So says Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal. OK, they’re still claiming East Jerusalem, but for Hamas to back down from the drive-the-Jews-into-the-sea line is a big step forward, don’t you think? Maybe some negotiation is possible here after all? Maybe some tit-for-tat? Hamas gives up all claim to EJ, Israel tears down the Wall and dismantles all settlements east of the Green Line? That would be fair, wouldn’t it?
I think it’s the only defensible goal, but I have a feeling I’m going to be a minority.
That’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying, as the document says:
So, the document isn’t saying anything about Israel having a right to exist within it’s pre-67 borders. it’s saying, and he’s saying, that there should be a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.
Well… I admit I read quickly, but that’s not what the article says. The article says:
So… Hamas is willing to recognize the Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders, but not the Israeli state. This ain’t a major step forward.
But they’re claiming only what’s within the 1967 borders. Not everything between the Jordan and the sea. Mashaal also said:
Which is talk as plain as can reasonably expected where Israeli-Palestinian politics are concerned.
I am very from being a Mid-east expert, but didn’t Hamas come into prominence after the PLO and Israelis come to agreements? Basically picking up the ground feelings of many Palestinians of complete antagonism towards the idea of an Israeli state, AIUI.
Is there a reason to believe that the same thing won’t happen again if Hamas comes to a reconciliation, so long as there’s a large body of people still committed to the complete removal of Israel as a state?
Or, to put it another way: I’d have to be convinced that Hamas could deliver on the implied promise before I would think it to be worth considering. Wouldn’t Hezbollah be well positioned to become a Palestinian power if Hamas renounces its current hard-line anti-Israeli stance?
No, they’re not. They’re claiming everything within the 1967 borders. The document is silent with regard to everything beyond that. The first point of the document reads as follows:
Maybe, but Hezbollah are Shi’a Muslims; aren’t most Palestinians Sunni? Wouldn’t that be an obstacle to Hezbollah claiming the extremist leadership?
You may be right, but I wouldn’t care to bet anything on it.
I tend to think that hate will do quite well for the purpose of unifying for action against Israel. I think the conflict you mention would prevent Hezbollah from establishing an effective government but that’s not the same thing as preventing effective guerrilla tactics.
Um… no. They’re re-iterating their claim on everything outside Israel’s pre-1967 borders, but remain silent or ambiguous about areas within pre-1967 Israel. Effectively, it’s just a new wrinkle to the “Method of Stages [towards the destruction of Israel],” the only difference now being that they aren’t explicitly declaring the next stages.
In other words… spin, spin and more spin. No substance.
… and, as a reminder, whenever Hamas (or most other Palestinian organizations) talk about accepting the right of Jews to live in any of that land, or if they talk about pre-war lands, they mean Jews who were there before 1948 and the 1948 war.
First I’ve heard of that. Cite?
The most encouraging thing about Hamas is their promoting new attitudes of peace and reconciliation among the Palestinian people.
*"On Friday, al-Aqsa TV showed a radical Palestinian cleric, Wael al-Zarad, calling for the ‘annihilation’ of the Jews.
‘They have turned our mosques into pubs and bars, where they drink alcohol and get women drunk,’ the cleric says of the Jews, adding, ‘if each and every Arab spat on them, they would drown in Arab spit.’ "*
Criticize Hamas as much as you like, you still have to admit that they have a gift for the run-on sentence. I counted the word “and” 19 times in that sentence.
In otherwords, he’s saying…nothing.
To the OP, and fearing that my head may explode from trying to simultaneously participate in GD threads on Israel and Universal Health Care:
I think you would have to be a real expert on the region to make any semi-informed assumption about what this particular statement means. It doesn’t seem like a huge breakthrough to me. Still, recall that the British Labour Party, IIRC, only formally abandoned its commitment to the nationalization of all major industries in the early 90s; the actual behavior of political organizations often changes long before the mission statements catch up. Obviously there is no doubt that Hamas (and presumably the vast bulk of Palestinians) would ideally prefer that Israel just go away… the question is whether the decision-makers have accepted that that just isn’t going to happen. If/when they do, there is some chance for peace…but they will likely find it politically impossible to clearly and publicly state their new reality-based worldview, and requiring them to do so as a precondition for peace is therefore unrealistic. Instead, they need to be judged by their actions (and please note that I am certainly not arguing that their actions currently are offering any great hope).
But more to the point, international law and previously-signed agreements already require Israel to dismantle all settlements outside the Green Line; why should the Palestinians be required to make any additional concessions to persuade Israel to fulfill its obligations? Similarly, the Palestinians are already required to abandon terrorism. I would suggest that the most constructive role for the international community would be to pressure both sides to meet their commitments already, without accepting the excuse (even if true) that the other side isn’t doing so. All that “tit for tat” has gotten us is both sides tittering and tattling on each other and no progress being made.
You don’t need to be an expert. Hamas recognizes the state of Israel explicitly, that means a single sentence without equivocation, and then it’s meaningful, other than that, it’s meaningless.
People pretend like the situation is more complex than it is. It’s actually quite simple. Israel exists.
I see the problem with the thread title. Brain Glutton got the words in the wrong order. It should read:
**Hamas would accept a Palestinian state within Israel’s 1967 borders **
And you know what? He’s right, they would. Hope that clears things up.
Gee, what a bargain for Israel…how can they possibly refuse??
Who do they think they are? Peggy Noonan?