Hamas accepts Israel's right to exist in peace

[BC_chick]

Developments since Carter's meeting with Hamas:

JERUSALEM — Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said Monday that Hamas – the Islamic militant group that has called for the destruction of Israel – is prepared to accept the right of the Jewish state to “live as a neighbour next door in peace.”

But Mr. Carter warned that there would not be peace if Israel and the United States continue to shut out Hamas and its main backer, Syria.

The former Democratic president spoke in Jerusalem after meeting last week with a top Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal, and his deputy in Syria. It capped a nine-day visit to the region aimed at breaking the deadlock between Israel and Hamas militants who rule the Gaza Strip.

“They [Hamas] said that they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, if approved by Palestinians and that they would accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbour next door in peace,” Mr. Carter said.

In Damascus, Mr. Mashaal said Hamas was offering Israel a 10-year truce if it withdraws from all lands it seized in the 1967 Six-Day war.

He confirmed that Hamas would be satisfied with a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders – implicitly accepting that Israel would exist alongside that state. But Mr. Mashaal stressed the group would never formally recognize the Jewish state.

“We agree to a [Palestinian] state on pre-67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty without settlements but without recognizing Israel,” Mr. Mashaal told reporters.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

I had to ponder the semantics of "accepting a right to exist" and "official recognition" as they appeared synonymous to me at first. But accepting Israel without recognising it is what "friendly" Arab countries have been doing I suppose.

It's a refreshing attempt at diplomacy from Hamas - a way to meet Israel's preconditions for talks without losing the support of the Palestinian people. Pleasing both sides is always good politics IMO.

It'll be interesting to see if Hamas will openly make the declaration themselves as well. It'll be even more interesting to see what Israel's reaction would be if they did.... Too many ifs in there to be optimistic though.

I would think getting Hamas to accept Israel (after 60 years of futile efforts otherwise) will seem like a walk in the park compared to getting Israel to accept pre-1967 borders.

And then there are the settlers even if Israel's government does accept. Many of them are pretty much the equivalent of Hamas in their religious extremism.

Good of Carter either way. At least someone is trying to bring peace to the M.E.

[scribblet]

It seems like a step in the right direction, but I would be concerned with this statement, from your link:

Mr. Carter said Hamas promised it wouldn't undermine Mr. Abbas's efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Mr. Carter said Hamas officials, including Mr. Mashaal, agreed to this in a written statement.

But Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri in Gaza said Hamas's readiness to put a peace deal to a referendum “does not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum.”

[kuzadd]

Developments since Carter's meeting with Hamas:

I had to ponder the semantics of "accepting a right to exist" and "official recognition" as they appeared synonymous to me at first. But accepting Israel without recognising it is what "friendly" Arab countries have been doing I suppose.

It's a refreshing attempt at diplomacy from Hamas - a way to meet Israel's preconditions for talks without losing the support of the Palestinian people. Pleasing both sides is always good politics IMO.

It'll be interesting to see if Hamas will openly make the declaration themselves as well. It'll be even more interesting to see what Israel's reaction would be if they did.... Too many ifs in there to be optimistic though.

I would think getting Hamas to accept Israel (after 60 years of futile efforts otherwise) will seem like a walk in the park compared to getting Israel to accept pre-1967 borders.

And then there are the settlers even if Israel's government does accept. Many of them are pretty much the equivalent of Hamas in their religious extremism.

Good of Carter either way. At least someone is trying to bring peace to the M.E.

I thought it was quite a coup for Carter, and he seems to be trying to accomplish some sort of peace.

I agree it is defintely a story worth following.

Interestingly did you note that hysterical woman in the US governmet who wants Carter's passport revoked because he is apparently undermining the Bush regime.

Someone doesn't want peace, who lobbied this dingbat?

[Qwerty]

Right after they said this he says...

"But Mashaal says the group would never formally recognize Israel."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/04/21/5347801-ap.html

[kuzadd]

Right after they said this he says...

"But Mashaal says the group would never formally recognize Israel."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/04/21/5347801-ap.html

that's in the original post, if you would have read it?

one step at a time eh?

[BC_chick]

that's in the original post, if you would have read it?

