• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hamas Continues to Seek Israel's Elimination

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There is a revealing snippet in an article on the ongoing peace negotiations that reveals that Hamas remains committed to its goal of eliminating Israel. In other words, there is no credibility to perceptions of moderation on the part of Hamas.

The New York Times reported:

Also on Tuesday, the commander of the military wing of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that rules Gaza, issued a harsh statement against the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, saying that Hamas remained committed to “liberating” Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, meaning both Israel itself and the West Bank it occupies.

In a letter marking the end of the holy month of Ramadan, the military commander, Ahmad Al-Jaabari, said the path of jihad and resistance is the only way forward “until victory or martyrdom.” He criticized the Palestinian Authority under Mr. Abbas for negotiating “with the Zionist enemy.”


In the end, even if a peace agreement is reached (odds are still against it), there will need to be a strategy that reverses the coup by which Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip by force of arms. Whether the reversal is achieved by agreement or some other method is a separate matter. But the reality is that so long as Hamas remains committed to its goal of eliminating Israel, as articulated in its Charter and anchored in its interpretation of religious belief, Hamas will need to be neutralized or removed from the proverbial playing field if a peace agreement is to be implemented successfully.
 

Rubicon

New member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
19
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is a revealing snippet in an article on the ongoing peace negotiations that reveals that Hamas remains committed to its goal of eliminating Israel. In other words, there is no credibility to perceptions of moderation on the part of Hamas.

The New York Times reported:

Also on Tuesday, the commander of the military wing of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that rules Gaza, issued a harsh statement against the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, saying that Hamas remained committed to “liberating” Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, meaning both Israel itself and the West Bank it occupies.

In a letter marking the end of the holy month of Ramadan, the military commander, Ahmad Al-Jaabari, said the path of jihad and resistance is the only way forward “until victory or martyrdom.” He criticized the Palestinian Authority under Mr. Abbas for negotiating “with the Zionist enemy.”


In the end, even if a peace agreement is reached (odds are still against it), there will need to be a strategy that reverses the coup by which Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip by force of arms. Whether the reversal is achieved by agreement or some other method is a separate matter. But the reality is that so long as Hamas remains committed to its goal of eliminating Israel, as articulated in its Charter and anchored in its interpretation of religious belief, Hamas will need to be neutralized or removed from the proverbial playing field if a peace agreement is to be implemented successfully.
It is in Hamas credo that it wont rest until every Jew is driven into the Sea or killed. Hamas was formed for that very purpose so we shouldn't be surprised that they continue with this line of thinking. That Israel continues to attempt to make peace with a people that have ONLY vowed to destroy it since its founding is to me a perpetual and monumental waste of time, treasure and effort on her part. Peace will never come to Israel so she should evict the Palestinians to her neighbors, but here is the rub of all rubs, not one of Israel's arab neighbors would take the Palestinians since they have all tried it before and ended up forcibly evicting them. So Israel is being forced to share their homeland with a people who can't even get along with their own kind. Go figure, huh?

Black September, The PLO's attempt to take over Jordan in 1970




Out of Jordan

By Uriya Shavit
The Israeli public remembers the events of Black September as the operation in which the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan decisively eliminated a Palestinian uprising in the course of one month. The actions taken by King Hussein 32 years ago to expel Yasser Arafat and the senior Palestinian leadership from his country are used as a preferred example by those who claim that in the Middle East, the name of the game is cruelty and mercilessness. The Israeli invasion of the Palestinian cities two weeks ago sharpened the analogy between the conditions that the king faced and the method of operation he chose, and the conditions facing Israel and the method of operation it has chosen.

But the seemingly well-known events of Black September did not last for only one month. The military struggle between Jordan and the Palestinians lasted for a year and a half. The climax came in September 1970, but the battle was won only after 10 bloody months, during which the Palestinians surprised the Jordanians with their tenacity.

A good starting point for understanding the processes that led up to the confrontation can be found in March 1968, when Israel Defense Forces (IDF) entered the Jordanian village of Karameh, about seven kilometers east of the Jordan River, where the young and then unknown leader of Fatah, Yasser Arafat, had his headquarters. The move came in response to a series of attacks carried out by Palestinian organizations against Israel, from Jordanian territory. Prime minister Levi Eshkol declared that the goal of the operation was to prevent "a new wave of terror" against Israel. The UN Security Council condemned the action.

