[81alum]

I am not sure that I understand the reasoning here. There is a religious conflict and "national" one. Of the two, I would argue that the "national" one is regarded by the Palestinians as the "existential" one.  The Palestinians could have arguably settled in Jordan back when the PLO moved there. They could have practiced their religion and become economically "successful". That was not acceptable because the Palestinians simply insist on returning to and governing in "Palestine".

I'd urge you listen to him make his arguments as I may not be adequately explaining them, nor do I personally have the expertise to evaluate them.  But the respect both sides have given him in the past lends him substantial credibility.   

But here goes, so far as I understand him.  I think the distinction he describes is the difference between Hamas followers believing that any compromise with Israel is deeply repugnant to their religious ideology (existential with regard to their souls), vs. Fatah followers "merely" seeing a political/national contest, albeit a lopsided one.  He suggests that this has always been the main distinction between Hamas and Fatah, going back to the 1990s when Fatah embraced Oslo and Hamas sabotaged it by blowing up bus loads of Israeli citizens. 

Hamas is a Sunni organization and it motivates  ("brainwashes") its terrorists using (distorted) Sunni religious language.  But what if the followers of Hamas see the most important Sunni nation, in control of their holiest sites, shaking hands and making peace with Israel?  If Hamas loses a religious motivation for their struggle, how would they be any different from Fatah?  It might be existential then in another way--threatening the existence of their organization, since it would undermine their differencia specifica among Palestinian groups.

And that is the best I can do after reading a couple of articles and watching an interview.  Maybe we could get him to come to the Cardboard and explain his position!

[81alum]

I am not sure that I understand the reasoning here. There is a religious conflict and "national" one. Of the two, I would argue that the "national" one is regarded by the Palestinians as the "existential" one.  The Palestinians could have arguably settled in Jordan back when the PLO moved there. They could have practiced their religion and become economically "successful". That was not acceptable because the Palestinians simply insist on returning to and governing in "Palestine".

I'd urge you listen to him make his arguments as I may not be adequately explaining them, nor do I personally have the expertise to evaluate them.  But the respect both sides have given him in the past lends him substantial credibility.   

But here goes, so far as I understand him.  I think the distinction he describes is the difference between Hamas followers believing that any compromise with Israel is deeply repugnant to their religious ideology (existential with regard to their souls), vs. Fatah followers "merely" seeing a political/national contest, albeit a lopsided one.  He suggests that this has always been the main distinction between Hamas and Fatah, going back to the 1990s when Fatah embraced Oslo and Hamas sabotaged it by blowing up bus loads of Israeli citizens. 

Hamas is a Sunni organization and it motivates  ("brainwashes") its terrorists using (distorted) Sunni religious language.  But what if the followers of Hamas see the most important Sunni nation, in control of their holiest sites, shaking hands and making peace with Israel?  If Hamas loses a religious motivation for their struggle, how would they be any different from Fatah?  It might be existential then in another way--threatening the existence of their organization, since it would undermine their differencia specifica among Palestinian groups.

And that is the best I can do after reading a couple of articles and watching an interview.  Maybe we could get him to come to the Cardboard and explain his position!