Hamas: We won't accept two-state solution

[oberliner]

The Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas will not accept a two-state solution as a means to end the conflict with Israel, the movement's Damascus-based politburo chief Khaled Meshal said Saturday.

Meshal said that Hamas rejects the two-state solution but could still be part of a national unity government if a Palestinian state is established based on 1967 borders.

Meshal told the New York Times last week that Hamas has agreed with the rival Fatah movement to a state based on 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and a right of return for Palestinians. He said such a deal could be the basis for a long-lasting ceasefire. Some analysts saw the remarks as an indirect recognition of Israel.

Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, will continue its dialogue with Fatah in Cairo on May 16. The goal is the formation of a national government.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1084227.html

[shira]

1. return to exact 1967 borders, return of refugees, and a 10 year truce at best, then more war

nah, they don't really mean it

:eyes:

[dmallind]

2. In other words, the destruction of Israel by bomb or by ballot

I frankly have no dog in this fight. It wouldn't bother me one bit which bunch of bronze-age-babble-believers control a few hundred acres of scrub desert, but this position means there can never be a peace while Hamas calls the shots. The "right of return" means an Arab-dominated Israel that, even if it managed to remain a democracy, would become an Arabic one, thereby ending the whole point of Israel's existence as a Jewish homeland in the first place.

[theoldman]

3. That is why Israel does not want a two state solution either.

They want the whole enchilada with no Palestinians. The last thing they want is a Democracy because they know they will be outvoted.

[dmallind]

10. I must have missed the part where Israel insisted there be no nation of Palestinians

There are many hardliners who want it to be small, or disconnected, but since when did they insist on none at all anywhere in the Middle East? Tell me how there would remain a Jewish nation at all if Hamas gets its way.

Again a reminder - I could not give a flying toss if there is an entirely Jewish or an entirely Arab and Muslim control over the entire area - I just noted the rather disingenuous offer of a "two state" solution from Hamas that would end the Jewish state completely by one means or another. The only way to get the inverse for that is if Israel said "we'll accept a two state solution as long as the Palestinian state is a democracy with a majority Jewish population".

[LeftishBrit]

37. Not 'Israel'. Some right-wing Israelis

The sizeable Left in Israel wants a Palestinian state; so do many on the centre. And so do some RW factions, such as Lieberman's party, even if it's for entirely the wrong reasons (the latter see it as a way of getting rid of many of the Arabs from Israel).

There is certainly a significant group of RW-ers who don't want a Palestinian state; but it's not all of Israel.

[Larkspur]

6. There can never be peace as long as Zionists want all of Palestine for Jews

This fight goes both ways. The Zionists are extremists who want to expel all the Palestinians and Arabs from Palestine so they can recreate their delusions of ancient Israel.

The 1967 borders are less than the 1948 borders for the Palestinians, so they are giving up some land for peace.

[dmallind]

9. Quite possibly true too

but notice it is not JUST land that Hamas says is non-negotiable. They also insist on a return that would make Israel an Arab and Muslim majority nation. While I have no doubt whatsoever that there are impediments to peace on both sides, I have not seen an Israeli official insist on an inevitable end to any Arabic national identity in teh region, which is essentially the inverse of what is being asked for on the other side.

[oberliner]

11. "The Zionists" are not extremists who want to expel all the Palestinians and Arabs

Most Zionists support the two-state solution and do not have any delusions about ancient Israel.

Also, the 1967 borders are the same as the 1948 borders. The 1967 borders means the borders that existed between 1948 and 1967.

[IndianaGreen]

14. They are nothing but racists!

What passes for Zionism nowadays is a perverted and racist version of the original. It is as much a perversion and abomination as fundamentalist Christianity is from the teachings of Jesus, or the way the Wahhabi Taleban perverts and misuses the Islamic command to both men and women to dress modestly.

[oberliner]

16. Completely false in every respect

Zionism has nothing to do with any of the things you are talking about.

Most Zionists are not religious and a sizable minority of them are atheists/agnostics.

[cali]

20. you should really try

to do something about your hate.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Projecting again?

:puke:

[cali]

27. nope. just pointing out the obvious.

