Common Ground Common Sense > Hamas 'willing' to recognise Israel

grammydidi

Apr 13 2006, 05:28 AM

The ball is back in Israel's court, it appears. It'll be interesting to see what the world's reaction to this is.

QUOTE

Hamas 'willing' to recognise Israel
By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank

Wednesday 12 April 2006, 17:43 Makka Time, 14:43 GMT

An official announcement by Hamas is expected within days

The Hamas-led Palestinian government is willing to recognise Israel if the latter withdraws fully from West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip, Al Jazeera. net has reliably learnt.

Sources close to Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister, described the Hamas decision as a "significant change in policy".

"What it means is that the Palestinian government is willing to recognise Israel if Israel met certain conditions, including a complete withdrawal from the territories Israel occupied in 1967," a source told Al Jazeera.net on Wednesday.

Speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media, the source added that he expected the "new posture" to be announced officially by Haniya in the coming few days.

The Hamas-led government is coming under intense international pressure to recognise Israel, abandon armed resistance and accept outstanding agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

If true, the new development will constitute a significant departure from Hamas' dogged refusal to accept Israel's right to exist.

Hamas' officials and spokespersons in the West Bank have refused to comment on the movement's willingness to recognise Israel in return for a viable Palestinian state on 100% of the occupied territories.

jeffmoskin

Apr 13 2006, 07:33 AM

Israel has stated many, many times that she will never withdraw to the pre-67 boundaries. There was a war. Jordan, Syria, and Eqypt LOST. Those lines are erased.

However, Israel intends to give up MOST of the West Bank, keeping a little for a buffer zone to prevent a future war.

For Hamas to make that condition is to not be serious about wanting peace.

Arneoker

Apr 13 2006, 07:48 AM

I have to agree with Jeff, it's kind of cheeky to demand that the other side agree to what you want in the final settlement before you are willing to even talk to them. I think it too early to say that the ball is in Israel's court.

But at least they are offering the possibility of recognition of Israel. The "Zionist entity" isn't such an abomination that you cannot talk to them?

For now I think that the best that can be hoped for is that the Israelis and Hamas government will talk about secondary issues, not issues concerning the final settlement. This should not be poo pooed, those secondary issues are pretty important to a lot of people on both sides, and such talks may help facilitate a future final settlement.

Optimistically the new Olmert government could make further moves in accepting reality that Sharon started, and get to the point where they could offer something that the Palestinians could take seriously. And then whoever was governing the Palestinians might be willing to talk to the Israelis and make a deal that would, in the words of Heart, "stick." But at best I think that we will need to wait a few years before such talks start.

jeffmoskin

Apr 13 2006, 09:00 AM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Apr 13 2006, 05:48 AM)

For now I think that the best that can be hoped for is that the Israelis and Hamas government will talk about secondary issues, not issues concerning the final settlement. This should not be poo pooed, those secondary issues are pretty important to a lot of people on both sides, and such talks may help facilitate a future final settlement.

Disagree. That is why Oslo failed. The BIG ISSUE is...

J E R U S A L E M

All peace negotiations are MEANINGLESS unless an understanding can be reached about JERUSALEM.

Israel has said that "Jerusalem is and will be the eternal capital of Israel."

Period.

Peace is not possible unless that fact is accepted. Israel will NOT give up Jerusalem for ANY piece of paper.

The sooner the Pals realize this (and their leaders must PREPARE them to realize it, unlike Arafat) the sooner peace can come to that region.

All the rest is negotiable.

After Jerusalem.

Arneoker

Apr 13 2006, 09:48 AM

QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Apr 13 2006, 11:00 AM)

Disagree. That is why Oslo failed. The BIG ISSUE is...

J E R U S A L E M

All peace negotiations are MEANINGLESS unless an understanding can be reached about JERUSALEM.

Israel has said that "Jerusalem is and will be the eternal capital of Israel."

Period.

Peace is not possible unless that fact is accepted. Israel will NOT give up Jerusalem for ANY piece of paper.

