Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Respite on the Road to Nowhere?
WASHINGTON - An informal truce between Israel and Hamas went into effect early Thursday morning, temporarily suspending a year of fighting that has left more than 600 Palestinians -- many of them civilians -- and 18 Israelis dead.
The guns fell silent at 6 a.m. amid scepticism that the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire will actually hold. The next 48 hours will determine whether both sides halt their cross-border fighting in exchange for a partial and gradual easing of Israel's economic blockade of Gaza.
While welcomed by Washington, the fragile truce marks yet another failure for the George W. Bush administration's "transformative diplomacy" policy in the Middle East. In the current climate, the Bush administration's tacit support for the Egyptian-mediated ceasefire underscores its need to salvage the withering Annapolis process.
"Anything that helps maintain security for Israeli citizens, that helps end the kind of violence that has been fairly constant along the border with Gaza is something that's positive," State Department spokesperson Tom Casey told reporters Thursday.
"I think the one caveat we have always said is that we don't think that any other track or any other negotiating path ought to be a substitute or a distraction from the primary set of discussions and negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians," he said, referring to U.S.-led peace talks that have yet to result in substantive progress.
The White House has publicly ruled out direct negotiations with Hamas until it renounces violence and accepts Israel's right to exist, but the group's ability to exploit the consequences of its isolation over the last year forced Washington to soften its stance. As in Lebanon, the move appears to have strengthened the political standing of a group that Washington still considers a terrorist organisation.
Beyond easing the immediate hardship to Gazans and stopping rocket fire into Israel, analysts here say the ceasefire will not lead to a substantive shift in peace talks.
"The ceasefire in Gaza will be a welcome respite, but a fundamental road to nowhere," said Aaron David Miller, an advisor to six U.S. secretaries of state, during a panel on Capitol Hill last Wednesday.
"A ceasefire means more than stopping fire," said former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy. "For Palestinians, it means actually being able to breathe and opening up the economy."
The Israeli siege was meant to apply economic pressure on the population of 1.5 million Palestinians in the hopes that they would turn against the Islamist group, but that goal has backfired. The crisis has, instead, caused the Palestinians polity to split further.
Despite military and economic pressure, Hamas has consolidated its power in Gaza.
On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the notion of the territory as a separate entity is "solidifying, making it less likely that Palestinians might agree even among themselves on peace with Israel."
Hamas seized control of Gaza last June after the national unity government with Fatah leader and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas collapsed. Abbas has since governed the West Bank from the city of Ramallah.
Israel and Washington's embrace of Abbas has considerably weakened the Fatah leader, as he struggles to govern a divided polity while simultaneously pursuing Annapolis peace talks. But with Bush's term near its end, and with no discernible progress on the ground, there is a growing realisation that no such deal will take place.
"Any effective truce will further enhance the sense of the futility of [U.S.-led] negotiations even though an improved security environment will create a more promising backdrop to those talks," said Daniel Levy.
In this new tenuous security environment, it appears that bridging the political divide between Palestinians remains the highest priority.
"Palestinian Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall and has cracked, and how can it be reassembled?" said Miller. "A unified Palestinian power is the only chance for any kind of agreement to be implemented."
"We are living our worst nightmare since 1967," said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat while visiting Washington last month.
In Israel, right-wing opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu blasted the truce agreement, saying it only gave Hamas more time to rearm for future confrontations.
"I would like to know, what did we achieve here exactly? Hamas will not stop rearming -- (Hamas politburo chief) Khaled Mashaal said they wouldn't and the defence establishment already said the truce will be fragile."
"We didn't get Gilad back. We got nothing. The government is allowing Hamas to go about rearming before the next round of terror attacks," he said, referring to the Israeli solider captured by Hamas militants in a cross border raid in June 2006.
While both sides welcomed the truce, recent history suggests that it could be short-lived.
Israel has made the re-opening of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt conditional on progress towards the release of Shalit. Its phased approach to easing economic restrictions on Gaza reflects doubt that the ceasefire will last, and the army has already been instructed to prepare for a large-scale offensive operation if it collapses.