[LeftishBrit]

36. ALL Zionists are racist???

You mean that everyone who supports the continued existence of Israel is a racist? Because that's what 'Zionist' means.

Just... well, blimey.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Re-read what I wrote

and resist the temptation to put up a strawman.

[Shaktimaan]

40. Who died and left you in charge of defining Zionism...

or any complex, multi-faceted movement? Your statement belies a real lack of knowledge about Zionism. The concept of "greater Israel" is hardly a new one. Plenty of internal divisions and fundamental disagreements within the Zionist community are as old as Zionism itself. I don't know what sort of idealized version of "Zionism" you have been led to believe existed previously or how you think Zionism today has been "perverted" but it sounds like your understanding of the movement is somewhat simplistic, to say the least. Do you really think that racism was absent from Zionism prior to 1948? Or that it is a defining feature of Zionism in 2009?

Zionism is a big-tent movement. Making generalizations about it is about as appropriate as doing the same for things like Socialism or Christianity. Oh wait, it seems that you've already covered that last one. (So good to know that you are the one true expert on Jesus' true intentions, by the way.) But there, at least, you made the point of singling out fundamentalists before broadly disparaging their entire belief system. You made no such effort with Zionism, say by singling out the Likudniks as having perverted the true meaning of Zionism. (Though Jabotinsky would probably have disagreed with you anyway.) Your comment makes as much sense as saying, "The Christians are fundamentalist nutjobs who hate science and despise women's rights." or by beginning any statement with, "What passes for Christianity nowadays is..."

I mean, really! How the hell do you know what "passes for Zionism nowadays" anyway? According to whom, exactly?

I happen to be a Zionist... why not ask me?

[Sezu]

42. I can understand why you may feel upset. There are

many other examples of posts which show an amazing lack of knowledge about Israel, Palestinine etc on this board. Yet those folk have an opinion, almost always unshakeable, based on their ignorance. Almost always too, the opinions are steeped in a Western world view often at odds with the facts on the ground in the region of conflict. I guess the concept of the "Other," falls apart for these folk when they look at Israel. Then again, the driving ideation of the "Other," is dichotomous to begin with so its no wonder that many on the left are so black and white in their worldviews. Zionism is so evil it is not to be understood but to be destroyed as a sacrifice to some more digestible "Other." And the maniacal in all this is lost in their drive to balance their distorted universe.

[Jim Sagle]

51. That's a goddamnable lie and a blood libel. Take it back.

[cali]

19. thaf's sadly ignorant. there are zionists of all persuasions

and saying that Israelis are all extremists is just bigoted dog shit. just as saying Palestinians are all extremists would be bigoted dogshit. And, yeah, you said it because virtually all Jewish Israelis are zionists as poll after poll shows.

dog, I'm sick of the haters on both sides. You're all sick.

[aranthus]

34. You do know that 80-90% of all the world's Jews are Zionists, right?

Maybe not. From, what you've written it's obvious that you don't know what a Zionist is or what they believe.

[cali]

18. what a disgusting bigoted comment. Neither the Israelis or the Palestinians

can be summed up accuratelyl with that description, anymore than Americans can be summed up as a nation of insane bible thumpers.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Neither will Likud and some of the other rightwing parties in government coalition

This story is a dupe of a previous one posted in I/P forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x273584

[bemildred]

5. So Nuttyahoo and Meshal both reject the two-state solution. nt

[LeftishBrit]

35. Yes. Not that that's new or a surprise - but depressing anyway

Hoping that more moderate voices will prevail on both sides.

[IndianaGreen]

7. This story is a dupe

Mister Meshal's quotes were published earlier on a story posted in I/P earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x273584

[oberliner]

12. No it isn't

This article is in reference to comments made on Saturday, May 9th.

The earlier article is from May 4th.

[aquart]

8. Oh, dear. And here I was told ISRAEL had to be convinced.

LOL.

Have fun, my sweet innocent children. A Palestinian state means Hamas and Fatah eat each other for breakfast with real knives and forks.

Which is why I am so very much in favor of it.

[LeftishBrit]

38. Are you serious?

Palestinian disunity is a real and sad fact; but civil war is nothing to gloat over.