The sooner the Pals realize this (and their leaders must PREPARE them to realize it, unlike Arafat) the sooner peace can come to that region.

All the rest is negotiable.

After Jerusalem.

But there are interim issues, such as border control and the rules and procedures for Palestinians entering Israel, the Palestinian responsibility to control terrorism, how the Israelis respond to terrorist attacks, where the wall should be built, economic ties, the settlements, etc. I don't think it wise to neglect these if they cannot talk about super-difficult, final settlement issues like Jerusalem. Now Sharon started to institute a policy of dealing with some of these issues absent negotiation, and Olmert seems likely to continue that. Although I was not unqualified fan of Sharon, I think that moving unilaterally while negotiations aren't possible makes a lot of sense. But if they could negotiate, if only over secondary issues for now, that would be better. The Palestinians might become more and more resigned to the existence of Israel, and the Israelis might become more and more resigned to an independent Palestinian state.

jeffmoskin

Apr 13 2006, 10:23 AM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Apr 13 2006, 07:48 AM)

But there are interim issues, such as border control and the rules and procedures for Palestinians entering Israel, the Palestinian responsibility to control terrorism, how the Israelis respond to terrorist attacks, where the wall should be built, economic ties, the settlements, etc. I don't think it wise to neglect these if they cannot talk about super-difficult, final settlement issues like Jerusalem. Now Sharon started to institute a policy of dealing with some of these issues absent negotiation, and Olmert seems likely to continue that. Although I was not unqualified fan of Sharon, I think that moving unilaterally while negotiations aren't possible makes a lot of sense. But if they could negotiate, if only over secondary issues for now, that would be better. The Palestinians might become more and more resigned to the existence of Israel, and the Israelis might become more and more resigned to an independent Palestinian state.

Pals will only become so "resigned" after their leadership (of whom they have none) prepares them. At least Arafat is dead

Arneoker

Apr 13 2006, 11:07 AM

QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Apr 13 2006, 12:23 PM)

Pals will only become so "resigned" after their leadership (of whom they have none) prepares them. At least Arafat is dead

I wouldn't dispute that, people are often quite willing to believe in illusions for a very long time. But if Hamas (or whoever might succeed them) decides that they can deliver more to their constituency by accepting reality than not then they might just decide to "prepare" their people. I don't expect anything soon on that. In fact, it may be a while before they even are willing to do much in the way in cooperating with the hated "Zionist entity" over the secondary issues that I am talking about. They need to start getting over their fantasy that Israel will make major concessions to them on final settelment issues before they even talk to Israel.

jeffmoskin

Apr 13 2006, 05:49 PM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Apr 13 2006, 09:07 AM)

I wouldn't dispute that, people are often quite willing to believe in illusions for a very long time. But if Hamas (or whoever might succeed them) decides that they can deliver more to their constituency by accepting reality than not then they might just decide to "prepare" their people. I don't expect anything soon on that. In fact, it may be a while before they even are willing to do much in the way in cooperating with the hated "Zionist entity" over the secondary issues that I am talking about. They need to start getting over their fantasy that Israel will make major concessions to them on final settelment issues before they even talk to Israel.

Back in 68 or 69, there was a meeting between King Hussein of Jordan and Israel's Defense Ministers. Israel wanted to get out of the West Bank way back then. After all, Ben Gurion had REJECTED his generals' opinion that Israel take the West Bank during the 48 war of independence, because he preferred a Jewish State even if it were in LESS than all of MandatoryPalestine.

Hussein agreed to make peace only if Israel would withdraw to the green line! His point of view was that by winning the 6 day war, Israel had won the right to exist - - but no more!!!

Israel reminded Hussein that they might like a little land as a buffer - - - not the cities, mind you, just some of the unoccupied, rural land. After all, there WAS this war, and Jordan LOST.

Hussein could not come to grips with this, and the moment was lost.

Apparantly forever. And Hussein was a reasonable man and a friend to Israel. But he had his Arab demons at his back to deal with, too.

