Can Hamas and Fatah reconcile for peace in Palestine?

  • News
  • Thread starter humanino
  • Start date
In summary: The status of the "occupied territories" (not only did they give back land, they did it without the promise of anything in return! Rediculous!).The status of the "occupied territories" is irrelevant. They were given back to Palestine without any promises or concessions in return, which is why they are still considered occupied.
  • #1
humanino
2,527
8
It's pretty good news, finally.
Palestinian reconciliation talks kick off in Cairo
[...]

The Egyptian-mediated talks follow the recent 22-day Israeli offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. They come as the Obama administration is pushing to break the Palestinian-Israeli deadlock and amid the coalition talks between conservative, right-wing and centrist parties attempting to form a new Israeli government.

"We hope this meeting is the real start of a new period ending the state of division," said Omar Sulieman, Egpyt's intelligence chief, who for months has been pressing 13 Palestinian factions to set the framework for a unity government. Meetings for such a goal are expected to continue through the first two weeks of March.

[...]

The reconciliation negotiations come ahead of an Egyptian-hosted international donor conference scheduled for Monday to discuss the reconstruction of Gaza. The Palestinians hope to raise $2.8 billion to rebuild the seaside enclave, where about 1,300 Palestinians died during the Israeli incursion. The question is who will receive the money; moderate Arab nations and Western donors have refused to deal with the militant Hamas.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Now I want to see Hamas agree not to fire missiles into Israel, but instead spend the money on peaceful economic development - and recognize Israel's right to exist - and be a good neighbor. Seems simple enough.
 
  • #3
Seems like a gross double standard as long as you are only asking Hamas to do what Israel has refused to do since long before Hamas existed.
 
  • #4
As I said in another thread Britain's position is changing in relation to Hamas. After flatly refusing all talks with Hamas for years the latest official position has now softened.
(David Milliband is the UK's foreign secretary)

Miliband said: "Egypt has been nominated ... to speak to Hamas on behalf of the Arab League but actually on behalf of the whole world. Others speak to Hamas. That's the right thing to do and I think we should let the Egyptians take this forward."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090225/tpl-uk-palestinians-miliband-interview-s-43a8d4f.html [Broken]

It is rare for Britain to take a stance on such issues without okaying it with the US first so perhaps this also indicates an as yet unannounced shift in the new administration's position.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
kyleb said:
Seems like a gross double standard as long as you are only asking Hamas to do what Israel has refused to do since long before Hamas existed.
That is just so blatantly wrong, it is bizarre that people actually believe such things. The country of Palestine was created recently and exists now for the first time only because Israel gave them the land to have a country. Recognize it's right to exist? Heh - Israel created it!
 
Last edited:
  • #7
international donor conference

humanino said:
The reconciliation negotiations come ahead of an Egyptian-hosted international donor conference scheduled for Monday to discuss the reconstruction of Gaza … Western donors have refused to deal with the militant Hamas.

Let's wait until Monday.
 
  • #8
russ_watters said:
That is just so blatantly wrong, it is bizarre that people actually believe such things. The country of Palestine was created recently and exists now for the first time only because Israel gave them the land to have a country. Recognize it's right to exist? Heh - Israel created it!
The country of Palestine does not yet exist and if Likud is true to it's charter never will. Why do you insist on making this stuff up?

The US recognises 194 separate states in the world. Palestine is not one of them http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm There is not a state in the world who recognises Palestine as a country. http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/palestinenot.htm

Per forum guidelines please provide the source you referenced to substantiate your ridiculous claim.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
kyleb said:
Besides making only passing reference to "unilateral disengagaement", the policy which granted Palestine land to have a country on, it doesn't talk much about the basis of policy. But that small reference supports what I said, not what you said.
That link talks about the status of the "occupied territories" (not only did they give back land, they did it without the promise of anything in return! Rediculous!). Look you're confused: the fact that they are still considered occupied doesn't mean they aren't still a piece of land for Palestine to exist on. They are not, (and never have been, actually) an annexed piece of Israel. Their status today - and Israel's policy toward them - is not unlike Afghanistan or Iraq.

No, Palestine does not yet have complete sovereignty, but it most certainly exists and the land it exists on, Israel gave it. For it to become completely sovereign, it first needs to establish a stable and peaceful government. But Israel is committed to the goal of peaceful coexistence with a neighboring Palestinian state.
I am at a loss as to imagine what has mislead you believe what I said is anything but fact, but I assure you that your claims have no basis in reality. Are you just arguing from your gut here?
You actually made no attempt to support your claim with that post, only arguing around the periphery of it and offering a broad history of the conflict. So I would ask the same of you!

