Hammas oppose direct peace talks with Israel

rafie

Just wondering what exactly is Hamass' problem with these peace talks.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 92,00.html

Hamas: Direct talks will lead to more Palestinian suffering

Islamist group slams Arab League support for direct talks between Israel, PA; US 'encouraged' by development

News agencies
Published: 07.29.10, 23:47 / Israel News

The terrorist Hamas movement issued a statement on Thursday criticizing the Arab nations' support for the resumption of direct Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations, maintaining that direct talks would only lead to "to more Palestinian suffering as Israel goes on constructing settlements."

The United States, on the other hand, lauded the development. "We're encouraged by what we've heard today coming out of Cairo," State Department Philip Crowley spokesman told reporters, adding that US President Barack Obama's administration is hopeful the negotiations resume soon.

The comments came after Arab officials meeting in Cairo agreed in principle Thursday to the holding of direct peace negotiations and left it up to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to decide when to start talks with Israel.

Crowley said Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, acting on behalf of an Arab peace initiative, has sent a letter to Obama outlining ideas about how to move the process forward.

"We will, of course, be evaluating the ideas contained in that letter, and we'll be consulting further," Crowley said.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who has appealed for direct talks, has refused to be pinned down on a framework for negotiations. The Israeli prime minister has accepted the idea of Palestinian statehood with conditions but has ruled out giving up control of east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as their capital.

"In response to the Arab League's decision, the prime minister said he is willing to begin direct, honest talks with the Palestinian Authority already in the next few days," said a statement from his office.

AFP, AP contributed to the report

deepgreen

I just wonder which one is better: a terrorist islamic group or a terrorist state?
the answer is both of them!

gimmesometruth27

rafie wrote:

Just wondering what exactly is Hamass' problem with these peace talks.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 92,00.html

Hamas: Direct talks will lead to more Palestinian suffering

Islamist group slams Arab League support for direct talks between Israel, PA; US 'encouraged' by development

News agencies
Published: 07.29.10, 23:47 / Israel News

The terrorist Hamas movement issued a statement on Thursday criticizing the Arab nations' support for the resumption of direct Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations, maintaining that direct talks would only lead to "to more Palestinian suffering as Israel goes on constructing settlements."

The United States, on the other hand, lauded the development. "We're encouraged by what we've heard today coming out of Cairo," State Department Philip Crowley spokesman told reporters, adding that US President Barack Obama's administration is hopeful the negotiations resume soon.

The comments came after Arab officials meeting in Cairo agreed in principle Thursday to the holding of direct peace negotiations and left it up to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to decide when to start talks with Israel.

Crowley said Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, acting on behalf of an Arab peace initiative, has sent a letter to Obama outlining ideas about how to move the process forward.

"We will, of course, be evaluating the ideas contained in that letter, and we'll be consulting further," Crowley said.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who has appealed for direct talks, has refused to be pinned down on a framework for negotiations. The Israeli prime minister has accepted the idea of Palestinian statehood with conditions but has ruled out giving up control of east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as their capital.

"In response to the Arab League's decision, the prime minister said he is willing to begin direct, honest talks with the Palestinian Authority already in the next few days," said a statement from his office.

AFP, AP contributed to the report

probably because of the bolded and underlined part.......

fuck

lol you act as if Israel wants to hold talks with Hamas and Hamas is the one rejecting it. Israel only wants to hold talks with Abbas, which is basically the same thing as Israel talking to itself.

rafie

_outlaw wrote:

lol you act as if Israel wants to hold talks with Hamas and Hamas is the one rejecting it. Israel only wants to hold talks with Abbas, which is basically the same thing as Israel talking to itself.

You do realize that Abbas is the Palestinian leader in the west bank, which is a much larger and more complicated area than the Gaza strip.
Hammas has never acknowledged Israels right to exist (much like yourself outlaw), so I do not foresee peace talks between Israel and Hammas any time soon.

rafie

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

rafie wrote:

Just wondering what exactly is Hamass' problem with these peace talks.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 92,00.html


Benjamin Netanyahu, who has appealed for direct talks, has refused to be pinned down on a framework for negotiations. The Israeli prime minister has accepted the idea of Palestinian statehood with conditions but has ruled out giving up control of east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as their capital.

probably because of the bolded and underlined part.......

