Consequence: Hamas moves on the diplomatic front

[gree0232]

There were a couple of stories today that highlight Israel's growing estrangement with the rest of the world. Although Israel may be committed to a path it feels is correct, at a minimum, it should also be wary of letting this situation and its consequences continue to generate circumstances well out of Israel's control or ability to mitigate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13mcgeough.html?ref=global

The first article is diretly from Hamas's leader, Khalid Mishal. There are a couple of things that quite literally leap alarmingly off the paper as you read it. The first is the consequence of Israel's avoidance of European mediation in the recent War in Gaza.

"[Our reporters meeting] was pushed far into the night because Mr. Mishal was busy greeting a group of Greek lawmakers, who were then followed by an Italian delegation. In the preceding days, visitors had come from the British and European Parliaments."

It is very clear that a growing number of governments around the world do not share Israel's view of Hamas as 'terrorists' beyond reason, but this also belies what could also be the movement of the EU as a block into political alignment with what has long been Arab political thought process on Middle Eastern Peace.

There are also a few quotes that speak directly to Hamas's intentions regarding the peace initiative.

1. In a direct rebuttal to those who claim that Hamas is only bent in destorying Israel, "[Hamas Policy Changes?] Hamas has already changed — we accepted the national accords for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, and we took part in the 2006 Palestinian elections."

2. Hamas's negotiating stance. On the crucial question of rewriting the Hamas charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, he was unbending: “Not a chance.” (Nonetheless, others to whom he speaks have told me that Mr. Mishal has said that “when the time comes,” Hamas will make some of the moves demanded of it by the West.)

3. Change in the America's approach. [Mr. Mishal] interpreted Washington’s pitch to Syria and Iran as an admission of past errors, an acceptance that the United States had to deal with “parties that have proved themselves.”

4. General message: [Mr. Mishal's] message is, “Watch what we do, not what we say.”

As the these policy changes sweep the region including an almost complete overhaul of of its methods, the current Israeli administration seems hell bent on reprising the widely discredited 'Axis of Evil' approach, albeit without that exact verbage. In fact, just yesterday, Israel again threatened to attack Iran.

Peres threatens action against Iran - UPI.com

The likely effects of these strikes are apparently safely ignored by Israel, and Mr. Al-Baradei makes clear:

“Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran,” ElBaradei said. “I worry about it. If you bomb, you will turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html?ref=global

Israel's myopic focus of security concerns generated from demonization rather than rational analysis are clearly drawing them to focus on the worng issues. The danger should be all to clear:

While Israel rattles its sabres, it appears that it is running the very real risk of having its political flank turned.

The need to refocus on the peace process leading to an equitable two-state solution should be paramount. Dithering for the sake of stagecraft now runs the risk of very real risk isolation and estrangement.

 

[Marc39]

The first article is diretly from Hamas's leader, Khalid Mishal. There are a couple of things that quite literally leap alarmingly off the paper as you read it. The first is the consequence of Israel's avoidance of European mediation in the recent War in Gaza.

"[Our reporters meeting] was pushed far into the night because Mr. Mishal was busy greeting a group of Greek lawmakers, who were then followed by an Italian delegation. In the preceding days, visitors had come from the British and European Parliaments."

It is very clear that a growing number of governments around the world do not share Israel's view of Hamas as 'terrorists' beyond reason, but this also belies what could also be the movement of the EU as a block into political alignment with what has long been Arab political thought process on Middle Eastern Peace.

There are also a few quotes that speak directly to Hamas's intentions regarding the peace initiative.

1. In a direct rebuttal to those who claim that Hamas is only bent in destorying Israel, "[Hamas Policy Changes?] Hamas has already changed — we accepted the national accords for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, and we took part in the 2006 Palestinian elections."

2. Hamas's negotiating stance. On the crucial question of rewriting the Hamas charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, he was unbending: “Not a chance.” (Nonetheless, others to whom he speaks have told me that Mr. Mishal has said that “when the time comes,” Hamas will make some of the moves demanded of it by the West.)

3. Change in the America's approach. [Mr. Mishal] interpreted Washington’s pitch to Syria and Iran as an admission of past errors, an acceptance that the United States had to deal with “parties that have proved themselves.”

4. General message: [Mr. Mishal's] message is, “Watch what we do, not what we say.”

As the these policy changes sweep the region including an almost complete overhaul of of its methods, the current Israeli administration seems hell bent on reprising the widely discredited 'Axis of Evil' approach, albeit without that exact verbage. In fact, just yesterday, Israel again threatened to attack Iran.

Peres threatens action against Iran - UPI.com

The likely effects of these strikes are apparently safely ignored by Israel, and Mr. Al-Baradei makes clear:

“Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran,” ElBaradei said. “I worry about it. If you bomb, you will turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html?ref=global

Israel's myopic focus of security concerns generated from demonization rather than rational analysis are clearly drawing them to focus on the worng issues. The danger should be all to clear:

While Israel rattles its sabres, it appears that it is running the very real risk of having its political flank turned.

