Hamas rejects Clinton's call for it to recognize Israel

[oberliner]

Hamas rejected Saturday U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remarks that a successful Palestinian reconciliation process must include recognition of Israel by Hamas.

"Hamas will not recognize Israel or the Quartet's conditions, and Clinton's statement is not acceptable to the Palestinian people," said Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan.

Clinton said Friday that a successful Palestinian reconciliation process between Fatah and Hamas must include recognition of Israel by Hamas.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067528.html

[Duke Newcombe]

1. And the sick, sad "Who's dick is bigger" game continues... n/t

[aquart]

2. Well, I'm shocked.

Personally, I think she should have showed up with a tape measure.

[sellitman]

3. They don't even recognize Fatah.

Is it a wonder?

[ohio2007]

18. And yet they can spot a fatah member in a crowd...and beat his kneecaps to a bloody pulp and call

him a collaborator to a group they do not recognize exists.

[azurnoir]

46. Do you even know what your talking about

or do you just say any negative sh*t that crosses your "mind"? Let me guess.......

[Ken Burch]

62. Don't bother. "Ohio 2007" is on the AIPAC payroll.

That's the only reason someone who's obviously a right-wing extremist would be posting on a progressive board.

[LeftishBrit]

104. So no one could disagree with you unless they're paid for it?

I don't even agree particularly with Ohio2007 - my views on I/P issues are probably somewhere midway between his and yours. But I have myself been accused of being a 'shill' for Pharma or having a profit motive because I support vaccination; so I know that these accusations of profiteering for genuinely-felt opinions are (a) usually unjust; (b) incredibly hurtful; (c) guaranteed to stop genuine discussion and debate.

Let's leave these accusations out of the debate. If anyone has real reason to think that someone is a paid troll, then they should take it up with the mods.

[sellitman]

65. Who died and left you with all the answers?

Last I checked the two factions have agreed on nothing.

[azurnoir]

79. well here you go

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.

On Wednesday both groups agreed to release detainees from the other side.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7912068.stm

[sellitman]

89. Ooooo, they are talking.

Big deal? Like that hasn't happened before?

Two terrorist organizations talk...there's news!

[w4rma]

4. She's going down the right path towards peace. (nt)

[iconicgnom]

5. She's in no position to dictate terms between Hamas and Fatah.

[oberliner]

6. She absolutely does

If Hamas is interested in engaging with the US then they need to renounce violence, recognize Israel, and agree to abide by past agreements (as the PA has done).

Hamas is free to ignore this requirement of the road map; however, the US has the right to respond to that decision accordingly.

The President and Sec. of State have both been very clear in outlining what Hamas would need to do in order for the US to engage with them directly.

It appears from this statement that Hamas is not interested in taking those steps.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. Recognize Schmecogonize: "After Israel's Election, Palestinians Weigh New Intifadeh"

By Tony Karon Thursday, Feb. 12,

Israel's election and the Gaza conflict have revealed the scale of the challenge facing U.S. President Barack Obama in jump-starting Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. Israeli voters tacked to the right, and the government that results from Tuesday's election will be, if anything, even less inclined than the current government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to conclude a two-state peace agreement with the Palestinian leadership. (Of course, the year of talks about talks between Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas failed to yield any progress.) Meanwhile, the Gaza war cemented the stature of Hamas as the dominant political force among Palestinians.


Needless to say, there is not much optimism in the region over prospects for peace. But the urgency of resolving the conflict may be greater than ever, as the security situation is likely to see a perilous decline in the coming months. Many members of Abbas' Fatah movement, seeing themselves steadily eclipsed by Hamas, are urging a break from their President's strategy of negotiating with the Israelis and a return to confronting the Israeli occupation in the West Bank. (See pictures of Gaza digging out.)