Isn't the whole point of direct peace talks to bring such issues to the table? Usually when peace is negotiated, each side portrays many things at the start as if they are set in stone as far as they are concerned, only to compromise down the road.

TriumphantAngel

What 'Israel's right to exist' means to Palestinians

Recognition would imply acceptance that they deserve to be treated as subhumans.

Since the Palestinian elections in 2006, Israel and much of the West have asserted that the principal obstacle to any progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace is the refusal of Hamas to "recognize Israel," or to "recognize Israel's existence," or to "recognize Israel's right to exist."

These three verbal formulations have been used by Israel, the United States, and the European Union as a rationale for collective punishment of the Palestinian people. The phrases are also used by the media, politicians, and even diplomats interchangeably, as though they mean the same thing. They do not.

"Recognizing Israel" or any other state is a formal legal and diplomatic act by one state with respect to another state. It is inappropriate – indeed, nonsensical – to talk about a political party or movement extending diplomatic recognition to a state. To talk of Hamas "recognizing Israel" is simply to use sloppy, confusing, and deceptive shorthand for the real demand being made of the Palestinians.

"Recognizing Israel's existence" appears on first impression to involve a relatively straightforward acknowledgment of a fact of life. Yet there are serious practical problems with this language. What Israel, within what borders, is involved? Is it the 55 percent of historical Palestine recommended for a Jewish state by the UN General Assembly in 1947? The 78 percent of historical Palestine occupied by the Zionist movement in 1948 and now viewed by most of the world as "Israel" or "Israel proper"? The 100 percent of historical Palestine occupied by Israel since June 1967 and shown as "Israel" (without any "Green Line") on maps in Israeli schoolbooks?

Israel has never defined its own borders, since doing so would necessarily place limits on them. Still, if this were all that was being demanded of Hamas, it might be possible for the ruling political party to acknowledge, as a fact of life, that a state of Israel exists today within some specified borders. Indeed, Hamas leadership has effectively done so in recent weeks.

"Recognizing Israel's right to exist," the actual demand being made of Hamas and Palestinians, is in an entirely different league. This formulation does not address diplomatic formalities or a simple acceptance of present realities. It calls for a moral judgment.

There is an enormous difference between "recognizing Israel's existence" and "recognizing Israel's right to exist." From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same league as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and asking him to concede that the Holocaust was morally justified. For Palestinians to acknowledge the occurrence of the Nakba – the expulsion of the great majority of Palestinians from their homeland between 1947 and 1949 – is one thing. For them to publicly concede that it was "right" for the Nakba to have happened would be something else entirely. For the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, the Holocaust and the Nakba, respectively, represent catastrophes and injustices on an unimaginable scale that can neither be forgotten nor forgiven.

To demand that Palestinians recognize "Israel's right to exist" is to demand that a people who have been treated as subhumans unworthy of basic human rights publicly proclaim that they are subhumans. It would imply Palestinians' acceptance that they deserve what has been done and continues to be done to them. Even 19th-century US governments did not require the surviving native Americans to publicly proclaim the "rightness" of their ethnic cleansing by European colonists as a condition precedent to even discussing what sort of land reservation they might receive. Nor did native Americans have to live under economic blockade and threat of starvation until they shed whatever pride they had left and conceded the point.

Some believe that Yasser Arafat did concede the point in order to buy his ticket out of the wilderness of demonization and earn the right to be lectured directly by the Americans. But in fact, in his famous 1988 statement in Stockholm, he accepted "Israel's right to exist in peace and security." This language, significantly, addresses the conditions of existence of a state which, as a matter of fact, exists. It does not address the existential question of the "rightness" of the dispossession and dispersal of the Palestinian people from their homeland to make way for another people coming from abroad.

The original conception of the phrase "Israel's right to exist" and of its use as an excuse for not talking with any Palestinian leaders who still stood up for the rights of their people are attributed to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It is highly likely that those countries that still employ this phrase do so in full awareness of what it entails, morally and psychologically, for the Palestinian people.

