Olmert sets conditions for talks with Hamas-led government

[IndianaGreen]

Olmert conditions are the bottom line for peace talks, if Hamas chooses to reject them, then the entire world will have to admit that Israel has no partner for peace. Israel will be free to implement an unilateral peace settlement, withdrawing from most of the West Bank.

As the dolphins said before leaving Earth in Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy": So long, farewell, and thanks for all the fish!

Last update - 03:22 29/01/2006

Olmert sets conditions for talks with Hamas-led government

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service

Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told world leaders over the weekend that Israel will not hold talks with a Palestinian government comprised of Hamas legislators.

He told leaders that Israel stands by three strict principles with regards to Hamas: It must disarm, annul its charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, and accept all the agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority with Israel.

Olmert said that the international community's position, to be presented Monday at the Quartet meeting, is of utmost importance.

Olmert spoke over the weekend with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Jordan's King Abdullah, French President Jacques Chirac, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Chirac told Olmert that no political or diplomatic dialogue should be held with an organization or government that does not completely renounce violence, recognize Israel's existence and right to live in peace and security and recognize all agreements signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/675821.html

[Violet_Crumble]

1. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

Olmert conditions are the bottom line for peace talks, if Hamas chooses to reject them, then the entire world will have to admit that Israel has no partner for peace.

Successive Israeli govts have consistantly rejected Palestinian conditions for peace talks as if it's only Israeli conditions that matter, and the whole world has seen that the Palestinians have had no partner for peace. Now the boot's on the other foot for a change...

fwiw, when it comes to Olmert's three strict principles:

* It is unreasonable to demand that Hamas disarm, just the same as it's unreasonable to ask the Israelis to disarm. More realistic would be a demand that no attacks are carried out on civilians...

* It makes more sense to ask that any reference to destroying Israel be removed from the Charter rather than annulling the entire thing.

* It's totally reasonable to demand that Hamas recognises agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority..

regardless of the drawing the line in the sand approach, it seems to me that Olmert's smart enough to realise that most of that stuff is window-dressing and that just like Hamas is adapting itself (eg let's not destroy Israel today - let's do it in a few generations time), the Israeli govt will adapt itself so that there'll be some sort of diplomacy happening...

[Lithos]

2. A couple of thoughts

* It is unreasonable to demand that Hamas disarm, just the same as it's unreasonable to ask the Israelis to disarm. More realistic would be a demand that no attacks are carried out on civilians...

Hamas now represents the power inside of the PA. For them to continue, even by proxy, signifies that the PA is in a defacto war with Israel. While you can easily make a case that there is a cold war between the two organizations, this would signify a "hot" war. From the PA standpoint, it would be a disastrous PR move at this time.

* It makes more sense to ask that any reference to destroying Israel be removed from the Charter rather than annulling the entire thing.

It would depend on the nature of the Charter. But I think this is the kernel of what Olmert is wanting.

* It's totally reasonable to demand that Hamas recognises agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority..

Agree here. If Hamas does not recognize them, then they are effectively denying any legitimacy of the previous government and thus the current legal standing of the PA and their own political control over the PA.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. It's only the first point I think is unreasonable...

..and that may have to do with how I've read it. If disarming involves having no armed security forces etc, then that's something I totally disagree with. If, as I've noticed Olmert saying in a variation of that first point I agree with, that terrorism must be given up, then I agree with it. The only problem I'd see with that is it's not going to get anywhere if Hamas renounces terrorism but the Israeli govt doesn't start coming down really heavy on things like the extremist settlers who carry out attacks on Palestinian civilians, and in doing so are just as much terrorists as those who attack Israeli civilians...

What I think is more likely to happen is Hamas won't make big glitzy public announcements along the lines that Israel wants, but would do those things quietly. I read an article yesterday that said that Hamas has made so much noise about how they will NEVER EVER EVER acknowledge Israel, but becoming part of the political process has meant that regardless of what they say, they do recognise Israel and will be discussing things on the smaller-scale local level with Israeli officials, so I think people should be more interested for the time being in what Hamas do rather than what they say...

Violet...