Fatah leaders see the Israeli election as confirming what they already knew: there's nothing to be gained by continuing the charade of U.S.-sponsored talks about talks with the Israelis. Palestinians could not get what they needed from Olmert, and they know that his successors will take even more of a hard line. From the Palestinian perspective, the past eight years of waiting for negotiations with Israel have left Abbas empty-handed, while the latest Gaza conflict has put Hamas in a stronger position than ever in the court of Palestinian public opinion. Despite the violence by Hamas gunmen against Fatah activists in Gaza since the Israeli offensive, many in Fatah view their movement's only hope of re-establishing a leading role in Palestinian politics as being to join a unity government with Hamas — and begin to directly challenge the Israeli occupation in the West Bank. The fact that such a sentiment coincides with Israel's electing a more hawkish government suggests that the Middle East could be in for a long, hot summer.

The Gaza bloodbath prompted Obama to dispatch former Senator George Mitchell on a listening tour, to signal the new Administration's intent to prioritize peacemaking efforts. But the events of the past six weeks have confirmed that the Israeli-Palestinian peace policy bequeathed by the Bush Administration is dead in the water. If the new Administration is to make good on its promise of progress toward a two-state peace agreement, it will need the sort of thorough policy review currently being undertaken on its Iran policy — and a fresh set of ideas.

(snip)
Of course, the Israelis, whether led by the Likud Party's Benjamin Netanyahu or Kadima's Tzipi Livni, will flatly refuse to talk to a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. But that may not deter Fatah, since the movement has gained little by talking to Israeli governments that are plainly unwilling to meet the Palestinians' bottom line. Abbas, even in the eyes of many in his movement, gambled everything on the willingness of the U.S. to press the Israelis to deliver a credible two-state peace solution and lost. Now many of those in Fatah are inclined to bet on a third intifadeh. After all, in the short term at least, the status quo works for the Israelis — as long as there are no missiles raining down on Israel from Gaza. But for the Palestinians, the continued occupation in the West Bank is untenable. And it will not have been lost on Fatah activists that Hamas' more confrontational stance has forced the Israelis, however reluctantly, to the negotiating table, as in the case of the Egypt-brokered Gaza-truce negotiations.

more...
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1878943,00.html

I hope a unified Palestinian gov't tells them they are officially UNrecognized.

[oberliner]

10. I do not understand why you would hope for such a thing

It would only lead to greater hostility from Israel, a lesser likelihood of the Obama administration engaging with the Palestinians, and an increased probability of more conflict and loss of life.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. I don't understand why you can't see that there is no state at the end of Oslo.

It's a distraction from national liberation and the quest for political and human rights.

"The process" is nothing but a game during which Israel goes about colonizing all the land and water it wishes, while Palestines get nothing but more heartache.

[shira]

25. come on now

If Palestinian leadership were really desperate for national liberation, they would have their own state already. The reason they don't have it now is the same reason going back to 1937. Absolutely nothing has changed in 70 years.

[iconicgnom]

30. There's something wrong with you. n/t

[shira]

42. really? what makes you think PA leadership has been desperate for its own state?

[oberliner]

40. I don't see a state at the end of your approach

I guess we will have to see how it plays out and do everything we can in support of our particular approach to peace.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

69. There is -- one big state for all, baby! nt

[oberliner]

70. Can you descibe the process by which this approach leads to one big state for all?

How do you envision this playing out in your best case scenario?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

71. Look Oberliner, Israel has 3 choices: status quo, which requires ever-expanding apartheid,

ethnic cleansing, or one democratic state.

Call me an optimist.

[oberliner]

73. What is your projected time frame for when you think this will come to pass?

I would also again be interested to hear your opinion on how this process would occur. What are the steps that would take place in the coming months, years, or decades that would lead to the dismantling of Israel as a Zionist state and the establishment of a single democratic state including Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

74. I'm no prognosticator, but the 3 choices are plain. I'm sure decades filled with pain and bloodshed

will pass. Israel's behavior will decompensate, along the lines of the Gaza massacre, until the world can't stand it anymore. Then the BDS will begin in earnest.

Israel will give up nothing, make no real concession, until it is forced to do so. I hope that force is nonviolent.