Hamas policy is clear and written down: no Israel. Israel doesn't have a charter with verbiage about Palestine written into it, so we must judge their intent by their actions. And those actions are:
1. They never annexed the "occupied territories", which means they never intended the occupation to be permanent or those territories to be part of Israel. This is in line with the UN act that created Israel and intended to create Palestine.
2. They have unilaterally given occupied territories back to the recently established government of Palestine, so they can start to build a real state on it. That state is not yet ready for total sovereignty, but it most certainly exists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
russ_watters said:
Besides making only passing reference to "unilateral disengagaement", the policy which granted Palestine land to have a country on, it doesn't talk much about the basis of policy. But that small reference supports what I said, not what you said. That link talks about the status of the "occupied territories" (not only did they give back land, they did it without the promise of anything in return! Rediculous!). Look you're confused: the fact that they are still considered occupied doesn't mean they aren't still a piece of land for Palestine to exist on. They are not, (and never have been, actually) an annexed piece of Israel. Their status today - and Israel's policy toward them - is not unlike Afghanistan or Iraq.

No, Palestine does not yet have complete sovereignty, but it most certainly exists and the land it exists on, Israel gave it. For it to become completely sovereign, it first needs to establish a stable and peaceful government. But Israel is committed to the goal of peaceful coexistence with a neighboring Palestinian state.
You actually made no attempt to support your claim with that post, only arguing around the periphery of it and offering a broad history of the conflict. So I would ask the same of you!
More b.s. Show me a source which accredits Palestine with the status of a country!! I can tell you now. You can't, because there is not one. NOBODY in the world but you makes this claim.
 
  • #11
Art said:
The US recognises 194 separate states in the world. Palestine is not one of them http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm There is not a state in the world who recognises Palestine as a country. [B]Per forum guidelines please ...as dealing with on alimited diplomatic level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
russ_watters said:
You mischaracterized what I said, probably intentionally. International recognition of the states is not what is being discussed here - it isn't the double-standard kyleb was referring to. It isn't about diplomatically recognizing a state. Heck, even before a state actually exists (but the fact that it does takes us past that point, which is why I said it), it is about recognizing the right of the state to exist. Pretty much the entire world - including the US - recognizes the right of Palestine to exist. But like the Taliban, that doesn't mean that any government will be acceptable. They have to come up to international standards before being accepted into the fold, diplomatically.

Perhaps this type of bait-and-switch argument is what kyleb was attempting too, but it's wrong and you're smart enough to know it's wrong.
This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. You claimed a country called Palestine was created through the benevolence of Israel. Now prove it! Show me one source that recognises a country called Palestine.

The ruling Likud party in Israel has a charter which expressly states it will NEVER agree to the creation of the state of Palestine
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."
and as for annexing land it says
The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14772
 
  • #13
I know you guys will pick and choose and ignore, but the relevant history on this question starts with the Oslo accords in 1993: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

Of note:
1. It's the first time Israel dealt with a Palestinian authority directly.
2. It led to the "unilateral disengagement" policy, which is intended to give land back to Palestine for it to have a state on it.
3. Partial sovereignty has been granted as a result.
4. On the other side of the coin, Arafat himself and speaking for the PLO, recognized Israel's right to exist, but that recognition didn't survive Arafat.
 
  • #14
Art said:
This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. You claimed a country called Palestine was created through the benevolence of Israel. Now prove it! Show me one source that recognises a country called Palestine.
You are still not addressing the issue. You will get no further response from me until you do.
 
  • #15
russ_watters said:
You are still not addressing the issue. You will get no further response from me until you do.
The issue is you made the outrageous claim there is a new country called Palestine created by the benevolence of Israel.
The country of Palestine was created recently and exists now for the first time only because Israel gave them the land to have a country. Recognize it's right to exist? Heh - Israel created it!
I have asked you to substantiate this and you cannot.

Mind you that's not surprising given Likud's declaration they will NEVER agree to an independent state of Palestine. I suggest you read their charter http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm .

Perhaps then you can tell me why Hamas is beyond the pale for having a charter which refuses to recognise the right of Israel to exist whilst Likud who similarly refuse the right for Palestine to exist are an acceptable legitimate government? There is a certain irony about Israel demanding a non-state, whose existence they refuse to allow much less acknowledge, recognise Israel and it's right to exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
all i know is a so called "COUNTRY" called "Israil" killing 1000's of inocent people. ok, jews as a whole arnt for this, but the ZIONIST's are.. openly. no argument there!, aslong as the ZIONISTS are in charge of Israil.. then the inocent palistinians will suffer and no-one will act until it happens to them. selfish, ignorant, there are no words to deascribe the ones who try to justify this. any artical, anything at all, nothing can say this is right, I am helpless as i can't do nothing to help them, nothing to influence the world, nothing at ALL, you can be happy all you want.. the massicar of muslims go unknown... no proof needed, the pure fact that the bbc and sky reject to show the truth and charity adverts, well all i see in this room is arguments that what is palistine and what is israil...