Not just in the original post, but in the original post's first sentence as well as in the title of the thread. Reminds me of the expression "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up already... "

[BC_chick]

It seems like a step in the right direction, but I would be concerned with this statement, from your link:

Mr. Carter said Hamas promised it wouldn't undermine Mr. Abbas's efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Mr. Carter said Hamas officials, including Mr. Mashaal, agreed to this in a written statement.

But Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri in Gaza said Hamas's readiness to put a peace deal to a referendum “does not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum.”

Oh if the Palestinians reject Israel's right to exist in a referendum, then yes, I would agree with you that they are sealing their own fate in the matter. But according to Palestinian polls, most do want a two-state solution.

Now, honestly... what do think the chances are Israel will give back the W.B. if Hamas and Palestinians accept their precondition of recognising their right to exist in peace?

Edited April 22, 2008 by BC_chick

[scribblet]

I'm thinking probably not a lot, but from their perspective they need a buffer zone, at least until Hamas has proven that they can keep the peace. They (Hamas) said they would accept the right of Israel to live in peace but will not formally recognize Israel, maybe if they changed their charter and did that, agreement to borders and peace would be a lot closer.

[Oleg Bach]

Oh if the Palestinians reject Israel's right to exist in a referendum, then yes, I would agree with you that they are sealing their own fate in the matter. But according to Palestinian polls, most do want a two-state solution.

Now, honestly... what do think the chances are Israel will give back the W.B. if Hamas and Palestinians accept their precondition of recognising their right to exist in peace?

It's not so much the existance of Israel that is at issue but the existance of America in mini form in the middle east. Every one forgets this fact that this little nation is simply an out post of the American Imperial Kingdom. As far as the emotional creation of the illusion that we are all protecting the poor Jews who were desimated, humilitated and murdered all because of their faith? Show me one single Jew in Israel that still maintains the contract or covenant with God and goodness. It's light years in the past...most Jews are secularist and if they had to choose between doing what is right and just as compared to maintaining their position as Mafia underlings for the Anglos - MOST would sell out goodness and God in a heart beat. That is the real problem with Israel in my view, that they no longer practice the faith but want the benefits...and as some know, Israel is a money laundering centre for the military industrial complex.

For every million dollars in so-called aid that they receive....about 8o% is sent back to the giver by passing the American tax payer and going directly into private hands. What am I talking about you ask? Well from what I have gathered part of the deal with aid to Israel is there is a stipulation - that most of the money be spend on military hardware and connecting support supplies....so in essence...America as a whole sends money to Israel and most of the money comes back and is handed over to the supper rich and not the people that actually send it. It a very clever arrangement. If you took Israel out of this ponsey game...You could just take American tax dollars and simply load up a truck and drive it across the city of Washington and deliver it too the hoods! Why bother sending aid to Israel..It's much like a person dealing drugs...why bother giving money to the dealer...just send it directly to the bank...that's where it all ultimately ends up anyway...as far as a two state solution...well...that my bring about peace and there is no profit in peace. So you will see on going strife in the area because it's good for buisness. To bad the Jews and Palistinians have to suffer to keep some rich cats in New York and London and Toronto rich.

[sharkman]

that's in the original post, if you would have read it?

one step at a time eh?

Yes, and you seem to be unconcerned about the elephant in the room. If they declare they will never recognize Israel's right to exist, then this whole thing is a waste of time and Jimmy Carter is being duped. AGAIN.

He doesn't seem to realize that some people can't be negotiated with even though they'll sign whatever you bring them. North Korea mad a laughing stock of Carter when they signed his treaty promising to not develop Nuclear Weapons if the U.S. gave them millions, and then used the cash to develop nuclear weapons. Carter's lack of judgement makes anything he does not trustworthy, never mind his anti-semitic views.

[Oleg Bach]

Yes, and you seem to be unconcerned about the elephant in the room. If they declare they will never recognize Israel's right to exist, then this whole thing is a waste of time and Jimmy Carter is being duped. AGAIN.

He doesn't seem to realize that some people can't be negotiated with even though they'll sign whatever you bring them. North Korea mad a laughing stock of Carter when they signed his treaty promising to not develop Nuclear Weapons if the U.S. gave them millions, and then used the cash to develop nuclear weapons. Carter's lack of judgement makes anything he does not trustworthy, never mind his anti-semitic views.

