Hamas Must Recognise Israel

[Gurdur]

well, that may be your opinion....but there is also opinion that recognising a nation does imply acceptance of that nations borders.

Eh, wrong. For example, when the EU cut off funding to the Hamas-led government, they did it because Hamas refuse to accept Israel at all, not because of the borders.
Fatah do not recognise immutability of the borders, but they do recognise the right of Israel to exist.

I agree, it is stupid macho chest thumping...........Fatah recognised the meaninglessness of the statement and don't have fundamentalist religion to help drive them to pigheaded refusal.

Fine, you grant me my point and more. So why should we waste a single moment's sympathy on Hamas then?

 

[webfusion]

The thread is starting with a premise that HAMAS is going to change its ways, and that is not on the agenda.

In reality, what is being proposed is that HAMAS relinquish leadership of the Palestinian Authority, through the mechanism of Prime Minister Haniyeh resigning and a non-affiliated replacement taking his place:
Dr Muhammed Shubair.

This will obviate the need for HAMAS to do anything further at all, regarding recognizing or accepting Israel. HAMAS will be sidelined, and the PA President Abbas will point to that fact and say:
OK, we're ready to get back to the negotiating tables; We want the purse strings relaxed; We declare a 'tahidiya' (period of calm)

One thing that is quite clear; nobody is talking about the return to the "original mandate territory allocated for the Jewish State" (Which, by definition, would be a reference to the 1920 San Remo maps, based on the Sykes-Picot cartography lines).

Can someone draw me a map of "palestine"? Can you do that for us, The Fool? How are you with using photoshop?
You keep asking for Israel to declare the boundries it envisions. What about the palestinians? Where do they see the borders of their future State being demarcated? Wouldn't that be a useful thing to view? I sure would think so.

 

[steverino]

Actually, Webfusion, you give THE FOOL too much credit. If you hold your nose and scroll back through his posts on this thread, he generally refers to Israel as "Israel," in quotes.
It is like saying that I am visiting "my girlfriend." In other words, according to others, they she is, but I don't RECOGNIZE her as my girlfriend.

 

[The Fool]

The thread is starting with a premise that HAMAS is going to change its ways, and that is not on the agenda.

In reality, what is being proposed is that HAMAS relinquish leadership of the Palestinian Authority, through the mechanism of Prime Minister Haniyeh resigning and a non-affiliated replacement taking his place:
Dr Muhammed Shubair.

This will obviate the need for HAMAS to do anything further at all, regarding recognizing or accepting Israel. HAMAS will be sidelined, and the PA President Abbas will point to that fact and say:
OK, we're ready to get back to the negotiating tables; We want the purse strings relaxed; We declare a 'tahidiya' (period of calm)

One thing that is quite clear; nobody is talking about the return to the "original mandate territory allocated for the Jewish State" (Which, by definition, would be a reference to the 1920 San Remo maps, based on the Sykes-Picot cartography lines).

Can someone draw me a map of "palestine"? Can you do that for us, The Fool? How are you with using photoshop?
You keep asking for Israel to declare the boundries it envisions. What about the palestinians? Where do they see the borders of their future State being demarcated? Wouldn't that be a useful thing to view? I sure would think so.

read the thread web...I have already proposed what my borders are...what about your ideas?

 

[The Fool]

Actually, Webfusion, you give THE FOOL too much credit. If you hold your nose and scroll back through his posts on this thread, he generally refers to Israel as "Israel," in quotes.
It is like saying that I am visiting "my girlfriend." In other words, according to others, they she is, but I don't RECOGNIZE her as my girlfriend.

I've no Idea what you are going on about, can you explain please? I placed Israel in quotes because it was the subject of discussion exactly what "israel" is....ooops I did it again with the quotes, now dude please tell me about the holding of the nose....what is that all about?

 

[RandFan]

I believe what you have described would not be acceptable to Israel. This is not a recognition of Israel...the demand is Hamas recognize something called "Israel" (which is apparently too damn hard for anyone to define).....before.......before...anything about coming to an agreement on the terms.

This makes no sense at all. We are not talking about the final agreement. We are talking about an attempt to negotiate in good faith by first assuming that Israel in some form has the right to exist. Hamas clearly believes in no such thing and therefore they can never negotiate in good faith.

I honestly don't take you seriously anymore. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that parties could not negotiate in good faith by first assuming that Israel has the right to exist in some form. Israel has certainly been willing to come to the negotiating table.

I don't take you seriously at all anymore.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, Webfusion, you give THE FOOL too much credit. If you hold your nose and scroll back through his posts on this thread, he generally refers to Israel as "Israel," in quotes.
It is like saying that I am visiting "my girlfriend." In other words, according to others, they she is, but I don't RECOGNIZE her as my girlfriend.

