Hamas: No reconciliation with Fatah until it ends Israel peace talks

[Fozzledick]

A senior Hamas official on Sunday said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement must end peace negotiations with Israel before any reconciliation talks can take place.

The remarks by Osama Hamdan were bound to complicate Arab efforts to reconcile Hamas, which controls Gaza, and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

Hamdan is Hamas' representative in Lebanon and is close to top Damascus-based political leader Khaled Mashaal.

Speaking at a rally in Beirut Sunday, Hamdan said Hamas welcomed Palestinian dialogue, but any reconciliation should be based on a resistance program to liberate territory and regain rights.

He also demanded that the PA end security coordination with Israel, and maintained that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process had ended.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058514.html

If anyone thought Hamas was willing to negotiate peace, this should clarify their position.

[stray cat]

1. I don't think their position has ever wavered - not a possible peace partner

for a two state solution.

[Duckhunter935]

2. But I thought .................

Hamas could do no wrong and it was all the Israelis fault?

:sarcasm:

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. Absolutely correct. This is not an extreme position in any sense.

How can anyone serious about a long-term solution want Palestinians to continue with this faux peace process??

For an anaysis of the folly of continuing in the present course, see this article. Of course, if your goal is simply to paint Palestinians as terrorists, you won't want to read it.


The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam
Henry Siegman
(The London Review of Books)

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/sieg01_.html

[Madam Mossfern]

4. Then what would you suggest?

Considering the Hamas position that Israel has no right to exist.

[DogPoundPup]

5. What is the other half of that...does Israel wish for Palestinians to exist

A system which allows any one nation to terrorize another with impunity is deeply flawed.

[Madam Mossfern]

8. I agree in part with that

but it is not Israel's official policy to deny the existence of an independent Palestinian State. There are those in the extreme right wing of Israel who do believe that, but thankfully they are not in power. The more missiles are fired at at Israel and the stronger the rhetoric of Hamas, the more power it gives the right wing in Israel. In truth sometimes I think that is what Hamas wants. They want to radicalize Israel, force it's hand to attack and use that as more attacks.

How about a three state solution? Put all the sane Israelis and Palestinians in a country where they can grow and prosper in peace and let the radicals and haters on either side have their own states that will constantly be at war killing each other. (that was facetious)

[Duckhunter935]

10. They already have agreed to that

In 1947 they agreed and signed the UN 2 state solution including a Palistinian state. The Arab side did not sign the agreement and then attacked Israel.

[DogPoundPup]

13. The UN resolution that created Israel also created a Palestinian state.

But the newly-minted state of Israel immediately refused to recognize Palestine because it sat on land Israel coveted, and competed for control of Jerusalem. In response to Israel's refusal to recognize Palestine, other Arab nations refused to recognize Israel, angered at Israel's hypocrisy at demanding for itself that which it was refusing to give to its neighbor.

From this double-standard, i.e. Israel must be recognized but Palestine not, has come all the woes of the Middle East for the last half-century.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/UN_Partition_recommendation_Nov_1947.htm

[aranthus]

15. You're just making things up.

Other than the fact that the Partition Resolution contemplated an Arab state (it did not create either an Israel nor a Palestine), everything else you've posted is a lie. It never happened that way. The truth is that immediately after the vote on the Partition Resolution, the Arabs of Palestine began a war to prevent the Jews from having a state. Try reading a legitimate history (I recommend "Elusive Victory" by Trevor DuPuy) instead of propaganda websites.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

20. oh, please

first of all, I suggest that the advice given to an administration is hardly controlling in this debate. Secondly, I suggest that the website you link to is not being entirely honest. I suggest folks read this interview.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/hendrson.htm

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. Unlike Israel's position, which is to in fact make Palestine unable to exist.

Again... watch what (some of them) say... not what we do...

[cali]

6. I disagree. Hamas would have a far better chance of influencing

talks if they actually joined in some alliance with Fatah. Face it, Hamas will be out of the loop if they don't.

[Vegasaurus]

7. Because their goal is not peace with Israel

nor a state "side by side" Israel.

It is "liberating all of greater Palestine".

Of course they aren't going to talk to Fatah, which actually has peace as a goal.

Peace is not, and never has been a goal of Hamas.

I hope that Obama continues to isolate them, unless they moderate their stance and join in a unity government with Fatah.

[ohio2007]

12. you have a better chance convincing a brick wall

that the most overlooked angle in the peace process is written in stone called the Hamas charter.

oh


they'll just change it

lol

[ProgressiveMuslim]

33. I agree there should absolutely be national unity.

And the now-disgraced Fatah leaderhips of Abbas & Fayyad have to step down and relinquish the the faux peace process that has results in thousands dead, settlements double and God-knows-how-many-dunams expropriatred.