However, many people of goodwill and decent values may well be taken in by the surface simplicity of the words, "Israel's right to exist," and believe that they constitute a reasonable demand. And if the "right to exist" is reasonable, then refusing to accept it must represent perversity, rather than Palestinians' deeply felt need to cling to their self-respect and dignity as full-fledged human beings. That this need is deeply felt is evidenced by polls showing that the percentage of the Palestinian population that approves of Hamas's refusal to bow to this demand substantially exceeds the percentage that voted for Hamas in January 2006.

Those who recognize the critical importance of Israeli-Palestinian peace and truly seek a decent future for both peoples must recognize that the demand that Hamas recognize "Israel's right to exist" is unreasonable, immoral, and impossible to meet. Then, they must insist that this roadblock to peace be removed, the economic siege of the Palestinian territories be lifted, and the pursuit of peace with some measure of justice be resumed with the urgency it deserves.

Cosmo

Nothing is going to happen until people sit down and begin talking with each other... not yelling at each other... talking with each other.

gimmesometruth27

Cosmo wrote:

Nothing is going to happen until people sit down and begin talking with each other... not yelling at each other... talking with each other.

netanyahu is not going to compromise on the main issue, and he is prepared for talks with conditions. these things are insulting to one side, so why sit down if there is no chance of compromise? all that does is waste everyone's time and give false hope.

Cosmo

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Nothing is going to happen until people sit down and begin talking with each other... not yelling at each other... talking with each other.

netanyahu is not going to compromise on the main issue, and he is prepared for talks with conditions. these things are insulting to one side, so why sit down if there is no chance of compromise? all that does is waste everyone's time and give false hope.

...
Then... that's it?
I remember there was a time when people believed it was impossible to talk to the Soviet Union... especially Kruschev.. and that some sort of direct armed conflict was inevitable.
Yet, somehow... that never happened. Because the U.S. and Soviet Union talked to each other... not agreeing... not compromising... just talking and getting their grievences on the table. It was small, insignificant steps at first... but, it did lead to communications.
i believe talking is a start... Netanyahu is not the Emperor of Israel and will not be in power forever.

gimmesometruth27

Cosmo wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Nothing is going to happen until people sit down and begin talking with each other... not yelling at each other... talking with each other.

netanyahu is not going to compromise on the main issue, and he is prepared for talks with conditions. these things are insulting to one side, so why sit down if there is no chance of compromise? all that does is waste everyone's time and give false hope.

...
Then... that's it?
I remember there was a time when people believed it was impossible to talk to the Soviet Union... especially Kruschev.. and that some sort of direct armed conflict was inevitable.
Yet, somehow... that never happened. Because the U.S. and Soviet Union talked to each other... not agreeing... not compromising... just talking and getting their grievences on the table. It was small, insignificant steps at first... but, it did lead to communications.
i believe talking is a start... Netanyahu is not the Emperor of Israel and will not be in power forever.

these two sides are very different than the us and russians. both of them were vying to be the leader of the world and if there was a war there would be mutually assured destruction. in this case one side is being subjugated by the other and they are not on equal footing. there are a lot of unhealed wounds and there is an apartheid state. there would be no war, it would be a slaughter just like a couple of years ago. one side has arguably the greatest military might in the world, one relies on a group of militants that use primitive tactics that is no match for that military. do you understand what i am getting at and how simply talking, with conditions and an upfront guarantee of no compromise on the palestinians very improtant issues is a waste of everyone's time?

Cosmo

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

these two sides are very different than the us and russians. both of them were vying to be the leader of the world and if there was a war there would be mutually assured destruction. in this case one side is being subjugated by the other and they are not on equal footing. there are a lot of unhealed wounds and there is an apartheid state. there would be no war, it would be a slaughter just like a couple of years ago. one side has arguably the greatest military might in the world, one relies on a group of militants that use primitive tactics that is no match for that military. do you understand what i am getting at and how simply talking, with conditions and an upfront guarantee of no compromise on the palestinians very improtant issues is a waste of everyone's time?