In order to negotiate in good faith you have to have at least two good people that and not evil to the core negotiating. It will be difficult in the former Judiac Christain land of love to find negotiators that are not bitter and full of institutionalized hate...I say it's hopeless and neither side can come to their senses..the wounds are to deep and the lies are to bountiful. Good luck! As for that faded former worm of a politican - the peanut guy..let him go build some cheap housing in Palistine - seeing the Israels' are putting up new settlements..maybe Carter can get the ball rolling in Palistine...for instance - start building a few houses on the Israeli side...just like they do! Before you know it it would be one festive multicultural event! Which brings me to mind...How come the Jews in Toronto push their liberal multi-culturalism in Canada and not Israel...I would say that Palistine and Israel are in dire need of this type of social engineering.

[BC_chick]

I'm thinking probably not a lot, but from their perspective they need a buffer zone, at least until Hamas has proven that they can keep the peace. They (Hamas) said they would accept the right of Israel to live in peace but will not formally recognize Israel, maybe if they changed their charter and did that, agreement to borders and peace would be a lot closer.

You know, if Israel didn't continue to expand settlements in the W.B. in spite of worldwide criticism otherwise, I would likely agree with you that their motives in the area are for security.

Who knows... maybe it's just coincidence that Jewish theology claims the land belongs to the Jews while Israel keeps "securing" herself by expanding settlements in that territory.

Some people really do believe anything....

[Wild Bill]

You know, if Israel didn't continue to expand settlements in the W.B. in spite of worldwide criticism otherwise, I would likely agree with you that their motives in the area are for security.

Who knows... maybe it's just coincidence that Jewish theology claims the land belongs to the Jews while Israel keeps "securing" herself by expanding settlements in that territory.

Some people really do believe anything....

Well, if Hamas gets the west bank back they will have even better sites to launch missiles into Israel...

[JB Globe]

Well, if Hamas gets the west bank back they will have even better sites to launch missiles into Israel...

If PALESTINIANS get back the West Bank they'll get what they want, and they'll have little appetite for continuing bloodshed, especially since it would risk destroying what they've waited for so long to happen - Israel would probably re-occupy the West Bank if the violence didn't stop.

[HisSelf]

Nice to see that things are moving in a positive direction because somebody is willing to have open discussions as opoosed to the dumb-ass stance the US State department has taken for far too many years. Let's not forget that this is also how the Oslo Accords came into existence - by doing an end run around the US State Department, the Palestinian Authority, and the Knesset.

Edited April 25, 2008 by HisSelf

[White Doors]

If PALESTINIANS get back the West Bank they'll get what they want, and they'll have little appetite for continuing bloodshed, especially since it would risk destroying what they've waited for so long to happen - Israel would probably re-occupy the West Bank if the violence didn't stop.

If that is true, then perhaps you can explain the actions of hamas in gaza since Israel left?

thanks!

[Wild Bill]

If PALESTINIANS get back the West Bank they'll get what they want, and they'll have little appetite for continuing bloodshed, especially since it would risk destroying what they've waited for so long to happen - Israel would probably re-occupy the West Bank if the violence didn't stop.

I think you're ascribing rational thought to irrational people. The Palestinian appetite for bloodshed knows no bounds. Israel HAS had to re-occupy land PRECISELY because Palestinians began again to fire rockets!

The Palestinian self-proclaimed goal is to drive Israel into the sea. They do not deny this. They trumpet it! We're talking fanaticism here. Until that changes, how many times should Israel return land only to endure more rockets?

[HisSelf]

I think you're ascribing rational thought to irrational people.

Nobody in the region (Gaza/Israel/West Bank) is behaving rationally. That stopped a long time ago.

[JB Globe]

If that is true, then perhaps you can explain the actions of hamas in gaza since Israel left?

thanks!

Israel never really "left" Gaza. There may be no troops inside the territory, but considering Israel has, for example blockaded any shipping to or from the territory, I'd say that Israel is still present in Gaza. It's still preventing it from operating as an independent entity.

