Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Opinions & Editorials
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Opinions & Editorials Discuss If we cared about peace we would be talking to Hamas at the General Forum; Hamas, which governs Gaza, published what is effectively the first revision of its charter*since it was founded 30 years ago. ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:18 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,903
Thanks: 1,421
Thanked 2,089 Times in 1,644 Posts
Default If we cared about peace we would be talking to Hamas

Quote:
Hamas, which governs Gaza, published what is effectively the first revision of its charter*since it was founded 30 years ago. Most significantly, Hamas has for the first time put on paper its commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The*movement, it said, was ready to discuss “a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along 1967 lines”.

The policy reforms should have opened the prospect of an end to the west’s boycott of Hamas, in place since 2007, and hope too of an end to Israel’s economic blockade. Two million Gazans, mostly refugees, are today locked behind walls and fences and deprived of bare essentials – not least electricity, which is now cut to four hours a day or less. The International Red Cross warned this week that the electricity crisis was pushing Gaza to the point of “systemic collapse”.

But the international community is once again leaving Gaza in the dark about when its torment will end. Both the US and Britain have made clear they believe that nothing significant has altered in Hamas’s position. A Foreign Office spokesman said: “They must renounce violence, recognise Israel and accept previously signed agreements.”

This squeeze on Hamas, however, gives the west*a unique opportunity to end the stalemate over the boycott, especially*as*the movement is at present*adhering to a ceasefire, and has gone a long way towards meeting international demands.

After 10 years of the boycott Hamas is struggling to govern. It desperately needs money, not least for fuel

Obviously, the only rational response*if we really cared about peace would be to start talking to Hamas and push it to moderate further. If we continue to reject its overtures it will have no incentive to offer more, and the rejectionists in Gaza will win.

It is significant that the Hamas paper was published soon after the election of a former military chief and hardliner, Yahya Sinwar, as the movement’s leader in Gaza. A prisoner in Israel for 22 years, and a fluent Hebrew speaker, who negotiated with Israel over the Shalit prisoner exchange in 2011, Sinwar could bring a new voice to the table. He would also have the clout internally to bring some of Hamas’s own critics on board. Hamas is being increasingly challenged by Salafi jihadists whose popularity is small but growing in Gaza, and who accuse Hamas of too much moderation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...gaza-stalemate

Link to the full text of the revised The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas”
General Principles and Policies

Hamas Islamic Resistance - A Document of General Principles and Policies

To negotiate peace Hamas must be on board with the final agreement and it's a mistake to exclude Hamas from the discussion. Informally the leaders of Hamas have been saying for years that they would accept a two state solution to finally end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, accepting Israel as a sovereign nation and it's right to live in peace. The revision to the Hamas General Principles that formally addresses this possibility is significant.

Yes, Hamas would still have to go further in moderating it's positions but we have an exceptionally good starting point for doing that. It's in the best interests of Hamas to become more moderate and to ignore that is to be simply stupid.

This is an opportunity similar to the nuclear agreement made between the United Nations and Iran. While the agreement was good in and of itself because it removed the concerns of Iran producing a nuclear weapon for many years into the future it was more important because it opened the door to other future agreements as well. We just need to take advantage of that open door.

Hamas is no different. It's opened the door do negotiations where it is willing to make other more moderate changes in the future.

When opportunity presents itself it's time to take advantage of the opportunity.
__________________
President Lincoln issued 64 pardons for war-related offences; 22 for conspiracy, 17 for treason, 12 for rebellion, 9 for holding an office under the Confederacy, and 4 for serving with the rebels.

The American Civil War was a White (WASP Male) Supremacist insurrection against the Constitutional government of the United States. Every American that served the Confederate cause was a TRAITOR and every White Supremacist today is a Traitor and a Terrorist.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:34 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,912
Thanks: 6,134
Thanked 8,749 Times in 5,040 Posts
Default Re: If we cared about peace we would be talking to Hamas

First, we are talking to Hamas.
Second, we are sending them aid.
Third, they still demand the eradication of Israel.

They don't even show it on their maps.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...mitting-israel.

Until they except the right of existence of the Jewish people, and the Nation of Israel, peace is beyond reach.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2017, 01:14 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 51,572
Thanks: 1,903
Thanked 31,214 Times in 18,297 Posts
Default Re: If we cared about peace we would be talking to Hamas

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
Until they except the right of existence of the Jewish people, and the Nation of Israel, peace is beyond reach.
Correct...