So I don't hold much hope out for Hamas.

grammydidi

Apr 14 2006, 08:23 AM

What I meant by stating that the ball is in Israel's court is that an slight opening has been made. After all, anything is better than perpetual killing, isn't it?

Besides, I fully believe Israel has been trying to eliminate the Palestinian state for 40 years. The concessions given by the Palestinians or grabbed by the Israelis should have placated Israel years ago, but no! they want it all.

Israel has the biggest military capability in the region, complete with nukes. They can kill with impunity, arbitrarily move borders, settle their people (complete with personal bodyguards) anywhere they please, thanks to the billions and billions in aid of all kinds from the US over the years, and because no sanctions will ever be placed on them by the UN.

They are so paranoid and insecure as a nation they have to continue this strife? What are they so afraid of? God's retribution?

NoelTheCat

Apr 14 2006, 08:44 AM

QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Apr 13 2006, 08:33 AM)

Israel has stated many, many times that she will never withdraw to the pre-67 boundaries. There was a war. Jordan, Syria, and Eqypt LOST. Those lines are erased.

I salute you for your honesty. In your value system, Israeli war, occupation and aggression will be what determines the future (if any) of Palestine. So much for UN Resolution 446 (1979), part of which I quote below:

"(The Council) Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East; Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind it’s previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

Of course Israel and it's mad dog cousin, the Bush administration, will dismiss the UN as a bunch of lefty, Eurotrash, anti-Semites.

Human Rights Watch reports that illegal settlement activity in the territories was up 28% from 2004 to 2005. If Israel had any sincere desire for a just peace, it would not allow that. But it does. Israel's endless, theocratic war is not about security; it's about the expansion of Eretz Israel.

And American citizens are forced to pay for it with their tax dollars.

Arneoker

Apr 14 2006, 08:47 AM

QUOTE(grammydidi @ Apr 14 2006, 10:23 AM)

What I meant by stating that the ball is in Israel's court is that an slight opening has been made. After all, anything is better than perpetual killing, isn't it?

Besides, I fully believe Israel has been trying to eliminate the Palestinian state for 40 years. The concessions given by the Palestinians or grabbed by the Israelis should have placated Israel years ago, but no! they want it all.

Israel has the biggest military capability in the region, complete with nukes. They can kill with impunity, arbitrarily move borders, settle their people (complete with personal bodyguards) anywhere they please, thanks to the billions and billions in aid of all kinds from the US over the years, and because no sanctions will ever be placed on them by the UN.

They are so paranoid and insecure as a nation they have to continue this strife? What are they so afraid of? God's retribution?

Perhaps they are worried because:

1. They have been surrounded by many years by countries that for so long had all declared that their state had no right to exist (this has changed somewhat, but I just cannot recall a time when either Canada or Mexico announced that the U.S. had no right to exist, at least since the Treaty of Paris was concluded in 1783).

2. The configuration of the pre-1967 borders meant that Israel had some severe geographic vulnerabilities. At one point it is only five miles between the Mediterranean and the pre-1967 line.

3. The continued terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, in recent years mostly from the territory that would constitute any Palestinian state, and which the PA has not controlled and/or could not control very well.

Now I am not an apologist for everything that Israel has done or is doing. I disagree with their settlement policy, and believe that they must do a much better job of taking into account the rights of the Palestinian people. The Palestinians are not chopped liver either.

But Israel does have a lot of legitimate and difficult security issues, and I cannot criticize any Israeli government for taking them seriously, and making some tough decisions.

jeffmoskin

Apr 14 2006, 10:29 AM

QUOTE(grammydidi @ Apr 14 2006, 06:23 AM)

What I meant by stating that the ball is in Israel's court is that an slight opening has been made. After all, anything is better than perpetual killing, isn't it?

Besides, I fully believe Israel has been trying to eliminate the Palestinian state for 40 years. The concessions given by the Palestinians or grabbed by the Israelis should have placated Israel years ago, but no! they want it all.

