Celebration, peace at last!!!

I would like to start the celebrations after Khaled Mashal, the leader of Hamas, specifically stated that if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders then indeed peace would break out finally. Thus all Israel needs to do is move approximately 250,000 people, accept Jerusalem as a free movement area, (democratically run by both peoples, open to both and watched by the UN) and peace can break out. Considering that Israel originally displaced over 800,000 Palestinians and that the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 has called for Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967, this solution should be fine. A few high rise blocks in the undisputed areas and end of problem.

However some have suggested that Israel doesn't want peace really and has the US administration in its pocket. And so the conflict might continue, (thanks America again!!)

Have I got this right?

Gmarthews said:

...Have I got this right?

Click to expand...

Well you are right about the Israelis having no interest in a negotated peace but unfortunately I don't think Hamas have either.

You don't link to any news story but a week ago Mashal was demanding Israel's unilateral submission to all Hamas demands before Hamas will even consider putting its ambition to destroy the Zionist Entity on hold perhaps for a century. He includes the right of return to Israel itself which he knows will never be granted by Israelis.

"When Israel says that it will recognise Palestinian rights, and will withdraw from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and grant the right of return, stop settlements and recognise the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination, then Hamas will be ready to take a serious step," Mr Mashal said.

"If Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders and recognised the rights of Palestinian people, with the right of those in the diaspor to return to their land and to East Jerusalem, and to dismantle settlements, Hamas can then state its position and possibly give a long-term truce with Jerusalem, as Ahmed Yassin said.

"But not now. Only after Israel recognised the rights of the Palestinians and showed and confirmed its willingness to withdraw to the 1967 borders."

Mr Mashal, a former physics teacher who has emerged as Hamas's main leader since Sheikh Yassin was killed in a targeted assassination by Israel in March 2004, said that the truce would be "long-term but limited" until the international community was able to find a long-term solution to ensure the right of return for Palestinians driven from the land since 1948.

Click to expand...

He's almost certainly talking about a Hudna as Hamas leaders have in the past:

According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi'i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).
...
In January 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six Day War, and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Rantissi said the hudna was limited to ten years and represented a decision by the movement because it was "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage; the hudna would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel." Hamas' former spritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin made similar statements at this time, including a one hundred year Hudna.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile Hamas's man in Tehran offers some smooth words to the Mullahs :

He also said his group would step up its military operations if the Jewish state takes military action against Iran over its disputed nuclear programme.

"We are not prepared to give the 'Zionist' regime another 15 years to play their old and usual games," the Hamas representative told Iran News.

"The previous bitter experience of the Palestinian nation and the Palestinian authority in negotiating with them has proven that there is nothing to be gained from the continuation of such discussions."

He also vowed Hamas "will force Israel out of Gaza, the West Bank and Qods (Jerusalem)".

"We shall remain the same Hamas as before the elections. Of course, our tactics, rhetoric and language might change and we might adopt a political language that is a bit different. However, we won't be dictated to by the US or Israel or succumb to their pressures," he asserted.

Click to expand...

So if israel bends to hamas demands they get 10yrs of truce not really going to happen is it ?
puts party poppers back in box

Apologies for the lack of link highlighted, i just saw the interview on BBC World, where he stated the Hamas position. The interview is alluded to by:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2030654,00.html

What intrigues me is the complete silence by the media about the position of Israel and the USA, which seems to be the sticking point more than the Palestinian position.

That's the article I quote above.

As the Hudna link above suggests this isn't a new Hamas position indeed it's couched in even vaguer and more maximalist language than al-Rantissi used:

"I believe that would end the conflict, with a cease-fire. Remember my diagnosis about the future. It was not new. We said it already in the past. What is needed is a withdrawal from all of Gaza and the West Bank, a chance to establish an independent state. We will agree to a truce. No one can say the Hamas movement will be able to bring about the liberation of Palestine within 100 or 200 years. Without dramatic changes in the region, it is impossible. We cannot tell our people to continue in an unequal conflict. But neither can anyone tell them to give in, to surrender in the face of Israel's aggression."

Click to expand...

thanx for the clarification, perhaps a solution would be a one state democratic area, after all the three religions have historically lived side-by-side for eons before? Maybe simply setting up a 2-state solution will just polarise the factions, thus continuing the war for longer. So a more long term solution might be one nation. All this requires compromise by Israel as well as the Palestinians. I noticed that they have been killing Palestinians again, two teenagers and two men on Saturday:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article346531.ece

Obviously violence from either side could be seen as terrorism or freedom fighting depending on which side of the fence one is.

Perhaps it would help if the media stopped going on about the failure of Hamas in denouncing violence and neglecting to make a big deal about the same lack on the Israeli side too.

The problem is Hamas is rather frank about its ambition to wipe Israel off the map and that's hard to get round. Al-Rantissi clearly articulates this ambition but also acknowledges it might take a couple of centuries and that a twin state solution with a long term truce might offer a way towards it. Actually there is something to be said for this position: its candid. Israelis clearly had no confidence in the sincerity Yasser's more diplomatic worded overtures.

All this talk about rights to exist is cant. Isn't it naive to believe if Israel's strength suddenly failed such a statement would save their colony? We should not forget states uneasily co-existing despite such sworn emneties is not unusual. Consider the long lived Crusader state that Al-Rantissi alludes too, it was if anything more secure than Israel is now. Who's to say that the relationship might not improve over the decades and Israelis should diligently work to ensure it does for Al-Rantissi is right a moment of weakness will come and if his views are still current that will be the end of the Jewish homeland.

What worries me with Hamas is they are like most Religious Conservatives, a narcisstic, inwardly focused movement, I don't think they stand much chance of maintaining even the feeble international support the Palestinians currently get. They'll end up as an Iranian dependent or resorting to ineffectual counter-productive foolishness like the second intifada. The Beards need to learn to lie as easily as Gerry Adams or Dick Cheney.

So let me get this straight, the Palestinians have the concept of Hudna, which basically means that if they are in a war which they are having difficulty winning, then they will declare a Hudna for a specific period, often 10 years, and use that time to regroup and rebuild its strength so that the war can be restarted. The only really viable solution, therefore, would be a state where all people have an enshrined freedom of movement in the area, and where Israel accepts that both religions have a claim and need to live in peace with each other. Sadly the Israelis do not seem willing to negotiate and are depending on the world not caring enough to do anything. This assumption may be self-defeating if nuclear bombs start dropping. Such may be the price of a lack of compromise.

So the Israeli's withdraw give up control of jerusalem in exchange for 10 years or more or less no attacks no promises though.
I can see them going for that seems a bargin to me