Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hamas 'ready to talk to Israel'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hamas 'ready to talk to Israel'

    From the BBC:

    Hamas 'ready to talk to Israel'

    Hamas leader interview
    The political leader of Palestinian militant group Hamas has said the group is willing to take a serious step towards peace if Israel does the same.

    Khaled Meshaal told the BBC that Hamas would not renounce violence, saying resisting an occupation was legal.

    But he said a long-term truce would be possible if Israel accepted conditions including a return to its 1967 borders.

    Israel's acting PM said if he won next month's poll, Israel would retain West Bank settlement blocs and Jerusalem.

    However, Ehud Olmert said Israel would be prepared to give up parts of the West Bank where most Palestinians were living.

    His interview on Israel television was his first since taking power a month ago following Ariel Sharon's massive stroke.

    'Recognise rights'

    Mr Meshaal said he wanted to send a message to the next Israeli government that Hamas would be ready to talk if Israel met certain strict conditions.

    Now it's time for Israel to do what they said they would never do and enter dialogue with Hamas
    Darryl LeCount, Paderborn, Germany
    The most important of these was that Israel must withdraw to the boundaries it had until the 1967 Middle East war, Mr Meshaal told the BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen.

    Hamas would then "possibly give a long-term truce with Israel", he said.

    "This is a position that Hamas could take, but not now, only after Israel recognises the rights of the Palestinians, to show and confirm its willingness to withdraw to the 1967 borders," he said.

    Mr Meshaal said such a move by Israel could create conditions for the international community to find a solution for all of the region's problems.

    Our correspondent says that by putting the onus on the international community, the Hamas leader seems to be displaying a willingness to accept international mediation.

    But Mr Meshaal, who lives in exile in the Syrian capital, Damascus, also warned that the militant group was capable of leading the Palestinians in a long fight that they would be better able to bear than Israel.

    He and other Hamas leaders are in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, to discuss the next step after their 25 January election win over rivals Fatah.

    Jerusalem issue

    Hamas has largely observed a truce in its fight with Israel for the past year.


    However, Israel believes offers like the latest by Mr Meshaal are a ruse to allow Hamas to gather its strength, since its charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, our correspondent says.

    Speaking on Channel 2 TV, Mr Olmert said Israel would retain "united Jerusalem", which would include occupied East Jerusalem, if his Kadima party won Israel's general election on 28 March.

    But he said Israel would disengage from parts of the West Bank where the population is mostly Palestinian, at the same time as retaining its three main settlement blocs.

    Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain.

    Under international law the area is considered to be occupied territory.

    East Jerusalem is often called Arab East Jerusalem because the majority of its residents are Palestinian, and Palestinians hope to establish their future capital there.


    Interesting. This might well show Hamas' willingness to be pragmatic. Considering that they're an organised force, and considering that they're very popular, it might well lead to serious progress toward peace, especially if Olmert wins in Israel.

    The thing I wonder most, however, is how Fatah will react. The cartoon affair seems to indicate that they're trying to play the maximalist card, more than Hamas. I hope they won't try to undermine Hamas by attacking Israel during truces.
    "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
    "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
    "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

  • #2
    I guess that they couldn't make up the money that they lost from the West when they took over.
    I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
    For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

    Comment


    • #3
      Maybe. I'm not sure. There seems to have been an old power struggle within Hamas between the hardliners and the moderates.
      "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
      "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
      "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

      Comment


      • #4
        "Khaled Meshaal told the BBC that Hamas would not renounce violence, saying resisting an occupation was legal.

        But he said a long-term truce would be possible if Israel accepted conditions including a return to its 1967 borders"


        But wait, if Israel returns to the 1967 lines, then there IS no occupation - so why just a truce, why not renounce violence then, since the occupation would beover and violence as resistance to occupation would no longer be relevant?

        Presumably cause Hamas considers Israels very existence to be occupation, violent resistance against which is legal. And which would be held back only by a truce, which could be broken.

        I dont think any meaningful peace negotiations can be held on this basis. Israel should hold out for recognition
        and an immediate renunciation of violence as the requirements for negotiation. To negotiate without that would be foolish, I think.

        Mashals statement means little or nothing. If theres ANY hope of negotiations with Hamas its that either A. This is bluff, and Mashal will climb down or B. Someone else in Hamas will displace Mashal. Im not hopeful on either count.
        "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.†Martin Buber

        Comment


        • #5
          But wait, if Israel returns to the 1967 lines, then there IS no occupation - so why just a truce, why not renounce violence then, since the occupation would beover and violence as resistance to occupation would no longer be relevant?


          Right of return, water rights, and all other sorts of fun issues.
          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.â€
          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

          Comment


          • #6
            Hamas hasn't even recognised Israel as a country. Peace with it seems even more impossible than peace with Fatah. Their conditions for negotiation--the "right of return" and a pullback to 67' territories--well, basically you won't have Israel but rather a second Palestine. "Sure," Hamas says, "We'll have peace when the majority of people who live in Israel are Arab, and the very notion of a Jewish state disappears forever." What Hamas is trying to do is convince people they're moderate, but there's nothing moderate about a group like Hamas.
            "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James Napier

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
              But wait, if Israel returns to the 1967 lines, then there IS no occupation - so why just a truce, why not renounce violence then, since the occupation would beover and violence as resistance to occupation would no longer be relevant?