The need to refocus on the peace process leading to an equitable two-state solution should be paramount. Dithering for the sake of stagecraft now runs the risk of very real risk isolation and estrangement.

How regrettable that Israel is involved with such vermin.

 

[donsutherland1]

With respect to Mr. McGeough's op-ed piece from today's edition of The New York Times, Mr. McGeogh is merely the latest journalist to detect a hidden flexibility/pragmatism among Hamas' senior leadership. However, as with past occasions, such flexibility/pragmatism may well be a mirage. To date, past glimmers of flexibility cited by a range of journalists, not to mention former President Jimmy Carter, have not been realized.

In fact, the most valuable part of the op-ed piece is probably Mr. Meshal's advice, "Watch what we do, not what we say." At the same time, when asked if he would revise Hamas' Charter, which seeks Israel's elimination, Meshal replied, "Not a chance."

To date, words with some fleeting hints of moderation on some widely scattered occasions notwithstanding, Hamas' actions have been starkly clear: any Palestinian state within 1967 borders is but a temporary step; Hamas will not abandon its pursuit of Israel's elimination.

In the end, if Hamas were to demonstrate some flexibility, it would create an opportunity that does not presently exist. However, even as they should be prepared for any changes in Hamas' objectives (probably a low probability outcome during the near-term), the region's players should also be fully prepared should Hamas maintain its longstanding course of rigid rejectionism (a far more likely near-term outcome).

 

[gree0232]

With respect to Mr. McGeough's op-ed piece from today's edition of The New York Times, Mr. McGeogh is merely the latest journalist to detect a hidden flexibility/pragmatism among Hamas' senior leadership. However, as with past occasions, such flexibility/pragmatism may well be a mirage. To date, past glimmers of flexibility cited by a range of journalists, not to mention former President Jimmy Carter, have not been realized.

In fact, the most valuable part of the op-ed piece is probably Mr. Meshal's advice, "Watch what we do, not what we say." At the same time, when asked if he would revise Hamas' Charter, which seeks Israel's elimination, Meshal replied, "Not a chance."

To date, words with some fleeting hints of moderation on some widely scattered occasions notwithstanding, Hamas' actions have been starkly clear: any Palestinian state within 1967 borders is but a temporary step; Hamas will not abandon its pursuit of Israel's elimination.

In the end, if Hamas were to demonstrate some flexibility, it would create an opportunity that does not presently exist. However, even as they should be prepared for any changes in Hamas' objectives (probably a low probability outcome during the near-term), the region's players should also be fully prepared should Hamas maintain its longstanding course of rigid rejectionism (a far more likely near-term outcome).

Well, lts start with watch what we say and not what we do?

What is Hamas currently doing?

1. It stopped firing the rockets.

2. It is negotiating seriously to establish a unity government.

What it is not doing, sending in suicide bombers, laucnhing rockets, conducting Mumbai style attacks.

If you are looking for a demonstration of flexibility, I believe you have ample evidence. Let us also bear in mind the events of the decade have fundamentally changed our way of thinking regarding the Middle East. What you castigate as a lack of flexibility can also clearly be considered sticking to core issues.

This is best evidenced by the continual demand that the renunciation of the Hamas Charter be a pre-condition to a negotiated setllement. The justification is often the 'destruction clause'. Unfortuantely, the document clearly exists as a Charter to establish a Palestinian State, along roughly the 1967 borders. How can Hamas abandon its Charter prior to that realization?

More importantly, there are several extremist members of the current Israeli cabiniet, would we dare to demand their resignation from the current administration as a pre-condition for negotiation? That would be somewhat inflexible, though no less so than the Hamas Charter demands.

Ultimately, as Mr Mishal makes clear, when the time comes Hamas is prepared to do what teh West demands of it.

It is however, not willing to surrender on the creation of a Palestinian State.

The solution is Palestine, not forcing Hamas to do what we want.

 

[cherokee]

Gree, would you negotiate with the likes of Hitler, pol pot, bin laden or the early leaders of the KKK?

A simple yes or no will do.

 

[gree0232]

Gree, would you negotiate with the likes of Hitler, pol pot, bin laden or the early leaders of the KKK?

A simple yes or no will do.

C:

Let me make this very clear to you, you do not get to make demands of me. Am I very clear?

Instead, try asking a question and let a person respond with their own brain rather than your simplistic lawyer tactics. The extreme conditions of your loaded question are simply not applicable in the real world.

However, as you asked a clearly loaded question, I will answer with something not loaded with semantics and emotionalism.

1. I have negotiated with former terrorists as I have rather extensive contacts with the Sons of Iraq. Not every man branded a terrorist under the guise of mis-guided moral absolutism is really a terrorist. We know this to be fact in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. You seem to not quite grasp the nuansces of successful counter-terrorism that such contacts with the SOI reveal. The idea is to court the moderate elements away from the extreme so that when you do use violence it is actually effective in that it is killing your actual enemy. Clear?