[oberliner]

75. The three choice are not plain - the 4th choice is the most obvious

That is, of course, the two-state solution.

Something along the lines of the Geneva Accords.

This would lead to no more decades of pain and bloodshed.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

76. And how in the world do you square last week's settlement announcement with choice #4?

Give it up, dude.

The gig is up.

[oberliner]

77. They want the settlements to be incorporated into Israel in a land swap

The land swap idea is laid out in the Geneva Accords as well.

If the Palestinians and Israelis prefer a life of peace and stability over a life of constant conflict and bloodshed, they will both have to make some difficult compromises.

What you are proposing is a recipe for continual war and misery for all concerned.

I wish I could convince of you that and get you to join forces with those who are committed to a true and lasting solution to the conflict with two-states living side by side at peace with one another.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

83. Have you looked at a map? Can there be a continguous country given the land swaps that would be

required to accommodate this exponential settlement expansion?

Oberliner, I wish I could get you to see that the governments of Israel have never shown any real interest in "a true and lasting solution" to the conflict. Certainly, the majority of Jewish israelis demonstrate no such interest. What forces are you really talking about?

[shira]

86. did you ever see the maps from Dennis Ross?

Of course there can be a contiguous Palestinian state.

What makes you think based on the Kosovo and Lebanon models that Jews and Arabs can exist peacefully in a secular democratic state?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

87. Better unpeaceful in a single democratic state than unpeaceful with apartheid, dontcha think?

Your POV seems to assume that there is "peace" now or something...

[LeftishBrit]

101. How about peaceful in two democratic states, as better than either?

Peaceful in one democratic state wouldn't be a bad idea for that matter; but it's not likely to happen.

Two states might, IF people really work for it. At least the current American government seems more serious about that than the previous one. Though with Hamas on one side, and very likely Likud on the other, it won't be easy.

[shira]

13. great idea, Intifada 3

the last one worked out so well for Palestinians.

:sarcasm:

but then again, if the Palestinians are looking to get the world even angrier at Israel, trying to isolate it more, it's not a bad idea (if you're head of Fatah or Hamas) trying to provoke Israel yet again. It always works. Show more images of civilians hurt/killed in war, make up a few bogus warcrimes like with Gaza (UN building, white-flag nonsense, etc..) or Hezbollah (Qana, green helmet guy) or Intifadah 2 (al-Durah). Get folks enraged over a few hoaxes. Claim it's worse than the Warsaw ghetto, it's genocide, Israel's fault again, etc. Same dupes, useful idiots and haters fall for it over and over again.

Sure, why not? It works, right?

:eyes:

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. Massive civil disobedience, combined with world-wide BDS ... sounds like a perfect plan to me.

Time for Palestinians to join ranks and make it happen.

[oberliner]

19. That would certainly be a welcome change of pace from Hamas

Sadly, they seem to prefer more violent tactics - both against Israelis and against fellow Palestinians with whom they disagree.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

21. Doesn't seem to be hampering Fatah rank and file from wanting to unite...

so I suspect the violence you guys like to quote so much is exaggerated.

[oberliner]

38. Take it up with the Palestinian Center for Human Rights or Ma'an News or Amnesty International

Those are some of the sources I've linked to on this subject.

[azurnoir]

48. Yes only pay attention to the stories about

Palestinian on Palestinian violence, but never mind stories about the talks between Hamas and Fatah going on in Egypt because we can not have that can we?

[oberliner]

49. Reconciliation would be fantastic

Hopefully it is an indication that Hamas is reconsidering its approach and will soon consent to abide by previous PA agreements.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

68. Oberliner, please mark my words.

The PA is dead.
The past agreements will, and should, be null. Israel never abided by them. It announced only last week new settlement expansion in the West Bank.

Oslo was a chimera.

[oberliner]

72. What will take the place of the PA?

Do you think that Hamas and Fatah will be reconciled with one another? Do you foresee a unified Palestinian governing body?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[ohio2007]

53. looks like somebody reported a post they didn't like to the mods

Was the blantant reality revealed in that video to hard to accept ?

