Hamas forms government, rejects peace talks

[bemildred]

(CBC) - Hamas took over running the Palestinian government on Saturday and leading officials in the militant group said peace talks with Israel are not on their agenda.

"Hamas rejects negotiations with the occupation under the current circumstances, while occupation and aggression continues," said Hamas spokesman Sami abu-Zuhri.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas asked Hamas to form the next government, but demanded that it recognize existing peace deals and fall in line with his moderate policies, including negotiations with Israel.

---

Officials in the group have said their top choice for prime minister is the group's Gaza leader, Ismail Haniyeh. Abbas will retain powers as Palestinian Authority president.

myTelus

[bemildred]

1. New Palestianian Speaker Says Will 'Resist Occupation'

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP)--The newly elected Palestinian parliament speaker from Hamas said Saturday the Islamic militant group will try to live up to its " rightful duty to resist occupation."

The new speaker, Abdel Aziz Duaik, made the comments after the new Hamas- dominated parliament was sworn in. Hamas, which has carried out scores of suicide attacks against Israel, has resisted calls to renounce violence and recognize Israel.

NASDAQ

[bemildred]

2. Minister Ezra: Israel can deal with Hamas, but doesn’t want to hurt civili

Internal Security Minister Gideon Ezra said Saturday that "Israel has enough tools to deal with Hamas, but it is in a dilemma on how to do so without hurting civilians.


The Palestinian Legislative Council convened Saturday for its first session since Hamas' victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3217885,00.html

[RC]

3. Huh?

"...but it is in a dilemma on how to do so without hurting civilians."

since when has that stopped Israel?

[bemildred]

4. A question of scale and appearances, I would think.

A few collateral dead is one thing, the results of open warfare another.

[Burning Water]

5. I wonder if Israel

will be foolish enough to continue to turn over the taxes they collect for the PA to Hamas.

Probably. They often act like suicidal fools.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. If they continue to collect the taxes, then they should hand them over...

That revenue belongs to the Palestinians, not to Israel. I wonder why people who insist that Israel shouldn't pass on the revenue it collects on behalf of the Palestinians don't take it one step back and insist that Israel should stop collecting the revenue, so that they don't have anything to refuse to hand over...

Violet....

[Burning Water]

10. I agree. Why

should they collect the taxes? Let Hamas earn the hate that has historically attached to the tax collector.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. BBC link

From the BBC Online
Dated Saturday February 18 12:53 GMT (4:53 am PST)

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Welcome back, Jack!

Do you think there's much chance of Hamas ending up taking a more moderate position towards Israel now that they've formed a government?

The timing always seems to be off for any real negotiations happening. With both Arafat and Sharon gone, this should have been the time when real moves towards peace could have been made. Now it seems very unlikely unless Hamas surprise everyone (most of all Israel) by showing a willingness to negotiate, not calling for the destruction of Israel, and honouring agreements signed by the PA in the past...

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

12. I'd loved to see Hamas surpise us that way. Wouldn't we all?

However, by definition, we don't expect surprises.

On the other hand, Sharon was pleasently surprising in his last months in power.

[pelsar]

15. now whats a liberal to do?.....

interesting predicament.....here we have israel giving gaza to the palestenians..something Egypt never did.....as well as giving the palestenians in gaza responsability for their society, something the jordanians never did either.

Israel has torn down some settlements, and is now forcing the hand of its own extremists.....

on the other hand, the palestenains have just voted in a facist, theorcratic govt that promises balanced books, that may (as it does in gaza today) send its moral squads around to enforce the religious morality not to mention the philosophy of "removing the jews from arab lands"....(though in practice we are actually waiting to see....)

so....what does a liberal whos sympathies lie with the palestenains to do?.....this is a matter of choosing between to "no good options" (which btw is typical of israeli decisions....)

will they find excuses for and defend a theocratic govt (i.e. similar to iran)...which should (in my mind) make them shiver with fear that such a thing actually exists today, will they find themselves actually defending israeli policy of making itself distance from such a govt?..will they attempt to seperate the hamas govt from the "people" in the defense of the palestenains even though that same people overwhelming voted them in (pretending it didnt happen?)

tough choices.....tough reality......

