Debates
21 Apr 08
21 Apr 08
"Hamas would be satisfied with a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders — implicitly accepting that Israel would exist alongside that state. But Mashaal stressed the group would never outright recognize the Jewish state.
"We agree to a (Palestinian) state on pre-67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty without settlements but without recognizing Israel," Mashaal told reporters.
So...there it is...Peace. An end to the conflict. Thank goodness. It was about time.
Naturally, Israel and the US will jump at the chance for lasting Peace...won't they?
21 Apr 08
Originally posted by spruce112358Just out of curiosity, how can one live in peace with someone they are unable to even recognize as existing? It sounds to me that they simply will take what they can in any peace deal and then continue the conflict much like they did when they took over the Gaza strip.
"Hamas would be satisfied with a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders — implicitly accepting that Israel would exist alongside that state. But Mashaal stressed the group would never outright recognize the Jewish state.
"We agree to a (Palestinian) state on pre-67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty without settlements but ...[text shortened]... ime.
Naturally, Israel and the US will jump at the chance for lasting Peace...won't they?
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by whodeyThat sound you can hear is goalposts being moved.....
Just out of curiosity, how can one live in peace with someone they are unable to even recognize as existing? It sounds to me that they simply will take what they can in any peace deal and then continue the conflict much like they did when they took over the Gaza strip.
"How can one live in peace with someone who wants to destroy us".
Oh - they don't hold that position any more?
OK - "How can one live in peace with someone who doesn't recognise us".
This is a negotiation - Hamas are clearly changing their position - there should be somethhing to reciprocate.
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by spruce112358Well, since Hamas, being a terrorist organization, isn't sincere in its offer we don't have to worry about peace in the region just yet. The only people they seem to have fooled is Jimmy 'Peanut Farmer' Carter. But as Joe Lieberman said regarding Carter's meetings with Hamas leaders... he is naive at best. Truth is being anti-Semetic as he is, Carter is no better than Hamas itself Just another accomplishment for the worst US President of this century.
"Hamas would be satisfied with a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders — implicitly accepting that Israel would exist alongside that state. But Mashaal stressed the group would never outright recognize the Jewish state.
"We agree to a (Palestinian) state on pre-67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty without settlements but ...[text shortened]... ime.
Naturally, Israel and the US will jump at the chance for lasting Peace...won't they?
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716Of course.
Well, since Hamas, being a terrorist organization, isn't sincere in its offer we don't have to worry about peace in the region just yet. The only people they seem to have fooled is Jimmy 'Peanut Farmer' Carter. But as Joe Lieberman said regarding Carter's meetings with Hamas leaders... he is naive at best. Truth is being anti-Semetic as he is, Carter is n ...[text shortened]... r than Hamas itself Just another accomplishment for the worst US President of this century.
If you don't do exactly as the Israeli government tells you to, you are obviously anti-Semitic.
You know you're just another fascist, don't you?
22 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirIf Hamas really wanted peace, they'd stop the firing of missles from Gaza, now wouldn't they. Maybe they could fire one last one and aim for Carter's ass ... a near miss would deflate the commie's ego.
Of course.
If you don't do exactly as the Israeli government tells you to, you are obviously anti-Semitic.
You know you're just another fascist, don't you?
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by RedmikeIf Hamas doesn't recognize Israel why should Israel expect them to honour any agreements?
That sound you can hear is goalposts being moved.....
"How can one live in peace with someone who wants to destroy us".
Oh - they don't hold that position any more?
OK - "How can one live in peace with someone who doesn't recognise us".
This is a negotiation - Hamas are clearly changing their position - there should be somethhing to reciprocate.
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716Yeah. I'm sure you'd stop your rocket attacks if the Chinese invaded you and had your mother drinking the same water your sister is defecating in.
If Hamas really wanted peace, they'd stop the firing of missles from Gaza, now wouldn't they. Maybe they could fire one last one and aim for Carter's ass ... a near miss would deflate the commie's ego.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7938
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by PalynkaIf Israel keeps up the invasion, building settlements, removing Palestinians from their property, segregating the land, torturing teenagers, economic sanctions and generalised punishments, why the hell should anyone with an ounce of decency recognise that fascist State?
If Hamas doesn't recognize Israel why should Israel expect them to honour any agreements?
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by shavixmirBecause if they don't, then obviously Israel cannot negotiate.
If Israel keeps up the invasion, building settlements, removing Palestinians from their property, segregating the land, torturing teenagers, economic sanctions and generalised punishments, why the hell should anyone with an ounce of decency recognise that fascist State?
A similar type of argument is used by war mongerers on Israel's side. "How can we negotiate with people blowing up civilian restaurants and shooting rockets daily at our homes, why the hell would anyone with an ounce of decency recognize a terrorist State?".
Such arguments go nowhere and only lead to more atrocities from both sides.
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716Yeah - that's how you get peace, isn't it.
If Hamas really wanted peace, they'd stop the firing of missles from Gaza, now wouldn't they. Maybe they could fire one last one and aim for Carter's ass ... a near miss would deflate the commie's ego.
You stop fighting, you agree to all their terms, and then you wait and see whether they'll decide to offer you anything.
Hamas is clearly moving in a positive direction, how come all we hear is the usual gibberish about terrorists and commies?
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by PalynkaBut the point is that only one side is making any concessions.
Because if they don't, then obviously Israel cannot negotiate.
A similar type of argument is used by war mongerers on Israel's side. "How can we negotiate with people blowing up civilian restaurants and shooting rockets daily at our homes, why the hell would anyone with an ounce of decency recognize a terrorist State?".
Such arguments go nowhere and only lead to more atrocities from both sides.
I'm by no means supporting Hamas, but they've made a significant concession in modifying their demands to the 1967 boundaries.
But a negotiation has to involve concessions from both sides.
22 Apr 08
Originally posted by RedmikePerhaps. Israel's forced withdrawal of settlements can also be seen as a concession. In a way that's more of a concession than decreasing how much you demand the other side to do. But it's obviously not enough, I agree with you there. However, I think that there are two primordial concessions that seem simply conceptual but are very important.
But the point is that only one side is making any concessions.
I'm by no means supporting Hamas, but they've made a significant concession in modifying their demands to the 1967 boundaries.
But a negotiation has to involve concessions from both sides.
Israeli authorities must recognize the legitimacy of a Palestinian state.
Palestine authorities must recognize the legitimacy of an Israeli state.
I think that only from such a starting point for negotiations can a stable agreement have a real (unfortunately, perhaps small) chance of happening. Is that too much to ask?