[excess_3]

13. force the matter, recognize Gaza

put a fence around Gaza and throw some food
over the fence every couple days

[sellitman]

15. This isn't news to anyone who has been paying attension.

Hamas will not rest until there is no Israel.

Period, end of discussion.

They have never indicated otherwise.

[Sezu]

17. Somebody needs to tell Obama and his crew real

fast. They obviously ain't paying attention either.

[IndianaGreen]

22. So sad that Bush isn't in the White House to do you guys' bidding, isn't it?

My heart really bleeds for you all.

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Bullshit! Clinton, Carter and Obama aren't dummies!

And who are these 'terrorist Arabs'? Is it that you think any Palestinian, including Abbas, is a 'terrorist Arab'?

[Sezu]

25. Have a look at Abbas' background. LISTEN to

what he says. Yes, he agrees with terrorists was one etc. How far have any of those dummy presidents got with the Palestinians? HOW FAR????? Nearly nowhere. It's a failed concept mostly because all of Israel's "peace partners," have encouraged rather than eliminated terrorism; the BIGGEST impediment to a peace in the region. Look at their tv shows; read their textbooks; watch what they do. So while ALL Palestinians are not terrorists, enough in power are so that it keeps on keeping on year after year. I don't know what the answer is but is definitely NOT continuing talking and supporting fucking terrorists. So far that approach has led only to MORE terrorism and the election of a terrorist government, Hamas. Nice work dummies.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. I'm knowledgable about Abbas, and he's not a terrorist...

While it's no surprise to see the Arabs are terrorists mindset over at cesspits like LGF, it's a shame it has to surface here at DU, along with you calling Obama, Clinton and Carter dummies..

And has it crossed yr mind even for one second that Israel isn't a partner for peace? It's kind of stupid to be demanding that Israel have "partners for peace" when it's not one itself...

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. so if you are against a negotiated settlement between Israel and any major Palestinian faction, what

do you propose?

[Sezu]

46. Of course I'm not. But I suggest that peace is NOT readily

attainable with an outfit like Hamas in the mix when it continues to offer only a hudna and insists that it will be a partner in a state that will NOT forego "resistance." Hamas can't even make a negotiated settlement with its fellow Palestinians and people think it CAN with Israel? Man have I got a Brooklyn bridge to sell them.

Now there may come a day but that day is not very close IMO.

[cali]

41. wrong again. the biggest impediment to peace is Israeli settlement expansion

and your idiotic labeling of Clinton etc as dummies demonstrates that you have NOTHING to add to the conversation here.

[Sezu]

43. Then there would have been NO violence after Israel

divested from Gaza; settlement de-expansion. Your simplistic nonsense is ...well...nonsense. But then you have swallowed the Koolaid, haven't you.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Accusing Cali and anyone who disagrees with you of being brainwashed is rather silly...

I don't find Cali's posts that difficult to comprehend, but you apparently do as she said the biggest impediment to peace is settlement expansion, and you went off on some tangent and talked about something that wasn't settlement expansion. To try to deny that settlement expansion in the West Bank isn't a massive impediment to peace is denying the reality of what's happening. The ongoing expansion of settlements is driving a nail in the coffin of chances of a two state solution, at least one where the West Bank isn't sliced up like swiss cheese. Cali also didn't say it was the only impediment to peace - she said it was the biggest. Do you understand the difference between what she actually said and what you are think she said?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

47. I know what 'drinking the kool aid means' and you should try not being so abusive...

One of these days I might be pleasantly surprised if you reply with something that involves discussing the actual post yr responding to instead of the usual personal attacks...

[Sezu]

48. And suggesting I don't understand things all the time

is NOT being abusive???

Physician heal thy self. Get back to me when your hypocrisy takes a walk.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. No, telling you that you didn't seem to understand what Cali posted isn't abusive...

Now, if I'd said something along the lines of 'go fuck yourself, conservative trollbot', then that would be abusive. Pointing out that what you said in yr reply to a post was addressing something the poster hadn't said at all isn't abusive. It's called discussion, something that sometimes happens at DU...

[cali]

28. ugh.

"terrorist Arabs"? fuck that bigotry.

[Sezu]

29. So there are none REALLY? NONE?

Man you do have your head up somewhere the sun don't shine if you believe that. And if you DON't believe that you have no business saying the statement is bigotry when it is FACT; maybe politically incorrect fact but fact nonetheless.