when the jews where being outcasted in poland germany and so on, they fled to the arabic country, what happened from there i don't know, muslims alow other religions to practivce their religions and have a open invitation to the jews (prooved in many countrys, even soudi arabia ! I've been so i know, however from the situation now you can see that the "guest" has over run the "house" and started killing the owners, or more better put the occupiers...

if someone asked for assitance and i let them into my home, and they slowly or quickly kicked me out, and then have the nerve to say "terrorist" when i try to fight to get it back, while no1 else is bothering to help me? and then when i try to get my house back the world looks at me as a trouble causer becouse they have their own homes and don't have this problem? then just for the them to look good they give me scraps, but then also make me suffer in a confined space where they have control of what and how much i eat? THIS IS CALLED OPRESSION... where have the people of oppresion critisment gone ?? there where all worried about the wimen with hijaab? but not of dead inocent wimen (hijaab or no hijaab) ?.

no matter how long the outsiders (israil) occupied the home of palistine, you think they will give up their home? would you give up yours? and even so if you say arrogently yes... then where will you go? leaving homes? lifes? herratage? all behind? givng up everything they own and have and then what? this is turture... to be honest, i dnt care what people with theses stupid sugestions have to say, as they try to be peace makers and overlook the slaughter.

whats with the weapons in israil? i hate to say it but even america has obama who loves israil and is i a dilemma, and looks like he chooses israil over what's right and wrong at the moment.

thanks for reading, apologies for my spelling.
 
  • #17
a state requires recognition and sovereignty

Art said:
The ruling Likud party in Israel has a charter …
For the actual charter (English translation), see http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

russ_watters said:
The country of Palestine was created recently and exists now for the first time only because Israel gave them the land to have a country. Recognize it's right to exist? Heh - Israel created it!

russ, your statement that Israel gave them the land to have a country may be largely correct, but the above passage twice states that that country has now been created … which is clearly not correct
russ_watters said:
… even before a state actually exists (but the fact that it does takes us past that point, which is why I said it)

and again you say that a Palestinian state actually exists … while clearly "Palestine" has a parliament, its own health and other public services, and so on, it is at best an autonomous region, and certainly not a state

one of the defining characteristics of a state is that it is recognised as such by other states … "Palestine" is not even recognised as a state by the Arab League … another is that it has sovereignty over its territory, which "Palestine" clearly doesn't
 
  • #18
The Palestinian reconciliation talks seem to have gone well,

Palestinians pledge era of unity

Leaders of the rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah have said they are entering a new era of reconciliation, after talks in Cairo.

Delegations from each side, and other Palestinian groups, have agreed to set up committees to look at forming a unity government and holding elections.

The committees are to finish their work by the end of March, said senior Fatah official Ahmed Qurei.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7912068.stm

One idea they are looking at is merging Hamas into the PLO. It doesn't say whether this means Hamas will cease to exist as a separate entity but the fact the major western powers seem ready to deal with any resultant unity government is a massive policy change.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
russ_watters said:
I know you guys will pick and choose and ignore, but the relevant history on this question starts with the Oslo accords in 1993:
I have no interest in selectively resounding the history, and would appreciate it if you could suppress your compulsion to make slanderous insinuations to the contrary.

That said, I am well aware of the details of the Oslo Accords along with much of the history and current realities of this conflict. For instance, your characterization of the unilateral disengagement ignores the fact that Israel never had any legal right to the land they withdrew from, or any of the Palestinian territories. Furthermore, your argument also ignores Israel's ongoing colonization of Palestinian land in the West Bank, which is mentioned in the http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100597.htm" I presented previously:

A July OCHA report on the humanitarian impact of Israeli settlements concluded that 40 percent of West Bank land includes Israeli infrastructure including 1,032 miles of roads, military bases, nature reserves, settlements, and outposts). It added that the population of Israeli settlements grew 4.6 percent in 2003-04, while Israel's population grew 1.8 percent.

On March 30, the Israeli Ministry of Finance transferred to the government of Israel ownership of 7.5 acres of olive orchard known as "Mufti’s Grove" in East Jerusalem's Shaykh Jarrah neighborhood. On April 1, the Israeli government leased the land to the Ateret Cohanim settler group.

You can find many more details of Israel's process of wiping Palestine off the map http://kibush.co.il/datapage.asp?lang=1%20&section=6" [Broken].