Israel has the biggest military capability in the region, complete with nukes. They can kill with impunity, arbitrarily move borders, settle their people (complete with personal bodyguards) anywhere they please, thanks to the billions and billions in aid of all kinds from the US over the years, and because no sanctions will ever be placed on them by the UN.

They are so paranoid and insecure as a nation they have to continue this strife? What are they so afraid of? God's retribution?

I say again,

Back in 68 or 69, there was a meeting between King Hussein of Jordan and Israel's Defense Ministers. Israel wanted to get out of the West Bank way back then. After all, Ben Gurion had REJECTED his generals' opinion that Israel take the West Bank during the 48 war of independence, because he preferred a Jewish State even if it were in LESS than all of MandatoryPalestine.
If Israel wanted to eliminate the Palestinian state, it would have. It could have simply incorporated the WB and Gaza. Unfortunately, it would no longer be a democratic, JEWISH State. It could be a Jewish State (by disenfrachising the Pals) or a democratic state (with Jews outnumbered by non-Jews).

Ben Gurion knew this in 48.

Sharon, the originator of the settlement movement, finally came to realize it as well. Half a loaf is better than a whole loaf of the wrong bread.

But the "green line" which, by the way, was also never sanctioned by the UN,

http://domino.un.org/maps/m0082.gif

is merely a "cease-fire" line, and makes a poor border from a military defense point of view.

Too bad the Pals can't see their way to re-negotiate it. They have missed so many opportunities to raise themselves from the squalor they live in. Look how much money they've been given (check Arafat's Swiss Bank Account). Look at how they live, then look at how the Israelis live.

Quite a contrast.

Quite tragic.

NoelTheCat

Apr 14 2006, 03:23 PM

QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Apr 13 2006, 08:33 AM)

Israel has stated many, many times that she will never withdraw to the pre-67 boundaries. There was a war. Jordan, Syria, and Eqypt LOST. Those lines are erased.

I salute you for your honesty. In your value system, Israeli war, occupation and aggression (w/ limitless firepower, courtesy of Uncle Sam) will be what determines the future (if any) of Palestine. So much for UN Resolution 446 (1979), part of which I quote below:

"(The Council) Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East; Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind it’s previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

Of course Israel and it's mad dog cousin, the Bush administration, will dismiss the UN as a bunch of lefty, Eurotrash, anti-Semites.

Human Rights Watch reports that illegal settlement activity in the territories was up 28% from 2004 to 2005. If Israel had any sincere desire for a just peace, it would not allow that to happen. But it does happen. Israel's endless, theocratic war is not about security; it's about the expansion of Eretz Israel.

And American citizens are forced to pay for it with their tax dollars.

jeffmoskin

Apr 15 2006, 04:33 PM

The UN resolution notwithstanding, the pre 67 borders have no international significance - - they are totally unlike the border designed by the un in 1947:

http://domino.un.org/maps/m0082.gif

The "green line" is the armistice line of 1948. Not a treaty even. Just where they layed down their guns.

The generals wanted to take the west bank, but Ben Gurion said NO, not wanting to be an occupier. Regrettably, when the shooting stopped in 67, Israel had the west bank.

And the sinai.

You might want to read Gershom Gorenberg's "The Accidental Empire"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080507564...glance&n=283155

Even with the best of intentions NOT to be an occupier, that is what happened to Israel.

To Israel's credit, and to Sharon's, they are out of Gaza, and will be out of most of the west bank within 4 years. They will have a defensible border, a vibrant economy, and a bright future.

Israel stands as either an inspiration to their Arab neighbors, something to be emulated, or as the "zionist entity", something to be destroyed.

It is all in the eye of the beholder.

amy

Apr 15 2006, 05:28 PM

QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Apr 15 2006, 06:33 PM)

Israel stands as either an inspiration to their Arab neighbors, something to be emulated, or as the "zionist entity", something to be destroyed.

It is all in the eye of the beholder.

That really is the bottom line, isn't it? Well said, Jeff...