We can accept Israel as neighbour, says Hamas

Mozza

DoctorEvil

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976662.html

A 10 year truce for full withdrawl. No official recognition. This is not good enough, and wont help the peace process.

Plechazunga

Israelis won't bite with no recognition... they should though.

Hamas must be getting desperate

Frosty

Why do you say that?

Plechazunga

Which bit

Frosty

The bit about Israel.

Mozza

It's not good enough but that's the whole thing about negotiation, you start out asking for as much as you can then work downwards to make a deal, this could help the peace process but only if the West push Israel to drop it's preconditions on negotiation

Plechazunga

For the reason Mozza just said, Frosty

Team Brian GB

Perhaps if the United States stopped subsidising the Israeli military then Tel Aviv would get her act together.

DoctorEvil

Israel cant negotiate with Abbas and Hamas at the same time.

Anyway, I suspect that Hamas do not intend to negotiate these points. Its take it or forget it. So they will keep talking to Abbas.

Plechazunga

Nope, they'd just get their arms elsewhere and be a fair bit poorer. They invested heavily in their army before the yanks started subsidising them, if they hadn't they wouldn't be there.

Team Brian GB

The last figure I saw was that 25% of the Israeli defence budget came from Washington, that is too much to simply buy from a cheaper source- just the threat of it would make Israel more willing to do a deal, but alas Congress would never allow it.

For far too long we have been giving Israel the carrot but not the stick.

Whilst we gave Palestine the stick but not the carrot.

Frosty

Cheers Plech. I also agree that this shows Hamas' desperation. Their position seems to be softening (albeit slighty) as time goes on.

Mozza

Theres no reason why they can't negotiate with both, Abbas can't stop Israel doing anything it wants.

How do you know Hamas will not budge? The Americans and Europeans should be negotiating even if Israel won't to see what they can offer to get Hamas moving, the other way will only lead to years more misery.

Plechazunga

The carrot and stick analogy doesn't really work, since the military aid isn't intended to persuade Israel to talk peace, it's for defence.

Pulling it would certainly add pressure to come to a deal, on the other hand it would allow the right wing to easily create a state of panic, which is exactly what it would do, the upshot would be the political undermining of the peace lobby, not a good idea.

Team Brian GB

Very true, but it isn't just the military aid we give them, we give it immense diplomatic cover, we didn't bat an eyelid when they flattened Beirut two years ago, and everytime an UNSC resolution arises both London and Washington veto- they effectively are given carte blanche,

Whilst with regard to Palestine, we will support democracy but only when it suits us- so Palestine elects Hamas and the West refuses to recognise them.

Plechazunga

I wonder if it's connected to all the stuff in China and Zimbabwe, Darfur surfacing again because of the Chinese, plus Russian sabre-rattling... harder to get world attention when there are other human rights violations? Probably also Mubarak is pressuring them because of the food price situation there.

But it's probably mainly the financial situation in Gaza

FresnoBob

At the outbreak of the 1967 war, Jordan held the West Bank and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and both had done so for around 19 years. Should they be included in any discussions on what to do with the land?

DoctorEvil

There are many reasons. In such negotiations both sides have to give up on issues they see as important. Ad a third side and you will get two effects:

1. Competition between the two Palestinian sides who is the 'most loyal to their principles', that is who is tougher. As a result, both will not be flexible enough to reach an agreement.

2. Lets assume that Israel and Fatah have have managed to move forward on some issue. Israel have given Fatah something, and Fatah have given up on something in return. Then the most likely response of Hamas is to say, I do not agree with Fatah's concessions, but, at the same time, they may take Israel's concessions for granted.

All in all, it will not work. You can only negotiate with one party, which should represent his side. Any other arrangement wont work.

As for Hamas, when they are willing to talk directly with Israel and sign a binding paper I will reevaluate my opinion. (My understanding is that their current position is along the lines of 'if Israel do this we will do that' without signing anything official.)

Plechazunga

Didn't bat an eyelid? They batted an eyelid to the extent of forcing the Israelis to halt the invasion and withdraw. The press coverage was incessant and the condemnation came quickly from Europe and eventually from Britain, despite the fact that we too were in the middle of large-scale, far more destructive invasions, in the case of Iraq under far less provocation.

Not sure you're right about Britain using the veto on Israel's behalf, the US certainly does

The election thing was a double standard and probably strategically a bad decision, but on the other hand the Palestinians did democratically elect a terrorist group responsible for a large number of murders.

Plechazunga

King Hussein renounced the Jordanian claim to the West Bank in the eighties I think. As for Egypt, the last thing they want is Gaza, with its million and a half hungry people and a load of militants.

If you mean just acting as brokers, yes they would definitely be involved

Yeah but the Israelis love that shit, they've been trying to play off Palestinian factions against each other for decades.

Mozza

Then negotiate with Hamas, get an agreement with them and you'll get an agreement acceptable to the whole of the Palestinian people

Israels position currently is until Hamas do this, that, and the other we won't talk. That is why Hamas has made the offer via third party, Hamas would be more then happy to go direct negotiations as that'd see them accepted as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people

Shotgun raisin

That's the rub. Recognition of the occupier by the occupied peoples is the finishing line, not the prerequisite for entering the race.

I wish I hadn't started that metaphor.

Alex

Doubt anything comes of this

holyland red

Why should Israel do anything but ignore this alleged "breakthrough" in Hamas stance. Fristly, there is nothing new in it- Hamas has offered "Hudna" in the past without Israel having to give the Palestinians what thy certainly don't deserve. Then, what comes in the end of those 10 years? After 10 years of "truce" the military capabilities of the Palestinians will be such that the entire Israeli population will be under the same threat 10000s civilians live under in the South of Israel. That will spell either the end of Israel, or a genocidal war only religious fundamentalists are interested in.

Hamas might be desparate, but this is certainly no indication for that. There is nothing new in this offer, and nothing new about the same parties using every Mash'al speech to portray Israel as an obstacle for peace.

Sultan

Representing Hamas, both Meshaal, and Mahmoud Zahar were at the meeting.

Quoting Carter.

"They said they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if approved by Palestinians and they would accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbour next door in peace provided the agreements negotiated by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas were submitted to the Palestinians for their overall approval, even though Hamas might disagree with some terms of the agreement"

holyland red

"We accept a state on the June 4 line with Jerusalem as capital, real sovereignty and full right of return for refugees but without recognizing Israel," Mashaal told reporters, referring to the borders as they stood before the 1967 war.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...534270,00.html

This is a very promising starting point indeed, as long as ours is Jordan as a Palestinian state, transfering of Al-aqsa mosque to Amman, and compensation for the 900,000 Jewish refugees that had to flee Arab countries in the 1940's. Being more generous, we would actually offer recognition in that Palestinian state in "Jordan".

Mozza

How does offering a two state solution on 67 lines equate with your silliness? That is after all roughly what you'll be negotiating with Abbas

holyland red