Hamas stands its ground as West demands change

[bemildred]

---

On giving up weapons:

“Why do we have to give up our weapons? If Israel comes back to occupy our land, will your country come to defend our people? Why do we have to put up our guns while every country everywhere has in addition to a political system a strong military system in order to protect their homeland, their interests and their people?

“So why do you consider us a unique phenomenon that we have to keep the Israeli border, to keep the Israeli aggression against our people, to keep our people inside Israeli jails without resistance?”

On negotiations with Israel:

“Negotiation is not a goal in itself. It is a method; it is not an objective. If Israel has anything to offer on the issues of halting attacks, withdrawal, releasing prisoners . . . then one thousand means can be found.

“Negotiation is not taboo. The political crime is when we sit with the Israelis and then come out with a wide smile to tell the Palestinian people that there is progress, when in fact, there is not. The Palestinian Authority (PA) negotiated with them for many, many years and reached lastly a deadlock. So why should we be a new copy, like Fatah, wasting the time and money of the people negotiating for nothing?”

TimesOnline

[gonzo8]

1. Nothing this guys is saying sounds remotely unreasonable...

... at least not from this post.

All this malarky about disarming the militias ... when is Israel going to disarms the settlers? They are equally vicious and fanatical.

[pelsar]

5. read some more....

the problem is not "the israelis"...its the JEWS!!! (read the charter...)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1136361020700&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious...The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised...


start with that.....

[gonzo8]

17. Point taken...

... these guys are totally bonkers.

Nonetheless, Israeli policy has driven the huge majority of Palestinian civilians into the arms of these lunatics. Would you at least admit that the Likud and Ariel Sharon in particular bear a heavy responsibility for pushing these people so far that they would turn to these maniacs?

[SeaBob]

2. Sensible

I completely agree.
BTW watch the TV program Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria tonight on PBS

[Matilda]

3. I think the times they are a-changing.

I can't agree with all the idealogy of Hamas, nor with all their
methods, but it's very clear that under the guidance of Fatah, the
Palestinians have all but lost everything.

Israel has gone too far, and it's time they had a wake-up call. I think
the Palestinians have just given it too them.

[carl_pwccaman]

4. Some questions, though

What's this about Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital...

It seems to me there will be NO two-state solution, if Jerusalem isn't international or split/shared in some way. So I does the Fatah or Hamas mean their share/part of Jerusalem, or the whole thing? They can't be taken seriously as wanting peace, if they want ALL of Jerusalem.

And in the speach by Hamas, there was repeated use of the words 'enemy' 'zionist' and 'martyr'... I don't see how this helps de-escalate militancy.

Hamas has not yet rejected sucide bombing, and their founding charter was explicitly that Israel had to be destroyed, so although they refrained from explicitly saying that in their election platform, that has been their founding raison-d'etre.

They are islamicist rather than secular, and they supported several suicide bombings, and have only agreed to a cease fire this last year, and they opposed oslo and other attempts at peace.

So I think things are very sad. Do you think I am missing something? If so, how would you answer these concerns.

It seems to me Hamas fuels the fire and resorts to unacceptable tactics, and that the chance for peace got much worse.

It also seems to me that Hamas is Islamicist racist/antisemitic, and their attitude to Israel is unreasonable.

[Orangeone]

6. I think it's unfair

To just say that Palestinians are antisemitic. So the reason the Native Americans killed settlers was because they were racist? Or could it be that people don't like people who steal their land?

[pelsar]

7. who said the palestenians are anti semetic? n/t

some "social/cultural" groups seem to have a problem with lsraelis as their neighbors....just cant seem to "define them." Bunchs are living in gaza, the ones who shoot missles and mortors across the border, others in lebanon as they do the same....

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Unfair...

"You think it's unfair to just say that Palestinians are antisemitic."

But, the poster said; "It also seems to me that Hamas is Islamicist racist/antisemitic, and their attitude to Israel is unreasonable." (emphasis added by me)

BTW...read Hamas' charter, it is a thread here in I/P, still on page one. If you can't find it, let me know.

[Matilda]

9. Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital.

If Palestine is unfair to claim all of Jerusalem, then so is Israel.

From a detached point of view, the most sensible compromise would be
to have Jerusalem as an international city, patrolled by a multi-
national peace-keeping force, but this concept has been rejected by
both sides.

The only other fair alternative is to give Palestine East Jerusalem -
the Old City - and the New City - West Jerusalem, with the Wailing
Wall - to Israel.

Yes, Hamas is Islamist, and it remains to be seen how political power
will temper that, at least until they can establish their credentials.
But who can blame them for rejecting Oslo, which promised them only a
small proportion of the lands they were granted by UN Charter?

As for unnacceptable tactics, how do you rate the Apartheid Wall? That
is one of the saddest sights I've ever seen.

[pelsar]

10. hamas being tempered?

and why do you assume that will happen?....iran being a prime example of being in power does NOT mean one gets less fanatic, unless of course hanging gays, liberals, stoning rape victims is your idea of a "tempered" regime

[Matilda]

11. I don't assume anything.

As you will see if you read my post.

But their first priority will be to try to negotiate a peace settlement.
Fatah lost because of their corruption, but also because they've done
nothing to advance the creation of a Palestinian state.

Of course, I could be quite wrong, but in their shoes, I'd make peace
a priority. I'm sure they're smart enough to know that.