Well, enjoy denial.

[iconicgnom]

11. Nope.

Tho' *you* can dream any dreams that you want.

[oberliner]

12. Not sure what you are saying "nope" to

Obama is free to engage with the Palestinian leadership or not.

[iconicgnom]

29. And the Palestinian leadership is free to interact together as it wants.

Certainly Obama's SOS is important, but there's still a limit to what she can dictate. She isn't in any position to dictate terms of agreement/disagreement between Palestinian political parties. Even if you state the obvious, that Mahmoud Abbas is totally owned, she cannot dictate what a "successful reconciliation process between Fatah and Hamas" must include. Hillary Clinton cannot override the Palestinian political will, which is expressed democratically.

Now she, with Obama behind her all the way, might denounce an agreement between Fatah and Hamas as not expressing a proper grovelling concession, made carte blanche so to speak to "the existence of Israel" even while Israel is (still...) expanding its "settlements". And even while right-wing extremists wave the flag of Zionism. As you say, Obama is free to engage with the Palestinian leadership in any way he, as president of the USA, wants. He can be a total asshole if he wants.

Nevertheless, the Palestinian people still have a right to their dignity before the world.

[oberliner]

39. That's true

But if they want to US involved in the peace process, the US is going to have certain expectations for them - specifically the three conditions set out by Obama and reiterated by Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

63. Oberliner, I usually respect your contributions, but this one was disappointing.

All you were doing there was parroting the AIPAC line. You're a better person than that.

If Hamas were allowed to negotiate with the US and Israel, it's fairly likely that they'd offer recognition a little later in the talks. There's no reason recognition HAS to come first. And in any case it should be enough that the PA recognized Israel in the 90's. There's no good reason to keep playing the "precondition game". All that does is reduce any negotiations to the level of the Panmunjon Truce Talks at the Korean border.

[oberliner]

66. Your problem is with Obama, not with me

The only line I am parroting is the Obama line, and I agree with him.

To wit:

"To be a genuine party to peace ... Hamas must meet clear conditions, recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and abide by past agreements."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jPtaKU2LPWiexE17YEnalgiiK2pA

Clinton reiterated those conditions, saying: "They must renounce violence, recognize Israel, and abide by previous commitments," such as the Oslo peace accords.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jsnJALIjZo2rdoEVsG9a7pS9Dj8g

The Obama administration has been clear and consistent and I support that position.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. What a crock of shit.

Recognize what?

Israel's "right" to exist? (whatever that means... do others countries ask for that kind of recognition?)
Israel's current borders? oh, that's right, there are no fixed borders?

Why not have mutual recognition of 2 sovereign states as the last step of a peace process?

How can Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, DFLP or any Palestinian group recognize it's enemy sovereignty with THERE ARE NO BORDERS??

It is insanity.

Time to shelve Oslo and scrap the whole pile of shit.

[oberliner]

9. The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin

Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html

It's really not that complicated.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. What a huge tactical mistake that was.

Live and learn.

[LeftishBrit]

33. Why? What would be better if they hadn't?

[sellitman]

64. Yes, Hamas's tactics have been so much better.

:sarcasm:

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Too bad Israel never recognized the right of Palestinians to the same.

Oh well.

[ohio2007]

55. Egypt recognized Israel,Jordan recognize Israel.....Well, how about Syria?

oh well.
live in hate

[Vegasaurus]

60. That's what people don't seem to understand about Israel

When Arab countries stop poking at it with terrorism and violence, and make peace, Israel makes peace back.

If Hamas even thought of trying it (or any of the militant Palestinian groups) they could live a good life in peace.

Instead, they continue to choose perpetual violence, which is a very bad choice on their parts.

[iconicgnom]

31. What "state" is that? The "state" that continues to build "settlements".

what does a thinking person say except a total FUCK YOU.