[Violet_Crumble]

16. What a liberal is to do is to stop saying Israel GAVE Gaza away...

It wasn't Israel's to begin with, pelsar...

As for the rest of yr post, what a liberal whose sympathies lie with the Palestinians (btw, it'd be a weird sort of liberal who doesn't have sympathies for the Palestinians) does is hope that Hamas will be pragmatic and become more moderate in its attitude to Israel. That doesn't mean rolling over and accepting the occupation as a desirable thing, nor does it mean becoming a proxy occupier for Israel. What it means is being very clear in both words and actions that it accepts the right of Israel to exist within its borders and the Green Line, that it will honour written committments made by the PA, and that it will seek to enter negotiations with Israel as a partner (this may be problematic for Israel as Israel, when it does want to negotiate, wants to do so from a position of power)...

What a liberal shouldn't do is support any moves to punish the Palestinian people for the election of Hamas. What a liberal shouldn't do is support any external moves to try to topple Hamas from power. ..

Violet...

[pelsar]

19. gaza...

to begin with it was taken from Egyt during a defensive war...so it was israels to "give away".. As far as a "liberals sympathies"...it can obviously go both ways. I could easily say, its a weird sort of liberal who doesnt have sympathies for the jewish state, besiged and attacked from all side since its birth......and still threatened with total anihilation

Nor did i say "accepting the occupation as a desirable thing...the question at hand, which was conviently skipped over is:

what if hamas decides to stay with its beliefs?..and not accept israel, and not enter negotiations...then what?...what if hamas makes gaza and the westbank into iran II?

but there it is...the attempt to separate hamas from the palestenian people:
What a liberal shouldn't do is support any moves to punish the Palestinian people for the election of Hamas...The palestenains people voted in hamas, by a large margin, hence the palestenian people identify with hamas..they are ONE (if hamas does the iran thing, i doubt it will last, nor should it-however, its is a possible scenario...). As far as supporting moves to topple hamas...interesting, does this mean you support theocractic regimes?

or not support them but dont believe they should be removed? which in essence means letting the people live under a religious govt complete with roaving "moral squads".

[TomClash]

20. You're kidding right?

Poor beseiged Israel - with its 100 nuclear weapons. No one buys this argument anymore.

By your logic the American people voted in Bush so they should be punished for it.

Who supports theocratic regimes? I'll remember that when one of those wacko religious parties winds up in the next Israeli Government.

[pelsar]

21. and if it happens

i will also be partially responsable for such a govt..a freely elected govt represents the majority will of the people"...its a referendum, thats how we know "what the people of any particular society want at any particular point in time.

Its not a matter of "punishing the people" as much as recognizing whom they have chosen for their leaders....the great thing about democracy is that you get to change them, if you (the people) messed up. The US chose Bush twice in a row, that means something.

Iran for example didnt choose khomeini hence we can attempt to separate the "people from the leaders". Israel constantly changes its leadership (sort of) in that its constantly looking for the "better solution" But the leaders and their policies represent the israeli people..thats how it works.

The palestenain people in a free election, chose by a large margin Hamas, hence those are the policies that they want for the present time, unless they decide later to elect someone else with a different agenda (if hamas has elections)
the people chose....its that simple.

_________
as far as israel being threatened by iran..we take it seriously. A nuclear exchange is really not a good thing....and we really dont care who "buys the arguement" we 've got 2,000 years of history of much of the same, so the only thing thats change is that this time, we got the guns.....(but i didn notice the europeans countries are also "buying it, since they too are starting to feel threatened...)

[TomClash]

22. The Bush Administration

is now arguing that the pro-moderate vote was split and Fatah ran a poor campaign so the Hamas margin of victory is really a slim one. Which is it?

The Soviet Union had the guns too. They didn't have the arguments. They are now on the ash heap of history.

Thank you, no. I refuse to take resposibility for Bush being elected. I worked pretty hard for John Kerry and I would have worked just as hard for any other Democrat. I refuse to paint the Palestinian people as purveyors of terror.

By the way, when Hitler was elected Chancellor in 1933 were the jews responsible? Of course not.

Who are you voting for in the upcoming election? I suspect you are voting for Kadima. That's who you will be responsible for.