Between 128 and 170 Palestinians were killed during that operation, depending which version one accepts. But, unexpectedly, even the IDF, still basking in the glory of the Six-Day War, suffered heavy casualties: 28 soldiers were killed, 80 were wounded, four tanks remained in Palestinian hands. And Yasser Arafat managed to escape. A state within a state

The limited achievement on the battlefield captured the imagination of the Palestinians in Jordan and of the entire Arab world. Arafat was glorified as the person who had managed, to some extent, to restore downtrodden Arab dignity. Thousands of young Palestinians wanted to enlist in his organization. Fatah became the most important organization within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In the wake of the battle of Karameh, Arafat's men became more daring. In the refugee camps and in several Jordanian cities, they behaved as though they owned the place: They walked around armed and in uniform, set up checkpoints, collected taxes, and refused to travel with Jordanian license plates on their cars.

The strengthening of the Palestinian organizations posed a dilemma for King Hussein. On the one hand, about two-thirds of his subjects were Palestinians, who supported the guerrilla warfare against Israel. Hussein could thus not oppose them without antagonizing most Jordanians - and without risking a confrontation with Nasser's Egypt, which supported the Palestinians. On the other hand, the increasing power of the Palestinians undermined his sovereignty. The Jordanian police and army were no longer the source of authority in the Jordanian refugee camps, and they gradually lost authority in the
north of the kingdom as well.

King Hussein's first attempt to reestablish his authority was made in November 1968. He reached a seven-point agreement with the Palestinian organizations: Members of these organizations were forbidden to walk around the cities armed and in uniform; they were forbidden to stop civilian vehicles in order to conduct searches; they were forbidden to recruit young men who were fit to serve in the
Jordanian army; they were required to carry Jordanian identity papers; their vehicles were required to bear Jordanian license plates; crimes committed by members of the Palestinian organizations would be investigated by the Jordanian authorities; and disputes between the Palestinian organizations and the government would be settled by a joint council of representatives of the king and of the PLO.

The agreement reached between the sides did not withstand the test of reality. The Palestinian organizations continued to accumulate power in Jordan, and to do as they pleased in the refugee camps. They even intensified the fighting against Israel. During 1969, they conducted 3,170 operations against Israel from Jordanian territory, without bothering to coordinate them in advance with the Jordanian army. The counterattacks carried out by Israel damaged the Jordanian economy, and forced about 70,000 Jordanian subjects to flee from their homes in the Jordan Valley.

In the spring of 1969, the United States began its efforts to promote a political agreement between Israel and the Arab states. King Hussein hoped that president Richard Nixon's Republican administration would be less friendly toward Israel, and would force it to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967. He went to Washington to make it clear that Jordan was willing to become more flexible, in order to ensure the success of the American initiative.

The Palestinian organizations anxiously observed his moves. They were afraid of a separate Jordanian-Israeli agreement, which would destroy the dream of a Palestinian state stretching to the Mediterranean Sea.

In order to undermine the political contacts and to bring about a military conflagration between Jordan and Israel, Arafat and his partners stepped up the armed conflict against Israel. Hussein reached the conclusion that he had to act - but his hands were tied. He couldn't do more than Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser allowed him to do. At the beginning of February 1970, Hussein went to Cairo, and received Nasser's secret acquiescence to take more decisive action against the Palestinian organizations.

When the king returned to Jordan on February 10, he published a 10-point edict. Among its provisions were a ban on interference by members of the Palestinian organizations with the activity of the Jordanian security forces, a ban on organization of meetings or assemblies without the permission of the Interior Ministry, and a ban on Palestinian political activity.

The Palestinian organizations were not impressed. On February 11, they established a united military headquarters in order to prepare for a possible Jordanian attack. That same night, 300 people were killed in confrontations that broke out between the two sides in the streets of the capital, Amman. King Hussein was afraid of losing control. Nasser allowed him to impose limitations on the Palestinians, but warned him not to accept an all-out Jordanian war against the Palestinians. Hussein ordered the Jordanian army to refrain from additional activities, and declared: "We are all fedayeen" [Palestinian commando groups]. Afterward, he fired his interior minister, who was the greatest enemy of the Palestinian organizations in his government. The first round of battle between the sides ended with a clear victory for Yasser Arafat.