Tel Aviv also succeeded in getting Hamas to drop its longstanding demand that any ceasefire apply to the West Bank, in addition to Gaza.
Copyright © 2008 IPS-Inter Press Service



45 Comments so far
Show AllJan, Thank you for you explanation of why the Hamas can't recognize Israel's right to exist.
I do have a couple of other questions and a statement:
1. Will it be acceptable to you if Israel and the international community will continue to suspend funds transfer, and limit merchandise transfer only to humanitarian aid, to Hamas controlled territory, for as long as they say, against UN charter, that Israel, a respectable UN member, have no right to exist?
2. What about the Hamas claim that they have natural right to randomly kill Jews? Do you think they should keep that right? (In their language code, randomly killing Jews is describes as "all forms of resistance")
As for your optimism that a permanent peace agreement could be achieve with the Hamas - I think that for as long as they'll keep their racist ideology, it wont happen.
Up until today, the most moderate "offer" I heard from Hamas, is that they might agree to a 10 years cease-fire, and only under draconian conditions that are unacceptable to Israel. (As per Carter's visit with Masha'l in Damascus)
All this is is an opportunity for the palestinian terror groups to rearm and regroup. I can't believe how stupid israel is sometimes. They need to fight it out with hamas until either all of them are dead or all israelis are dead, there is no other option.
Olmert must go!!!!!!
Hopefully this will be a step towards meaningful peace. The comment from "Ariel_Sharon" illustrates the Israeli and US right wing mindset which is one of the major obstacles. Ariel Sharon is in a coma, but his racist and hegemonic spirit lives on. This peace is a tribute to the determination of the Palestinian people and the Hamas movement in contrast to the thoroughly corrupt and venal Abbas-Fayad 'leadership'. See the website Palestine Information Center based in UK for daily events and the Hamas perspective.
Ariel_Sharon, what about Israel's terror?
lol Ken israel's terror? You mean like sitting on their ass while hamas rearms? You mean like letting redneckish palestinian splinter groups fire rockets at them all day? You mean that terror?
Israel needs to learn how to get some real terror going, or they'll never win this.
rsterling: I am not "racist" in the sense that I feel there is some inborn issue with arabs. I am a realist, in that I know what their culture teaches them about jews and israel, and that they will never want peace. This does not make me a racist. You guys need to take a closer look at who you support...
Oh Ariel wake up from your coma. It is the Israeli terrorists with their US supplied weapons and racist ideology (choosen people ha) which is the problem.
Ariel Sharon is a troll. Leave him/her to play with him/her self.
Khody Akhavi doesn't even know that the Capital of Israel is Jerusalem, and not Tel-Aviv.
How can he expected to be taken seriously?
Watch for Isreali extra judiciary killings. And when the Palestinians respond, they will blame the Palestinians for breaking the ceasefire.
Hey Ariel, I thought you were a vegetable in some Jewish hospital....
horrified, the palestinians have already broken the ceasefire, they attacked some hikers in the west bank.
Howie, the racist ideology is that of the arabs. They claim jews are decended from "apes and pigs" and have horns and goats feet. I assure you I believe no such nonsense about them. And where does israel justify its actions by claiming "we are chosen people"? Did Livini say that at one point?
You are the troll meg.
Right on the money letto! Good to see they don't ban you like they always ban me.
Meg June 21st, 2008
7:03 pm
Yes, I am a troll, I just need a nice jewish boyfriend to keep me company...
Bloodlust can't be satisfied.
The jewish country will murder a dozen more Palestinians in a weeks time.
They enjoy killing the "Araboushkin." They are all IslamoF
fascist's, right, or they bear them or will grow up...
Which Moshe called them "Monkees?
All people are equal, except those who hurt others,
and they are less than,
Peace.
lisa, and what do palestinians call jews again?
Yes, many of them are islamofascists.
Do you have a problem with religious fundamentalism or fascism? If so, you should support israel.