[pelsar]

23. let me understand....

if a govt is elected in a democratic state by the majority....your saying the losers have no responsability? Thats a pretty odd way of having the people participate in democracy. Even when you lose you still have responsabiities, to protest, write letters, scream, organize for the next election. But in the meantime your reps are exactly that your reps. You have not just the right but the duty to keep the pressure on them, its keeps them in line.

The german people elected hitler...poor choice. People dont always make wise choices, not in life, not at work, not with friends and not in politics. But democracy has a thing called responsability.....you did it, your responsable for it. Sometimes you pay big for your screwups, sometimes you get away with it.

as far as fatah running a poor campaign...so?..hamas was smarter, better organized, better listeners etc..they won...by a long shot, look at their parliament (no excuses please-they won big time). The palestenains chose them....and thats all there is to it. It may have been a wise choice as hamas reorganizes itself...or it may cost the palestenians dearly as they enter taliban land.....the point is no excuses are necessary: the palestenain made a choice very clear and very loud....now its time to take up the responsability of their decision. (perhaps they really dont want to accept israel.....it is after all on the hamas platform-do you know better?...no wishful western thinking allowed.

btw, maybe its a cultural thing, but us israelis tend to see all of our govts as representing us in the world..whether we like them or not...and when we dont, we elect somebody else. But its doesnt make me any less responsable for their decisions, be it the 67 war, 73, 82, wall, settlements, oslo, arab municipalties, etc....its part of being a citizen is all about, not shriking from ones role in society.

as far as voting goes....kadima is a strong possibility also a smaller party called chetz...left overs from shinui (a secular party). or beilins party...whats left of meretz....depends if i want to risk having my vote be worthless or not.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. I get it now...

Israelis chose Sharon how many times? When he was elected both times he was a murdering war-criminal, so therefore Israelis are responsible for electing such a leader. Oh-kay....

Violet...

[pelsar]

29. thats right....

we elected him...twice, knowing full well his past...by a majority....and those who disagreed with him, his policies still accepted him and his govt as reps of israel..thats how democracies work.

whats seems to be the problem?...

the palestenians PEOPLE elected Hamas to represent them.....is there someone here who disagrees with that?

[Violet_Crumble]

30. What seems to be the problem??

What seems to be the problem is that you appear to be arguing that the Palestinian people are responsible for the election of Hamas, so any punishment is deserved by them for democratically electing them and in doing so being responsible for Hamas policy. Then you agree that the Israeli people elected Sharon and are responsible for him and his policies towards the Palestinians. So, uh, why are we all supposed to get outraged when the Israeli people get punished for what their govt does?

Violet...

[pelsar]

31. one and the same....

.....you seem to understand the idea of one standard for all...its goes both ways.

What the govt of israel does, what the iDF does is made up of the israeli people, the soldiers those clerks, those ministers are all israelis. Their kids go to school, vote, serve in the IDF, protest etc. There is no "govt that is not israeli.

When one "punishes the israeli govt, its punishing the people, but since the govt is the peoples rep....its one and the same.....so dont get all "outraged" when the israeli people get punished for our govt. When we dont like our govt, we change it....but it is ours and we are directly responsable for it as the govt is responsable for us.

same holds true for the palestenains....100%

[Violet_Crumble]

33. You do realise yr basically justifying suicide bombings?

I just wanted to check that with you, coz there's this expectation that there must be incredibly high levels of outrage when any Israeli is punished...

Violet...

[pelsar]

34. justification...

if your claiming that targeting civilians in an armed conflict is ok since they are responsable for their govt...then no i disagree. Just as i disagree that the IDF should go and kill palestenians civilians for what the the various arms of the PA does or for the PAs incompetence.(lack of will to control the islamic jihad)

Hamas may have now been elected...but it doesnt mean that the IDF is now free to carpet bomb Jenin.

there are levels of responsability...some more direct some less...but one cant claim the govt doesnt rep the peoples will in free elections...

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Dunno about that. My govt sure doesn't represent me...

I'm opposed to everything it stands for, and there's many like me. Just the same as there's many Israelis and Palestinians who'd think their govt doesn't represent them. I won't use the US as an example as I think most people are aware of what a joke their supposedly free elections are...

