Should Israel negotiate with Hamas

Kolo · September 21st, 2005, 08:01 AM

This is encouraging, from this morning:

Quote:

Hamas: We could one day recognize Israel

Militant group leader says charter could change if Israel meets conditions

Updated: 9:21 a.m. ET Sept. 21, 2005
NABLUS, West Bank - Hamas could one day amend a charter calling for the destruction of Israel and hold negotiations with the state, a political leader of the Islamic militant group in the West Bank said.

“The charter is not the Quran,” Mohammed Ghazal told Reuters in an interview in Nablus on Tuesday.

“Historically, we believe all Palestine belongs to Palestinians, but we’re talking now about reality, about political solutions ... The realities are different.”

The unprecedented comments by Mohammed Ghazal clashed with recent pronouncements of more senior Hamas officials in Gaza.

But they reflected an apparent shift in Hamas toward the political mainstream and to winning greater world acceptance in the run-up to Palestinian parliamentary elections and after Israel’s pullout from the Gaza Strip.

Ghazal said it was still early to talk about recognizing Israel “while Israel doesn’t recognize me as the victim.”

Conditions for talks
He said any Hamas talks with Israel would still depend on its withdrawal from the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem to allow an independent state as well as a “right of return” for Palestinian refugees who fled in 1948 and their descendants.

He acknowledged a “strong belief” that those conditions were likely never to be met.

Despite pulling troops from Gaza after a 38-year occupation, Israel has said it will hold East Jerusalem and major West Bank settlements forever and never allow millions of Palestinians abroad to flood into Israel.

“The Israelis should reach that stage when they feel they should negotiate with us and at that time I don’t think there will be a problem of negotiating with the Israelis,” said Ghazal, long known as a relative moderate.

“The idea of negotiating is not something problematic and is not a dogma,” he said at his office in an-Najah university, where he is a professor of engineering.

Hamas, listed as a terrorist group by the United States and Europe, has been the most powerful group behind suicide bombings and rocket attacks in a Palestinian uprising that began in 2000 after talks collapsed.

The political position of Hamas has been that it could declare a long-term truce if Israel gave up the West Bank and Gaza and might even talk to Israel, but it has not talked openly of changing the charter drawn up in 1988.

Unlike the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas has stood for replacing Israel with an Islamic state rather than a state in peace alongside it.

But Hamas, weakened militarily by Israeli raids and assassinations, has largely respected a truce since February and is preparing to take part in parliamentary elections for the first time in January and hopes for big political gains.

Israel demands Hamas disarm
Abbas is under pressure from Israel and the United States to start disarming Hamas as part of a peace “road map” and Israel has ruled out statehood talks before then, but Hamas refuses and Abbas has shied from the measure, fearing internal strife.

Objecting to Hamas participation in the parliamentary election, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said Israel could hinder the ballot if Hamas does not disarm and change what he called its “horrible” charter.

Ghazal said such Israeli statements would only serve to strengthen the Hamas position.

He said he still feared that Israel and the United States could press Abbas to put off the already delayed elections given their concerns that Hamas could do well against a dominant Fatah movement weakened by a record of mismanagement and corruption.

But he said that if elections were not held it would delegitimize Abbas and the Palestinian Authority and that in such a case Hamas could move to establish its own authority.

“There will be parallel authorities,” he said.

Israel has stated it will never recognize Hamas, and has threatened to disrupt the coming elections if Hamas candidates are on the ballot. In light of Hamas apparently ceding something it's never considered--the possibility of the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East--is it time for Israel to negotiate?

krepitch · September 21st, 2005, 09:06 AM

Wow. That is big news.

Kolo · September 21st, 2005, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krepitch

Wow. That is big news.

That apparently nobody cares much about. Maybe the poll I decided against posting this morning--

Which phrase best describes the Democratic party's strategy on the Iraq War:
A) Cut and Run
B) Bitch and Moan

--would have gotten more play.

