It strikes me as more akin to a Kardashian marriage --
The essence of Yadlin’s proposal is to capitalize on the extreme weakness of Hamas by letting the Palestinians go forward with a “unity government” under a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah announced in April. At the time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the idea, but Yadlin argues that taking a performance-based approach to this united government is the best way to move forward and break Hamas’s stranglehold on Gaza.
The core of Yadlin’s argument is that Hamas has never been weaker than now. Its own war strategy is a shambles: Its missiles aren’t hitting Israeli cities; its fighters aren’t able to sneak through tunnels and perform suicide missions or conduct kidnapping operations. Its base in Syria is lost and its patrons in the Muslim Brotherhood have been toppled from power in Egypt.
Hamas’s biggest weakness of all is its unpopularity among Palestinians in Gaza now. A poll taken in June, before the latest fighting began, showed that 70 percent of Gazans wanted a continuing cease-fire with Israel; 57 percent wanted a Fatah-Hamas unity government to renounce violence against Israel; 73 percent thought nonviolent resistance had a positive impact, and large majority thought Hamas had failed to deal with crime and corruption.
The future? Asked if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas should send security personel and other officials to take over administration of Gaza, 65 percent said yes. The poll was published in July by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and its senior fellow, David Pollock.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/07/21/how-to-break-hamass-stranglehold-on-gaza/The rest of the article is rather interesting and seems to speak towards a careful-what-you-wish-for strategy. It certainly makes sense.
Anyhoo -- none of this changes the fact that the WB was once Jordan and Israel, the supposed occupier, voluntarily ceded Gaza. Whatever Palestine may be it is cobbled together from other nations that allowed it to assume its current form. Nor does the article you provided say what the territorial boundaries of "Palestine" are supposed to be.
That was, after all, the nature of my original comment in this sub-thread. No one is saying what Palestine is territorially because they want it to mean whatever they want it to mean at any given moment depending on self-interest. To territorially define Palestine would be to admit borders, acknowledge the right of Israel to exist and thus reveal Hamas and those acting like them as the aggressors. To leave the borders undefined is to have the luxury of calling Israel an occupier whenever it is convenient to do so for propaganda purposes.
And that's the game every body knows is being played.
= new reply since forum marked as read