My question wasn't asked in any way thinking that you support attacks on either Israeli or Palestinian civilians - I've known you for long enough to know you don't, but the logic you use when explaining these sorts of things...there was also a recent thread where you argued along the lines that Israeli citizens and the IDF are one and the same, and that argument was one of the justifications used by Palestinian groups for attacking Israeli civilians...

Violet...

[pelsar]

36. violet...

i thinks theres a bit of a cultural difference going on..in fact i was surprised by some of your writings....hence my concusion. Because i think both the palestenains and israelis have similar views about our govts. Probably because we're in a partial war setting so were far more "nationalistic" than someone in perhaps Britan or Australia.

we would hear it from the palestenians about arafat....seeing him as their leader, yet knowing his weaknesses...but never waivering from the fact that he was their representative....so too with israelis. We know Sharons past, Netanyus ambitions etc, yet when they are the PM, they represent us....as do all those israeli reps that make me cringe when they speak.

this probably goes for the palesteanins as much as it does the israelis....our politics are very complex with many times us having only bad options (the palestenains last elections appears that way...ours are always that way...with the rare exception)...but we're all very nationalistics...hence we also accept our choices for good and for bad.

But i disagree with your philosophy, your govt reps are always yours...when "yours" are in office and the other guys are out....your reps still have a duty to represent them just as much as they are to represent you. Thats the jist of a democracy. And when yours are out, you have a duty to remind the guy in office that he represents you, even if he disagrees...

__________________________________
as far as the IDF being israeli citizens we are....its absurd to separate the two, but its that very system that pulled israel out of gaza, started oslo etc...its was the kids returning on leave telling the parents what was actually going on. It was the parents seeing the changes in their kids from warm caring kids to harder, less sensitive.....that was the reason for the pullout...It was dads not wanting their kids to do what they did.... For the palestenains using the argument that all citizens are in the IDF...well its not really true, its the other way around,....all IDF soldiers are israeli citiizens. (the muslims, chinese/vietnamese, jews for jesus, etc that i saw on TV last night...quite a variety)

[Wordie]

9. Abbas demands Hamas recognize peace deals (AP)

Posted on Sat, Feb. 18, 2006
Abbas demands Hamas recognize peace deals
RAVI NESSMAN
Associated Press

RAMALLAH, West Bank - Hamas legislators took control of the new Palestinian parliament Saturday and President Mahmoud Abbas demanded the Islamic militant group recognize existing peace deals and back his moderate policies, including negotiations with Israel.

Abbas, who said talks with Israel were the only "strategic choice" for the Palestinians, made the demands in a speech to the inaugural session of the new Hamas-dominated legislature. Hamas controls 74 of 132 seats, but Abbas retains considerable power as Palestinian Authority president, controlling foreign affairs, security and peace negotiations.

After the session, both Abbas and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas' choice for prime minister, said they would try to resolve their deep differences through dialogue. However, several Hamas legislators said the group would never agree to negotiations with Israel.

Abbas has not decided whether he'd fire a Hamas prime minister who rejects his policies, Abbas aides have said. After leaving parliament Saturday, Abbas told reporters: "Why assume that there will be crisis? Let us resort to dialogue. This is our position, this is our policy, and we talk to everybody on this basis."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13905242.htm

[barb162]

11. Abbas is acting diplomatic; good for him

[Wordie]

13. So now you *like* Abbas. I'm sorry, but I can't help being amused. eom

[barb162]

14. When did I ever write that I "liked" him

He's better than Hamas but that doesn't mean I like him

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Abbas is a moderate. What don't you like about him?

n/t

[Wordie]

18. Un-huh...and Abbas was better than Arafat. What does this tell you about

the Israeli approach? The "no partner" just keeps getting worse and worse for Israel, doesn't it? That strategy appears to have failed.

If Israel had been willing to engage in true negotiations years ago, treating the Palestinians as equal partners in those negotiations, and give up the occupied territories, Hamas would not have risen to power. And if you give me the "corruption" argument, I would have to ask why Israel would care. Israel doesn't care about the average Palestinian, who might be harmed by the withholding of the tax money.

[Colorado Blue]

24. Maybe what FAILED, and has failed everybody involved, has

been the Arab policy of NO COMPROMISE, which dates back to the 1920's.