...
More than a direct comparison... i was going for an overall example...
Two... diametrically opposed viewpoints. With two completely different views on how something should be.
Don't think of two people who don't agree... because the people seated now won't always be the same people.
In the U.S./U.S.S.R. example... Kruschev and Kennedy weren't the only players through the years. Same thing with Israel/Palestine... people seated today will be replaced with others.
But... the U.S. and Soviet Union had an open line of communiaction with each other... and continue to have communications between the U.S. and Russia.
To me... open talks is a start. A small start that will not result in immediate results tomorrow.... but at the very least it is something. Something better than what exists today. To sit and say, "We can't talk to them... they will never change." means you accept things as they are today. And yeah... the U.S. and Russia STILL do not agree on much because we know they won't change and they know we won't change. But, there is communication.
...
I think the problem with a lot of people... regarding debating is they see it as a win or lose proposition. That you must get the other guy to come around to your point of view... in order to win. And winning is the goal.
Whatever happened to LISTENING? Sometimes, what is heard is more important than what is said... leastwise, that's how I run it in my life. I may not agree with someone else's viewpoint... but, i listen to them and understand them.
I don't think listening to people's gripes about me... or who I am or what I do or what I believe is a waste of anyone's time.... even if what they say won't change me. And... I feel the same way about others... I know I'm not out to change anyone's opinion... just take the time to listen. That's all.

Commy

rafie wrote:

Hammas has never acknowledged Israels right to exist (much like yourself outlaw), so I do not foresee peace talks between Israel and Hammas any time soon.

nor has Israel ever recognized Palestine's right to exist.

rafie

Commy wrote:

rafie wrote:

Hammas has never acknowledged Israels right to exist (much like yourself outlaw), so I do not foresee peace talks between Israel and Hammas any time soon.

nor has Israel ever recognized Palestine's right to exist.

Did you even read the article in the beginning of the thread?

Benjamin Netanyahu, who has appealed for direct talks, has refused to be pinned down on a framework for negotiations. The Israeli prime minister has accepted the idea of Palestinian statehood with conditions but has ruled out giving up control of east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as their capital.

Haven't I already addressed this claim of yours numerous times? Start backing up your words with facts!

rafie

Cosmo wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

these two sides are very different than the us and russians. both of them were vying to be the leader of the world and if there was a war there would be mutually assured destruction. in this case one side is being subjugated by the other and they are not on equal footing. there are a lot of unhealed wounds and there is an apartheid state. there would be no war, it would be a slaughter just like a couple of years ago. one side has arguably the greatest military might in the world, one relies on a group of militants that use primitive tactics that is no match for that military. do you understand what i am getting at and how simply talking, with conditions and an upfront guarantee of no compromise on the palestinians very improtant issues is a waste of everyone's time?

...
More than a direct comparison... i was going for an overall example...
Two... diametrically opposed viewpoints. With two completely different views on how something should be.
Don't think of two people who don't agree... because the people seated now won't always be the same people.
In the U.S./U.S.S.R. example... Kruschev and Kennedy weren't the only players through the years. Same thing with Israel/Palestine... people seated today will be replaced with others.
But... the U.S. and Soviet Union had an open line of communiaction with each other... and continue to have communications between the U.S. and Russia.
To me... open talks is a start. A small start that will not result in immediate results tomorrow.... but at the very least it is something. Something better than what exists today. To sit and say, "We can't talk to them... they will never change." means you accept things as they are today. And yeah... the U.S. and Russia STILL do not agree on much because we know they won't change and they know we won't change. But, there is communication.
...
I think the problem with a lot of people... regarding debating is they see it as a win or lose proposition. That you must get the other guy to come around to your point of view... in order to win. And winning is the goal.
Whatever happened to LISTENING? Sometimes, what is heard is more important than what is said... leastwise, that's how I run it in my life. I may not agree with someone else's viewpoint... but, i listen to them and understand them.
I don't think listening to people's gripes about me... or who I am or what I do or what I believe is a waste of anyone's time.... even if what they say won't change me. And... I feel the same way about others... I know I'm not out to change anyone's opinion... just take the time to listen. That's all.

This is without a doubt one of the smartest and well written posts I have ever seen here!

OutOfBreath

Not surprised that Hamas is critical of "direct talks" being promoted behind their backs. They know that they will not be included in the talks anyway the way things stand. Or that if they are included, the premises for talks will be unacceptable to them.

I think there is a lot of merit to what Triumphant Angel posted some poste back about the differences in "right to exist". It's not just one side being difficult here. Just take a little look on who the Israeli government is these days, and you know that they're not running over themselves with enthusiasm and initiative in making solutions. I think the current goverment of Israel is very comfortable with status quo. So, with right-wing/religious government in Israel and the schism among the palestinians, there are a lot of places where blame can and should be placed these days.