And yeah, Arafat recognised Israel's right to exist, Palestinians got limited autonomy under Israeli martial law as Israel continues their conquest over Palestine, in flagrant denial of Palestine's right to exist. That got Fatah discredited in the eyes of the many Palestinians, and hence they lost the election to Hamas. So. again, one can't rightly expect Hamas to respect Israel's right to exist and be a good neighbor as long as Israel refuses to reciprocate by respecting Palestinians right to exist, which Israel has refused to do since long before Hamas existed.

tiny-tim said:
and again you say that a Palestinian state actually exists … while clearly "Palestine" has a parliament, its own health and other public services, and so on, it is at best an autonomous region, and certainly not a state
More accurately, a collection of semi-autonomous enclaves, those other than the Gaza Strip detailed in brown on http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf" [Broken].

Art said:
One idea they are looking at is merging Hamas into the PLO. It doesn't say whether this means Hamas will cease to exist as a separate entity but the fact the major western powers seem ready to deal with any resultant unity government is a massive policy change.
Ironically, Hamas was working to form a unity government with Fatah from when they were elected back in 2006, as being new to governing Hamas needed all the help they could get. Yet, instead we condemned Palestine for electing Hamas because of it's terrorism, while ignoring the fact that Fatah has it's own terrorist wing too, proceed to arm Fatah to coup Hamas's victory, and condemned Hamas for surviving that coup attempt. Then Hamas attempts to hold a cease-fire with Israel, but Fatah terrorists shoot some rockets anyway, and then we further condemn Hamas for the rockets being shot, and even more absurdly for cracking down the organization which was shooting them. So we excuse Israel's attack Hamas, yet further condemn Hamas for resuming their own rocket fire in response, and cheer Israel for every last one of their attempts to terrorize Palestinians into submission. So now, we are back to where we were in 2006, Palestinians are working to form a unity government, with nothing accomplished over the years aside from Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, and much death and destruction on both sides. Not that any such agreements can end this conlifct as long as Israel refuses to respect Palestine's right to exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
cap_kenn said:
to be honest, i dnt care what people with theses stupid sugestions have to say, as they try to be peace makers and overlook the slaughter.

So you are in favor of continued conflict instead of making peace? That sounds like a plan...it's worked really well so far hasn't it?

If the constant attacks from those who deny Isreal's right to exist were to cease, then I am quite positive that there would be no more retaliation attacks from Isreal in an effort to get those responsible. Those who seem to intentionally hide amongst the general public, probably because they want to maximize civilian casualties in order to get more public support for their cause.

There needs to be a real solution to the conflict, and I can assure you that continued attacks are not going to solve anything.
 
  • #21
BoomBoom said:
There needs to be a real solution to the conflict, and I can assure you that continued attacks are not going to solve anything.

I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes the war with Israel and Hamas but IMHO the only solution is for one side to win and one side to surrender. This is the only way any major war in the past has ever actually ended, to my knowledge anyway.
 
  • #22
kyleb said:
Then Hamas attempts to hold a cease-fire with Israel, but Fatah terrorists shoot some rockets anyway, and then we further condemn Hamas for the rockets being shot, and even more absurdly for cracking down the organization which was shooting them.

Interesting … Fatah terrorists firing rockets from Gaza …

From http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87743"
Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades called WND and also released an official pamphlet to take credit for firing at least five rockets and four mortars today, lightly wounding two Israeli soldiers and one civilian.

and from http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129715 (27 Feb 09) …
However, it was Abbas's own Fatah terrorist wing, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which took responsibility for firing a Kassam and mortars on the western Negev Sunday morning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Topher925 said:
I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes the war with Israel and Hamas but IMHO the only solution is for one side to win and one side to surrender. This is the only way any major war in the past has ever actually ended, to my knowledge anyway.

The "war" ends with ether Palestinians being granted civil rights by Israel, or Israel acknowledging Palestine's right to exist so they can finally have sovereignty over what little of their homeland they have yet to cede their right to. That choice is in Israel's hands given it's overwhelming military superiority, as it always has been, which makes this not rightly a war. From that position of dominance, Israel has long since "http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp...&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA127,M1"", and hence this conflict continues.

Anyway, for a bit of historical perspective on the conflict, I recommend http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/mideast.htm" [Broken].

tiny-tim said:
Interesting … Fatah terrorists firing rockets from Gaza …
Fatah's terrorism was Israel's primary excuse for not resolving this conflict prior to Hamas wining power. Hamas's victory simply allowed exploitation of the Islamic scare factor, bringing more support to this ongoing conquest over Palestine. So again, we are back to where we were in 2006, with the possibility of a Palestinian unity government, but little understanding of this conflict by it's many reflexive supporters, and hence little hope for peace.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
kyleb said:
The "war" ends with ether Palestinians being granted civil rights by Israel, or Israel acknowledging Palestine's right to exist so they can finally have sovereignty over what little of their homeland they have yet to cede their right to.

Call me a skeptic, but I doubt that would end anything.

There seems to be a segment of the islamic community that will never stop fighting as long as Isreal exists, and unfortunately it seems that many Palestinians are paying the price for it.