3. Each counter-insurgency/terror campaign has its own unique circumstances, and although there may be general themes that carry throughout these efforts, in implimentation successful policies must be different as they are executed.

4. That you have picked a groups of enemy from literally the entire width of the conflict spectrum should make this fairly simple.

a. Hitler. The Allies made the correct decision not to negotiate, if only because Hinderberg and Lundendorf created the myth of 'German' defeat at the hands of an internal, namely Jewish, enemy rather than the allied advcances in WWI. Preventing those lies and the forcing Gremany to acknowledge surrender is the right choice. Bear in mind this was possible becaus ethe sides were fighting a conventional war, not an assymetric war.

Please note that in areas like the Balkans and France, Germany had its hands full with insurgent forces even while it fought the larger war.

The what if? If the military campaign had stalled? If Russia showed signs of leaving the war effort or switching sides (as it clearly has in previous European Wars) would have reaching out to men like Rommel who had no love for men like Hitler had been correct? You tell me?

b. Bin Laden? Certainly not. I would talk to the tribes and the some of the more moderate Taliban to see if they would join us .... and this is exactly what we are now doing. Do you support our current war effort in Afghanistan?

c. Pol-Pot? THis guy is a dictator, and he was not occupying the Asian equivalent of Palestine. That this guy existed at all was due in large part to Western, and regional indifference. The guys you talk to in this case are those in opposition, but as he enslaved pretty much the whole population? Unseating him in an invasion would have been the correct call.

d. Nathan Bedford Forrest? I believe men like Longstreet did try to reason with him if I am not mistaken? I am well aware of what the KKK was able to do in its early years, and I am equally aware of what they could not do and that a balance was struck between the arrayed forces if you will, albiet not one that I would consider justice. Given the circumstances of re-construction, corruption, the disbanding of Union forces, etc., there are only so many options available.

I'll tell you what, you tell me what YOU would have done in those circumstances and then I will tell you what I would have done. Deal? (I have a feeling that whether I chose a pragmatic approach or an ideological approach you will simply jump on the shortcomings of both approaches, and I have a feeling you will anyway.)

As you can see C, reality is not quite as simple as you would like it too be.

Instead of coming up with irrelevant morality tests, the trick is to advocate solutions to the problem at hand: Israel-Palestine.

In that case, just like I deliberately courted SOI/CLC's I would very much be courting Hamas both in and outside Gaza. If nothing else, the negotiating table gives them reason enough not to use rockets or suicide ombing doesn't it? More importantly, at the end of that process, you might actually find peace rather than another 60 years of war.

Not following a path to peace based on misplaced moral absolutism, somehow coupled to demonization?, is absolutely the wrong answer.

 

[donsutherland1]

Gree0232,

The Hamas Charter does not advocate the establishment of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders. It seeks a Palestinian state in all of the entire historic Palestine region and its Charter declares, “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.” Furthermore, the Charter states, “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” If Hamas were on board with something along the lines of 1967 boundaries and if Hamas were willing to compromise to reach peace, perhaps the contemporary environment would offer greater prospect of a diplomatic agreement than is presently the case. Perhaps then, incentives for moderation would be much stronger than they currently are. Moreover, if that were the case, I suspect one would see the Netanyahu government make a strong bid to accelerate the political track of the peace process. During his previous tenure as Prime Minister, Netanyahu agreed to the Wye River Memorandum in 1998. He has not been an implacable foe of diplomacy.

While I believe it is always prudent to keep the door to possible diplomacy open, I believe Hamas’ desire to be a serious partner for peace would become evident once it adjusts its position to acceptance of a two-state solution, commitment to diplomacy to reach such an outcome, and is willing to honor the terms of existing and future diplomatic agreements.

In its negotiations in a process aimed at achieving a Palestinian unity government, Hamas has an opportunity to embrace positions previously adopted by the Palestinian Authority, Israeli government, and supported broadly by the international community. The concept of a two-state solution is generally accepted internationally and is at the core of what has been achieved in bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. How to achieve that end goal e.g., the specific details that would form the substance of a final settlement or series of agreements that would culminate in a final settlement, remain subject to some significant differences.

If Hamas is willing to accept the two-state objective—meaning the establishment of Palestine, not the elimination of Israel is its objective—it could find avenues opened for its participation in a diplomatic process. If Hamas shows no meaningful flexibility on a two-state solution, it could encounter a continuation of regional and international policies aimed at isolating it.

What choice Hamas makes remains to be seen. It has had opportunities to move toward peace following its being elected to a majority in the Palestinian legislature, but failed to seize them. In the process aimed at achieving a Palestinian unity government, it again has a chance to change direction toward peace. Unfortunately, if the initial course of those negotiations is representative, Hamas does not appear likely to explicitly embrace the objective of a two-state solution anytime soon.

