Hamas rejects Israel recognition option

[Behind the Aegis]

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- The Palestinians' ruling Hamas group will not join a planned coalition government if recognizing Israel is a condition, a close aide to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said Friday.

At the United Nations on Thursday, the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said the planned national unity government between his Fatah Party and Hamas would recognize the Jewish state.

But Haniyeh's political adviser, Ahmed Yousef, told The Associated Press on Friday that "there won't be a national unity government if Hamas is asked to recognize Israel."

The two parties announced last week that they would team up to govern, in an effort to ease crushing international sanctions imposed on the Hamas government to pressure it to soften its violent anti-Israel ideology.

more...

[still_one]

1. It should come as no surprise the true intentions of Hamas

[Toots]

21. If someone came and kicked you out of your home and just moved in

Would you recognize their right to do so?

[oncall247]

2. How many governments does the US not recognize?

Just wondering.

[enigma000]

8. Taiwan comes to mind

The US probably withholds recognition of a few governments, but I'm not sure how many countries it doesn't recognize.

Other than Taiwan, what else is there? Tibet? Kurdistan? Quebec? Scotland? But none of these places have declared independence.

[Copperred]

23. South Asia....

Soon to be Balochistan and Greater Afghanistan.....

[The Stranger]

3. I'm sure you can find any excuse not to negotiate in good faith.

Abbas is on board. The U.S. is on board. Hamas (who the Palestinians elected) is in the back seat. But, still, no negotiations.

[still_one]

5. NOT recognizing Israel calling for its destruction is NOT just any excuse

it is the whole reason why there hasn't been any negotiations

[barb162]

7. Hamas is the prime reason why there is no possibility of peace

now. They'd rather take all the Palestinians down with them than try to have a negotiated peace. Then again, who elected them? Hamas never minced words about wanting Israel's destruction.

[manic expression]

20. That's ridiculous

Israel has consistently and constantly shown itself to be unwilling to pursue peace. Who shelled a family on a beach while Hamas was observing a cease-fire quite admirably? THAT is a prime example of what I am talking about. Hamas has never minced words about their oppressors, and they shouldn't.

[jaybeat]

11. Am I missing something...

What is the argument behind why Hamas should recognize Israel, when Israel continues to view Arab lands outside the pre-1967 borders (and, more importantly, the inhabitants of those lands) as there's to do with as they choose? Shouldn't it be a 2-way street: Palestine recognizes Israel's right to exist if and only if Israel recognizes (a geographically, economically and politically autonomous and viable) Palestine?

[Behind the Aegis]

12. You are missing quite a bit.

If Hamas wants to rule responsibility, then they will have to act in good faith, this includes negotiating with Israel. The rest of your question is just ridiculous and simplistic. Israel has been prepared to recognize Palestine, it is the current leadership, which harbors, encourages, and partakes in terrorist attacks that are the problem!

[jaybeat]

13. But aren't you leaving out quite a bit, too?

Has Israel acted in good faith by colonizing the occupied territories? By using overwhelming firepower to inflict large numbers of civilian casualties when going after supposedly military targets? By openly giving itself the right (unrecognized by the international community) to use assassinations (aka "targeted killings") as a political tactic?

Seriously, what exactly is ridiculous? That we should expect Israel to treat the Palestinians with the decency and respect that should be awarded anybody? That we should hold Israel accountable for its attacks against civilians, just as Israel and others do against the Palestinians? (Even in cases where the Palestinian Authority has little or no authority or influence over a group that is responsible for an attack?)

[Behind the Aegis]

14. I left out as much as you.

Your post and the prior one are nothing more than speculative, opinionated propaganda. If you are really interested in debating the finer issues, please see your way to the I/P forum.

[jaybeat]

16. Is there an argument here?

Calling my post "nothing more than speculative, opinionated propaganda" has a nice ring to it, but how about a critique on the merits? When I said, "What am I missing?" I was serious, not sarcastic. I seriously don't get what appears to me to be a double-standard re: the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Much of my opinion is, I think, based on facts. Facts which you did not rebut. In fact, I *would* like to debate these issues, in the interest of greater understanding by all. But instead you dismiss my posts out of hand, without any argument on the substance.

And yet you claim that *I'm* not interested in debating the finer issues??? :wtf:

Pot, meet kettle...

[Behind the Aegis]

17. No.

"Calling my post "nothing more than speculative, opinionated propaganda" has a nice ring to it, but how about a critique on the merits?"

The "it is nothing more than speculative, opinionated propaganda" was the critique. There were no "merits" to critique.

"When I said, "What am I missing?" I was serious, not sarcastic."

I don't doubt that you were. However, when you ask a question that has an addendum of propaganda-like opinion, it is difficult to answer the question without addressing the propaganda.

"I seriously don't get what appears to me to be a double-standard re: the Israeli/Palestinian situation."