No ◊◊◊◊. The guy isn't willing to look at the problem in an objective fashion. He has set up a strawman that he can tear down. He is not sincere IMHO. I had thought better of him.

 

[RandFan]

For the record, Israel isn't going away. They are not going to be destroyed. So, either continue the cycle of violence or deal with the elephant in the room. Negotiate in good faith. Israel does not have many options. Sure they could do a lot of things differently and I wish they would be that won't mean anything so long as Hamas is bent on their destruction. The ball really is now in the hands of Hamas. Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously deluded.

 

[The Fool]

No ◊◊◊◊. The guy isn't willing to look at the problem in an objective fashion. He has set up a strawman that he can tear down. He is not sincere IMHO. I had thought better of him.

can you describe the strawman randfan? If you are going to have a tantrum and leave thats your business but lets get a couple of things clear...

Israel will not negotiate with anyone who will not recognise israel....Recognition is a prerequisite to any negotiations ...please tell me if you disagree with that.

You define recognition as " Israel in some form has the right to exist". please tell me if you disagree with that.


Can you now tell me why it is impossible to get a single person to articulate what "some form" means in reality....the whole of the mandate? everything behind the wall? everything occupied by the idf......am I the only one on this forum able to articulate what I believe the reasonable borders of Israel are?

 

[RandFan]

can you describe the strawman randfan? If you are going to have a tantrum and leave thats your business but lets get a couple of things clear...

Israel will not negotiate with anyone who will not recognise israel....Recognition is a prerequisite to any negotiations ...please tell me if you disagree with that.

You define recognition as " Israel in some form has the right to exist". please tell me if you disagree with that.

Can you now tell me why it is impossible to get a single person to articulate what "some form" means in reality....the whole of the mandate? everything behind the wall? everything occupied by the idf......am I the only one on this forum able to articulate what I believe the reasonable borders of Israel are?

The strawman is that the terms must be defined before negotiations. That is pure and utter BS. You must first be willing to admit that Israel has a right to exist in some form. Until then it's all a waste of time. Declaring what the form is would be presumptious and premature because that must be worked out with the parties. No negotiations ever begin with the final terms decided. You really ought to know that. I think it is simply a matter of you not wanting to know that.

 

[RandFan]

If you are going to have a tantrum...

I'm not going anywhere.

 

[RandFan]

Israel: We will give you the Golan Heights.
Hamas: We want you dead.
Israel: We will give you the west bank.
Hamas: We want you dead.
Israel: We will release prisoners.
Hamas: We want you dead.
Israel: We will give you Joseph's Tomb
Hamas: We want you dead.
Israel: We will withdraw from Palestinian Cities
Hamas: We want you dead.

Please to explain Fool what exactly Israel is suppose to do? Is there any reason to believe that any steps made by Israel with have any effect on this seemingly intractable conflict?

 

[webfusion]

TF proclaims:

am I the only one on this forum able to articulate what I believe the reasonable borders of Israel are?

Draw-Us-The-Map.

I looked throught the thread, and didn't see a way to determine the borders from your words.
This is what you offered, and it certainly does not indicate any clearly mapped lines:

My own personal opinion of what the recognition demand should be is that "Israel" is the 67 borders (or whatever other name you wish to call them) plus the areas currently containing the large west bank settlements (everything behind the walls)...less east Jerusalem and a "free passage" rail and road link between Gaza and the west bank....no more and no less. what is your opinion?

1. In May 1967, the Israelis were sitting behind Armistice Lines after a cease-fire of the 1948 War. Those lines were defined in the Rhodes Conference. That's what they are called. Tenuous and arbitrary lines. Not borders. Get that point yet? It's been explained numerous times, and you keep insisting this is a game of semantics ----- it's not! There were no borders, in June 1967. Israeli troops did not cross any borders, and Israelis who later went in the 70's to live over the Green Line did not cross any borders.

2. The 'walls' as you term them, are only merely a small part of a long and convoluted security fence/barrier which is temporary in nature. It now is following a path that was determined by various factors, including geography and existing populations. Should there emerge a renewal of peaceful co-existence between these populations and the elimination of a culture on the other side that extolls the heinous acts of Islamic-fundamentalist jihadists and their cult of death, then the barrier would be extraneous.


3. "East Jerusalem" -- could you be more specific please? What about the Western Wall and the entire Jewish Quarter of the Old City? How about Gilo? Har Ha-Tzofim (Hebrew University)? Ma'ale Adumim?

