GAZA (Sept. 11) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas reached a deal with Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas on Monday to form a unity government the Palestinians hope will end their international isolation and revive aid.
But Hamas said it would never recognize Israel and that it had a right to pursue armed struggle against the Jewish state, raising immediate questions over whether a unity coalition would satisfy Western demands for lifting sanctions.
"The outlines of any political agenda in the coming period will not harm the legitimacy of the resistance against the Israeli occupation," Haniyeh said in a speech, using the Islamic militant group's term for Israel.
[...]
Abbas would decree the existing Hamas-led government a caretaker administration within 48 hours, an aide said. Hamas officials said they wanted Haniyeh to head the unity cabinet.
Palestinians hope the creation of a unity administration will lead to the lifting of a Western aid embargo imposed after Hamas took power in March after a surprising win over Abbas's Fatah movement in January elections.
[...]
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said [the unity government] would be based on a document the Islamists and Abbas agreed in June, which fell short of Western and Israeli demands.
That document stemmed from a manifesto drafted by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails which hinted at recognition of Israel by calling for a Palestinian state on land captured by the Jewish state in the 1967 Middle East war.
But Hamas's own position was unchanged, Abu Zuhri said. "We will never recognize the legitimacy of the occupation," he said.
"The outlines of any political agenda in the coming period will not harm the legitimacy of the resistance against the Israeli occupation," Haniyeh said in a speech, using the Islamic militant group's term for Israel.
refer to this thread on the semantics of Islamic militants.
when terms such as "Zionist regime" or "Israeli occupation" or "Zionist entity" are used in lieu of the name "Israel," this is their way of referring to Israel without recognizing their soveriegnity.
I am willing to have a discussion, I'm not saying Israel is blameless, but in order to have a logical disucssion, one must first accept the truth. And the truth is that there are Islamic militant groups whose stated purpose is the destruction of Israel. Period.
This has been going on for decades, is anyone surprised nothing has changed? I'd wager both sides will go on hating each other long after our children's children are taking a dirt nap. It sucks, but I can't say anything coming out of there really blows my skirty up any more.
I want h@ts in particular to see this, so he can know what groups like Hamas and Hezbollah really hope to attain.
I'm sure he'd have an answer for you.
"America is not what's wrong with the world. The struggle we are in is too important to have the luxury of returning to that old mentality of 'Blame America First.'" —Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Leftist "intellectuals" in America now look to Europe—steeped for years in anti-American propaganda from the Soviet Union.
Dekka00 said this in post #3 : but in order to have a logical disucssion, one must first accept the truth. And the truth is that there are Islamic militant groups whose stated purpose is the destruction of Israel. Period.
I've no argument with this. There are also Jewish groups whose main purpose is the prevention and destruction of a Palastinian state. But the fact is certain Jewish organisations are doing a far better job of preventing a Palastinian state than visa-versa.
Solutions have been put forward, but with the continued expansion of the West Bank the chance of a viable Palastinian state is being lost (which is exactly what some Israelis want). On the other hand - please explain how close the Palastinians are to destrorying the Israeli state? There is obviously no comparison?
Do Israelis want that. Do Palastinians want that? Do you know the answer to your question?
HECK answered the questions I posted correctly.
The answer to your questions are
1) I think most Israelis would be content if Hamas would stop terrorizing them. However, there are some who want their historical homeland under Jewish rule.
2) Yes, I think Israel would accept a one-state solution including West Bank. I don't think the Arabs living in that area would though. They see accepting a Jewish state as defeat. Their pride is too tall to associate with Jews.
Dekka00 said this in post #10 :
1) I think most Israelis would be content if Hamas would stop terrorizing them. However, there are some who want their historical homeland under Jewish rule.
Likewise most Palastinians (who are getting the butt-end of the deal in that land) would be content to have their own nation state and stop being terrorized by the occupying forces of the IDF.
quote:
2) Yes, I think Israel would accept a one-state solution including West Bank. I don't think the Arabs living in that area would though. They see accepting a Jewish state as defeat. Their pride is too tall to associate with Jews.
Who really knows? Some in Hamas (as has Iran) have said they will accept a two state solution, and some Hamas leaders and supporters will do all they can to not accept it. I'm sure the feeling's mutual amongst some Israelis.
Likewise most Palastinians (who are getting the butt-end of the deal in that land) would be content to have their own nation state and stop being terrorized by the occupying forces of the IDF.
If most Palestinians would accept a 2-state solution, why did they elect Hamas - an organization who's stated aim is the destruction of the State of Israel - to power?
quote:
[i]Who really knows? Some in Hamas (as has Iran) have said they will accept a two state solution, and some Hamas leaders and supporters will do all they can to not accept it. I'm sure the feeling's mutual amongst some Israelis. [/B]
Very few. The stated aim and mission statement of Hamas is to extinguish the presence of the "Zionist Entity" from Palestine.
Also review the quotes from the article above:
"The outlines of any political agenda in the coming period will not harm the legitimacy of the resistance against the Israeli occupation," Haniyeh said in a speech, using the Islamic militant group's term for Israel."
Translation: if you hear signs of moderation from our camp, fear not, these are only a temporary diplomatic tool to achieve specific ends.
And if there was any doubt that the "occupation" means not only the West Bank but the entire State of Israel:
"That document stemmed from a manifesto drafted by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails which hinted at recognition of Israel by calling for a Palestinian state on land captured by the Jewish state in the 1967 Middle East war.
