this and your story displeases people it is not only talented and you are in physical danger. >> that is what we have talked about a report was released talking about multiple

violations taking place inside the gaza strip and hamas continues to me and journalists they do not approve of, they banned stories that run counter to the palestinian national interest, they have harass people, a kidnapped people even other europeans have been eight out of their offices and beaten for coverage they have provided to their populations at home. says also continues to be a big challenge and trying to figure out what is happening in the gaza strip hamas makes it more difficult to cover. but that does not necessarily excuse how the mainstream media has covered it. of i could write a book 250 pages and a lot has happened since this came out in november, i think they're probably could be more out there in the mainstream media covering this teeseventeen mention hamas is a splinter of the muslim brotherhood per

talk about the muslim brotherhood was and what it is and what it represents. then a little more depth on the creation of hamas and how it came about the one the muslim brotherhood founded late 1920's. it was created as a muslim revival organization in response to the british occupation of egypt. the a.d. behind the organization was islamiyah needed to reign supreme said days of being subjugated by the west needed to end and is on needed to rise to its former glory. this was exceedingly popular in egypt in the 20s and 30s and the ideology spread and reached the palestinian territories by the early forties and it is now the largest islamic organization in the world provide dangerous organization that it purports to be non-violent but we also

know a lot of it splinter charities will fund activities around a world and a number in the united states call attention to the dangers of the muslim brotherhood and fdd just said a recently on this. as far as hamas is concerned it was founded by a man who was a paraplegic who worked with the muslim brotherhood in the '60s in egypt by came back to the territories in the '70s and created another organization. it was largely that goes to charity and provided food and in nursery schools for the palestinian people. the israelis for their part in the '70s and '80s decided to throw their weight behind this organization as a counter to the popularity of the top. at that time under the control

of yasser arafat was responsible for scores of blacks of terrorism and israelis desperately sought to find a non-violent alternative that could capture the imagination of the palestinian people. they threw their support and this is a classic case of low back out from the 1980's when we supported them and their ranks became members of the taliban and al qaeda this happened with hamas. by the time it was formed they had already had a full head of steam and enjoyed immunity from the israelis and this is one of the reasons there is a significant social and the structure that hamas enjoys today. does not only popular in the territories because of a suicide bombing operations which are popular with the palestinians by the fact have the social infrastructure has lent legitimacy for those who

wish to ignore the fact they are responsible for bloodshed. >> host: i think of the israelis is being sophisticated about their neighbors progress after all 20% of israeli citizens are arabs, muslim, how could they not understand an organization that derived from the muslim brotherhood in the end could not be an ally? in organizations like hamas would have to in the end say every inch of land that muslims have never conquered must remain infidels and not have sovereignty or self-determination on such territory? >> guest: to be sure it was a gross miscalculation on the part of the israelis. probably their biggest mistake and allowing elections to go through january 2006. both of those and identify

both in the book has been gross miscalculations. they should have known better. the founder was a paraplegic and probably appeared not to be dangerous or his organization because it was involved mostly with charitable services but if you look at the underlying ideology it should have been clear. that is something the israelis wish they could take back. >> host: but regarding the elections was that something the israelis thought was a good idea or were they pressured by the u.s.? i think the u.s. government not understanding hamas as well as it should but i think the israelis being more sophisticated. >> guest: there are hoping san that went out behind the election number one remember this was during the heyday of the bush doctrine encouraging the muslim world to democratize and elections were thought of as a good thing no matter what. we saw in lebanon things were

beginning to change and the idea with iraq, afghanistan, the i.d.'s sea change could be brought to the palestinians but underlying all of this was the fact that a pollster who was the only real pollster within the palestinians was turning out poll after poll indicating fatah was going to wind. there did not seem to be a lot of risk for the israelis. they said we will support the election we'll make us look at -- look like good guys but the palestinians will show they should choose the less violent of the factions. we continue to see, this will happen, taub will win by a large margin the night of the election fatah members were driving around in trucks shooting into the air celebrating their victory but the following morning it was hamas going around. the zoo explanations for the

way the polls showed out. one, you can read this in the book on hamas that they deliberately tried to derail the process but wanted to tell the pollsters that its members are actually voting for for taub but they were trying to obfuscate what the actual pull or election results would be part of the other is that schakowsky himself was trying to undermine the electoral process. the first sounds more likely but the basic fact is the polls in the territories are probably not a very reliable per great then of the margin of error by would not trust them further than i can throw them. the ada you'll get a straight answer from palestinians who are just as concerned trying to live day today or supporting violent organizations and not sure which they will choose their

trying to figure out the end result of an election very difficult. >> host: we have difficulty understanding america in the west we see ideology as one category and religion as another. with hamas it seems to me and religion and ideology are fused and it cannot be broken apart for you see that very clearly with the hamas charter which is one might say admirably candid and explicit about its aims and makes it very clear and the spokesperson as well they see no possibility not just as a political position but as a religious position they cannot see the possibility of peace with israel, allowing israelis to be their neighbor or in many cases allowing them to remain in any way in the middle east. >> guest: they are very candid and their case is compelling. they use is a and palestinian