4. "Free passage" is not an issue ---- unless the passage is utilized for the transport of tons of explosives, rockets, mines, grenades, machine guns, anti-tank weapons and shoulder-fired GRAIL anti-aircraft missiles.

5. Somewhere along the way, The Fool, you have neglected to realize that the original mandate for "palestine" was defined at San Remo in 1920 and at that point, the "jewish national home" was envisioned to include a vast area marked as "PALESTINE" on maps of the time (by the Sykes-Picot team). Every individual, every man woman and child, who was living in that entire wider area known as "palestine" would, by definition, be a "Palestinian" ---- jews and arabs alike.
A shattered remnant of jews took refuge after the holocaust of the 1940's in the narrow sliver of the western portion of the "jewish national home" and it only then came to be known as Israel. The fact is, the State of Israel was formed on less than 25% of the San Remo-mapped British Mandate territory (and that 25% was including the virtually uninhabitable Negev desert, which remains mainly empty to this day, since it does not easily support human life). The remaining 75% of "palestine" was not under the control of Israel, in any way shape or form, until the defensive operations during six days in June 1967 eliminated the looming threats from the surrounding Nations of Egypt, Syria and Jordan.
Even then, the 'palestinians' still had not lost a chance to form their own State, and the Israelis made offer after offer after offer to help them achieve it. To this day, that is what the Israelis keep offering, in almost every public statement I have ever seen.

Israel owes the "palestinians" nothing. Not one single thing.
Now, draw your map, TF.
Where is "Palestine"?
I'll help you along --- Here's a view of the general area in question:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/images/mideast-night-sat.jpg

 

[Darat]

I really would like to see the "current borders" you talk about. Can you point me to the description of them that you are referring to?

Why do you need exact borders to recognise a state? Spain does not need to agree with the UK about what constitutes the UK borders to recognize the UK as a state. Argentina and the UK fought a war not that long ago about our mutual disagreement regarding our respective borders, yet Argentina and the UK recognize each other as soverign states.

The Palestinian representatives could do the exact same without having at this stage or any other stage agree on any specific borders.

Plus once again there is the reality of the situation - 1) Israel has the means and uses them to enforce what it wishes its borders to be, the Palestinians can directly do nothing about that. 2) Hamas already does recognize that a state/nation called "Israel" exists (it has to do so to be able to call for its destruction!) and the lack of agreed borders does not seem to prevent them recognizing Israel for this goal.

 

[zenith-nadir]

The Palestinians have two camps, one is "return to 1967 borders" crowd and the other is "destroy the state of Israel" crowd. Hamas is in the "destroy the state of Israel" crowd, let's not mince words ok?

This demand that Israel's and Palestine's borders be finalized BEFORE Hamas agrees to recognize Israel is a nonstarter. It's a dead end. You can't have an bilateral agreements on the final status of borders if one party refuses to accept the existence of the other. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the problem at all. Even a special olympian has enough grey matter to reason it out.

The Palestinians and Israelis have already signed several agreements that deal specifically with the current status of Israel's and Palestine's borders, some of which have yet to be negotiated. That is why the UN, EU, US, Russia, Egypt and Jordan all demand that Hamas must recognize Israel with the current borders, the final status of which are to be negotiated.

If Hamas really wanted a two-state solution all they would have to do is simply recognize Israel's right to exsist, stop calling for it's destruction and then sit down with Israel and negotiate the borders of the two states. They have many previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements to work with. It is really that simple.

Everything else is excuses, smoke and mirrors.

 

[The Fool]

TF proclaims:

Draw-Us-The-Map.

I looked throught the thread, and didn't see a way to determine the borders from your words.
This is what you offered, and it certainly does not indicate any clearly mapped lines:

My own personal opinion of what the recognition demand should be is that "Israel" is the 67 borders (or whatever other name you wish to call them) plus the areas currently containing the large west bank settlements (everything behind the walls)...less east Jerusalem and a "free passage" rail and road link between Gaza and the west bank....no more and no less. what is your opinion?

1. In May 1967, the Israelis were sitting behind Armistice Lines after a cease-fire of the 1948 War. Those lines were defined in the Rhodes Conference. That's what they are called. Tenuous and arbitrary lines. Not borders. Get that point yet? It's been explained numerous times, and you keep insisting this is a game of semantics ----- it's not! There were no borders, in June 1967. Israeli troops did not cross any borders, and Israelis who later went in the 70's to live over the Green Line did not cross any borders.

2. The 'walls' as you term them, are only merely a small part of a long and convoluted security fence/barrier which is temporary in nature. It now is following a path that was determined by various factors, including geography and existing populations. Should there emerge a renewal of peaceful co-existence between these populations and the elimination of a culture on the other side that extolls the heinous acts of Islamic-fundamentalist jihadists and their cult of death, then the barrier would be extraneous.