But Hamas's own position was unchanged, Abu Zuhri said. "We will never recognize the legitimacy of the occupation," he said."
- woolfe
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.
woolfe99 said this in post #12 :
If most Palestinians would accept a 2-state solution, why did they elect Hamas - an organization who's stated aim is the destruction of the State of Israel - to power?
Who knows why people vote for who they vote for? Hamas are certainly not a one policy party.
quote:
The stated aim and mission statement of Hamas is to extinguish the presence of the "Zionist Entity" from Palestine.
And as I've pointed out many times, many Israeli's aim was and is to continue what they have succesfully achieved for decades (as oppossed to merely threaten it) which is to actually destroy a Palastinian state, and any chance of one ever coming into being. I therefore presume there are extremists on both sides, and don't defend either, including Hamas' policy of getting rid of the state of Israel.
quote:
But Hamas's own position was unchanged, Abu Zuhri said. "We will never recognize the legitimacy of the occupation," he said."
I don't think it's what you meant, but only the US and Israel recognise the "legitimacy of the occupation".
As for Hamas, their position has changed from time to time and they have said they would recognise Israel. Either you believe their position is set in stone, so utterly hopeless, or it can change. Who knows the future so to believe things cannot change is a deeply pessimistic view.
Look at Iran, their offers to recognise Israel have been completely ignored by President Bush and the Israeli government. Why? And why is tough-guy "bring em on" Bush afraid to debate with Ahmadinejad?
h@ts wrote
And as I've pointed out many times, many Israeli's aim was and is to continue what they have succesfully achieved for decades (as oppossed to merely threaten it) which is to actually destroy a Palastinian state, and any chance of one ever coming into being. I therefore presume there are extremists on both sides, and don't defend either, including Hamas' policy of getting rid of the state of
Show me Israel’s charter to do what you say above h@ts. Hamas has systematically turned back years of negotiations in one day. Now we have the audacity of some to want to blame the West for withholding their own financial support which apparently they are doing more than Arab nations at really helping relief of Palestinian miseries.
quote:
As for Hamas, their position has changed from time to time and they have said they would recognise Israel.
Why stubbornly hold to this ineffectual point? Hamas has never officially said they would recognize Israel. If someone in their party even hinted at it, you have Hamas leadership categorically denying it. Meanwhile status quo proceeds and in the end, Palestinians suffer for it.
In my opinion, Palestinians suffer more at the hands of their own leadership then they ever did from Israel. Decades have past without any progression in their dire conditions.
Now you can say what you want here h@ts but the reality is this. Both sides will have to give and take here. Neither of them are going anywhere. The sooner this is realized by leadership on both sides, the better off it will be. Are there Israelis that don’t want a Palestinian state? Sure there is but there’s a hell of a lot more Arabs that don’t want Israel to exist and quite frankly it has clouded any semblance of reasonable judgements. If it weren’t true, Palestine would officially exist today.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
oneofpeace said this in post #14 :
Show me Israel’s charter to do what you say above h@ts. Hamas has systematically turned back years of negotiations in one day. Now we have the audacity of some to want to blame the West for withholding their own financial support which apparently they are doing more than Arab nations at really helping relief of Palestinian miseries.
Why do Israel need a written charter? Their actions and the $billion dollars of US support for their actions and their ACTUAL (rather than threatened) success in destroying a Palestinian state is enough.
Ariel Sharon addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, 1998: "there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands" - Agence France Presse, 15 November 1998
quote:
Hamas has systematically turned back years of negotiations in one day.
What does that mean? When? Where? How?
quote:
Now we have the audacity of some to want to blame the West for withholding their own financial support which apparently they are doing more than Arab nations at really helping relief of Palestinian miseries.
Who do you blame for the collective punishment meted out to the Palestinians because they democratically elected Hamas into power? Does Bush still yap on about "democracising" the Middle East? And in light of Hamas winning the election, has Bush a new theory explaining the whole reason he decided to start wars in the region?
quote:
Why stubbornly hold to this ineffectual point? Hamas has never officially said they would recognize Israel.
"officially"? who gives a toss whether it's official or not? What do you want, it written down on a bit of paper, signed sealed and delivered?
quote:
If someone in their party even hinted at it, you have Hamas leadership categorically denying it. Meanwhile status quo proceeds and in the end, Palestinians suffer for it.
Are you saying it's best to ignore a "hint at it", or any possibility of a beginning to talks and peace?
quote:
In my opinion, Palestinians suffer more at the hands of their own leadership then they ever did from Israel. Decades have past without any progression in their dire conditions.
What rubbish. Have you ever lived under an occupying military force?
quote:
Now you can say what you want here h@ts but the reality is this. Both sides will have to give and take here. Neither of them are going anywhere. The sooner this is realized by leadership on both sides, the better off it will be.
So now you do think that a hint at a diplomatic solution should be looked at rather than ignored?
quote:
Are there Israelis that don't want a Palestinian state? Sure
No! There are Israelis that have successfully prevented a Palestinian state, and may continue to make sure that one never exists, ie they will have wiped the Palestinians off the map forever.
quote:
but there's a hell of a lot more Arabs that don't want Israel to exist and quite frankly it has clouded any semblance of reasonable judgements.
Such is the inherent dangers of thinking you can subdue and eventually destroy a people by occupation.
09-12-2006 04:56 AM