[LeftishBrit]

34. Why not recognize the state itself but NOT its settlements, or rights over the OTS?

[iconicgnom]

43. What "state"? The "state" that claims the right to exert control over the settlements, etc.?

After all, that "state" objectively EXISTS. It builds settlements. It besieges Gaza. It ethnically cleanses the area it controls. It has politicians arguing over how much of the west bank, the Jordan valley, etc., be taken outright. It refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the Hamas gov't. It carpet bombs Lebanon. It threatens Iran. And so on.

So I dunno, LeftishBrit, all the reasons that go through the heads of various Palestinian politicians, Fatah or Hamas or whatever, in making these decisions. It can't be easy. I certainly can't think of what edge Abbas thinks it gets his admin, to "recognize" the state of Israel. Does that make the expanding settlements, road system, partition wall, etc., easier to take?

[oberliner]

44. It gets the US and others to give you aid

If the PA took the Hamas position then the US would not be sending them the funds they have pledged.

[iconicgnom]

50. I'm sure they're well aware of the US/Israeli "carrot & stick" methodology.

[oberliner]

51. What is your opinion of Hamas? nt

[iconicgnom]

67. I think it wasn't given a chance.

[oberliner]

96. That doesn't really answer the question

What are your thoughts on Hamas as an organization? Are their values and principles in line with your own?

[iconicgnom]

97. I'm not a Palestinian. But I don't think they were given a chance.

There clearly isn't a level playing field.
What do I think of Israeli assassination squads? What do I think of the Afghan resistance? What do I think of X?

There's no one answer to these questions. A person would be insane to say they think "By golly, the IDF is great, and so is Hamas!".
At least, in my view it isn't so black and white. Good and evil. With us or against us. Bushy.

Going by our exchanges so far I'm guessing that you're looking for a black and white judgment - a reason to be condemnatory of whatever opinion that isn't "awful! inhuman monsters!"

I don't see any value in that -- unless, well, one's intent is to "justify" ever more intensive war operations while denigrating the possibility of diplomacy. That is, unless one's intent is to defend the (very Bushy) status quo. Myself, I'm in the mood for "hope" and "change", not just more Bushisms.

[oberliner]

99. Fair enough

I appreciate your response.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

85. The state with ever-changing borders. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

37. That wasn't good enough for Israel...

Do you remember that a year or so ago Israel demanded that they recognise the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state?

[oberliner]

41. It was enough to get the US and others to start sending aid to the PA

This is more about what the US wants than what Israel wants. If Hamas takes the steps laid out by Obama/Clinton, they will be in a position to receive funding directly, the way the PA currently is.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

84. US charity is no one's goal. nt

[oberliner]

93. It's not?

Both Israelis and Palestinians seem very keen on getting as much US charity as they can get.

[ohio2007]

17. But people feel they will come around and change their charter.er...minds about recognizing Israel..

lol

snip

Earlier Saturday, Hamas also rejected a call by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Islamic group to recognize the state of Israel, and said her request was unacceptable to the Palestinians.

Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan said that the group will not recognize Israel nor comply with the conditions set by the Quartet, the radio station reported.

snip

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1235410737803


denial is a river in Egypt

[azurnoir]

27. Yup it is and well

do we need to go through the fact that PLO charter says nothing different? once again

http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124315

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/20...

[geek tragedy]

22. Hamas and Bibi deserve each other. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

36. You are right there! But the Israelis and Palestinians deserve neither.

[geek tragedy]

45. Well, in a democracy people get the leaders

they deserve.

Bibi isn't in charge by accident.

And Hamas, well, let's just say I'm not convinced the Palestinians are up to governing themselves (though the Israelis don't help that process along).

[LeftishBrit]

57. That's the usual saying, but I don't really agree with it.

Firstly, the electoral system in many countries can give disproportionate power to someone without a real majority (Thatcher, Bush, Bibi). The extremes of a first-past-the-post system gave the Brits 11 years of Thatcher with about 42% of the vote each time; the opposite extremes of pure PR are likely to give Israel Bibi despite a distinct minority of the votes.

