What is the point of Israel immediately rejecting Hamas' offer of a 10-year truce? Face it, if there is EVER going to be peace between the Israelis and the Palastinians it is never going to be clear, clean, perfect or easy, but this automatic rejection - why?
quote:
The next Palestinian government will not recognise Israel but is instead prepared to back a 10-year truce with the Jewish state, an adviser to the Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya said.
The suggestion was rejected immediately by Israel which insisted that any Palestinian government recognise Israel, renounce violence and abide by past agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority.
What good is a truce if the Palestinian government won't recognize Israel's right to exist? There have been truces before and they didn't hold; what makes you think this one will?
What good is a truce if Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist? What are the benefits to be realized from a 10-year hiatus in violence? Why not an end to violence altogether and recognition of Israel's right to exist? How much more difficult is that than the offer of a 10-year truce?
Viper1 said this in post #6 :
What good is a truce if Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist?
You've convinced me, continued conflict and violence is the way to go. Especially when the continued conflict and violence gives you the opportunity to get some more land!
quote:
What are the benefits to be realized from a 10-year hiatus in violence?
10 years without violence perhaps, but less opportunity to grab any more land.
quote:
Why not an end to violence altogether
Another great reason to immediately ignore Hamas' offer.
quote:
and recognition of Israel's right to exist?
Rejected last time Iran, who support Hamas offered it. Mabye it's also Israel's policy to say "what good are truces?"
quote:
How much more difficult is that than the offer of a 10-year truce?
When offered a truce, how difficult is it to actually think about it and give it some thought? In Israel's case obviously incredibly difficult, especially when it's so easy to say: "what good are truces?"
h@ts wrote
You've convinced me, continued conflict and violence is the way to go. Especially when the continued conflict and violence gives you the opportunity to get some more land!......
It’s unbelievable that you continue to take this position. To expect nothing less of a government to not declare the destruction of their neighbor and to continue attacking it is the least that is to be expected.
Years of hashing out agreements suddenly went down the tubes when Hamas took over and refused to recognize Israel. Yet you consistently find new ways to blame Israel for Hamas’ stubbornness to relent. To suddenly trash all past agreements in favor of a “truce” is a huge step backwards. It’s not what was agreed upon and it’s symptomatic and exactly why Palestinians continue to dire straights.
Israel is within their full rights not to accept anything less than what they bargained with the previous Palestinian Administration. I suggest if you want to start pointing fingers to why everything broke down, try looking no farther than Hamas, that is if you can take the Israeli tainted sunglasses off long enough to focus.
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 #8 : Yet you consistently find new ways to blame Israel for Hamas’ stubbornness to relent.
peace - Hamas offered Israel a 10 year truce (and the Iranians offered to recognise Israel in 2002).
Unlike the stateless Palastinians who democratically elected Hamas, the powerful US backed state ruling Israelis are within their rights to do anything they want, anywhere they want, to whoever they want with virtual impunity. There is no balance here. One side is strong. One weak.
Hamas offered a 10 year truce and the Israeli government immediately rejected it. Why?
Do you automatically presume Israel want peace and Hamas want conflict, regardless of the fact that Hamas offering a 10 year truce and Israel rejected it automatically? Because for some Israelis the contrary could be the true. Conflict allows Israel to land grab, and there are Israelis who do not want there ever to be a Palastinian state, therefore conflict means Israel grows and a viable Palastinian state shrinks to the point of being wiped off the map.
I see, so what if Dwight Eisenhower decided that after he became President of the U.S. that he didn’t want to abide by the agreement made between the U.S. and Japan during WWII and that he refused to rule out attacking Japan? Then we proceeded send a little military incursion into Japan and capture a couple of their soldiers?
To lay the onus on Israel for this is preposterous. There has been enough “truces” to last two lifetimes and they never stick.
Secondly, if your assertion that Israel wants to keep the conflict going simply to grab land, why did they agree to the peace deal with Abbas in the first place? If Hamas had any sense whatsoever then they’d disarm that position by agreeing to the terms previously agreed upon by the Palestinian government. Instead they are more worried about saving face by having to actually act responsible and recognize their neighbor.
What you and Hamas fail to realize is that it’s time to move forward with recognition. You cannot possibly believe peace will ever be achieved any other way can you?
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. “ “
Viper1 said this in post #2 : What good is a truce if the Palestinian government won't recognize Israel's right to exist?
Exactly. There will never be peace between Israel and Palestine. At least not in any of our lifetimes.
"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.
oneofpeace said this in post #11 :
To lay the onus on Israel for this is preposterous. There has been enough “truces” to last two lifetimes and they never stick.
Who else can I lay the onus on other than Israel? They were the party who immediately rejecting the offer. To reject any possibility of a halt to the conflict is preposterous, and the fact that they haven't worked in the past (and which I take your word for) is a sad excuse.
quote:
Secondly, if your assertion that Israel wants to keep the conflict going simply to grab land, why did they agree to the peace deal with Abbas in the first place?
Whatever peace deal Israel struck they continued to grab West Bank land, ignoring Bush's road map.
quote:
If Hamas had any sense whatsoever then they’d disarm that position by agreeing to the terms previously agreed upon by the Palestinian government.
What you and Hamas fail to realize is that it’s time to move forward with recognition. You cannot possibly believe peace will ever be achieved any other way can you?
Recognition? The excuse is lame. Neither side recognise the other sides right to exist. At least Israel have a state. Where is the Palastinian state?
Unless you can believe that positions can change then the situation is worse than futile. This coflict feeds world-wide hostility and grievance, including such attacks as 9/11.
Iran agreed to recognise Israel's right to exist in 92 but were ignored. Anything could happen during a 10 year truce, but if not given a chance then there's no chance for change.
peace, you are defending what to me is indefensible. A 10 year truce was rejected, and that does not deserve defending.
Polls taken in Israel shows that a majority of Israelis see that immediately rejecting Hamas is NOT the way forward.
quote:
Poll: 67% of Israelis want talks with PA gov't including Hamas
By Avi Issacharoff and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents
A majority of Israelis would support holding negotiations with a Palestinian unity government that includes the Islamic Hamas movement, according to the results of a joint Palestinian-Israeli poll released on Tuesday.
Sixty-seven percent of Israeli respondents said such a step could be a necessary requisite for achieving a peace agreement with Palestinians.
09-23-2006 03:19 PM