 

[gree0232]

Gree0232,

The Hamas Charter does not advocate the establishment of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders. It seeks a Palestinian state in all of the entire historic Palestine region and its Charter declares, “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.” Furthermore, the Charter states, “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” If Hamas were on board with something along the lines of 1967 boundaries and if Hamas were willing to compromise to reach peace, perhaps the contemporary environment would offer greater prospect of a diplomatic agreement than is presently the case. Perhaps then, incentives for moderation would be much stronger than they currently are. Moreover, if that were the case, I suspect one would see the Netanyahu government make a strong bid to accelerate the political track of the peace process. During his previous tenure as Prime Minister, Netanyahu agreed to the Wye River Memorandum in 1998. He has not been an implacable foe of diplomacy.

While I believe it is always prudent to keep the door to possible diplomacy open, I believe Hamas’ desire to be a serious partner for peace would become evident once it adjusts its position to acceptance of a two-state solution, commitment to diplomacy to reach such an outcome, and is willing to honor the terms of existing and future diplomatic agreements.

In its negotiations in a process aimed at achieving a Palestinian unity government, Hamas has an opportunity to embrace positions previously adopted by the Palestinian Authority, Israeli government, and supported broadly by the international community. The concept of a two-state solution is generally accepted internationally and is at the core of what has been achieved in bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. How to achieve that end goal e.g., the specific details that would form the substance of a final settlement or series of agreements that would culminate in a final settlement, remain subject to some significant differences.

If Hamas is willing to accept the two-state objective—meaning the establishment of Palestine, not the elimination of Israel is its objective—it could find avenues opened for its participation in a diplomatic process. If Hamas shows no meaningful flexibility on a two-state solution, it could encounter a continuation of regional and international policies aimed at isolating it.

What choice Hamas makes remains to be seen. It has had opportunities to move toward peace following its being elected to a majority in the Palestinian legislature, but failed to seize them. In the process aimed at achieving a Palestinian unity government, it again has a chance to change direction toward peace. Unfortunately, if the initial course of those negotiations is representative, Hamas does not appear likely to explicitly embrace the objective of a two-state solution anytime soon.

Don,

You are looking at the situation entirely through Western eyes.

Lets start with the actual document. Under Article 9, Motives and Objectives, mostly it is a ramble of general morality. There is only one clearly established goal, "As to the objectives: discarding the evil, crushing it and defeating it, so that truth may prevail, homelands revert [to their owners], calls for prayer be heard from their mosques, announcing the reinstitution of the Muslim state."

The intent is clearly that this is desired and that it is the moral, correct, and Muslim thing to do. The Charter lists only one date, 1967, repeatedly in its text. Again, the intent is clear.

Article 13, Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences, is clearly what you draw your conclusions from.

Now, in the eyes of the Palestinians, have the Peace Conferences on Israel Palestine been nuetral? You are a case in point. As intelligent as you are, as obviously capable as you are, I have yet to see you cite even one Palestinian source about the inside views of these peace conferences. The last eight years have clearly reinforced the Hamas feelings of bias that drove this inclusion, and, given Ben's current semantics, the Obama administrations ability to act as a truly neutral party in this conflict is already being sorely tested. Would you, in Hamas's shoes, simply drop this view as a precondition for non-neutral negotiation?

However, the Obama administrations reaching out to Iran and Syria are viewed, "as an admission of past errors, an acceptance that the United States had to deal with “parties that have proved themselves.”

That falls well short of saying that the US is now viewed as a neutral party. It is however indicative of flexibility and a willingness to meet half way. It will negotiate without dropping this statement in its charter, despite the very real risk of that non-neutrality, and will, " "when the time comes,” Hamas will make some of the moves demanded of it by the West."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13mcgeough.html?ref=global

That condition is clearly the creation of a Palestinian State, upon the creation of which the Hamas Charter becomes moot.

Bear in mind, with a Palestinian State created, you remove the grievence that Hamas would have to tap into to carry out its 'destruction' of Israel. (And how it will destroy a nuclear armed Israel is beyond my knowledge). with palestine created, what regime is going to fund a group of residual extremists to carry out offensive military action against Israel?

If Israel focused on creating governmental capacity and systems of justice in Palestine while the peace process, it was committed to (which unfortunately it currently is not), ran its course, that would go a long way to ensuring that a Palestinian government that emerged from the peace process would have the ability to control the residual extremist groups in Palestine.

In effect, rump Hamas would look like the KKK does today.

Waiting for Hamas to do what it clearly cannot and will not do, revise the charter, or threatening Iran as a distraction are simply not legitimate justification to delay the peace process.

 

[cherokee]

C:

Let me make this very clear to you, you do not get to make demands of me. Am I very clear?

Instead, try asking a question and let a person respond with their own brian rather than your simplistic lawyer tactics. The extreme conditions of your loaded question are simply not applicable in the real world.

However, as you asked a clearly loaded question, I will asnwer with something not loaded with semantics and emotionalism.