Black September, The PLO's attempt to take over Jordan in 1970
 
Last edited:

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There is a revealing snippet in an article on the ongoing peace negotiations that reveals that Hamas remains committed to its goal of eliminating Israel. In other words, there is no credibility to perceptions of moderation on the part of Hamas.

The New York Times reported:

Also on Tuesday, the commander of the military wing of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that rules Gaza, issued a harsh statement against the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, saying that Hamas remained committed to “liberating” Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, meaning both Israel itself and the West Bank it occupies.

In a letter marking the end of the holy month of Ramadan, the military commander, Ahmad Al-Jaabari, said the path of jihad and resistance is the only way forward “until victory or martyrdom.” He criticized the Palestinian Authority under Mr. Abbas for negotiating “with the Zionist enemy.”


In the end, even if a peace agreement is reached (odds are still against it), there will need to be a strategy that reverses the coup by which Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip by force of arms. Whether the reversal is achieved by agreement or some other method is a separate matter. But the reality is that so long as Hamas remains committed to its goal of eliminating Israel, as articulated in its Charter and anchored in its interpretation of religious belief, Hamas will need to be neutralized or removed from the proverbial playing field if a peace agreement is to be implemented successfully.
I'd say that this is what I've been saying all along. It will hurt, but if Abbas has any savvy he would support a joint Israeli/PA military strike on Gaza, and restore Palestinian authority there. In some ways, this will be seen as uniting his people against a major pain in the arse of the PA. Doing it with Israel would actually be a tacit first step towards real trust, and cooperation. It's the right move politically.


Tim-
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'd say that this is what I've been saying all along. It will hurt, but if Abbas has any savvy he would support a joint Israeli/PA military strike on Gaza, and restore Palestinian authority there. In some ways, this will be seen as uniting his people against a major pain in the arse of the PA. Doing it with Israel would actually be a tacit first step towards real trust, and cooperation. It's the right move politically.


Tim-
wont happen, PA will never launch a military campaign against its own people.
 

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
wont happen, PA will never launch a military campaign against its own people.
I know. But they should. Think of it analogous to any Indian nation here in the US. If they got out of hand, or started doing things that were contrary to the laws of the land, then the US would have to step in. It happened in Canada a few years back. Nations will attack their own people for the good of the people, I suppose. I doubt Abbas wants peace anyway, he's just giving enough face time to the US in order to secure more goodies..

All the ME, and Terrorists sympathizing nations know exactly how to work the US political establishment. :)


Tim-
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Hamas are not seeking 'Israel's elimination'. This is nonsense.

Their charter was written in desperation: PLO corruption and collaboration, dwindling Arab support, and other circumstances led to their birth. But this, their charter, is what is always referred to when discussing Hamas - not their actual recent actions.

So let's have a quick look then. Hamas after deciding to enter politics stopped suicide bombing in 2005, officially renouncing them in 2006. How many people know this?

They formed a coalition government as soon as they won the 'free and fair' elections (to paraphrase President Carter) but were immediately undermined by Arab states (Backed by the US) and Western states alike. This came to a head in 2007 when Hamas found out that Fatah were planning a coup that was fully endorsed by those who wanted to keep an obedient force (Fatah, PLO) in power*. Hamas preempted this planned coup which was reported in Arab news outlets. Hamas, however, are portrayed as the 'false government', not legitimate and a force that have enslaved the Palestinians.. Yes, that's right. We're supposed to believe that this same Hamas who won their way to power through feeding, clothing and looking after the civilians of Gaza - while Fatah were busy consolidating their power and spending their money on themselves - have now about turned and are 'holding their population hostage'. Israeli spin is by far the most powerful in the world.

All throughout Hamas's time in power they repeatedly stated they would be willing to negotiate with Israel in line with international law, or the '67 borders. Never accepted by Israel and almost never reported anywhere. After all, Hamas simply want Israel dead, no? Believe what you will.