There's a reason why Gaza is still defined under international law as being an "occupied territory"

[JB Globe]

I think you're ascribing rational thought to irrational people. The Palestinian appetite for bloodshed knows no bounds . . . The Palestinian self-proclaimed goal is to drive Israel into the sea.

I'm afraid that's a stereotype borne out of ignorance of the facts. Polls such as this Angus-Reid poll have consistently shown that the prefered solution to the conflict among Palestinians has always been a two-state solution . . .

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/15253

The second most popular solution in Palestine is a single bi-national state for both Jews and Muslims. Between the two that's 70% of the population who prefer a solution that would involve peace with Israel or peace with Jews within a bi-national country.

Sounds to me that no matter what rhetoric a Hamas organizer spews at a rally to fire up their radical cronies, the majority of Palestinians don't agree with it.

But hey, if you have some studies that prove that all or even most Palestinians "want to drive Israel into the sea" (aka - killing all Jewish-Israelis or running them out of the region) as you put it, than by all means . . . Prove me wrong.

[White Doors]

Israel never really "left" Gaza. There may be no troops inside the territory, but considering Israel has, for example blockaded any shipping to or from the territory, I'd say that Israel is still present in Gaza. It's still preventing it from operating as an independent entity.

There's a reason why Gaza is still defined under international law as being an "occupied territory"

So there are still Jews in Gaza? They didn't dismantle the settlements there?

You think Israel searching gaza bound ships for weapons is ample pretext for hamas to launch missles at israel hoping to hit a school?

Interesting!

[JB Globe]

You think Israel searching gaza bound ships for weapons is ample pretext for hamas to launch missles at israel hoping to hit a school?

We're not talking about inspecting ships here - Israel has shut down shipping to and from Gaza.

That's why it's still considered an occupied territory - because it doesn't have sovereignty over it's territory, such as it's port.

As far as asking me if this justifies Hamas firing rockets at a school in retaliation . . . Do I really need to waste keystrokes typing the very, very obvious answer? What do you think?

But please, back to the original point I was making to your post - explain to me why you consider Gaza to not be occupied anymore.

[Wild Bill]

I'm afraid that's a stereotype borne out of ignorance of the facts. Polls such as this Angus-Reid poll have consistently shown that the prefered solution to the conflict among Palestinians has always been a two-state solution . . .

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/15253

The second most popular solution in Palestine is a single bi-national state for both Jews and Muslims. Between the two that's 70% of the population who prefer a solution that would involve peace with Israel or peace with Jews within a bi-national country.

Sounds to me that no matter what rhetoric a Hamas organizer spews at a rally to fire up their radical cronies, the majority of Palestinians don't agree with it.

But hey, if you have some studies that prove that all or even most Palestinians "want to drive Israel into the sea" (aka - killing all Jewish-Israelis or running them out of the region) as you put it, than by all means . . . Prove me wrong.

You're asking me to argue with a secondary point. Who cares about the views of the majority of the Palestinians? They're not the problem!

The issue is with the ones with guns who fire rockets. After a rocket lands on your home having someone hand you a poll result showing that the majority of the folks on the rocket launcher's side of the hill don't want to kill you and your family is cold comfort.

Your arguments seem rather academic and not real-world, at least to me.

[DogOnPorch]

This poll shows 40% in favor of suicide bombers. That's still extremely high for such a radical 'solution'.

http://www.pcpo.ps/polls.htm

--------------------------------------------------

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

---Benjamin Disraeli

[buffycat]

Kinda odd that even when Hamas does offer a ceasefire (something that apparantly Israel always cries for) they are outright rejected. Funny, how even when concessions are made - ie no inclusion of the WB, no more shelling etc) Israel says again and again no.

Gosh - with actions like that perhaps one might conclude that those governing the Jewish State of Israel really have no interest in any kind of peace.

I'd wager they are more interested in 'Piece", as in a piece of Palestinian land here, and a piece of land there, till there is nothing left even if Palestine ever could attain some kind of statehood. Which of course, is rather difficult when you are occupied.

Odd... to say the least - that everytime a solution is offered, Israel herself finds fault with it, while at the same time threatening all her neighbours - and others (ie the Sampson Option).

Yep... those darn Israeli bureaucrats sure do want piece eh??