1. I have negotiated with former terrorists as I have rather extensive contacts with the Sons of Iraq. Not every man branded a terrorist under the guise of mis-guided moral absolutism is really a terrorist. We know this to be fact in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. You seem to not quite grasp the nuansces of successful counter-terrorism that such contacts with the SOI reveal. The idea is to court the moderate elements away from the extreme so that when you do use violence it is actually effective in that it is killing your actual enemy. Clear?

3. Each counter-insurgency/terror campaign has its own unique circumstances, and although there may be general themes that carry throughout these efforts, in implimentation successful policies must be different as they are executed.

4. That you have picked a groups of enemy from literally the entire width of the conflict spectrum should make this fairly simple.

a. Hitler. The Allies made the correct decision not to negotiate, if only because Hinderberg and Lundendorf created the myth of 'German' defeat at the hands of an internal, namely Jewish, enemy rather than the allied advcances in WWI. Preventing those lies and the forcing Gremany to acknowledge surrender is the right choice. Bear in mind this was possible becaus ethe sides were fighting a conventional war, not an assymetric war.

Please note that in areas like the Balkans and France, Germany had its hands full with insurgent forces even while it fought the laregr war.

The what if? If teh military campaign had stalled? If Russia showed signs of leaving the war effort or switching sides (as it clearly has in previous European Wars) would have reaching out to men like Rommel who had no love for men like Hitler had been correct? You tell me?

b. Bin Laden? Certainly not. I would talk to the tribes and the some of the more moderate Taliban to see if they would join us .... and this is exactly what we are now doing. Do you support our current war effort in Afghanistan?

c. Pol-Pot? THis guy is a dictator, and he was not occupying the Asian equivalent of Palestine. That this guy existed at all was due in large part to Western, and regional indifference. The guys you talk to in this case are those in opposition, but as he enslaved pretty much the whole population? Unseating him in an invasion would have been the correct call.

d. Nathan Bedford Forrest? I believe men like Longstreet did try to reason with him if I am not mistaken? I am well aware of what the KKK was able to do in its early years, and I am equally aware of what they could not do and that a balance was struck between the arrayed forces if you will, albiet not one that I would consider justice. Given the circumstances of re-construction, corruption, etc., there are so many options available.

I'll tell you what, you tell me what YOU would have done in those circusmatces and then I will tell you what I would have done. Deal? (I have a feeling that whether I chose a pragmatic approach or an ideological approach you will simply jump on the shortcomings of both approaches, and I have a feeling you will anyway.)

As you can see C, reality is not quite as simple as you would like it too be.

Instead of coming up with irrelevant morality tests, the trick is to advocate solutions to the problem at hand: Israel-Palestine.

In that case, just like I deliberately courted SOI/CLC's I would very much be courting Hamas.

Again you fail, is that clear slick?


I gave you prime examples of people and groups the only acceptable form of negotiation would be their death. A simple no would have done but you have to color it with your Utopian ideas which as history has shown us over and over have failed.

Are you throwing your service in my face again? Wasn't it you that whinnied like a baby for me saying ONE TIME I was a Marine?

For the SOI don't you think its still too soon to cry victory, Lets see after the US pulls out shall we? Besides it was only a small part in the scheme of things that somewhat settled the violence.

The only solution for afghan is the complete extermination of every Taliban and any who support them but I'm sure in your David bowie mind you could sit down and work out a peace plan over tea and crumpets.........:roll:


The world is black and white slick, its people like you that complicate matters by injecting your flower child ideas. When the world breeds monster you kill them.

Israel-Palestine? You still haven't read the Hamas charter. Whats the matter didn't it fit your expectations?

GAZA, April 13 (Reuters) - An unmanned Palestinian fishing boat laden with explosives blew up off the coast of the Gaza Strip on Monday in an apparent attempt to attack an Israeli navy patrol, Israel's military chief said.

No one was hurt in the explosion, which Palestinians said could be heard miles away. Local fishermen in the Hamas-controlled territory said the Israeli ship fired at the boat as it approached, causing the enormous blast.

The Israeli military said it had not shot at the vessel, which exploded some 600 metres (yards) from the naval patrol.
Gaza boat explodes in attack attempt - Israel | Reuters

Are you going to cry foul over destruction of the Palestinian boat?
Those fooking joo's not shooting a boat that blew up on its own.

HERAT, Afghanistan - Taliban militants publicly executed a man and girl on Monday for eloping when she was already engaged to marry someone else, an official said, in a sign of the grip the Islamists have over parts of Afghanistan.

Hashim Noorzai, head of Khash Rud district in southwestern Nimruz province, said the two were executed by gun shots in front of a crowd of villagers.

He said he had no details on how the Taliban had come to be involved in passing judgment on them but that much of the mainly desert district was under control of the militants.
Afghan Taliban execute eloping pair: official - MSNBC Wire Services - msnbc.com

Yep, they sound like the peaceful type..

 

[gree0232]

Again you fail, is that clear slick?


I gave you prime examples of people and groups the only acceptable form of negotiation would be their death. A simple no would have done but you have to color it with your Utopian ideas which as history has shown us over and over have failed.