Obviously both sides hold some responsibility for this tragedy, but it will likely never stop as long as extremists keep attacking innocent civilians.
 
  • #25
Did you read Gandhi's article I linked? If not then I'd have to call you a willfully ignorant provocateur, of the same ilk as those on the other side which you condemn. On the other hand, if you did read the article, I'll simply contest that you still have a very loose grasp on the nature of this conflict, and hence are falling to understand the situation in your jump to conclusions. Put simply, if you care too look, you will find much extremism and attacking of innocent civilians on both sides, and backing one over the other will only bring more death and destruction on both sides.
 
  • #26
kyleb said:
Put simply, if you care too look, you will find much extremism and attacking of innocent civilians on both sides, and backing one over the other will only bring more death and destruction on both sides.

I am not backing one side over the other, in fact I believe both sides to be responsible for the continued conflict, and I hate the fact that my country has (at times) blindly supported Isreal.

But I also believe that only the Palestinians have the power to stop it by halting all attacks for good. Isreal could do the same (as they have in the past), but I have little confidence that would end the attacks from the other side.

So many seem so obsessed with the question of who is right and who is wrong and who started it etc., when all that talk will solve nothing. The only thing that will solve anything will be to stop killing each other and end the cycle of violence.

This is esentially what the article you linked says as well:

I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country.

Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth.
 
  • #27
kyleb said:
The "war" ends with ether Palestinians being granted civil rights by Israel, or Israel acknowledging Palestine's right to exist so they can finally have sovereignty over what little of their homeland they have yet to cede their right to. That choice is in Israel's hands given it's overwhelming military superiority, as it always has been, which makes this not rightly a war. From that position of dominance, Israel has long since "decided not to decide", and hence this conflict continues.

Anyway, for a bit of historical perspective on the conflict, I recommend this 1938 article from Gandhi.
Your arguments make more sense to me than the pro-Israeli nitpicking, and Gandhi's words are compelling.

In another thread you wrote:

kyleb said:
... I argue the details of the history are trivial for anything but discrediting those who choose to selectively recount it to perpetuate such conflicts, and most such people will simply jump from one argument to anther as they fall anyway, which becomes a massive waste of time. For the rest of us, effort is far better spent on understanding the current realities, so we can finally start working to achieve a just two-state solution under international law.
...
It means we need to address reality as it exist now, including Israel refusal to give Palestinians civil rights in defense of it's ethnic-nationalist nature, Hence, we must convince Israel to respect Palestine's right to exist as a sovereign nation in what little of their homeland Palestinians still hold legal right to, and arrange compensation for the refugees Israel has displaced. That is the two-state solution Israel has been allowed to disregard over decades of US backing.
...
Palestinians, refugees and otherwise, and Israelis as well, would be helped though a just two-state solution on the basis of international law, as outlined in the Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, as the vast majority of the world votes for, as they as has been done for decades, with only US veto power over the Security Council holding back enforceable resolutions to end this conflict.

Ok, so "address(ing) reality as it exists now" ... :

Given that the policies and actions of Israel and the United States have been the main obstacles to peace in the Mideast and to a just, two-state Palestine-Israel solution, then ... what?

Assuming that a two-state solution is possible (some commentators seem to think that it's unlikely, but if Hamas and Fatah can unite then that would help) what are some strategies for achieving it -- including what sorts of nonviolent things can interested individuals do to help?

Since it seems that a just solution to the problem isn't a goal of the major American or Israeli political parties, then where might one find a list of reputable, non-violent groups whose mission is to pressure the US and Israel to do right by the Palestinians.
 
  • #28
Gandhi 70 years ago

BoomBoom said:
This is esentially what the article you linked says as well:

I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country.
Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth.

erm :redface: … Gandhi was a pacifist who believed that every international conflict could and should be solved by pacifism …

it worked for Indians in India because we Brits didn't (usually :redface:) use violence against the Indians …

it really doesn't apply when the pacifist side can't rely on the other side to renounce violence :frown:
ThomasT said:
Gandhi's words are compelling.

Gandhi's words are 70 years out-of-date, and even at the time were written by a South African with almost no knowledge of the Middle East.

Here's another extract from that article, showing his blind faith that pacifism by the Jews would be successful, and his generosity with Jewish lives …
And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it the wrong way.

They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown into the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them.

He also advocates the following racist restriction on the Jews …
Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth.
… requiring Jews to behave better than everyone else is simply racist. :frown:
ThomasT said:
Given that the policies and actions of Israel and the United States have been the main obstacles to peace in the Mideast and to a just, two-state Palestine-Israel solution, then ... what?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Yes, given that, the whole situation becomes remarkably clear! :biggrin:
:wink: we can all agree on that!
 