Also, people can only vote for the people who actually stand for office. E.g. a lot of Palestinians probably voted for Hamas because Fatah was corrupt rather than because they agreed with all Hamas' aims.

[geek tragedy]

58. Bibi is a moderate compared to the other parties

in his to-be-formed coalition.

That's how rightwing Israel has become.

[azurnoir]

47. Well if the Israeli's did not want a right wing government

then why vote pone in? Hamas was voted in to power of the Palestinian parliament the President was Abbas, there was a balance of power until America with Israeli approval decided to change that and lost the bid. However when America trains opposition forces {Meretz LOL)in Israel to overthrow the current Israeli government that is being formed then there will be something to compare.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Hamas: We Will Never Recognize Israel

Hamas: We Will Never Recognize Israel

28/02/2009 Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Saturday any unity government with Hamas would have to agree to a two-state solution with Israel, a demand quickly rejected by his political rivals.

"We are moving in steady steps towards ... a national unity government that abides by our known commitments, which include the two-state vision and the signed (peace) commitments," Abbas said in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Hamas official Ayman Taha in Gaza said Abbas's comments undermine chances for reaching a unity agreement.

"We reject any pre-conditions in the formation of the unity government. Hamas will never accept a unity government that recognizes Israel," Taha said.

http://www.almanar.com.lb/newssite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=75918&language=en

[ohio2007]

56. It's in the Hamas Charter. You could say; "written in stone".

what part of the definition of insanity do people not recognize over and over and over again ?

"We reject any pre-conditions in the formation of the unity government. Hamas will never accept a unity government that recognizes Israel," Taha said.



the world aint big enough for the both of them

[azurnoir]

26. Hamas has stated that they reject recognition of Israel

as a precondition was recognition a precondition at Oslo or was it a part of negotiations? But never mind Israel wins right it gets to keep what its gained on the west bank with the tacit approval of and more to come from the US and its handiwork in Gaza will not be undone anytime soon and the PR bonanza lets not forget that either

[ohio2007]

54. Hamas is a cancer on the ass of middle east progress

it will fester and kill its host


there is no cure

[iconicgnom]

28. Does Clinton call for Israel to repudiate Zionism?

didn't think so.

[Lithos]

32. Why should she?

She didn't ask Hamas to repudiate Islamism or Palestinian Nationalism, why should she ask anyone in Israel to repudiate Zionism.

L-

[Alamuti Lotus]

80. I don't see her barking orders at Netanyahu or Likud

Netanyahoo personally, and Likud as a party (let me use the familiar anti-Arafat/anti-Hamas refrain "read the charter"), fundamentally oppose any kind of "two-state solution" or any kind of recognition or acknowledgement of Palestinian rights (or existance, for that matter). She doesn't seem to have a problem with that..

[LeftishBrit]

82. She should have a problem with the hawks on both sides.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

88. Can you clarify which party in Israel isn't "hawkish" when it comes to Palestine?

[Alamuti Lotus]

94. Balad, Ta'al, Hadash, umm....that's about it. Meretz?

And these have a total combined influence of Lieberman's fascist little toe.

[LeftishBrit]

100. Meretz. Hadash. Possibly parts of the ILP, if they were able to rule without RW coalition partners

but when was there last an Israeli government, which, even if not led from the right, did not depend on RW support?

I should perhaps have said that Clinton should be tough on 'hawkishness' rather than 'hawks' on both sides.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

103. So, no party that has had power for the last 40 years?

C'mon LB. Give it up. This isn't about hawks and doves. It's about degress of violence and oppression as practiced in Zionism.

[LeftishBrit]

105. Which American party in power during the last 45 years has not been involved in war?

In the UK, you would need to change it to the last 30 years, but the same principle applies.

That doesn't mean that America and Britain should cease to exist.