I support Peace, Ariel, truly, and want Israel to have a good and healthy world. 100%.
But truly, they are the aggressors in this conlict; by a factor of 600 to 18 or so.
And have "all the cards;" this could be over if it was Israel's will.
A homeland. Can you relate to the need?
Peace might be worth it. Though not in blood, the costs to Israel are high.
Question; does using the name Ariel Sharon mean you support what happened at Sabra and Shatilla?
Thanks for an honest answer to that one. we're taking bets here.
Do I support christian fascists killing babies and women? of course I don't, and neither did Ariel Sharon. I think its absurd to ever expect israel to offend one of its few allies in the region. Israel also won't speak out against Turkey's denial of the armenian holocaust (which surely happened). This sucks badly, and it hard for jews to deal with, but the potential flip side is the destruction of israel.
It sucks having to make these kind of choices, but these are choices forced on israel, not ones israel has decided to make. Calling them "aggressors" at all is not fair since the military option is another one forced upon them. If they do not keep an aggressive military posture, their civilians die. Remember 2001-2002 when the palestinians were getting off a big suicide bombing every single week, if not every day? That's not a choice. You can't call someone in that position an "aggressor" as aggressor implies they could have done otherwise. The palestinian suicide bombers, however, clearly could have stayed home. THEY had a choice and chose to murder civilians. THEY are the aggressors.
Palestinians never did have a homeland. "palestine" was a british colony, and before that it was apart of the ottoman empire. Before that the caliphate, and before that the crusader kingdom. Why do they automatically get a homeland when they already rejected the UN partition of british palestine?
Where is "here" by the way?
And who are "we"?
You heard about Menachim Begin throwing Palestinian babies down wells?
So Jews could steal their land?
These and ten thousand other atrocities make your 'points' specious anti-logic.
Shalom.
In spite of this I wish Israel a good life; in spite of Zionists ankle deep in baby blood, I wish Israel well.
I just can't fathom the cruelty of the jewish country,
which now wants to fly a thousand miles to kill Persians,
practice for if they kill every singly Arab.
Again, Goodbye.
lisa3210peace, "But truly, they are the aggressors in this conlict; by a factor of 600 to 18 or so."
The problem with your analysis lisa3210peace, is that you are looking only on the numbers. Only on body count. And totally ignore the motives, and the initiative which, in my opinion, are far more important.
I presume your conclusion came to be because it seems impossible / unrealistic to you that the weak can be the aggressor.
During the fighting between Japan and USA in WW2, Japan lost 2 millions and USA 100,000. soldiers. (The ratio was 1:20) Does it mean that the USA was the aggressor?
The facts are as follow:
Side A is trying to maximize the number of civilian casualties of side B, and they are doing so while hiding among their own civilities.
Side B is trying to hit ONLY active militants of side A, while trying to minimize the civilian casualties of A. (Which at the moment can't be totally avoided since A is using them as human shield)
The reason you see so many casualties in A, is because B is better equipped and better trained, and NOT because B is the aggressor.
Why the motives are so important?
Because technology advance. In the future, weapons will become more and more accurate. And each side will do a better job in meeting its goals.
If Israel will have the perfect weapon, no Palestinian civilities will die (Only active members of terrorist organization).
What do you think will happen if the Hamas will gain access to the perfect weapon? Would you say they will spare even a single Jewish baby in Israel?
lisa3210peace "You heard about Menachim Begin throwing Palestinian babies down wells? So Jews could steal their land?"
---
I presume you are talking about Dir-Yassin, A Massacre of 116 Palestinians by Jewish fighter under Menachim Begin.
Here is some additional background:
In 1947 the UN voted to divide Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. (UN resolution 181)
The Palestinian leadership and the Arab league rejected the UN resolution, and they went to a war of annihilation against the Jews of Palestine.
As a result of the war, there were Massacres on both sides. About 1000 Palestinians (Among them in Dir Yassin) were Massacred by Jews, and about 1000 Jews were Massacre by Arabs.