So Hamas oust Fatah and the blockade tightens. You would think that they would lash out, no? Nope. It was Israel, I repeat, Israel who broke the ceasefire that led to the Gaza war. Israel crossed the border on November the 4th, killing 6 militants and breaking the ceasefire. Hamas and the Gazans quite rightly started the rockets up again and Israel had all the pretense needed to wipe out Gaza to show the Arabs, after the 2006 defeat by Hezbollah, that Israel was not to be messed with. Or as it is known in Israel, their notorious 'deterrence policy'.

You would think that now, more than any other time in their history, Hamas would be calling for Israel's destruction? I know it doesn't fit with their attempts at peace over the previous years but one would still expect, with their charter an' all, that they would be hellbent on Israel's destruction, no? No. Once again we see that it was Hamas that were looking towards peace.

Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened
Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad says his group wants 'to be part of the international community.'

Senior Hamas officials are indicating a willingness to negotiate a deal for a long-term truce with Israel as long as the borders of Gaza are opened to the rest of the world.
Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

All they wanted was the stranglehold on their country loosened. Only what is morally required.

Take note: Hamas offered a truce. A long lasting, substantial truce, not a mere ceasefire - and Israel flat out refused. As a result Gaza is dead. The population may still be hanging on but Gaza is effectively dead. No commerce, trade, infrastructure, a recent B'tselem article revealed that 95% of their water is undrinkable with 20 years needed to repair the system, a demoralised and battered population added into all of this and it seems Israel have completed their deterrence policy objectives.

Hamas have always stated that they would go along with any results of any negotiations (including these present ones) if the Palestinians agree to said results by voting in a referendum. As long as the civilian population is on board, Hamas agree to any peace. Is this unreasonable? How many even know this? The sad thing is that most of what I have posted in this thread is not common knowledge ..in the West. Hamas are portrayed as this group full of nothing more than racist extremists hellbent on Israel's destruction, when the truth is very, very different. For one, there is a large moderate element to Hamas and always has been. Second, they have never enforced their charter. Even Israel's top dogs have admitted as much: Hamas have not enforced their charter, which we need to remember was born out of desperation.

We need to understand that charters are nothing more than pieces of paper born through a time of desperation. Should I bring up the South African's charter? Or the IRA's? None have been enforced, yet strangely we have peace in both countries... strange (not really).

For anyone who wants info on Hamas's real stance, you should definitely read this article. It's an interview with the present Hamas leader.

Khaled Mesh’al Lays out New Hamas Policy Direction
This is the most recent interview with Khaled Mesh’al who, since 1996, has been the Chairman of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) Political Bureau. After the assassination of Hamas leader Abdul ‘Aziz Rantisi in 2004, Mesh’al became the overall leader of the movement.
Khaled Mesh

Please try to wade through the lies, disinformation and propaganda of the IDF and Western media, and make up your own minds. And try to remember that Hamas are a resistance, fighting an illegal, brutal, and immoral occupation.

And by the way, just to add, Al Qassam Brigades are not Hamas (in reference to the 'militant wing of Hamas' statement in the OP). They are quite separate entities who's goals have happened to intertwine in the past (they were formed by an ex Hamas member which is what draws the connection between the two). *When Hamas preempted the Fatah coup in 2007 The Gaza Bombshell | Politics | Vanity Fair , this 'militant wing' of Hamas did not take part in the hostilities. What sort of militant wing stands by and watches their 'masters' (so we are told to believe) fighting an actual war for survival? Answer: one that is separate from Hamas.
 
Last edited:

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There is a revealing snippet in an article on the ongoing peace negotiations that reveals that Hamas remains committed to its goal of eliminating Israel. In other words, there is no credibility to perceptions of moderation on the part of Hamas.
Leave it to our unbiased American media to take the words of a hardliner and assign them to all members of a party. Hamas is not a monolithic entity where everyone has the same position. In fact, several other major leaders in Hamas do support the two-state solution as you can see here:

Report: Haniyeh says Hamas will support Palestinian state within '67 border

EA WorldView - Archives: September 2010 - Israel-Palestine: An Interview with Hamas Leader Khaled Meshaal*(Narwani)

What is notable is that the people who typically reject the peace are or have been in the military wing of Hamas while those who accept the idea of peace are the civilian leaders of Hamas. I think this only makes the case for diplomacy and trade with the Hamas-led government more compelling as continued struggle and isolation only strengthens the military wing and the hardline factions that emerge from it.