Many of us also see a "double-standard" when it comes to this situation, especially here.

"Much of my opinion is, I think, based on facts."

There is that word, "think." It can mean "opinion" or "fact." While you may "think" your opinions are based in fact, some of the ones I saw were not.

"Facts which you did not rebut."

You didn't really present any. You presented your "opinion" that you "think" is based in fact. You are entitled to your opinion, right or wrong.

"In fact, I *would* like to debate these issues, in the interest of greater understanding by all. But instead you dismiss my posts out of hand, without any argument on the substance."

As I have already said, join us in the I/P forum. You are new to this board. I/P is usually not allowed to stay in any room other than I/P. The fact that we now have this sub-thread may mean this thread will get moved to the I/P forum.

"And yet you claim that *I'm* not interested in debating the finer issues???"

I made no such claim. I said if you are interested, there is a forum where we can discuss the finer points of the I/P conflict, it would not be this forum.

"Pot, meet kettle..."

That makes no sense.

[jaybeat]

18. I see. Or actually, I don't. Shall we try again?

Here are some facts, along with some questions, and some opinions, stated in previous posts. All of these you have failed to answer, rebut or challenge, except to dismiss them out of hand. If you are prepared to address them substantively, without name-calling, I'm all ears. Otherwise...

Facts: Israel treats the occupied territories as their land, to do with as they see fit. They take land by force from lawful private owners and give it to Israeli settlers without compensation. They build roads and other infrastructure for Israeli use only. They build walls that separate Palestinians from land they legally own. They destroy property without due process. The only reason they have the power to do this is through military force. The international community has repeatedly urged Israel to return to it's pre-'67 borders, but, for almost 40 years, Israel has repeatedly refused to do so. Israel reserves for itself the right to violate the territorial integrity of the Palestinian territories (which are, legally, part of other recognized, sovereign governments, according to internationally recognized borders) at will, on its own authority.

Questions/Opinion: Given these facts, I don't understand why the burden should be on the democratically-elected government of the Palestinians to "recognize" Israel's right to exist. Hasn't the government of Israel shown repeatedly by its actions that it does not recognize the Palestinians as having *any* rights except those which Israel chooses to give them, and which Israel can and will take away at any time? Why shouldn't there be an equal expectation that Israel will "recognize" the rights of the Palestinian people to exist on land which, whose ever land it really is, is certainly not Israel's?

(As an aside, here's why it looks to me that there is a double standard: Do you think Israel would be satisfied if Hamas said "We will recognize Israel's right to exist, as long no Israeli (associated with the government or otherwise) does anything which we feel is a threat to our security. If that happens, we reserve the right to pursue these Israelis, their families and associates, inside of Israel, with little or no regard for the risk of significant civilian casualties.")

As far as the issue of which forum to address these issues in, the original topic of this thread (Hamas refusing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist") is what we are discussing. LBN threads often delve into the issues beneath the recent news event. Posters often agree or disagree with the action taken by the public figure, offer commentary, questions or opinions about what happened, why, what shouldn't have happened, etc. I have read many, many, threads at DU over many, many years, but joined and started to post only recently. Nothing that I am saying here seems "out of bounds" for this forum, and I have not been notified as such by any moderators. What would you say in the I/P forum that you won't say here?

[Behind the Aegis]

28. No we shan't...see post #32 for the reason why! n/t

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jacklambert]

4. Once again Hamas shines as part of the problem...

not part of the solution.

Unfortunately, they were democratically elected and we've got to live (or die) with them. This is just another piece of the puzzle that is leading us down the path of WWIII.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Hamas will not recognize Israel, and Israel will never leave Arab lands

and the conflict will go on.

[kysrsoze]

9. I've been a big Palestinian supporter, but Hamas will only continue

to drag out the horrible situation. Initially, it appeared to be a good strategy to force Israel's hand, but now it just appears like stupidity.

[Fredda Weinberg]

10. Hamas is just the latest excuse

Once it was Arafat's fault, but he was also bound by a dream he couldn't confront. The world has lived with the consequences of denying reality but the refugees remain, preserving their rights and benefits. It's a dependency economy waiting to be exploited.

[Zhade]

15. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

NT!

[Thickasabrick]

22. Why was the headline changed? The headline of the article

reads "Hamas says it's serious on power share".

[Laughing Mirror]

24. Hamas wants a truce with Israel

What does Israel want, recognition?

Does Israel recognize Hamas?

[jaybeat]

25. Bingo! (nt)

[AliceWonderland]

26. Yes, I wondered this myself -- OP does not give the headline from story

"Hamas says it's serious on power share."

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Did you read the article?

The entire article has changed! It even has today's date. I obviously posted the OP days ago! So, the site changed the story or updated it and kept the same URL.

[Moderator]

29. Locking

The news site changed the article. For the sake of clarity, and at the request of the OP this thread is now locked