Time to start from scratch. I imagine the 200+ who signed the agreement last week would agree. (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x250119)

The old model is dead. It has been a vehicle for settlement increase and land usurpation. And I say this as someone who was an initial believer. I believed enough to move my entire family to start over there. But it was a mistake to recognize Israel first. Once the Palestinians played their hand, they were, and have been powerless. End the occupation, deal with the settlers, negotiate recompense for the refugees and then mutually recognize 2 sovereign states, with clearly delineated borders.

That's what the unified leadership said back in 1988 and that should have been the plan all along.

Time to start anew. The time is now, as the window on 2 states is rapidly closing.

[shira]

9. Henry Siegman is a known propagandist

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=139&x_article=1197

Of course the Hamas model for peace, like implementing Sharia Law in Gaza and continuing their armed "resistance" with its inevitable consequences to Palestinians, and offering 10-50 year hudnas that fail to recognize Israel's right to exist is a far better alternative to the Fatah model.

Fatah has not implemented Sharia Law, is cooperating now with Israel, and has more of a viable economy and significantly better living conditions for its citizens. They're still working their way towards a peace plan similar to Clinton's Taba initiatives of 2001.

One model for "peace" is zero-sum and dependent on continual war and Islammist radicalization of their society while the other model is positive-sum oriented and dependent on cooperation with Israel.

Of course the Hamas model is the better choice! Their model is CERTAIN to lead to peace sooner!

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

17. Oh Camera say well that makes it all different LOL

and then more and more about Taba

These basic facts are not in dispute and are a matter of public record.

There was certainly nothing remotely similar to Taba discussions that occured at Annapolis. No one even alledges that.

The Israeli negotiating team under instruction from the Prime Minister Ehud Barak unilaterally ended the talks in January 2001 because of the election which Ariel Sharon was predicted to win by a landslide with an absolute promise to reject any agreement with the Palestinians reached at Taba. These facts are not in dispute among sane and rational people.

Here is the link to the European Union notes - known as the Morantinos documents which all sides have confirmed to be a reliable record of what occurred at Taba, Egypt in January 2001.

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.ht...

snip:"Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election."

snip:"This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to European Union notes:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.ht...

------------------------------------

Israelis, Palestinians make final push before Israeli election
January 27, 2001
Web posted at: 11:38 a.m. EST (1638 GMT) - link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast....

"Barak's challenger for the prime minister's post, hard-line, hawkish Likud party chairman Ariel Sharon -- who holds a commanding lead in the polls -- has said he would not honor any agreement worked out between Barak's negotiators and the Palestinians. "

"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes."
_________________

Here is a neutral and dispassionate examination of what led to the break down at Camp David in 2000 and Taba in January 2001:

Vision of Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba" by Professor Jeremy Pressman:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/322/vis...

[shira]

22. do keep up

1. the CAMERA article doesn't just claim Siegman is a propagandist. They go on to actually prove it with sources and documented fact.

2. Taba 2001 was only raised to show that Fatah is trying to set conditions in order to get back to where they were at that time - when a Palestinian state was more viable pre-Intifada II.

3. Besides, your source on Taba 2001 doesn't refute the testimony of Shlomo ben Ami or Dennis Ross, so why pretend that it does?

on edit:

Barak was way behind in his election to Sharon with one week remaining and Arafat fresh off rejecting pretty much EVERYTHING wrt Clinton's Taba initiatives. As Shlomo ben Ami said in his debate with Finkelstein, it wouldn't have helped the negotiations for Barak to have stayed while losing in the polls - because there was no way there would be peace with Sharon. In order for Taba 2001 to proceed, Barak HAD to beat Sharon first and foremost. With Arafat basically throwing out everything negotiated for the past 6 months, and a week to go to elections, there was hardly any point for Barak to stay and waste more time with Arafat - who never once even made a COUNTER proposal to anything offered. Arafat felt he could hold out for more under Bush 2, thinking he was more pro-Israel than Clinton, due to father Bush 1 being more sympathetic to Palestinians. Bush 2, however, wasn't like his father and Arafat's gamble failed.

The above is beyond refutation. Your source pretends to make it look as though if Arafat just had a little more time with Barak, being soooooo close, maybe a deal could have resulted. That's absolute bullshit.

Your source doesn't lie about the events. But it's delusional in its explanation of the events.