Quote:
Article 19 of the New Charter repeats that there will never be peace so long as Israel still exists. It declares: "We do not leave any part of the Palestinians' land, under any circumstances, conditions or pressure, as long as the occupation remains. Hamas refuses any alternative which is not the whole liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea."
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2017, 02:00 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,266
Thanks: 173
Thanked 5,116 Times in 3,717 Posts
Default Re: If we cared about peace we would be talking to Hamas

I suggest you go talk to a monkey that is armed with a stick and tell him you don't really want his girlfriend. You will have better luck with him at least listening to you first before he mops the jungle up with your carcass.

Hamas must be obliterated!

This board needs a forehead slapping emoticon.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2017, 04:38 PM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,189
Thanks: 2,127
Thanked 3,225 Times in 2,349 Posts
Default Re: If we cared about peace we would be talking to Hamas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
I suggest you go talk to a monkey that is armed with a stick and tell him you don't really want his girlfriend. You will have better luck with him at least listening to you first before he mops the jungle up with your carcass.

Hamas must be obliterated!

This board needs a forehead slapping emoticon.
..... you mean this one?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2017, 04:39 PM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,189
Thanks: 2,127
Thanked 3,225 Times in 2,349 Posts
Default Re: If we cared about peace we would be talking to Hamas

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
First, we are talking to Hamas.
Second, we are sending them aid.
Third, they still demand the eradication of Israel.

They don't even show it on their maps.
Palestinian Maps Omitting Israel.

Until they except the right of existence of the Jewish people, and the Nation of Israel, peace is beyond reach.
The left stands with Hamas.......
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2017, 09:51 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,903
Thanks: 1,421
Thanked 2,089 Times in 1,644 Posts
Default Re: If we cared about peace we would be talking to Hamas

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
They don't even show it on their maps.
Palestinian Maps Omitting Israel.
For historians this really cuts directly to the core of Israel's problems with acceptance by not just the Palestinian Arabs, including Hamas, but also with other predominately "Muslim" countries.

Under international law, established with the founding of the United Nations in 1945, the Israeli government is a government with control over territory but that has no right of territory. Before spouting out emotional appeals or accusations just read the following facts.

At the end of WW II, arguably because of the blatant wars waged for the acquisition of territory by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan the previous "Right of Conquest" was officially ended and replaced by the "Right of Self-Determination" with the creation of the United Nations. It is and has been the reason the United Nations Security Council, when addressing territorial acquisition, includes the phrase, "recognizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by the use of force (war)" in it's resolutions.

When Israel declared it's independence in 1948 it began to seize territory in Palestine by armed force. While it used UNGA Resolution 181, the partition plan for Palestine, as a rationalization it didn't even limit itself to just the territory for the Jewish State designated in UNGA 181 (that was only a recommendation to begin with). To combat this armed seizure of land by the new Israeli government that Arab League, acting in defense of the Palestinian Arabs, went to war with Israel. The United Nations Security Council, that was also called upon to respond in UNGA 181 refused to get involved to the future detriment of both Arabs and Jews.

Eventually the Arab-Israeli war ground to a halt and an armistice was agreed to by Jordan, acting on behalf of the Palestinians and armies of the Arab League, and the Israeli government. In that armistice it was formally agreed to that neither side, Arab or Jew, had any territorial rights based upon the Armistice. This is based upon the following clause in the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1049.

Quote:
Article II
With a specific view to the implementation of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948, the following principles and purposes are affirmed:

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognised;

2. It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

Article VI

8. The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement.

9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.
Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949)

The "Parties" referred to are the Palestinian Arabs and the Palestinian Jews as they were the only people with the sovereign right of self-determination. .Jordan had no sovereign rights in Palestine and was merely a foreign occupying force providing administrative functions over the part of Palestine that wasn't under military occupation by the Israeli government.

No one had any right to any territory in Palestine until a voluntary agreement was reached between the Palestinian Arabs and the Palestinian (Israeli) Jews to divide the territory of Palestine.

Ironically Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated this fact in 2011 in a speech before the joint houses of the US Congress although I doubt he was really willing to accept the full truth of what he actually said.