Kidding, of course.

krepitch · September 21st, 2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kolobotomy

That apparently nobody cares much about. Maybe the poll I decided against posting this morning--

Which phrase best describes the Democratic party's strategy on the Iraq War:
A) Cut and Run
B) Bitch and Moan

--would have gotten more play.

Kidding, of course.

I think if one were to rate current events on an "Importance / Interest" scale, this issue would be at or near the top. I don't think people appreciate just how important this conflict is.

You could have also done a poll on the Republican strategy in Iraq:
A) Cut Taxes
B) Bitch and Moan about the media and Democrats

Kidding, of course.

Kolo · September 21st, 2005, 10:14 AM

Quote:

I think if one were to rate current events on an "Importance / Interest" scale, this issue would be at or near the top. I don't think people appreciate just how important this conflict is.

Agreed.

Quote:

You could have also done a poll on the Republican strategy in Iraq:
A) Cut Taxes
B) Bitch and Moan about the media and Democrats

Touche.

DjaugheOld · September 21st, 2005, 01:31 PM

Sorry I came in late on this one.

I voted 'no'...probably the biggest reason is that Sharon is already fighting for his political life and the last thing he needs is to appear soft to a terrorist organization after he gave up Gaza to the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas needs to step up to the plate and disarm first before anymore concessions are discussed...imo of course.

40yearfan · September 21st, 2005, 02:24 PM

I've looked at this thread 3 times and still haven't made up my mind how to vote. It's really a tough decision. On the one hand, you'd like to see a permanent peace even if it means recognizing Hamas, but on the other, by negotiating, you impart a sense of legitimacy to a terrorist organization.

I just don't know.

Kolo · September 21st, 2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

I've looked at this thread 3 times and still haven't made up my mind how to vote. It's really a tough decision. On the one hand, you'd like to see a permanent peace even if it means recognizing Hamas, but on the other, by negotiating, you impart a sense of legitimacy to a terrorist organization.

I just don't know.

It's tough for me, too. W's administration's policy not to negotiate with terrorists is a fine one when they're few in number, and pariahs--but what about when they sit on every city council of a "country" you're at war with?

I voted #2. Clearly permitting the Right of Return is not possible--spatially, and it's be suicide--and withdrawing from the West Bank entirely would make Israel proper far more difficult to defend. But after this long, as entrenched and respected as Hamas is among Palestinians, I don't see any other way the conflict will resolve.

justAndy · September 21st, 2005, 02:51 PM

if Hamas is terrorists, what are Zionists?
Check out what "rabbis against Zionism" has to say.

Chris_Sanders · September 21st, 2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

I've looked at this thread 3 times and still haven't made up my mind how to vote. It's really a tough decision. On the one hand, you'd like to see a permanent peace even if it means recognizing Hamas, but on the other, by negotiating, you impart a sense of legitimacy to a terrorist organization.

I just don't know.

I felt the same way and voted for the middle option because "don't know" wasn't an option.

Chris_Sanders · September 21st, 2005, 03:13 PM

My girlfriend who is jewish votes no. Negotiations should only occur with Palestine not with a terrorist organization.

RedStorm · September 21st, 2005, 03:13 PM

No to Hamas.

But yes to the elected governemnt of the Palestinian people. Although, I have little hope anything will change.

Kolo · September 21st, 2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sanders

Negotiations should only occur with Palestine not with a terrorist organization.

Unfortunately, to a significant extent they're one and the same.

SirStefan32 · September 21st, 2005, 04:55 PM

Nope. Wipe them out! Kill the vermin, then negotiate with what's left.

AZZenny · September 21st, 2005, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Negotiations should only occur with Palestine not with a terrorist organization.

Unfortunately, to a significant extent they're one and the same.

Right you are - However, Israel has always been equal parts pragmatic and ruthless - whatever it took in its own defense. If Hamas did drop most or all of the conditions, AND stopped promoting suicide bombers 1) It wouldn't be Hamas, and 2) it wouldn't be (as) terrorist - so it would make sense to at least talk. Short of that - no way. Let the Kidon deal with them.