Pressure on the region was exacerbated when Jordan was created out of 78% of the Palestine Mandate and sales of land and the settlement of Jews was forbidden, east of the Jordan - thus pressurizing the situation between the river and the sea.

This element has now resurfaced, in spades and wearing an Islamist face, in Hamas.

I'm going to recommend the book that Violet Crumble's always recommending, which, although it doesn't really give enough background information for people not already acquainted with the issues, especially pre-1948, at least sheds SOME light on this situation: Benny Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. I am specifically recommending the "revisited" version because it contains more information as archives previously sealed, became available.

The book is unsparing of Israeli responsibilities before and during the war of 1948 - many scholars say it indeed exaggerates them, and I personally don't believe it conveys the utter desperation of the Jewish situation in those years, in the Mandate as well as in Europe, before and after WWII. An understanding of that is vital to understanding the situation of modern Israel. There are many books on that topic, however, and they should be read as well. If, for example, you can find a copy of Shlomo Shamir's book, "The Battle for Jerusalem," I recommend it highly. Written by the commander of the brigade that somehow managed to lift the siege on Jerusalem, drawing on actual battle reports, including from the Arab side, the sense of that terrible struggle lives on in the pages: the confusion, the lack of trained troops who even spoke a common language, or good weapons, the clouds of bugs, the heat, the powerfully armed Arab Legion soldiers ensconced on the road, in the stone police station, the struggle to drag the wounded to safety under a rain of fire: the bitter retreats, the miraculous effort of an army of schnooks to save their starving city.

But Morris' book ties together a lot of elements, and it also illustrates the key factor that has been present since 1920, and which has absolutely poisoned Arab and Jewish relationships since: violence, extremism and a refusal to compromise, by elements of Arab society, led by the Husseini family during the days of the Mandate and followed by the refusal of the Arab League states to even recognize Israel, by several wars, by terrorism, and by a refusal to try and work out a regional and just solution to the problem of the people in the refugee camps.

There are NO other groups, dating from WWII, still in such a predicament - despite transfer of millions and millions of people in Europe, and between India and Pakistan, and wars there which also killed millions of people.

And, this also suggests the corrolary: a refusal to acknowledge the mirror-image displacement of 900,000 Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews from throughout the Arab world. Until BOTH groups are recognized, their displacements aknowledged and compensated, and RATIONAL plans for the patriation of the Arab refugees created - which will require broad-based international cooperation - I don't see a happy outcome here.

Responsibility for this situation does not rest with any one party. But elements of one party have, for more than 80 years, been intent on ridding the region of Jews, preventing or snuffing out the existence of Israel, refusing to consider rational solutions to the problems confronted by Palestinian and Israeli alike. With the addition of the Islamist element, claiming every inch of the Middle East as a sacred Waqf, denying the right of a non-Muslim political entity to exist, the situation has become even more dangerous, irrational and intractable.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. The book yr recommending does not deal with what Wordie mentioned...

And seeing I was mentioned as recommending it, I want to make it very clear that in no way does the book attempt to justify what was done to the Palestinians during the time the book discusses...

Wordie talked about how Israel has not been willing in the past to enter into genuine negotiations and treat the Palestinians as a partner. A book that does deal with politics (which Morris' book doesn't) is The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim...

In short, I think you are portraying Birth as discussing issues it doesn't touch on. Why it is such a great work is that it deals solely with the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem and doesn't deal at all with things yr post appears to make out it does, like the continued plight of Palestinian refugees in other Arab countries .btw, why isn't it reasonable to listen to what the refugees want when it comes to where they live and have the decency to respect their wishes?.

When you say that responsibility for this situation does not rest with any one party, do you include Israel as one of the parties who do share responsibility? Or are you meaning the Palestinians, Arab states, and basically anyone else but Israel?

Violet...

[pelsar]

25. reading the future?...based on a non existant past?

f Israel had been willing to engage in true negotiations years ago, treating the Palestinians as equal partners in those negotiations, and give up the occupied territories, Hamas would not have risen to power....

and how does one have the ability to be so sure of events that didnt happen and from those non events come to conclusions of what would happen?