  • #29
BoomBoom said:
So many seem so obsessed with the question of who is right and who is wrong and who started it etc., when all that talk will solve nothing.
Who's right and who's wrong and who started it means everything. We Americans are supposed to be on the side of freedom and justice for all people. If we find that, instead, our government has occasionally taken the side of tyranny and oppression, then shouldn't we at least speak out about that?

My current personal opinion on this is that the US government should force the Israelis out of the occupied territories and facilitate the establishment of an autonomous, sovereign, and contiguous Palestinian state in the regions where it was intended to be established years ago. This could be done in an orderly and systematic way that protects innocent Israelis as well as innocent Palestinians who want nothing more than to live their lives free from tyranny and oppression.

BoomBoom said:
The only thing that will solve anything will be to stop killing each other and end the cycle of violence.
There can't be peace without justice. A two-state solution already gives Israel a rather large portion of land that it's not morally entitled to. But it seems that they want all of it. And the intransigence of the Israeli position, for whatever reason(s), is what is perpetuating the suffering of millions of Palestinians.
 
  • #30
tiny-tim said:
... it really doesn't apply when the pacifist side can't rely on the other side to renounce violence ...
The restrictions forced on Palestinians by Israel, and the continued colonization of Palestinian lands, constitute a most insidious form of violence imho.

I don't think Gandhi was being racist, and I don't think it's unreasonable to require (wrt the current situation) that the "chosen people" show just a bit less hypocrisy in their actions.

The right and wrong of the Palestine-Israel situation seems clear enough to me from what I've read so far, and of course it's in the interest of the oppressors to obfuscate things.
 
  • #31
The US position seems to be definitely shifting. Indirect acknowledgment of Hamas by accepting a unity Palestinian body is a big step forward. The $900 million the US are pledging to rebuild Gaza is another indication of a major policy change. It is difficult to see the Obama administration using all this US taxpayers money to build Gaza back up and then allowing Israel to destroy it again using weapons supplied by US taxpayers money.

Obama's special envoy George Mitchell has said in the past he wants the economic blockade on Palestinians lifted, a halt on settler expansion and the closure of so called outpost settlements. Since his appointment he has already dismissed Netanyahus so called 'Economic freedom for Palestine' plan

How Israel will react is uncertain. Undoubtedly they will try to delay and circumvent these measures and although they absolutely need US monetary and military support they will probably try to do as little as possible without actually seriously teeing off the US. There were unusually massive shipments of arms in the last weeks of the Bush administration which suggests maybe Israel has been stockpiling in case of a cooling of Israel/US relationships with the new US administration.

With the war raging in Gaza, news reports earlier this month about the routing of an extraordinarily large shipment of arms from the United States to Israel through the private Greek port of Astakos caused an uproar among Greek bloggers. They used Twitter to investigate the matter and put pressure on the government to halt the transfer.

Delivery of the munitions was suspended, just as the Greek government was coming under fire from opposition parties, and Amnesty International was calling for an arms embargo.
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/01/18/greece-outcry-over-arms-shipment-to-israel/

George Mitchell has also told all parties to the conflict a ceasefire is a priority of the Obama administration which again seems to put the US at loggerheads with the Israeli gov't who do not appear to want a ceasefire at this time. The Israeli chief negotiator was suspended by Olmert last week for his public criticism of his own government when at the last moment they added a new demand which effectively killed the Egyptian brokered peace talks.

"I don't understand what it is that they're trying to do. To insult the Egyptians? We've already insulted them. It's madness. It's simply madness. Egypt has remained almost our last ally here," he was quoted as saying.

He said the soldier Shalit would be freed quickly if Israel approved a list of names of prisoners to be released in return.

"Did they submit a list?" said Gilad. "Did they submit names? They're only busy insulting Egypt all the time. At first we submitted 70 names, and that's it. Since then, we've disappeared. Is that how they want to bring Gilad [back]? Because if they decide tomorrow to release the prisoners, that very same day we'll get Gilad."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/23/israel-suspends-ceasefire-negotiator

A good analysis of the current state of affairs
After weeks of shuttling back and forth to Cairo, Hamas and Israel had agreed to a halt in hostilities – a source of considerable relief to the international community, which was ready to get on with the business of rebuilding Gaza, reconciling the Palestinian factions and looking for new pathways out of the impasse that has frozen the peace process for the past eight years.

Then, at the 11th hour, the Israelis backed out. There could be no Gaza truce, they said, until Hamas agreed to release Corporal Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held prisoner in Gaza since the summer of 2006. President Hosni Mubarak was livid: Shalit’s release was being negotiated by the two sides on a parallel track, and it was expected to come soon after a ceasefire agreement, in exchange for Israel freeing a large number of Palestinian prisoners.