[pelsar]

12. first priority...

is to find out what hamas plans are.....if they're going the way of iran or not.....if they still plan on killing all jews or not...i would say (as far as israel is concerned) that, is probably the first thing to find out.

"being smart" and a religious fanatic" has nothing to do with western values......

[Dixie Flatline]

13. I don't think Hamas is interested in peace

Hamas Covenant, Article XIII:

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant

[carl_pwccaman]

15. We could make this simpler...

The Palestinians are so bitter, frustrated, angry, and disgusted, and hopeless, and vengeful, that they have chosen to derail the peace efforts as well as the corruption of the PLO.

I.e., they are self-destructive, as their vote for Hamas shows.

There is no way that any Iraeli could feel good about this, and there is no way that the current government of Palestine could be trusted.

The question is more along the lines of, will the worst potentials materialize or not?

[pelsar]

16. no idea....

i' ve been reading article after article attempting to 'analyze" as well as predict the future.

basically Hamas got far more then what they intended upon...and the palestenains, a secular society, has now just voted in religious fanatics with a large majority, in a society with a bloated public sector that has no money.......how are they going to deal with each other?

predicting the future in a situation where even the players and the new ones are barly known that will now be showing themselves is more of a guessing game than anything else.

[carl_pwccaman]

18. I wouldn't predict much, no

But I wouldn't be all that hopeful.

The message to me is one of catch-22's and frustrated despairing self-defeat by Palestinians.

[pelsar]

19. neither am i....

the biggest difference between iran and hamas, is oil, iran can "be fanatical" and still feed its people, the palestenians dont have that luxury....

voting gave them two choices, neither option was very good, but i think they chose the worse of the two, now they get to learn the first lesson of democracies: living with your choice- consequences for ones actions.

[carl_pwccaman]

14. From a Detached point of view...

I would agree that desiring all of Jerusalem is simply an unworkable position for either Israelis or Palestinians, i.e., it cannot foster peace given the situation as it is, the history. Neither are being serious when they speak as if they will fight until they have ALL of Jerusalem, Israeli or Palestinian.

I understand the international city thing is rejected by both sides, it is unfortunate. An agenda of plitting the city, however, would at least be admitting that seeking to have all of Jerusalem is a position that just fosters the conflict, would at least indicate some serious interest in de-escalating the conflict, moving towards resolving the conflict.

It does remain to be seen how engagement in parliamentary politics shapes Hamas, but my point wasn't about Oslo or any particular position IN ISOLATION, so much as the continuous pattern of militancy and baulking at steps towards peaceful resolution.

I fail to see why a step towards peace would be rejected militantly or out of absolute uncompromizing notions of where the boundaries should be, in such a consistent way, by anyone serious towards a peaceful resolution. I don't hold the UN Charter as some perfect thing that is beyond question, nor do I think the history before and since warrants nit-picky demands and militancy when there is hope for cease-fire and a step towards peaceful CO-existence.

The wall could be done in a good or bad way, in theory, but the reality is catch-22 all around, don't you think? Maybe a UN enforced wall would be best, keep the militants of both sides away from each other. But no one is seriously arguing for that. I am a bit confused by the situation, what is best.

It seems to me that a wall is bad when it makes things artificially ridiculous for Palestinians, makes it harder for them to make a living, is disruptive, etc. It seems to me a wall is good when it doesn't do that but allows for better patrolling to keep militants of either side out of where they aren't supposed to be.

I'm sure the wall is not ideal. I'm also sure nothing is ideal about those borders, either way.

If there was really two states, and there was a wall, then so be it. With one state occupying partially independent regions, the wall has apartheid qualities in appearance, I agree. The reality, however, is that suicide bombers aren't wanted in Israeli night clubs, nor are tanks desired in people's homes in Palestine.

I can't blame either side from wanting to defend itself, but there are those militant idiots who escalate violence needlessly, recklessly, fueling the problem.

Israel is far freer than Palestine, BECAUSE of the nature of the state of Israel. I don't think Hamas will provide as much freedom for Palestinians as Israel currently provides for Palestinians (in or outside of Israel or Palestine)

The reality isn't pretty. I dislike the tactics of most states, quite often, including Israel, which is one state among many that I can criticize, they are not the worse I've seen. I cannot support suicide bombers and religious thugs in Hamas, however, I will criticize them, and where the shoe fits, I will even consider them far worse in their overall agenda, politics, ideology, rhetoric, view of the state, tactics, etc.

[Matilda]

20. It may be that the Palestinians will come to regret this election,

but at this point, they have nothing to lose. Except maybe a bit more
of their land.

Their frustration is understandable, and Fatah haven't done a good job
to date. It's a pity Arafat hung on to power so long, because he was
no statesman and outwitted at every turn by successive Israeli leaders.
And Abbas just hasn't had a strong enough power base, not to mention
the stories of corruption within his party.

There will be no hope if Hamas won't acknowledge Israel's legal right to
exist - as much as I can understand how the Palestinians feel about
losing their land, Israel is not going away, and they need to get over
it. And the West - especially the U.S. - needs to stop pretending that
Israel is engaged only in defensive action; they are not, they are
engaged in expanding their territory, and not even by stealth. If
Hamas will officially recognise the State of Israel, then Israel has to
start pulling out of the territories. If these two things don't happen,
there won't ever be a peace that will hold, and everything else will
be irrelevant.