              Right of return, water rights, and all other sorts of fun issues.
              One assumes that a final deal on withdrawl would include all those issues as well. Thats always been the assumption of the Oslo process. Mashal could as easily have said "when Israel returns to the 1967 lines, and all other outstanding issues are resolved, as part of a final deal, we will renounce violence against them"

              He didnt. I think its fairly clear he doesnt envision a final deal with Israel. Any deal with Israel is only a truce.

              Mashal would make an excellent EU2 player, however
              "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.†Martin Buber

              Comment


              • #8
                Well, considering that Hamas still calls for the destruction of Israel IIRC, Mashal can't just trample on this. According to the BBC, Hamas has pledged never to recognize Israel's legitimacy, so you can't have words like "peace" told simply by a Hamas leader.

                IMO, in order to say such a thing, Mashal has probed his side to see how far he could go. That he uses the basis of the 1967 borders for a "long term truce" seems to indicate that nobody really believes in Israel's destruction anymore.
                "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Spiffor
                  Well, considering that Hamas still calls for the destruction of Israel IIRC, Mashal can't just trample on this. According to the BBC, Hamas has pledged never to recognize Israel's legitimacy, so you can't have words like "peace" told simply by a Hamas leader.

                  IMO, in order to say such a thing, Mashal has probed his side to see how far he could go. That he uses the basis of the 1967 borders for a "long term truce" seems to indicate that nobody really believes in Israel's destruction anymore.
                  Hamas could change its charter, as the PLO did. Until they did so, the PLO leaders made excuses about how hard it was to change the charter. Mashal could do the same. He doesnt even admit that the Hamas charter is a problem.

                  A truce can be broken. It represents no real commitment. If they cant even commit to a renunciation of violence, at the end of the process, how can we expect (as we must) that they will refrain from violence during the negotiation process? And how can we expect them to crack down on rogue elements and groups like Islamic Jihad? Arafat, who nominally was commited to final peace, still engaged in war. How much weaker will the Israeli position be negotiating with folks who wont even commit to peace at the end of the process. Some say Hamas is better organized and can control rogues better. If so, let them show they can change their charter faster.


                  Spiff, Im disappointed, you seem to be forgetting things I thought youd learned. Most Israels DONT see their position in the territories as an apartheid empire. They ARE willing to get out in order to get peace. Land for peace, thats been the dovish mantra for 30 years. Well that means land for PEACE. Not an excuse for peace, not a truce that some dress up as evidence that the other side at least doesnt expect to destroy Israel any time soon. Peace. Real peace. A final end to the conflict. A dropping of ANY further claims. Any claims to even one more hectare of Israel soil, once the final boundary is agreed. If you think Israel will settle for anything less, or will negotiate towards anything less, id like to have some of what youre smoking.
                  "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.†Martin Buber

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Somehow I'm very .. prepared to hear this not working. They're just making a play here, because they can't outright call it like they want to call it.
                    In da butt.
                    "Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
                    THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
                    "God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm skeptical myself. Demand something they're not going to get in order to say they tried and hope to get some financial support since they appear reasonable.

                      Time will tell but I won't hold my breath.

                      Isreal should demand a statement of the right to exist before they concede anything more.
                      It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
                      RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This isn't anything new. From 2004:

                        A top official of the main Palestinian militant group, Hamas, has said it could declare a 10-year truce with Israel if the Jewish state withdrew from territory occupied since 1967.

                        Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi told Reuters late on Sunday Hamas had come to the conclusion that it was "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation."

                        "We accept a state in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. We propose a 10-year truce in return for (Israeli) withdrawal and the establishment of a state," he said in a telephone interview from hiding in the Gaza Strip.


                        "I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          that translates into 'we will not bring you war if you give us lands now, I mean we accept this, we can't make promises about the future, except that we will get it all'.

                          Sounds reasonable
                          In da butt.
                          "Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
                          THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
                          "God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
                            But wait, if Israel returns to the 1967 lines, then there IS no occupation - so why just a truce, why not renounce violence then, since the occupation would beover and violence as resistance to occupation would no longer be relevant?


                            Right of return, water rights, and all other sorts of fun issues.
                            There won't be a right of return. Partition, a la the Clinton model, is the only solution which would be acceptable to both parties. Even that won't happen as long as Hamas and the other terror groups continue to carry out attacks.

                            The deal would be land for peace not land for a cease fire.
                            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Right, to offer cease fire is the same as extortion now. That means we will shoot you if you don't accept our demands.

                              That's crap, and that's why it was bad that Hamas won. Why? Because it's difficult to deal with folks that have this past. Everything can be interpreted as 'terrorism works' if you give them something now. I mean without Hamas, a deal that would satisfy both parties would be great, but now does it mean giving victory to terrorist groups? Not just that, but will this fuel terrorism, as a working method? Difficult questions.
                              In da butt.
                              "Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
                              THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
                              "God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X