The Israeli retreat is an ill-advised gamble, using the leverage of their chokehold on Gaza to press for the release of a captive whose continued detention is a symbol of humiliation in Israel. But it may be something even more alarming than a reckless roll of the dice: it could be a sign of just how dangerous Israel’s growing domestic political incoherence could become.
In the absence of a formal truce the outlook is grim
In the West Bank, meanwhile, many in the rank and file and the younger generations of leadership in Fatah view the Israeli election as having put the final nail in the coffin of the strategy pursued by President Mahmoud Abbas, of relying entirely on US diplomacy to coax the Israelis into ending the occupation. Plainly, there is no reason to believe that is going to happen in the foreseeable future, and the lesson has not been lost on Fatah members that Hamas’s confrontational strategy has actually forced the Israelis to make concessions that they wouldd never have dreamt of making to Abbas (the list of prisoners Mr Olmert had been planning to release to win Cpl Shalit’s freedom bears that out). Many in Fatah believe the only way for the organisation to redeem itself and begin to reverse its loss of support to Hamas is to return to the path of struggle, by confronting the occupation in the West Bank.
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090222/OPINION/161849754/1080
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
BoomBoom said:
I am not backing one side over the other...
Not intentionally it seems, but your comments do condemn the extremists on one side while ignoring those of the other and such is effectively doing just that.

tiny-tim said:
Gandhi was a pacifist who believed that every international conflict could and should be solved by pacifism …
That is a gross generation of his ideology, as most obviously evinced by his efforts recruiting Indians for WWI. You are also belittling the violence he stood against, taking his comment out of context to slander him as a racist, and apparently confused into believing he was from South Africa. I recommend looking deeper into his position rather than reflexively dismissing it as it seems you are compelled to do.

ThomasT said:
Given that the policies and actions of Israel and the United States have been the main obstacles to peace in the Mideast and to a just, two-state Palestine-Israel solution, then ... what?
The solution is in overcoming the inability of the populations in Israel and the United States to come to terms with this fact. As it stands, our governments are under massive pressure by a small yet vocal faction which vigoriously opposes all but the most delicate criticism of Israel, and are fiercely critical of Palestinians and Arabs in general. That lobby has effectively created a giant self perpetuating mass delusion which keeps us from bring an just solution to this conflict, and we simply have to build the critical mass to tear that illusion down. There are many grass-roots movements doing just that, but no unified front to take on AIPAC yet. As it stands, you can find lots of information from people working to resolve this conflict and much relevant information though http://kibush.co.il/" [Broken].

As for the conflict between Fatah and Hamas, it is primarily one of how Palestinians should respond to our rejectionism, with Fatah severely corrupted by indulging it, and Hamas having arose though opposition to that. They know this well enough, as do they know that such discord is only further harming Palestine, hence the reason they are actively working towards reunification.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Corporal Gilad Shalit

Art said:
Then, at the 11th hour, the Israelis backed out. There could be no Gaza truce, they said, until Hamas agreed to release Corporal Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held prisoner in Gaza since the summer of 2006. President Hosni Mubarak was livid: Shalit’s release was being negotiated by the two sides on a parallel track, and it was expected to come soon after a ceasefire agreement, in exchange for Israel freeing a large number of Palestinian prisoners.
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090222/OPINION/161849754/1080

Israeli insistence on the release of Gilad Shalit is not surprising …

in any international peace conference after a war, it is normal for the losing side to give up something to the winning side …

and for the "outside" countries at the conference to put pressure on the losing side to do so …

this is usually territory or compensation or trade concessions … but since Israel does not seek territory, and Hamas has no money or economy to trade with, it is difficult to see what Hamas can offer other than Gilad Shalit …

indeed the return of just one person is an extremely small demand for Israel to make.

The only alternative which would presumably satisfy Israel is a change of regime in Gaza.

From the same UAE website, we see the importance of this both to the new Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition …
Mr Netanyahu has long made clear his belief that there can be no stability as long as Hamas rules Gaza, while Ms Livni opposed any move to end the recent confrontation through a formal truce: she believes that Operation Cast Lead restored Israel’s “deterrent” power, ie, the idea that fear of further Israeli attacks will deter Hamas from resuming hostilities. She argued that Israel should not therefore allow its freedom of action to be limited by a formal ceasefire agreement.

If I may be forgiven for bringing this thread back on-topic :rolleyes: … if Fatah regains some control in Gaza and is able to assure Israel that there will be no more rocket attacks from Gaza on civilian targets, then maybe Israel will regard that as a change in position enabling them to lift the economic sanctions without the return of Galid Shalit.
 