Are you throwing your service in my face again? Wasn't it you that whinnied like a baby for me saying ONE TIME I was a Marine?

For the SOI don't you think its still too soon to cry victory, Lets see after the US pulls out shall we? Besides it was only a small part in the scheme of things that somewhat settled the violence.

The only solution for afghan is the complete extermination of every Taliban and any who support them but I'm sure in your David bowie mind you could sit down and work out a peace plan over tea and crumpets.........:roll:


The world is black and white slick, its people like you that complicate matters by injecting your flower child ideas. When the world breeds monster you kill them.

Israel-Palestine? You still haven't read the Hamas charter. Whats the matter didn't it fit your expectations?






Are you going to cry foul over destruction of the Palestinian boat?
Those fooking joo's not shooting a boat that blew up on its own.




Yep, they sound like the peaceful type..

C:
Allright, so the world in black and white. (Please also notice that there is already post in here about the Hamas Charter, which clearly you have not read).

How does Charles De Gaulle fit into that narrative? Communism followed the same sort of McCarthyistic absolutism you advocate, and yet somehow, despite this monolithic nature, Nixon was able to turn communist China away from the Soviet Union. How effective has this absolutism been at getting Iran to stop its nuclear program?

Tell me, as you clearly avoided, do you support our current efforts in Afghanistan, which are clearly about reaching out to moderate influnces or not? This policy clearly contradicts with your absolutist statements, and yet it is official American policy.

Now we have yoru advocated policy and your Amercia is always right in clear conflict with one another. Which one is it?

Also, I would hop you are not pulling a Rush? Our engagements with the SOI have reduced our casualties alone by literally an order of magnitude. AQI and JAM are pushed into the hinterland. I would call that significant progress, and to turn a blind eyes to that simply because it doesn;t fit your preconcieved notions is just plain dumb.

Lets also bear in mind, Hamas is an entire group of people. And you compare and entire group of people to singular persons like to Hitler and Pol Pot? Are all the Germans evil? Was Rommel motivated by intense Anti-Semitism? How is it that people like OScar Shindler even managed to exist in your world of absolutism, and what is the our world if we cannot find and praise such people because we are blinded by our own absolutist pricipals from acknowledging that such people exist even in the very heart of evil.

Please tell me who the leaders are in Gaza? Tell me which members of Hamas are motivated by the destruction of Israel, and which ones are motivated creation of a Palestinian State, which ones are motivated by Israeli's apartheid policies? Which one just want a job to feed their familes?

If all you were doing was debating a COA, that would be one thing. Instead, you pick up a personal vendette seeking satisfaction for a bruised ego. Your ego is all that matters apparently.

So be it, we will pick up where we left off.

How is it that, during a Humanitarian intervention, two American fighter jets were shot down by Syrian SAM batteries that they were engaging? What were your engagement strategies for the various sects and political factions? What Key Leader Engagements were priortized and why? How did the situation deteriorate into a shooting match, and what could we have done to prevent this slide into chaos, as we did in Bosnia and Kosovo, but clearly not Somalia.

What lessons can we derive from this that we can advocate for Israel to successfully deal with Hamas, rather than fight it and then withdraw from Lebanon as both the US and Israel subsequently did.

The goal is policy. The policy goal we are looking for is Peace between Israel and Palestine.

 

[donsutherland1]

You are looking at the situation entirely through Western eyes.

Gree0232,

If I were looking at things strictly from a Western perspective, I would probably be seeing the same mirages of pragmatism that various journalists and former President Carter have suggested exist. I don't view Hamas strictly from the Western standpoint.

I understand how Hamas has anchored its objectives in religion, the role religion plays in feeding/sustaining the movement, the concept of a waqf within Islam, etc.

The intent is clearly that this is desired and that it is the moral, correct, and Muslim thing to do. The Charter lists only one date, 1967, repeatedly in its text. Again, the intent is clear.

If the intent were strictly about pursuit of 1967 borders, the Charter would have been explicit on that point. Furthermore, Hamas would have embraced the Oslo Accords, among other diplomatic instruments aimed at achieving a two-state solution.

Hamas has not. Article 7 of the Hamas Charter states, among other things, "The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after."

The notion of a 'Zionist invasion' is a reference to the movement to re-establish Israel and immigration to the region as part of that movement. The 1948 war was launched by the Arabs in a bid to quash the newly re-established Jewish state.

Article 11 proclaims, "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgment Day."

The reference is to "the land of Palestine." Palestine was not a sovereign state. It was a region. That Hamas desires an Arab state in the entire region is set forth in the language that states, "It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up." Furthermore, Hamas makes clear that no leader has the "right" to compromise on that principle. In effect, that rules out a permanent two-state solution.

Hamas' actions have been consistent with the principles espoused in its Charter. Last year in April, following President Carter's expressed belief that Hamas was willing to accept a two-state solution within roughly 1967 boundaries, Hamas issued a clarifying statement on that matter. Hamas was willing to accept a 10-year truce were Israel to withdraw to those boundaries. But the arrangement would be "transitional." Hamas had not given up its pursuit for an Arab state in the entire region.