Quote:
The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations.* But we must also be honest.* So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone serious about peace.* In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders.* The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated.* We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.
Text of PM Binyamin Netanyahu's speech to the US Congress - Diplomacy & Politics - Jerusalem Post

While Netanyahu was arguably only referring to the Israeli West Bank settlements in reality, under international law that prohibits the acquisition of territory by force (war) none of the territory that Israel occupied between 1949 and June 4, 1967 was Israeli territory and Israel had agreed to that fact in 1949 when it signed the Armistice with Jordan.

Ultimately every nation that disputes the right of Israel to exist is doing so because Israel has never acquired any territory in Palestine based upon the self-determination of the people of Palestine that includes both Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian (Israell) Jews.

Those that support the State of Israel need to understand this fact which is why it's so important for Israel to reach a voluntary agreement on the division of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab nation.

The Right of Conquest ended with the creation of the United Nations and Israel cannot establish a right of territory based upon military occupation. The Palestinians, dragging Hamas along by the bootstraps, is ready to consent to allowing the Palestinian (Israeli) Jews their own country but Israel cannot use force or coercion to secure that consent. Even the military occupation of E Jerusalem and the West Bank by the Israeli military can be used as an "out" for any agreement because it's imposing coercion on the Palestinians in signing any agreement. And, of course, Zionism that advocates the complete conquest of all of Palestine and expulsion of the Arabs by the Israeli (not the Jews) must end.
__________________
President Lincoln issued 64 pardons for war-related offences; 22 for conspiracy, 17 for treason, 12 for rebellion, 9 for holding an office under the Confederacy, and 4 for serving with the rebels.

The American Civil War was a White (WASP Male) Supremacist insurrection against the Constitutional government of the United States. Every American that served the Confederate cause was a TRAITOR and every White Supremacist today is a Traitor and a Terrorist.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2017, 10:32 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,903
Thanks: 1,421
Thanked 2,089 Times in 1,644 Posts
Default Re: If we cared about peace we would be talking to Hamas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Man View Post
The left stands with Hamas.......
How about being slightly more accurate by stating the "left" wants this....

Quote:
However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
Hamas Islamic Resistance - A Document of General Principles and Policies

... to ultimately result in this.....

Quote:
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unite...Resolution_242

So why is the "Right" opposed to the ending of all claims or states of belligerency by Hamas against Israel?

So why is the "Right" opposed to Hamas acknowledgment of Israel's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence?

So why is the "Right" opposed to Hamas recognizing the Right of Israel to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of violence?

Hamas isn't there yet but it's gone from the leaders of Hamas informally acknowledging they would accept a two-state solution based upon a referendum of the Palestinian Arabs to now formally adopting it as a part of their General Principles and Policies.

The Palestinian Authority has already agreed to all of the criteria in UN Security Council Resolution 242 even going further by being willing to consent to an outrageous Israeli demand be a "non-military" nation. The PA agreed to that if it would be occupied by US lead NATO forces to prevent any act of violence by the Palestinians against Israel and any act of aggression against the Palestinian State by Israel.

The only thing the Palestinian Authority has refused to do is something they have no authority to do. The Palestinians cannot declare Israel a Jewish State because only the Israelis have the sovereign right to determine the Israeli Identity.

Why has Israel been demanding something from the Palestinian Authority that the Palestinian Authority has no authority to do (i.e. declare Israel a Jewish State)?

But we need to drag Hamas into the agreement and Hamas has made a formal move in the right direction. Now's when we can use leverage to get Hamas to move more and more to a moderate position.
__________________
President Lincoln issued 64 pardons for war-related offences; 22 for conspiracy, 17 for treason, 12 for rebellion, 9 for holding an office under the Confederacy, and 4 for serving with the rebels.

The American Civil War was a White (WASP Male) Supremacist insurrection against the Constitutional government of the United States. Every American that served the Confederate cause was a TRAITOR and every White Supremacist today is a Traitor and a Terrorist.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2017, 11:14 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,266
Thanks: 173
Thanked 5,116 Times in 3,717 Posts
Default Re: If we cared about peace we would be talking to Hamas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog Man View Post
..... you mean this one?

D'oh!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-20-2017, 07:04 AM
MrLiberty's Avatar
professional curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,480
Thanks: 21,849
Thanked 18,562 Times in 11,912 Posts
Default Re: If we cared about peace we would be talking to Hamas

with Jerusalem as its capital along 1967 lines”.

That is a non starter right there and they know it. HAMAS needs to be eradicated, the same as you would with any vermin.
__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Donald Trump
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
about, cared, hamas, peace, talking, would

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0