  • #34


tiny-tim said:
Israeli insistence on the release of Gilad Shalit is not surprising …
Throwing in the condition at the last moment isn't surprising either, it is just another round in the the same old carrot on a stick game which has been used to perpetuate this conquest for decades.

tiny-tim said:
in any international peace conference after a war, it is normal for the losing side to give up something to the winning side …

and for the "outside" countries at the conference to put pressure on the losing side to do so …
To an extent, but keeping the conquered under a state of siege for decades while colonizing their homeland out from under them isn't normal at all.

tiny-tim said:
this is usually territory or compensation or trade concessions … but since Israel does not seek territory, and Hamas has no money or economy to trade with, it is difficult to see what Hamas can offer other than Gilad Shalit …

indeed the return of just one person is an extremely small demand for Israel to make.
Rather Israel has crushed Palestine's economy though decades of siege, and Israel takes whatever territory it likes with Palestinians being powerless to stop them ( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067319.html" [Broken]), leaving Palestinians with little but hostages and terror to bargain with, which are levied as excuses to further smother Palestine's economy while taking yet more territory.

tiny-tim said:
The only alternative which would presumably satisfy Israel is a change of regime in Gaza.

From the same UAE website, we see the importance of this both to the new Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition …

If I may be forgiven for bringing this thread back on-topic :rolleyes: … if Fatah regains some control in Gaza and is able to assure Israel that there will be no more rocket attacks from Gaza on civilian targets, then maybe Israel will regard that as a change in position enabling them to lift the economic sanctions without the return of Galid Shalit.
Great, still arguing for Fatah control, the terrorist group who shot rockets from Gaza while Hamas was attempting to maintain a truce, just as was done when persuading Fatah to attempt to coup Hamas, but only supporting them enough to try and fail. What goal do you hope to accomplish though such continuing such shell games, eh Tim?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
On the subject of Fatah and Hamas, http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1235859721/" [Broken]. I highly recommend reading the whole article, but most notably the conclusion:

MANY PEOPLE around the world believe in the anti-Semitic myth that we Jews are immensely clever and that all our actions prove our diabolical cunning. Therefore, the ascent of Hamas must be the result of a shrewd Zionist conspiracy. The existence of Abbas (and Arafat before him) hinders the Jews from taking hold of the whole country, because the world demands a compromise with the “moderate” Palestinian leadership. But the world accepts that there can be no compromise with the murderous Hamas, and therefore the clever Jews are interested in a Hamas victory.

On the other hand, many Israelis believe that our governments are composed of exceedingly stupid politicians who do not know what they are doing. These Israelis believe that the series of actions that have weakened Fatah and reinforced Hamas are just a march of folly, the result of Israeli stupidity.

I propose a compromise between the two perceptions: Israeli policy is indeed foolish, but there is method in this foolishness. It can go on only because it conforms with a deep-seated desire, which most people are not conscious of or do not want to admit: to hold on to all of Eretz Israel and not to allow a Palestinian state to come into being.

If we want to change this, we must drag the unconscious motivation up to the level of consciousness: what do we want? Peace or more territory? Co-existence between two states or occupation and eternal war?

It is too late to turn the wheel back. Hamas is now a part of reality. It is in the Israeli interest that a Palestinian unity government be set up, a government with which we can reach an agreement that will be kept. If we have already played such a pivotal role in turning Hamas into a central Palestinian power, by all means let’s talk with them!

This way we can also free Gilad Shalit in a prisoner exchange – before his 1000th day in captivity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. Can Hamas and Fatah reconcile for peace in Palestine?

The answer to this question is complex and constantly evolving. In short, there have been multiple attempts at reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, but so far, none have been successful in achieving long-term peace in Palestine.

2. What are the main reasons for the conflict between Hamas and Fatah?

The main reasons for the conflict between Hamas and Fatah are rooted in political and ideological differences. Hamas is a militant Islamist group that rejects the existence of Israel, while Fatah is a secular nationalist party that recognizes Israel's right to exist. There are also power struggles and disagreements over control of resources and territory.

3. Have there been any previous attempts at reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah?

Yes, there have been several attempts at reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, including the Mecca Agreement in 2007 and the Cairo Agreement in 2011. However, these agreements were short-lived and did not lead to lasting peace between the two groups.

4. What role do external factors play in the conflict between Hamas and Fatah?

External factors, such as regional and international politics, have played a significant role in the conflict between Hamas and Fatah. For example, countries like Iran and Qatar have supported Hamas, while countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have supported Fatah. These external influences can complicate efforts at reconciliation.

5. What are the potential implications if Hamas and Fatah were to reconcile?

If Hamas and Fatah were to reconcile, it could potentially lead to a more unified Palestinian leadership and a stronger negotiating position in peace talks with Israel. However, it could also face challenges in balancing the differing ideologies and interests of the two groups. It is also uncertain if other countries, particularly Israel, would be willing to negotiate with a unified Palestinian leadership.

Similar threads

Replies
65
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top