Now, in the eyes of the Palestinians, have the Peace Conferences on Israel Palestine been nuetral? You are a case in point. As intelligent as you are, as obviously capable as you are, I have yet to see you cite even one Palestinian source about the inside views of these peace conferences.

Just because I have not cited specific Palestinian viewpoints does not mean I do not recognize their existence. With regard to the failure of the Oslo peace process I am cognizant how Mr. Arafat felt about the refugee matter. In fact, a 1999 interview with Daoud Barakat, who served as the negotiations coordinator on the refugee issue for the PLO, foreshadowed Mr. Arafat's rejection of President Clinton's bridging proposal.

Relevant excerpts:

Q. And what about President Arafat's speech to the Arab League and his interview reported by an-Nahar, in which he talked about the Palestinian refugees' right of return to the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

A. Yes, I am aware of it. He spoke of the refugees' right to return to Palestine, he never uses the term West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestine for him means the geographical and historical homeland.

Clearly, for Palestinians, this demand is consistent with their narrative of dispossession. However, it is a deal breaker. Compromise that limits the return of refugees to a Palestinian state (with perhaps a few family reunification exceptions) and allows for a measure of compensation in exchange for that limitation is the only approach that can work.

The fate of East Jerusalem is another issue. East Jerusalem has religious significance for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Palestinians see their gaining possession of East Jerusalem as being of paramount importance. Yet, to do so would undermine the core needs of Jews considering that the Western Wall is Judaism's holiest site. Compromises that grant Arab neighborhoods/Muslim sites to the Palestinians or create joint Israeli-Palestinian sovereignty over that area with a single Jerusalem municipal government that is elected by all of Jerusalem's residents would accommodate the core needs of both sides.

Also, when it comes to negotiations, I believe the U.S. can play a useful role in mediating, offering suggestions, facilitating the peace process/mechanisms for implementing agreements, etc. However, I don't believe the U.S. can or should seek to impose solutions. Rather, difficult as it might be, the parties will need to take the lead in hammering out the terms of a mutually-acceptable solution.

It will negotiate without dropping this statement in its charter, despite the very real risk of that non-neutrality, and will, " "when the time comes,” Hamas will make some of the moves demanded of it by the West."

That was Mr. McGeogh's account, not Mr. Meshal's words.

One way around that matter would be something that took place during the early stages of the Israel-Syria negotiations during President Clinton's Administration. In that case, Prime Minister Rabin committed to President Clinton that Israel would yield virtually all of the Golan Heights in a peace agreement with Syria. In turn, President Clinton conveyed to Hafez Assad that he had in his "pocket," such a commitment. That understanding became known as the "Rabin pocket" or "Rabin pocket commitment."

Hamas could take a similar approach. It could convey to an influential world leader who has strong ties to Israel and is viewed as credible with Israel's leadership that it would abandon the objectionable principles of its Charter were a final settlement that created a two-state solution achieved. The fact is, diplomacy offers numerous creative ways to address such issues. Hamas has yet to take such paths.

Waiting for Hamas to do what it clearly cannot and will not do, revise the charter, or threatening Iran as a distraction are simply not legitimate justification to delay the peace process.

I continue to argue for Israel's pursuing a peace process on dual tracks: economic and political. I don't believe a purely economic approach would succeed. Neither do I believe a purely political one can rapidly lead to a final settlement. A combination of economic opening that aids the living standard of Palestinians and allows Palestinians the ability to create viable institutions for self-governance and a step-by-step political process that proceeds toward a two-state solution probably offers the most feasible course. With a some luck, perhaps one might witness breakthroughs on the timeframe associated with the Egypt-Israel peace process that commenced slowly at first following the 1973 War.

 

[gal]

I have not heard a single word that hamas accept the 1967 borders, I did however read its charter here
ACPR - Documents - The Hamas Charter

According to article 7
One of hamas goal is killing all Jews here is the quate

"Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said:

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"

According to article 12
All muslims must commit a Jihad (killing in the name of god) in the land of Israel (thus inciting arab Israelies).

Here is the quate
"Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband's authorization, and a slave without his masters' permission."

According to article 13
Hamas will never have peace with Israel, its againt it ideology.

Here is the quate
"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion"

this is what i managed to get so far there are 36 articles in their platform

most of them support the killing of any non muslim, the use if woman and children as human shields in an armed conflict, deny the right of Israel to exist.

there are not my words, all is written in for you to read. if you dont agree with my interputation then please read the whole document yourself.

So please execuse me if I dont belive some newspaper citing Haled Mishal, I have his ideology in whole right in front my eyes.

As for your claim that hamas havent fired rockets in days its not that true. since the end of the gaza war until now more then 100 rockets have being fired into Israel.