(For example: Kfar Etzion, 250 Jews were massacred, which is more than in Dir-Yassin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Etzion_massacre )
In that war (Which was initiated by the Arab side) about 7,000 Jews were killed. The number of Arab killed in unknown and estimated between 5,000 and 15,000.
As a result of the war, some 700,000 Palestinians were displaced, and some 850,000 Jews (Who lived in the Arab world) were also displaced, leaving behind property worth billions.
So you see my dear. No one was saint. And telling only half the truth.... Well I hope it came from ignorance.
Peace.
Hi Letto, thanks for the response. I recall a post of yours that said you would be happy to see a two state solution; that it would be a "win win" situation.
I'd like to believe I got that right, but extrapolate if you care to,
Grazi. And Peace for sure.
lisa3210peace, A win/win agreement is a very simple concept.
Look at the situation as it is today. If both sides could agree on a peace which will make the situation better for everyone - you have a win/win peace.
If X will insist on conditions which makes the current situation (war) preferable to Y, a win / win peace won't be achieve.
Specifically to Gaza:
1. There is no territorial dispute, so the border is not an issue.
2. Both sides will stop attacking the other.
3. Both sides should recognize the other's right to exist. (Permanently)
4. The siege should end.
5. In the long run (After there is trust and no risk of terror), open the border to people and goods.
The main problem is 3. I don't see the Hamas changing their mind on that subject.
---
The west bank is a more complex issue. But I'm sure a win / win agreement could be found. Maybe something similar to the Camp David 2000 agreement which was rejected by Arafat.
600 Palestinians and 18 Israelis dead...Somehow the numbers tell it all. Seems like the Israelis do a better job of defending themselves which they claim as their right than the Palestinians which claim it as their right. And they both have the right.
Somewhere this insanity has to stop.
@ Ariel Sharon and Letto,
Did you pay your friendship fees to CD at the last fundraiser? I didn't think so...
But they did at the ADL's, CAMERA's, MEMRI's and Campus Watch's.
Sounds like either a one state solution or a two state solution is now completely out of the question. So. . .A three state solution?
I agree with Lisa3210Peace, but I hope that's not the year peace comes! By reading this comment section, however, that date may well be too early, 3210, I mean.
Isreal does need to admit it is the aggressor here, if peace in any states come.
It's been more aggressive, it has more aggressive resources, they have nuks for goodness's sake!!
Ya hafta know what the heck is going on, what's broke, before it can be fixed! And Isreal is pretty broke, same with US.
Hmmm!
Let me see...600 Palestinians murdered, and 18 Israeli Jews murdered...
...so State Dept spokesperson says:''Anything that helps maintain security for Israeli citizens,...'
What twigs on me is the last part of thsi article where the author suggests Gaza consolidating as its own entity. It has seemed to me for some time that Israel and the West are moving to make Gaza the new Palestinian state, and to squeeze any non Jewish people out of the West Bank so that the West Bank could be incorporated into Israel proper. Teh squeeze would be to offer no Jewish people in the West Bank the choice of moving either to Gaza or to some other place. The West would pick up the tab.
(This is a heck of a lot more likely than moving Jewish people in West Bank back to Israel.)
John, the death toll in and of itself says nothing, especially when those 18 israelis were killed in deliberate attacks on civilians. Israel does not attack palestinian civilians on purpose, the terror groups use them as human shields...
But you lefties already know this stuff.
ken do you have any response? Or just more nonsense?
"Ariel", to continue to quote long since exposed Abe Foxman/Alan Dershowitz talking points as facts that "lefties" already know only exposes your hardline anti-human rights agenda. These absurdities don't rise to the level bad comedy. Rational people can only wonder at your intent, surely you don't think you can convince people that up is down, hot is cold etc. Honestly, you should look into getting some new material. That nonsense is just sad.
lol ken wtf are you talking about? Did you just take a big hit of salvia or something?
Fusion? Yes, I'm all about fusion reactors... is that what you were talking about? Some how I doubt it. I'm not a girl either, so get your hands off of your you-know-what.