ALL Arabs are NOT terrorists but enough of them are to talk about them. Get that thru your all to superior skin.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Cali's right about that statement being bigotry...

For the same reason that someone saying 'terrorist Jews' would be bigotry as well. It's not that hard to understand...

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. its like this, if one uses a phrases like , "the black savages" or

"the homosexual perverts" or "the Jewish hucksters" one can always throw out this disclaimer that they are not talking about all of them, but the implications of the comment is obvious. After all, one could argue that there are people among all those groups who could be unidentified as such. But it insults intelligence to deny the obvious bigoted connotation in making such slurs.

As I posted previously:

If someone were to say, "Bernie Madoff is a crooked Jew" would we not ALL agree that would be a blatantly anti-Semitic statement? I certainly would. And I would condemn such a statement.

But perhaps one who said such a thing might protest such censure and argue:

1. But the evidence is overwhelming that Bernie Madoff is a crook

2. There is certainly no denying that Bernie Madoff is in fact a Jew

3. The statement in no way whatsoever says that ALL Jews are crooks -- -- only one person who just happens to be Jewish - Bernie Madoff

4. In fact this particular statement does not even - in and of itself attack Jewish culture or the Jewish faith

In fact the simple statement, "Bernie Madoff is a crooked Jew" is pretty much a true and factual statement and does not directly attack Jews in general at all. So what's the problem?

BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

Such a statements like "Bernie Madoff is a crooked Jew", or "O.J. Simpson is black savage," or "the Palestinians have a culture of death" are said in way to tie in a crass racist stereotype to a whole people they seek to demean, berate, dehumanize, demonize and marginalize as a people.

I would agree that it is not racist in and of itself to critically examine a culture, religion or political arrangement. And I would have to agree that large parts (but by no means all) of the Arab world are still somewhat tribal. I've lived in it a good deal of my life. I should know.

But when cultural critique is rooted in deep disrespect and carried out with a political agenda and in total disregard of how cultural difference are perceived from the inside - this is racist, no matter how some sophist try to spin it. When emotionally charged language of established racist stereotypes are employed in a manner that inspires people to reject a rationally based understanding of grievances and perceived grievances of the victims of these stereotypes - this is racist.

When people are unwilling or unable to subject their own cultures to the same level of self-scrutiny that they insist on imposing on others - this is at least ignorant and quite possibly - racist.

When the conclusions of the critique are already well established before the critique even begins - this is at least prejudice (pre-judicial) and likely racist.

I would suggest a very simple rule of thumb in determining whether or not something is legitimate critique or a racialist or bigoted comment --try substituting the group under scrutiny with another group and see how it sounds. If it sounds racist. It probably is racist.

When ones' sole interest in another culture is to use bits and pieces of twisted half-truths and established stereotypes as a weapon of attack against a people as a people -- that is certainly racist.

And finally when comments totally disregard how the "other" actually thinks and relies exclusively on what one presumes the other thinks.. . without even attempting to find out where they are really coming from -that is indeed both racist and ignorant.

It is simply ludicrous to suggest that a little disclaimer that one is not talking about the genetics - only the culture - makes blatant and obvious racism into non-racism. If Goebbels had opened his propaganda with that disclaimer, would his propaganda have been any less racist? In fact David Duke pretty pretty much does give that disclaimer. Does that make David Duke any less a bigot?

[bemildred]

33. Well said Sir.

If you don't want to be criticized for stereotypes and bigotry, don't bring it up. "Bernie Madoff is a crook" works perfecty well.

[TimesSquareCowboy]

50. "Let's give the Indians some sovereignty on their reservations." That's the analog.

I wouldn't accept it either.

[proteus_lives]

52. Not surprising.

Hamas doesn't want peace, they want power.

Israel should tell Hamas to shove their "indirect recognition" right up their asses.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Don't forget that Israel doesn't want a two-state solution either...

So why try and make out that only one side is opposed to it?

[Hippo_Tron]

54. Good to know that Hamas and Likud agree on these fundamental issues

Now if we could just get rid of both of them then the adults could get to work on a peaceful solution.