 

[Marc39]

I have not heard a single word that hamas accept the 1967 borders, I did however read its charter here
ACPR - Documents - The Hamas Charter

According to article 7
One of hamas goal is killing all Jews here is the quate

"Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said:

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"

According to article 12
All muslims must commit a Jihad (killing in the name of god) in the land of Israel (thus inciting arab Israelies).

Here is the quate
"Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband's authorization, and a slave without his masters' permission."

According to article 13
Hamas will never have peace with Israel, its againt it ideology.

Here is the quate
"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion"

this is what i managed to get so far there are 36 articles in their platform

most of them support the killing of any non muslim, the use if woman and children as human shields in an armed conflict, deny the right of Israel to exist.

there are not my words, all is written in for you to read. if you dont agree with my interputation then please read the whole document yourself.

So please execuse me if I dont belive some newspaper citing Haled Mishal, I have his ideology in whole right in front my eyes.

As for your claim that hamas havent fired rockets in days its not that true. since the end of the gaza war until now more then 100 rockets have being fired into Israel.

Hamas is carrying the torch of Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic supremacist organization with Nazi ties whose ultimate goal is not the destruction of Israel, but the creation of an Islamic caliphate centered in Palestine. The liquidation of Israel is merely a means to an end. You know Hamas is really bad when "moderate" Muslim states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt oppose Hamas. It's why they and other Arab states tacitly approved of Israel's reprisals against Hamas in Gaza.

 

[gal]

the only solution may only come from the palestinians themself when they kick hamas out of gaza. unfortunatly hamas grip after the last election in the palestinian street is a lot stronger (hamas according to the oslo agreement was forbid from participating in the elections).

The End of this conflict is far.

here are a couple more sources if you want to know the true hamas

Hamas Charter
Opinio Juris: The Hamas Party Platform

 

[Blunt]

here are a couple more sources if you want to know the true hamas

You might want to know who it is that is giving you this information
Hamas charter Whois
ACPR - Documents - The Hamas Charter
Whois
both views are located in Israel

 

[gal]

You might want to know who it is that is giving you this information
Hamas charter Whois
ACPR - Documents - The Hamas Charter
Whois
both views are located in Israel

This is hamas charter without interputation. the only version

 

[Marc39]

You might want to know who it is that is giving you this information
Hamas charter Whois
ACPR - Documents - The Hamas Charter
Whois
both views are located in Israel

This Hamas Charter is from Yale Law School. Neutral enough for you?
The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

 

[Blunt]

This Hamas Charter is from Yale Law School. Neutral enough for you?
The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

(In memory of Sol Goldman) Yep that´ll do:2razz:

 

[donsutherland1]

Blunt,

The texts of the Hamas Charter or Covenant that Marc39 and Gal have hyperlinked are credible. One can find excerpts or entire transcripts at numerous credible websites. Yale's is credible. Federation of American Scientists (excerpts only) is another.

 

[Blunt]

Blunt,

The texts of the Hamas Charter or Covenant that Marc39 and Gal have hyperlinked are credible. One can find excerpts or entire transcripts at numerous credible websites. Yale's is credible. Federation of American Scientists (excerpts only) is another.

Thanks Don I was just pointing out where this information was coming from FWIW
This site says more or less the same thing but with fotos
The Hamas Charter | Planet Earth Peace Party

 

[Marc39]

(In memory of Sol Goldman) Yep that´ll do:2razz:

FWIW, Sol Goldman was the Donald Trump of his day in New York, even bigger. At one point, he owned both the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building.

 

[gal]

Now that we all agree that the information is credible the only question remains is where can we go from here? you have seen hamas views, no peace, rage a holy jihad, truce is just another mean to rearm for another conflict.

Gaza is controlled by Hamas, and survey shows that in the next election they will even have more power, even though that in the oslo agreement they were forbidden to participate in elections.

This is the past, my question is WHAT CAN WE DO?

Any thoughts?

Another "punch line" from their charter

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

From article 11

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day"?

Palestine by hamas view is all of Israel.

 

[Marc39]

Now that we all agree that the information is credible the only question remains is where can we go from here? you have seen hamas views, no peace, rage a holy jihad, truce is just another mean to rearm for another conflict.

Gaza is controlled by Hamas, and survey shows that in the next election they will even have more power, even though that in the oslo agreement they were forbidden to participate in elections.

This is the past, my question is WHAT CAN WE DO?

Any thoughts?

Another "punch line" from their charter

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

From article 11

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day"?

Palestine by hamas view is all of Israel.

What most people don't realize is when they rail against the "occupation", they mean Israel proper--al-Naqbar. The Catastrophe. They are consumed with al-Naqbar and won't be happy until Israel is replaced with a Muslim government.

 

[gal]

What most people don't realize is when they rail against the "occupation", they mean Israel proper--al-Naqbar. The Catastrophe. They are consumed with al-Naqbar and won't be happy until Israel is replaced with a Muslim government.

now that is a message that many westreners find it hard to belive.

 

[cherokee]

gree I'm finished with you slick. You are too naive living in your bubble world where everything works out.

It wont take long before you have a :doh moment.