Post, is there anything specific you are talking about? I don't think anything I have said has been revealed as a "lie". And since you guys never really respond to me, I don't even know what you are referring to in the first place.
Beware of "Progressives" here.
Imperialist Israelis like Imperialist Westerners generally will happily use "Human rights", "Women's Rights" "Gay Rights", "Democracy" and so on, to help justify their continued march to power and economic exploitation. They are very much like the old colonial empires claiming they were bringing civilisation as they took over the land.
If Ariel_Sharon really cares about improving the values in Islamic places then the least likely way to succeed at such changes is by waging and threatening to wage wars against Islamic peoples. "Western values" will be totally unattractive if the bearer is bringing them by conquest. This is especially so when the people you hope to change are strongly religious.
So people beware of Israeli and U.S. imperialists claiming to be "Progressive"...conquest is on their minds.
Letto said
"The reason you see so many casualties in A, is because B is better equipped and better trained, and NOT because B is the aggressor."
So that was why thousands of Palestinian youth were killed by Israelis whilst no occupation soldiers died during the first Intafada. The Israeli Defence Force troops were better equiped in their armour plated vehicles and using firearms against the stone throwers. - Bullets and armour against stones...a great achievement to be proud of. No wonder the Palestinians tried to get better equiped after that. They managed to even the odds a little after that but Israelis have never stopped complaining about it even though they still kill FAR more civilian palestinians than any Israeli deaths. Apparently according to the posters here that's okay because Palestinians aren't "progressive" enough.
The pro Israeli apologists here condemn themselves by their own words just as Israel does by its actions such as by committing extra-judicial killings and building settlements.
The Jewish people who took and still take the land from those who lived there for hundreds of years are clearly the aggressors. They could have stayed where they were but they chose to go to Palestine/ Israel and help kick out those who were already there. A feeble resistance by the indiginous people is called "aggression". The new settlers that filled Israel are actually the aggressors and everyone of them is a kind of tool or even a weapon of aggression as they take and occupy housing on Palestinian land. Their are no innocent Jewish settlers as they are all part of the aggression of taking over the land.
Jan, right, you are not progressive. And right, I will use those causes you don't seem to care about to advance progress, which you oppose. Thank you for your honesty.
The jews are clearly not the aggressors. Forst of all, it was the british that decided on partition of BRITISH palestine. It was their land, that was in fact given to them by the arabs in exchange for freedom from the ottomans, the previous owners. At NO time was there an independant "palestinian" state. In fact, it wasn't until 1967 that those peopel were even called "palestinian" as if this denotes some seperate ethnic group.
You claim this fight is "bullets and armor against stones". Suicide bombs and rockets are not stones. Typically stupid lefty argument there...
There are no innocent jewish settlers? So I suppose that means babies, women and children? Are you arab jan, or just a white jew-hater? What makes me far more upset then your bloodthristyness is the fact that you claim I am the bloodthirsty one! Furthermore, you stain the name of human rights by calling for genocide with one mouth then talking human rights with the other. What hypocritical nonsense.
We arn't going to change islamic values, what we must do is fight them and never surrender to them. You are from the uk right jan? Are you muslim? If not you should really wake up, your country is on the front lines as much as israel is, if not more. Stop condemning those who fight people who would have you as a slave in their harem...
Ariel "The jews are clearly not the aggressors" for starters.
"BRITISH palestine" - that's nice too. I forgot about all those brits in Palestine. Most folks are aware that the UK made the rules until after WWII when the US took up that noble endeavor.
My point is that these are but a few of the tired lies used to justify Israeli/Zionist land theft and ethnic cleansing. From the posts of yours I've read you trot all the old hoary hits. "Arab anti-semitism", "the mufti was a Nazi", "Hezbollah fires rockets from civilian areas" "Israel never targets civilians" and on and on. All nonsense.
And Jan, all apologies for using the term human rights. I didn't realize it was forbidden by radical hall monitors like yourself, I won't make the mistake again.
Post it's not a lie. It was british palestine. It was the british that partitioned it. Where's the lie?