Peace
Dan

rafie

OutOfBreath wrote:

Not surprised that Hamas is critical of "direct talks" being promoted behind their backs. They know that they will not be included in the talks anyway the way things stand. Or that if they are included, the premises for talks will be unacceptable to them.

I think there is a lot of merit to what Triumphant Angel posted some poste back about the differences in "right to exist". It's not just one side being difficult here. Just take a little look on who the Israeli government is these days, and you know that they're not running over themselves with enthusiasm and initiative in making solutions. I think the current goverment of Israel is very comfortable with status quo. So, with right-wing/religious government in Israel and the schism among the palestinians, there are a lot of places where blame can and should be placed these days.

Peace
Dan

As ridiculous as it sounds, since the founding of Israel, the right wing governments have made more steps towards peace than the left wing ones:
Begin (one of the most right wing prime ministers Israel ever had) made peace with Egypt.
Netanyahu gave The Palestinians control over The holy city of Hebron in his first term as Prime Minister.
Ariel Sharon completely withdrew Israeli settlements and military from the Gaa strip in 2005.

That is just off the top of my head.
The way Israeli politics work, a right wing government has a much greater chance to implement peace with Israels neighbors than a left wing one.

OutOfBreath

rafie wrote:

As ridiculous as it sounds, since the founding of Israel, the right wing governments have made more steps towards peace than the left wing ones:
Begin (one of the most right wing prime ministers Israel ever had) made peace with Egypt.
Netanyahu gave The Palestinians control over The holy city of Hebron in his first term as Prime Minister.
Ariel Sharon completely withdrew Israeli settlements and military from the Gaa strip in 2005.

That is just off the top of my head.
The way Israeli politics work, a right wing government has a much greater chance to implement peace with Israels neighbors than a left wing one.

I'll grant that you have a point. However, they are less inclined to want to do anything in the first place. And if they do, they do it unilaterally and quickly. But they might be more prone to act on it if it happens. I'll hand that to Sharon, I hadn't thought an Israeli politician had the guts to take on the settlers (which is one of the biggest hurdles in the way of lasting peace) even in a limited way.

The problem with Israeli politics is that it's so extremely fragmented. Ruling coalitions almost always depend on the fringe orthodox/ethnic parties to stay afloat on all the regular politics issues, but makes the palestine issue just about impossible. We have that same kind of political deadlock in Norway when it comes to the issue of being part of the EU or not (we are not). The major parties all have some 45/55 split between the yays and nays, while there are a few minor parties that are adamantly against. The issue is so complicated that the current government actually have a "suicide clause" about the subject not being brought up. I imagine the palestine issue is Israel's version of this.

It leads to inaction, and things just going along in the direction they were heading. Which frankly, for the moment isn't a very good direction.

Peace
Dan

polaris_x

peace talks!?

they have been talking for decades now and it's the same thing ... peace talks are yet another stalling tactic implemented by Israel to NOT do what it must ... which is withdraw ... it's either sit in peace talks or orchestrate / hope hamas launces a rocket attack ... two things that continue to allow israel to oppress and expand ...

what do people really expect to happen at the peace talks? ... what do people think will be said that hasn't been said ... for every inch that israel has given back, they've taken a foot somewhere else ...

gimmesometruth27

so it sounds like they are talking about talking about peace...

part of me wants to say "hey, it is a start", but they have been talking about talking about peace for as long as i can remember...same thing, different decade...nothing changes..

rafie

polaris_x wrote:

peace talks!?

they have been talking for decades now and it's the same thing ... peace talks are yet another stalling tactic implemented by Israel to NOT do what it must ... which is withdraw ... it's either sit in peace talks or orchestrate / hope hamas launces a rocket attack ... two things that continue to allow israel to oppress and expand ...

what do people really expect to happen at the peace talks? ... what do people think will be said that hasn't been said ... for every inch that israel has given back, they've taken a foot somewhere else ...

So you are saying that having both sides sit at a table together is pointless and that the only way to achieve peace is if Israel gives the Palestinians everything they want with absolutely no comprise on the Palestinian side?!?!?!!? How does that even make sense in your mind?