In the end, even if a peace agreement is reached (odds are still against it), there will need to be a strategy that reverses the coup by which Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip by force of arms.
No coup took place except for the coup launched by Abbas. Hamas did not remove the legal government, only cracked down on interior security forces that were not adhering to the authority of the Hamas government and in fact rebelling against them. What Hamas did in Gaza was well within the bounds of law and in no way constituted a coup, unlike what Abbas did.
 
Last edited:

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
In fact, several other major leaders in Hamas do support the two-state solution.
They don't support a two state solution, if they did they wouldn't have a problem acknowledging Israel's right to exist. Their support a Palestinian state in 67 borders says nothing about their support of the other state, hence its not supporting two-state solution, only one state that will start within the borders of 1967 and sustain a cease fire with Israel until it will be strong enough to engage in war
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
They don't support a two state solution,
if they did they wouldn't have a problem acknowledging Israel's right to exist.
Their support a Palestinian state in 67 borders says nothing about their support of the other state, hence its not supporting two-state solution, only one state that will start within the borders of 1967 and sustain a cease fire with Israel until it will be strong enough to engage in war
Not a lick of this is true with the exception of (maybe) not supporting Israel's right to exist. This is irrelevant though. No other country ON THE PLANET has ever had to recognise another's 'right to exist'. Hamas recognises the realities of Israel, which is evident from their continued calls for peace, but as Israel stole what was once, not too long ago, Palestinian land, for them to acknowledge what you ask is for them to say it was ok for Israel to do so.

Well, I don't think there are many who could disagree with the mentality behind that decision. Recognising Israel's right to exist is basically saying it was alright to steal their land and ethnically cleanse their population. No brainer as our American friends would say.

Please, before you even think about replying with the usual rhetoric, go and read my post above, along with all the links.

Oh, and even Gandhi did not recognise Pakistan's right to exist. He did however accept the realities of Pakistan.
 
Last edited:

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hamas recognises the realities of Israel, which is evident from their continued calls for peace, but as Israel stole what was once, not too long ago, Palestinian land, for them to acknowledge what you ask is for them to say it was ok for Israel to do so.
Hamas doesn't recognize anything about Israel, not even its name, most certianly not its realities.
I've never seen nor heard of a Hamas leader speaking about peace, only a "long term" Hudna which is a form of a religious cease fire. What does "long term" means? only Haniyah knows, it is certian though that "long term" < "very long term" << "forever".
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Hamas doesn't recognize anything about Israel, not even its name, most certianly not its realities.
I've never seen nor heard of a Hamas leader speaking about peace, only a "long term" Hudna which is a form of a religious cease fire. What does "long term" means? only Haniyah knows, it is certian though that "long term" < "very long term" << "forever".

Please, ido, if I ask you to read something before replying then please do so as it saves me from necro-posting from the same thread.

Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened
Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

The long term truce is infinitely better than a temporary ceasefire and it would have paved the way for talks... which Israel does not want with Hamas.

Read the article then read this Khaled Mesh an interview with the Hamas leader from only last week. Don't bother commenting until you actually have an idea of Hamas's goals and intentions.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Please, ido, if I ask you to read something before replying then please do so as it saves me from necro-posting from the same thread.

Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened
Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

The long term truce is infinitely better than a temporary ceasefire and it would have paved the way for talks... which Israel does not want with Hamas.

Read the article then read this Khaled Mesh an interview with the Hamas leader from only last week. Don't bother commenting until you actually have an idea of Hamas's goals and intentions.
A long-term truce (usually specified as a 10-year truce by Hamas) is not the same thing as peace. Haaretz reported revealed:

Abu Zuhri also noted that Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, would regard any future Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War, as "transitional".