3. "East Jerusalem" -- could you be more specific please? What about the Western Wall and the entire Jewish Quarter of the Old City? How about Gilo? Har Ha-Tzofim (Hebrew University)? Ma'ale Adumim?

4. "Free passage" is not an issue ---- unless the passage is utilized for the transport of tons of explosives, rockets, mines, grenades, machine guns, anti-tank weapons and shoulder-fired GRAIL anti-aircraft missiles.

5. Somewhere along the way, The Fool, you have neglected to realize that the original mandate for "palestine" was defined at San Remo in 1920 and at that point, the "jewish national home" was envisioned to include a vast area marked as "PALESTINE" on maps of the time (by the Sykes-Picot team). Every individual, every man woman and child, who was living in that entire wider area known as "palestine" would, by definition, be a "Palestinian" ---- jews and arabs alike.
A shattered remnant of jews took refuge after the holocaust of the 1940's in the narrow sliver of the western portion of the "jewish national home" and it only then came to be known as Israel. The fact is, the State of Israel was formed on less than 25% of the San Remo-mapped British Mandate territory (and that 25% was including the virtually uninhabitable Negev desert, which remains mainly empty to this day, since it does not easily support human life). The remaining 75% of "palestine" was not under the control of Israel, in any way shape or form, until the defensive operations during six days in June 1967 eliminated the looming threats from the surrounding Nations of Egypt, Syria and Jordan.
Even then, the 'palestinians' still had not lost a chance to form their own State, and the Israelis made offer after offer after offer to help them achieve it. To this day, that is what the Israelis keep offering, in almost every public statement I have ever seen.

Israel owes the "palestinians" nothing. Not one single thing.
Now, draw your map, TF.
Where is "Palestine"?
I'll help you along --- Here's a view of the general area in question:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/images/mideast-night-sat.jpg

is it really a hard question? Instead of attempting to match my thumbnail image with your own... you would prefer me to go into finer resolution?

you say Israel owes palestine nothing...does this mean that the only land palestine will ever get is any land that Israel wishes to allow?

 

[The Fool]

Why do you need exact borders to recognise a state?

you don't.

But you do need some sort of assurance that there will be enough land to make some form of Palestinian state viable....

 

[The Fool]

You can't have an bilateral agreements on the final status of borders if one party refuses to accept the existence of the other. [/I].

hands up all those who believe the wishes and views of any palestinian faction matter in the inevitable decision on what,if any, land is to be available for a Palestinian state. Until there is some form of indication from those that have the power to actually decide this then it really is impossible to judge if Palestinians who refuse to recognise Israel are refusing based on crazy or not so crazy grounds.

I Think, given reasonable division of lands, that it is unreasonable for palestinian factions to dismiss recognition out of hand. I would also not blame them for refusing to even consider an outcome that makes a palestinian state impossible. What is so hard about taking that off the table? Israel is prepared to allow a viable palestinian state arn't they?

 

[Darat]

you don't.

Glad we agree that this should not be a stumbling block for the Palestinians.

But you do need some sort of assurance that there will be enough land to make some form of Palestinian state viable....

No you don't need such an assurance - that is wish, a want.

And it is incorporated in what I have already said e.g. it would not be unreasonable for the Palestinian representatives to say something like:

"We recognize the state of Israel as a legitimate state however we dispute the borders that Israel has unilaterally created for itself and will peacefully use all our resources to gain the necessary land required to form a viable state of Palestinian."

 

[Darat]

hands up all those who believe the wishes and views of any palestinian faction matter in the inevitable decision on what,if any, land is to be available for a Palestinian state.

My view is that any sensible person on either side has to consider the wishes of both sides - however in these types of conflicts I know of none in which there is a compromise that will be accepted as equitable by everyone involved.

And the "if any, land" is misleading since there is already land that Israel does not claim as it's own that is settled/occupied by people who describe themselves as "Palestinian".

Until there is some form of indication from those that have the power to actually decide this then it really is impossible to judge if Palestinians who refuse to recognise Israel are refusing based on crazy or not so crazy grounds.

This is an assertion - please explain how you support this.

I Think, given reasonable division of lands, that it is unreasonable for palestinian factions to dismiss recognition out of hand. I would also not blame them for refusing to even consider an outcome that makes a palestinian state impossible. What is so hard about taking that off the table? Israel is prepared to allow a viable palestinian state arn't they?

All the evidence is that Israel will accept a "two state" solution, all the evidence is that the current representatives of the Palestinians will not.