As usual you insult me but then leave it at that. The mufti WAS a nazi, arabs DO hate jews, israel DOESN'T target civilians, and hezbollag and hamas DO fire rockets from civilian areas, purposely. Where's the lie here? Hamas sets up offices in pre-schools of course they use people as human shields.
Jan is muslim I think.
If Israel is not targeting civilians intentionally, if these women and children are just 'collateral damage,' the jewish shooters are the worst, the least accurate in the history of warfare.
But it takes a great shot to take a journalist,'s head off with a tank shell; SHARON there was no one near him, no hiding threat, this just another in Israels endless murder spree.
Like running Rachel over with a tank. There was no 'terrorist' or anyone near her. just another murder.
Israel kills children every week. that are not 'near' anyone.
The jewish country's sand is turning to mud with Palestinian blood.
Where is the Shame?
lisa3210peace, Israel does NOT target civilians intentionally. The Hamas and the Islamic Jihad does.
Theses are the simple facts period.
After Israel withdrawn from Gaza, there should have been no fighting at all. The Hamas and the Islamic Jihad thought differently> They chose to start firing rockets at Israeli cities and towns for no reason but hatred and fanaticism.
In recent years the number of Palestinians civilian casualties is around 50% of the total Palestinian casualties. The reason for that is not because Israel is trying to hit civilian, but because the Hamas is using civilians as human shield.
Do you truly believe that Israel is trying to hit civilians? And if yes, how can you explain that with hundreds of nukes and jet fighters and thousands of tanks, only 50% of the Palestinians casualties are active militants (Who are hiding among civilians)?
The Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are attacking Israeli civil targets such as the town of Shderot or the city of Ashkelon. (Not military bases) And they carrying these attacks from within Palestinians chools and residencial neighborhoods.
lisa3210peace, a couple of questions:
- Can you guess why the Hamas started this round of fighting after Israel withraw from Gaza?
- Can you guess why they chose to fire rockets at israel from within Paklestinians towns and schools and not from open fields?
Lets see if you have the courage to answer these two question.
Once you dare answering these 2 question, I'll answer you where is the shame.
I presume all the Israeli haters see the numbers 600 vs. 18. and their blood laust thirst will not be satisfied unless the number would be 600 vs. 600.
I for myself wish the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad would have not started this round of violence all together, and that the numbers would be 0 vs. 0.
Good day.
Sooner or later the Palestinians will receive some support from other countries and they will push the Jews into the Medeteranian sea, so if the jews has a little bit of commonsense left then they better learn how to swim. lol
postdementia June 22nd, 2008 3:24 pm
Sorry I am actually for "progressive" policies or human, gay or women's rights etc. However I have noticed war mongers in the West are far too easily able to whip up public fervour for invasions etc by SELECTIVELY exploiting our sensitities for people's rights. For instance, there is definitely a push for military action against Iran, and amongst other things women's rights and gay rights are used quite hypocritical to build up a ground swell of popular support in the West.
Sharon
"Israel does not attack palestinian civilians on purpose, the terror groups use them as human shields…"
The point about those thousands of Palestinian youths getting killed by IDF continually seems to pass you by. You are so aware of history when it suits you how come you don't know about the first Intafada. Palestinians were virtually unarmed yet thousands were killed. There were no attacks on civilians by the Palesinian youths and all they did was throw stones at tanks etc in Palestinian occupied territory. Killing Palestinians occured systematically BEFORE some of them later resorted to more violent means.
Sharon said
"Hamas sets up offices in pre-schools "
Why does Israel target the popularly elected government. They even SUPPORTED Hamas once as an attempt to undermine Arafat and his cronies. They had similar policies about not recognising Israel then as they had when they won the election.
Assassination of your neighbour's leadership isn't a good look; it makes you look just like those you condemn.
And by international law - it's illegal.
.