To date, not a single Hamas leader, either in the Gaza Strip or Damascus has stated that Hamas' Charter has become obsolete. None has stated that Hamas would agree to a permanent peace with Israel. References to "hudna" or "truce," all temporary states, are no accident. They're intended to signal moderation while preserving Hamas' overall goal of seeking Israel's elimination.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Please, ido, if I ask you to read something before replying then please do so as it saves me from necro-posting from the same thread.

Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened
Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

The long term truce is infinitely better than a temporary ceasefire and it would have paved the way for talks... which Israel does not want with Hamas.

Read the article then read this Khaled Mesh an interview with the Hamas leader from only last week. Don't bother commenting until you actually have an idea of Hamas's goals and intentions.
truce and cease fire are synonyms (at least in hebrew) so I can't see the difference between what I wrote - "long term cease fire" and "long term truce" as you put it.
I agree that "long term cease fire" is better than "short term cease fire" but you say they are willing for PEACE.

lets improve my previous equation:

"short term cease fire" < "long term truce" << "peace"

Peace means mutual recognition, normalization, diplomatic relations, I couldn't find even a small hint for this in this interview.
They want to come from a powerfull position? good for them, blowing up buses is not an acceptable way, ambushing civilians is not an acceptable way and aiming rockets to civilian population is not an acceptable way - fighting the IDF could be found as legitimate.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They don't support a two state solution, if they did they wouldn't have a problem acknowledging Israel's right to exist. Their support a Palestinian state in 67 borders says nothing about their support of the other state, hence its not supporting two-state solution, only one state that will start within the borders of 1967 and sustain a cease fire with Israel until it will be strong enough to engage in war
Their problem seems to be only in formal recognition of Israel as a state. In that sense they are consistent with most of the Arab world including those who have no hostile intent towards Israel. As I recall they have actually said their issue is with recognizing Israel without first having independence and peace.

A long-term truce (usually specified as a 10-year truce by Hamas) is not the same thing as peace. Haaretz reported revealed:

Abu Zuhri also noted that Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, would regard any future Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War, as "transitional".

To date, not a single Hamas leader, either in the Gaza Strip or Damascus has stated that Hamas' Charter has become obsolete. None has stated that Hamas would agree to a permanent peace with Israel. References to "hudna" or "truce," all temporary states, are no accident. They're intended to signal moderation while preserving Hamas' overall goal of seeking Israel's elimination.
A little tip my friend: if you are going to cherry-pick information, don't provide your sources because anyone even remotely observant will quickly point out the distortion. Like so:

"We agree to a [Palestinian] state on pre-67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty without settlements but without recognizing Israel," Meshaal said.

"We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition," he said. He said he made the offer to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter during talks Friday and Saturday in the Syrian capital.
Speaking later to reporters, Carter said Hamas leaders whom he met "didn't say anything about transitional".
Not that I am surprised to see you only including that information which supports your position, but you could have at least linked to a source that didn't include contradictory information. Very sloppy.

As far as the charter we have no idea who even drafted it and there seems to be a lot of conflicting information about it.
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
i would also add that the web of distortion with Hamas goes deeper, because, of course, any "truce" is conditional on allowing Israel to be taken over by Palestinians through the "right of return".

Rather convenient, of course, but anythign and everything to justify the unjustifiable as far as logic and common sense goes, I guess...
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A long-term truce (usually specified as a 10-year truce by Hamas) is not the same thing as peace. Haaretz reported revealed:

Abu Zuhri also noted that Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, would regard any future Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War, as "transitional".

To date, not a single Hamas leader, either in the Gaza Strip or Damascus has stated that Hamas' Charter has become obsolete. None has stated that Hamas would agree to a permanent peace with Israel. References to "hudna" or "truce," all temporary states, are no accident. They're intended to signal moderation while preserving Hamas' overall goal of seeking Israel's elimination.
I'm sure that it will be renounced - as soon as Israel's Zionist goals of acquiring all of Palestine are (or as much as they can possibly get away with)... As long as they keep coloninsing more Palestinian land, I'm sure Hamas won't renouce their charter.

The fact still remains that they have not enforced their charter and if you read the interview with their leader I posted you'll see that their goals are far from 'eliminating Israel'.