[azurnoir]

24. Do keep up ?

I do and not just with right wing propaganda sites either what happened at Taba is the talks were ended because one side felt the "new" American government would be more pliable, it was that simple oh and Bill Clinton didn't he tell Arafat that if talks failed no one would be blamed only to immediately
blame Arafat when they did at Olso?

[shira]

25. you're spewing discredited propaganda

that takes a true account of events and distorts the EXPLANATION behind those events.

It's funny that you think Shlomo ben Ami and Dennis Ross' testimonies of events are RW propaganda. It was Shlomo ben Ami who stated that Arafat was trying to hold out for more under Bush 2.

[azurnoir]

26. Taba ended on January 27 2001

less than a week after Bush took office when Barak walked out. His hopes wee realized because it was fully 6 1/2 years before any further noise was made about peace and then it was only for show

[shira]

27. spin away, lol

How could Barak hope to keep negotiating at Taba with Israeli elections so close and not being there to represent himself against Sharon? As Shlomo ben Ami said, without beating Sharon, Taba dies. Now if Arafat was more serious and didn't reject nearly everything negotiated over the past 6 months, Barak would have had some incentive to stay. Staying with Arafat, who clearly wasn't interested in peace, would have been a monumental waste of time with elections very near.

The propaganda you're spewing is based on non-credible testimony from Arafat's regressive team.

And Arafat was completely behind Intifada 2, which was in full force at the time of Taba 2001. Pretty hard to keep dealing honestly with someone so disinterested in peace like Arafat for the 6 1/2 years following Camp David / Taba.

But do please, keep spinning. :rofl:

[azurnoir]

28. I stated fact not spin the talks could have been put on hold

if that was the case, but as recent events have shown we know what sells well in elections, workd in the US in 2002 and 2004, seeming like it's working in Israel now for Likud anyway

your rather juvenile use of smilies and insulting title lines is very telling so please do keep it up

[shira]

29. please

Do you know WHEN Barak took office? It was in 1999. He was out within 2 years 18 months. Not a lot of time to push his agenda through.

Do you realize that Arafat claimed he wasn't ready for Camp David in summer 2000 and that he said he needed more time to prepare?

It's not like this was an election ploy. Barak ran on 2 major themes in 1999 when he defeated Netanyahu. He kept his promise to get out of Lebanon in 2000 and tried following through with a Palestinian peace deal too.

Your site spins this as though Barak didn't take this seriously when it is completely the opposite. In fact, in order to believe the tripe you peddle, we have to assume that a peace dove like Shlomo ben Ami lied. Your hate for all that is Israel ultimately pits you against the biggest doves in Israel's peace camp (Amos Oz included). They may as well be RW'ers to you.

[azurnoir]

31. Barak resigned you do know that right?

in fact he resigned December 9 2000 before he walked out of Taba

Israel's embattled Prime Minister Ehud Barak announced Saturday night that he was resigning and said elections for a new prime minister would be held within 60 days.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-67795320.html

so just what was his reasoning?

edited to add I think his reasoning was to not make an agreement that his successor might not want to keep, or in short Israel's honor.
and remove the c from Barak in the title line

[ProgressiveMuslim]

35. Everyone Shira dislikes is a propagandist. You're funny, Shira! nt

[ohio2007]

11. ahhh, I see. "You are either with us or you are with the terra-ists"

you can't talk to terrist Israel without a set of preconditions in place first
;)

[azurnoir]

18. No it is just difficult to negotiate a peace when while refusing to

deal with all of the involved parties, and any negotiations that Hamas is engaged in are happening in Egypt not Lebanon, not Syria.

[azurnoir]

16. Aren't the actual negotiations going on in Egypt?

But the guy in Lebanon who is "close" to the guy in Syria says what at least a certain set wants to hear. I've read the George Mitchell is going to the region soon if he is not already on the way so we'll see what happens then.

[Fozzledick]

19. This appears to be a general renunciation of Fatah's ongoing negotiations with Israel

not just the current cease-fire talks in Egypt.

[azurnoir]

21. It appears to be some guy in Lebanon talking out his arse

but as I said he is saying what hardliners on both sides want to hear

[GoesTo11]

23. Great news for the people of Gaza!

Maybe Hamas is hoping ot bring them yet another "Victory"

[iconicgnom]

30. Here we go again. Check the responses. Those who supported Israel almost unreservedly

in the recent leveling of Gaza also support Abbas, and continue to press a division Fattah = Israel-US ally = "moderate", Hamas = Iran ally = "terrorist".

And mouth US "war on terror" talking points over and over and over again.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. The rest of the world supports the PA and Abbas including President Obama (!)

Hamas is pretty much the dog in the manager here. They need to step aside