Hamas agrees to Israeli state
Hamas have agreed to recognise the state of Israel.
In a historic climb down from their previously held position, the Hamas government of Palestine have agreed to a bitterly contested document that recognises Israel's right to exist and a negotiated two-state solution, according to Palestinian leaders.
This could be interpreted as a victory for Bush and Olmert who have advocated a tough stance against the Hamas regime. However, that presupposes that Bush and Olmert were serious when they said they hoped that Hamas would step down from their previous position and that negotiations could therefore take place.Yasser Abed Rabbo, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation's executive committee and a lead negotiator on the prisoners' document, said Hamas had agreed to sections which call for a negotiated and final agreement with Israel to establish a Palestinian state on the territories occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem.
"Hamas is prepared to accept those parts of the document because they think it is a way to get rid of a lot of its problems with the international community. That's why it will accept all the document eventually," he said.
Hamas, facing a deep internal split over recognition of the Jewish state, declined to discuss the negotiations in detail.
If it formally approves the entire document, it will represent a significant shift from its founding goal of replacing Israel with an Islamic state and its more recent position of agreeing a long-term ceasefire, over a generation or more, if a Palestinian state is formed on the occupied territories but without formally recognising the Jewish state.
Mr Abed Rabbo said he expected an agreement in the coming days, but that important differences still had to be settled, particularly over the document's call for the formation of a national unity government.
He described that as "the major issue that will determine the fate of two nations for decades" because a unity administration, built around a common policy of negotiations with Israel, would be the only way to combat its plans to unilaterally impose its final borders and annex parts of the occupied territories.
I'm going to stick my neck out here, although I genuinely hope that I am proven wrong.
I have never bought into the US/Israeli script that they are genuinely looking for partners to negotiate with. I fully expect the US and Israel, either to come up with a brand new set of demands that will precede any future negotiations, or for Israel to dismiss Hamas' recognition of them as disingenuous.
If they do as I suspect they will, Israel and the US will merely be repeating a pattern they have laid out over the last forty years, where they claim they are seeking partners for negotiations whilst continually raising the bar that must be reached in order for those negotiations to take place.
I really would be delighted if Israel and the US prove me wrong.
I have long said that the election of Hamas and Kadina represents the greatest chance for peace in the region in my lifetime. Israel have a real opportunity here to negotiate with the organ grinder rather than the monkey at a time when a majority of Israel's population favour disengagement.
As Max Hastings points out in a piece I've included in related articles, Europe's Jews are growing tired of paying the price of Israel's intransigence. The olive branch has been extended. If Israel is serious about peace, it is time to grasp it.
The ball is now in Israel's court. Just how serious is she about a negotiated settlement? The world is watching.
Click title for full article.
Related Articles:
Hamas performs about-turn on Israeli state.
Israel can no longer rely on the support of Europe's Jews
7 comments:
I doubt the Israelis will be highly convinced by this gesture. Especially considering they have been there and done that already with treacherous Fatah. Furthermore, I wouldn't trust Hamas further than I could throw them.
However, Bush may see it as an opportunity to try and push things forward. Kel, I think you basically judge the U.S. position incorrectly. The U.S. naturally suppports the western-oriented Israel over the backward Palestinians but it still believes that some sort of mutually agreed upon deal that might stabilize the region would be advantageous to the U.S. positiion in the region. This is why the U.S. strongly discouraged suggestions on the part of the Israelis who wanted to assassinate Arafat, for instance.
One positive aspect of this might be that the Palestinian civil war that seems to be developing might be diffused. Israel won't negotiate with Hamas directly, but Hamas might be able to use Abbas from this point forward in dealing with the Israelis. Abbas will no longer be an obstacle, but instead a partner, in future governance.
Israel and the US set the conditions, and have repeatedly insisted that this was the only reason why they would not negotiate with Hamas.
Hamas have complied, losing considerable face in the process.
As I said in my post, I suspected Israel and the US would either set new conditions or accuse Hamas of being "disingenuous".
You seem to think Israel will go for the latter.
If they do, then Israel have been lying when they set those demands as they are actually not interested in a negotiated settlement, and were only hoping that their demands would never be met.
Why else would you demand something that you wouldn't believe were it to be given to you?
I hope you are right about the US, because if they don't push Israel to react to this opportunity then they will seem as hypocritical as the Israelis.
I only included the article from Max Hastings because it perfectly reflects the views of one of my best friends who I walk with every morning.
She is Jewish and the European Jewish community are sick of Israel playing these games.
The word she used to describe Israelis this morning was "arrogant."
If Israel reject the very thing that they have been demanding that Hamas give them, then she will be right.
It is arrogant to presume that the rest of the world won't recognise the land grab disguised as "waiting for a partner to negotiate with" game that Israel have been playing.
The US need to come off the fence and insist that Israel negotiate.
I hope we are both wrong about the Israeli reaction. I hope Israel was not being hypocritical and that she does enter negotiations, if not with Hamas, then at least with Abbas.
But what she must do is negotiate.
Her unilateral bluff has been called.
Really? Did the Israeli government ever state officially that they would negotiate with Hamas on condition of recognition? I've heard certain individuals in the Israeli government express their opinion that such negotiations were feasible if Hamas made such a move, but I've also heard many say that negotiating with Hamas is not a possibility - ever. In fact, I can recall Olmert saying repeatedly that so long as even Hamas plays any significant role in the government, negotiations will not happen.
Still, I suspect negotiations will indeed move forward. I don't know how fruitful they will be. It is hard for me to imagine Hamas compromising on the refugee issue, for example, but we shall see. Maybe Hamas will surprise us again.
In fact, I just read an article stating that Abbas and Olmert have meet. The meeting appeared to be rather friendly. Olmert signalled that he would not negotiate with Hamas unless it "changed its stripes."
Israel must be well aware of the document circulating to recognize the state of Israel. If that is the case, then Olmert may be signalling a willingness to negotiate if the document is finalized by Hamas.
That's incorrect, Tommy. You are changing what he actually said.
*Mr Olmert said that if Hamas abandons its refusal to recognise Israel and its embrace of violence, "they will find us a willing partner in peace".*
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=768792006
Considering they have several times now offered "quiet for quiet" and have now agreed to recognise Israel, what stripes are left to be changed?
Did Olmert mean what he said or not?
I got a major problem with Tommy's use of the term "backward" to describe the Palestinians. It shows a certain aristocratic sense of superiority to the Palestinians. I don't care what the reasoning is, or why Tommy applied the term; the term "backward" says a LOT about the person using it. Grrrrrr. It shows that Tommy is neither dispassionate enough nor empathetic enough to be commenting on anything beyond his own hometown. (Sorry if he's anyone's friend, but he's offensive and must be so informed.)
Musclemouth,
That's who Tommy is. He's a fervent supporter of Israel and argues the Likud line that we've all heard a thousand times.
Israel should retain East Jerusalem, the 1967 borders aren't militarily acceptable to Israel etc, etc.
I think he's quite brave to come on to a left wing site and spout this stuff. Especially as I don't think he wins any arguments.
But I do enjoy his input. He adds a bit of colour.
Post a Comment