nasa listen together in a tight package to save jihad is imperative in order to liberate palestine than once that happens it will become part of a larger state that the muslim brotherhood advocates for croaked one of the things i think they have done because they have adhered to this charter and have been very honest, the palestinian people trust them and they seem more on this. particularly compared to fatah which by the way the fatah charter openly calls for the state of israel as well but it is more secular and nobody can tell where they stand. on the one hand they negotiate with israel and talk about peace living side-by-side but then they launched in october 2000 you have the fatah mainstream which is more secular and then the brigade which is a spinoff of the fatah organization.

>> host: and clearly religious refers to the moscow summit is on the basis of religion not the basis of national aspirations. to a one by the way i would add that the brigade is crafted in the image of hamas. this was fatah as ways to compete with hamas in the late 1990's as the popularity grew. >> host: a religious popularity line jonathan schanzer it is trying to rebranded self. >> host: what basis could the member of a brigade oppose somebody from hamas? says they're almost identical? >> guest: they know who pays their salary their family or clan has been a long affiliated with hamas so if you are in the more radical strain of the talk you will perhaps support this organization. >> host: the muslim brotherhood is suni and hamas

is suni, fatah is suni of the biggest support for hamas right now finding appears to be the islamic regime in tehran that is she a. from eight years have we heard experts tell us shia and sunni could not possibly cooperate on any realistic level because the religious ideological buy between them was so deep by yet here you have as i and a stand it, movers of tehran as a principal backers of hamas it when i wrote an article about this back in february 4 commentary magazine. when hamas was created it immediately appealed to iran. iran was steadfastly opposed to the process, did not want to see palestinians make peace and founded a faction as well so began to throw money in their direction. the shia suni / factor early

on because there was the inherent distrust between these different sects of is on. but over the years we saw hamas and other rejectionist groups relying upon iran for operational support for weapons, financing in order to attack israel. this was their common goal and where they found working together. i would add iran actively drove a stake between the palestinian factions between fatah arafat's assassination was openly called for that appeal to certain members of hamas and resaw of this animosity grow over time due to the fact that hamas was getting the support from iran and fatah was not. the taub was being made fun of as a sellout to iran. but the pivotal point* one was

in 2000 season as yasser arafat declared war against israel we began to see iran throw more support for hamas even though fatah was actively and engaged in war use a hamas outflank the position of going into war initially they were together but then hamas says we can do this on our own with iranian assistance. the key event was when saudi arabia determined it no longer wanted to support hamas in 2004. there were a series of attacks in the saudi kingdom of al qaeda on the arabian peninsula an affiliate group began to launch attacks throughout the kingdom and this point* the saudis realize their support for it buy wind organizations was a liabilities of a began to cut back and as they did

specifically with hamas iran rushed to fill the void and gave them more funds and more assistance by the time the elections to replace january 2006 and sanctions put in place by the west it was iran that completely filled whenever hamas was not getting it from the outside. >> host: one more question that i will go to the audience for questions even though i have about 30 more here and 40 more in my head. you also have at this point* the interesting predicament that saudi arabia and egypt and other water called moderate arab states are increasingly concerned about iran's growing power in the region, the possibility they may have nuclear weapons or iran will continue to expand it has hezbollah allied with hamas and lebanon growing in power, hamas increase in me as a proxy on one side of israel, syria as a client

state. is there any sense that each of your saudi arabia or the gulf states up this point* would functionally align themselves with israel against iran? or is it the enemy of my enemy can be useful what that does not make him my friend? >> guest: right now we see unquestioned support for the fatah on the west bank. i would argue the hamas fatah conflict is a microcosm of larger things in place you have the iranian access cause the, the state supporting the west bank, the fatah faction. but in terms of the suni states getting in bed with israel, this is the adm of the obama administration right now that we need to see a jump-start in the piece process for the suni states to open a line with israel against iran.

i don't know if i buy battered they need that cover it would be a face felipe but we know where their feelings are on the prospect of iranian nuclear weapons if they will do whatever they can to stop iran from achieving that. >> host: i will look for questions out there. make sure you have a microphone before you talk and let's go over there. >> stuart sloan. i have two questions. the first coming can you give some background on the hamas/if atop conversations that have been apparently unsuccessful in my second question has to do with what you just alluded to for american support for the piece process. the manifest that the u.s. government knows there is no

palestinian right israel so therefore there is no real prospect in the future for any peace be yet the administration is pushing desperate right think you suggested a moment ago that the purpose of it as a fig leaf it is a charade that is going on to provide cover for the so-called moderate states. can you confirm that is your view? do you have any discussions with the administration? bereday aware this is an effort on their part? . .