Please, read the recent interview with the Hamas leader I posted before you speak of
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
i would also add that the web of distortion with Hamas goes deeper, because, of course, any "truce" is conditional on allowing Israel to be taken over by Palestinians through the "right of return".
Untrue. Any peace would be conditional on addressing the refugee problem, not truce. But as the last talks with Arafat showed us, this would mainly only refer to the 200,000, '67 refugees with some form of compensation for a limited amount of others... something that was agreed to by both Israel and the Palestinians at the time.

I always find it strange that Israel would be so hesitant in addressing the refugee situation, at least through some form of compensation. After all, millions of Jewish refugees were paid by Germany for decades. Seems hypocritical, to say the least.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Demon of Light,

I'm not arguing that Hamas did not provide a different account to President Carter. It wouldn't be the first time that Hamas has said one thing in English and another in Arabic. President Carter's good faith was exploited by Hamas. Hamas' actions, specifically its continued opposition to negotiations and refusal to accept the Madrid Quartet's framework for becoming a party to negotiations reveals its true intent. That intent is consistent with Hamas' charter.
 
Last edited:

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not arguing that Hamas did not provide a different account to President Carter. It wouldn't be the first time that Hamas has said one thing in English and another in Arabic.
They also provide that account in every single interview they conduct. All I have seen so far is you citing other less influential and more hardline members. If Haniyeh or Meshal was saying something different in Arabic then surely someone would have noted this already.

Hamas' actions, specifically its continued opposition to negotiations and refusal to accept the Madrid Quartet's framework for becoming a party to negotiations reveals its true intent.
Hamas is not opposed to negotiations and I am sure you know they have engaged in negotiations with Israel before. Rather, Israel and the West are unwilling to negotiate with Hamas.

That intent is consistent with Hamas' charter.
Assuming it actually is their charter rather than some document someone in Hamas drew up that was never adopted or some manufactured/edited document.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
They also provide that account in every single interview they conduct. All I have seen so far is you citing other less influential and more hardline members. If Haniyeh or Meshal was saying something different in Arabic then surely someone would have noted this already.



Hamas is not opposed to negotiations and I am sure you know they have engaged in negotiations with Israel before. Rather, Israel and the West are unwilling to negotiate with Hamas.



Assuming it actually is their charter rather than some document someone in Hamas drew up that was never adopted or some manufactured/edited document.
Do you have any links to where any Hamas leader said that Hamas would agree to a peace treaty (not hudna, not ceasefire, not truce, but a final peace) with Israel?
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Do you have any links to where any Hamas leader said that Hamas would agree to a peace treaty (not hudna, not ceasefire, not truce, but a final peace) with Israel?
Agreeing to a peace treaty without having the terms set out is just getting ahead of yourself. Many conflict resolutions start with an armistice and only later develop into a peace treaty, with some truces lasting for a very long time. Technically Japan and Russia are still at war, but they aren't trying to kill each other.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Agreeing to a peace treaty without having the terms set out is just getting ahead of yourself. Many conflict resolutions start with an armistice and only later develop into a peace treaty, with some truces lasting for a very long time. Technically Japan and Russia are still at war, but they aren't trying to kill each other.
Expressing one's willingness to seek peace is quite different from one's agreeing to a treaty ahead of negotiations. To date, Hamas has not made any indication that it would negotiate peace. It has demanded substantial concrete concessions e.g., 1967 boundaries, but only in exchange for a temporary truce.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Expressing one's willingness to seek peace is quite different from one's agreeing to a treaty ahead of negotiations. To date, Hamas has not made any indication that it would negotiate peace. It has demanded substantial concrete concessions e.g., 1967 boundaries, but only in exchange for a temporary truce.
Be specific, we are talking about a 10-year hudna that implies recognition of Israel. Agreeing to seek peace before having a ceasefire in place is just stupid. That is how most peace treaties come about. First a ceasefire is agreed and then the parties seek peace.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Be specific, we are talking about a 10-year hudna that implies recognition of Israel. Agreeing to seek peace before having a ceasefire in place is just stupid. That is how most peace treaties come about. First a ceasefire is agreed and then the parties seek peace.
Well then, the Israeli people are pretty stupid as they seek peace since the decleration of independance in 1948 with the neighbooring countries and seek peace with the Palestinians in the last 2 decades.
 
Top Bottom