Hammas oppose direct peace talks with Israel
rafie
Posts: 2,160
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
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
Still can't believe I met Mike Mccready at the Guggenheim and got a pic with him!!!!!
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
the answer is both of them!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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.
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
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.
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
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.
Hail, Hail!!!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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.
Hail, Hail!!!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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.
Hail, Hail!!!
nor has Israel ever recognized Palestine's right to exist.
Haven't I already addressed this claim of yours numerous times? Start backing up your words with facts!
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
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
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
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.
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
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
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
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 ...
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..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
I've gotten the feel that you are an intelligent person over the past few weeks, so this post surprises me a little. Isn't starting peace talks better than leaving the situation as is?
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
it really boils down to how you see these negotiations working and what they have accomplished to date ... there is already an internationally known resolution ... withdraw to pre-1967 borders ... what is there to negotiate besides timing? ... the problem is that Israel doesn't want to go back to that so their idea of negotiations is to ask for more than what is justly allotted to them ...
two things you need to focus on:
1. how many hours have they've been negotiating over the past two decades and what has been accomplished?
2. what does israel have to gain by actually negotiating? currently, they rule the roost and continue to expand with relatively little loss to them ...
if israel was truly a just and moral nation - this conflict would have been settled a long time ago ...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
netanyahu himself admitted that as much as he hated giving Hebron to the Palestinians, he virtually stopped the Oslo process by doing so.
As for your first point, in my opinion you sit at the table and discuss things until you reach a solution that is acceptable on both sides no matter how long it takes. Even if that means that several governments change in the mean time. It's better to talk, even if you do not necessarily reach a compromise, than to ignore each other.
As for your second point, If that was the case, why even bother pushing for direct peace talks? Netanyahu has been putting pressure on the Palestinians to start direct peace talks for weeks now. The only thing that Israel wants to gain is peace and quite and has shown in the past that she is willing to make huge concessions to achieve this.
As for the whole 1967 border line, what exactly do you mean by "justly alloted to them"? Israel was born through war after the arab leaderships refused to accept the UN partition plan of 1947. Israeli leadership of the time would have been more than happy to accept this plan, but instead, Israel was attacked by the entire arab world in an effort to wipe the Jewish settlement in the area to disappear. Until 1967, the west bank belonged to Jordan, and when Israel and Jordan signed their peace treaty, Jordan did not want it back.
No Israeli government (right or left wing) will ever accept "withdrawing to the 1967 border" as a solution to the quarrel. Most Israelis, myself included, do not believe that this is the correct solution for Israel. None of you actually live here and are therefore unfamiliar with Israeli politics and mindsets on the subject. A Palestinian state on all of the west bank with be a security nightmare for Israel.
Even if the current regime was a peaceful one, all it takes is one weak leader a few years down the line for a state like this to become a stronghold for terrorism against Israel funded by fanatics like Iran. Such coups have happened before in different arab countries.
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
you're not even making sense anymore, you contradict yourself so much. why should Palestinians talk to Netanyahu when they want the status of Jerusalem on the table, which should be non-negotiable since Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 by Israel illegally? And why should Palestinians consider talking to Israel when Israel is still building illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Sure there was a "Freeze" on building in the West Bank but that runs out in September and surely Netanyahu will pick up the pace right away. There is no reason to talk to a partner who has only demonstrated its lack of wanting any true peace. Not to mention that the Palestinian puppet leader Abbas does not represent the interests of the Palestinian people, so there's no reason any Palestinian would support Abbas talking to the Israelis.
your fabricated history lessons are hilarious and just further proof of how brainwashed Israelis are in order to keep the zionist protocol alive.
of course no one gives a shit about the Palestinians' security, since it's been proven time and again that the real terrorists in the region is the Israeli government and the Israeli army.
Unlike Israel, which doesn't need a coup to become a fanatic regime, it was founded as a terrorist state through terrorism.
I put in bold the part I want to address. This is really a naive statement:
http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=101041
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.
Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.
According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.
The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.
Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.
Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.30c
The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations - that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 - prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
where did he say that? he didn't, he said no such thing.
what he did say, is that Israel must withdraw.
stop making things up.