I don't like the Israeli electoral system, or the dominant views of the major parties, or that the party that offers most hope got 3 seats (well, 6 or 7 if you combine the left-parties together) or that the majority still support the Gaza bombing. But equating this all with 'Zionism' is like equating Bush's presidency, the overwhelming initial support for the Iraq war, or that there is only one acknowledged socialist in all of Congress, with 'America'. Or Thatcherism, the Labour Party's betrayal, and the collaboration with Bush's warmongering, with 'Britain'. Or rockets and suicide bombings with 'Palestine'.

Reform, not abolition! Israel should end the Occupation but continue to exist, as Britain ended the Empire but continued to exist.

[LeftishBrit]

35. Doubt it. Does Israel call for America to revoke the Declaration of Independence?

It would make the same sort of sense.

No country is going to repudiate its own existence.

[shira]

52. LB, what do most leftish Brits think of George Galloway?

Check out this youtube on Galloway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6IJ5DtGIE&eurl=http://www.israellycool.com/&feature=player_embedded

Galloway doesn't seem to recognize Israel as a Jewish state either, apparently being against its very existance. I wonder how many here at DU agree with Galloway, in his very own words?

[LeftishBrit]

59. Most of us don't think much of him

He is seen as a bit of a buffoon, who neglects his parliamentary duties, e.g. at one time to appear in Celebrity Big Brother. He is also seen as making alliances with some rather questionable people and groups (e.g. some Muslim fundie types). Personally, I have never forgiven him for expressing support of Musharraf when he came to power.

He has long-since left the Labour Party and is a 'party of one', who got a seat in 2005 because of a strong protest vote against the war. If Blair hadn't been so disastrous, Galloway would have got nowhere.

In any case, he doesn't have much support from most British lefties, though the British left is so factionalized that no two pwople have the same view on anything! At any rate, the UK DU-ers are often a bit bemused by the attention that Galloway gets from American DU-ers, who apparently know him only for his smackdown of Senator Coleman. He's not a key figure here, even on the left.

[ohio2007]

61. Celebrity Big Brother lol

wtf

[Alamuti Lotus]

81. I am fine with him

Not a big fan, but I will certainly not join the circlejerk attack on him on these occasions. Obvious attack piece, chop work on the youtube bit, but nothing better should be expected from certain sources.

[cali]

78. huh?

do you have a clue as to what zionism even is? obviously not. stunningly ignorant and dim comment.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

90. One of the few things I think Hamas is right about.

Recognising Israel is one of the very few concessions the Palestinians have to trade with. They shouldn't use it unless Israel is willing to make significant concessions in return.

[oberliner]

91. Great attitude

I am sure that will serve the Palestinian people well!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

92. How do you think recognising Israel without getting a quid pro quo would benefit the Palestinians?

I think the Palestinians should stop targetting violence at civilians for moral reasons - killing civilians is wrong.

I think the Palestinians should probably stop resorting to violent resistance altogether, for self-interested reasons - I think they have a moral right to go on killing Israeli soldiers, but I think they are probably foolish to do so because Israel is much better at violence than they are, and massively indiscriminate in its reprisals

I don't see either that the Palestinians have any moral duty to formally recognise the right of Israel to exist, or anything to gain from doing so without demanding a quid pro quo in return.

And I don't think Israel will offer anything in return if it can get that recognition without doing so - the Israeli policy towards the Palestinians is generally to take as much as possible and give as little as possible back.

[oberliner]

95. The most recent invasion of Gaza and the humanitarian crisis therein

I would think that if Hamas had renounced violence, recognized Israel, and consented to abide by past agreements then the Israeli approach to Gaza and Hamas would have been very different.

Perhaps if Hamas had announced those intentions immediately after its success in the legislative elections the conditions for the Palestinians living in Gaza would be much better today than they currently are.

[iconicgnom]

98. well, that's certainly a wonderful thing to "think"

[Bodhi BloodWave]

102. Why should they recognize Israel when they

have no firm borders in Palestine's direction?

If Israel were to actually define their borders i would start to agree with them recognizing Israel, until such a time tho i will support them *not* recognizing Israel since such a recognizing would likely aid Israel in stealing more land