Someone asked me to explain why I thought Hamas can't recognise Israel's right to exist. I don't know for sure but I thought I figured it out so here goes:
Basically Hamas has a rather fundamentalist and literalist interpretation of the Islamic texts. Somewhere in those texts it says that once a land is Islamic it is always Islamic. Now there is no Islamic nation having claims on say Spain because it was once Islamic... so for Spain the belief of it always remaining Islamic meets the reality impressed on people by the passage of time.
Now in the Midde East the "real politic" is quite different. The loss of territory is recent. There is obviously an ongoing dispute over the land. So the particular interpretation Hamas has of the texts saying Palestine remains Islamic has current relevence. There are real people still alive who want to return to the homes from which they fled and/or were expelled. There are also many points of negotiation on which Hamas believes Fatah has sold out largely by being bought off. Hence all the Fatah corruption that Hamas stood against in its election. Hamas believed Fatah were bought off and so became corrupt as the Palesinian Authority was awash with money.
Well not recognising some new nation always means something. Remember how long it took for the US to recognise Communist China. Any new nation seeks recognition of its existence. Some current nations such as China, would go to war if any countries recognise Taiwan or Tibet as independent. So to lose some part of any land is difficult for its people or leaders to accept.
In the case of Palestinians recognising Israel, as well as the other things I mentioned, they probably fear they would also be breaking what they believe God told them through the prophet. For Hamas to recognise Israel would be like them saying that what God told the prophet about the land always remaining Islamic, is not true. (Remember during the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years the area was run as Islamic even though Jews and Christians were also there.) I believe Hamas could agree to a permanent truce whilst never officially recognising the permanence of Israel as a non Islamic state on what they believe by scripture will always remain Islamic land.
I believe Hamas could co-exist with Israel just as China and Taiwan co-exist. They are quite interconnected and yet independent in practice, whilst at the same time Taiwan may not declare its independenc and China could never accept Taiwan's independence. So in a vaguely similar way, I believe Israel and Palestine could co exist even though Hamas never recognises Israel. Such a state of affairs could go on for a hundred years, both in China and in Palestine/Israel, and then after a hundred years of peace, those people in the future can decide what to do with it.
The other reason Hamas won't give in to what Israel wants is that they are not as easily bought off as the Fatah establishment was. It remains to be seen just how much Israel is prepared to give up to get its peace.
.
Jan, what country are you from? Why won't you answer that question. Thousands of palestinian youth dead? And they weren't doing ANYTHING to israel? When did this happen? I don't believe this for a second, as its typical of you lefties to simply ignore the actions that arabs take to provoke the israeli response. Hamas is the popularly elected government, they are also a group of terrorists who attack israeli civilians.
Israel cannot sit back and allow its people to be murdered, over the diplomatic status of their murderers. That's more leftist idiocy.
Your vision of history is also nonesense. Israel was "stematically killing" palestinians before they used violent means???? Palestinians have been murdering jews in the region since the Hebron massacre of 1929. Israel didn't even exist yet. There were further massacres during the arab uprisings in the 1930's against british rule, not to mention the 1948, 1956, and 1967 wars, in which palestinians played a role by attacking israeli civilians. The attacks continued unabated between the wars as well, such as the maarlot massacre in the 1970's, in which palestinians shot down israeli shoolchildren they had hostage.
So when was this fabled period of arab non-violence? They have always been violent, and they always will be, as its a central part of their culture.
Jan, so you are a muslim are you not? Why do you hide it by pretending to argue hypothetically for hamas's religious position? Its obviously the position YOU take.
Lisa, you are the one who should be ashamed. IN all of the cases you mention, yes, it was not israel's delibrate policy to kill. However, it is ALWAYS the arabs policy, and typically they attack civilians. THAT is what YOU support, and you condemn me???? Nonsense.
Victor Frankel spent time in a concentration camp presence, I'd rather not see anyone else share the same fate. What did non-violence do for him?
Non-violence might work against british imperialists, who are basically decent people, but it doesn;t work against arabs, who basically are not.
Why won't you understand this?
ARIEL_SHARON says "Why won't you understand this?"
Because I have no mouth and I must scream … per Harlan Ellison
Perhaps reading the book might aid your abbreviated
point of view ?