[Colorado Blue]

26. More refusals to compromise

http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution

The Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967 was issued at the conclusion of a meeting between the leaders of eight Arab countries in the wake of the Six-Day War. The resolution, which formed a basis of the policies of these governments till the Yom Kippur War of 1973, called for the

Continued struggle against Israel
Ending the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War
An end to the war in Yemen
Economic assistance for Egypt and Jordan

The resolution contains in paragraph 3. what became known as "the three nos" of Arab-Israel relations at that time.

No peace with Israel
No recognition of Israel
No negotiations with Israel

Also, let's look at what was going on "a couple of decades ago" -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_civil_war

and

"According to David Meir-Levi, "From 1949 to 1956, Egypt waged a terror war against Israel, launching c. 9,000 attacks from terrorist cells set up in the refugee camps of the Gaza Strip." <1> The Israeli government cites dozens of these as "Major Arab Terrorist Attacks against Israelis prior to the 1967 Six-Day War". <2> <3> Between 1949 and 1956, 400 Israelis were killed and 900 wounded by fedayeen attacks. <4> <5>; according to the Anti-Defamation League "n 1955 alone, 260 Israeli citizens were killed or wounded by fedayeen". <6> In 1964, the PLO was founded in order to "liberate," as they saw it, what they called the "usurped part" of Palestine, which had become the state of Israel. <7>

After Black September in 1970, the PLO and its offshoots waged an international campaign against Israelis. Notable events were the Munich Massacre (1972) and the hijacking of several civilian airliners. During the 1970s and the early 1980s, Israel suffered attacks from PLO bases in Lebanon, such as the Maalot massacre in 1974. Following the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, called "Operation Peace for Galilee" by the IDF, and the exile of the PLO to Tunis, Israel had a relatively quiet decade."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence

***

A little background on Black September in Jordan, which precipitated Israel's invasion of Lebanon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan

***

The group responsible for the murders of the Munich athletes was named, "Black September."

Now - with whom should Israel have negotiated, "a couple of decades ago?" The PLO wasn't dedicated to negotiating with Israel. It was dedicated to wiping it out, just as Hamas is today.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Now for some intelligent analysis of Khartoum...

And before I start I feel it's important to point out that Israel has a long and illustrious record of avoiding negotiating with other countries in the region. And as you are claiming that the PLO was dedicated to wiping out Israel, I feel it's equally important to point out that Israel was just as dedicated to wiping out any prospect of a Palestinian state. In exactly the same way that you can acknowledge reasons for why Israel didn't negotiate in the past, you should also in the interests of fairness acknowledge the reasons for why the Palestinians didn't negotiate with Israel in the past. Negotiations and why they do or don't get off the ground can be complex things to look at, and an understanding of how the three no's came about on a political level is essential when discussing Khartoum. Totally ignoring that it came hot on the heels of the humiliation meted out to the Arab states in 1967 which resulted in Israel taking territory from Syria, Egypt and Jordan, and refusing to take that into account is an exercise in subjective ignoring of facts. I understand in some circles there's a desire to simplify the conflict by labelling everything 'Arab Intransigence' and blaming the Arabs or Muslims or whatever punching bag for everything, but I don't think anyone learns anything from that sort of nonsense. The problem with supplying soundbytes from Wikipedia is that they don't really give much of an insight into much apart from letting the world know that any twit with a computer can contribute to articles there. Much has been written on Khartoum so there really is no need at all to resort to simplistic crap from Wikipedia in instances like this...

Here's some more on Khartoum...


From the Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim(p258-9)

An Arab summit was held in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, between 28 August and 2 September. It was the first meeting of the Arab leaders since their defeat in the June War. Israel's leaders watched with keen anticipation to see what conclusions the Arab leaders would draw from their military defeat. The conference ended with the adoption of the famous three noes of Khartoum: no recognition, no negotiation, and no peace with Israel. On the face of it these declarations showed no sign of readiness for compromise, and this is how Israel interpreted them. In fact, the conference was a victory for the Arab moderates who argued for trying to obtain the withdrawal of Israel's forces by political rather than military means. Arab spokesmen interpreted the Khartoum declarations to mean no formal peace treaty, but not a rejection of a state of peace; no direct negotiations, but not a refusal to talk through third parties; and no de jure recognition of Israel, but acceptance of its existence as a state. President Nasser and King Hussein set the tone at the summit and made it clear subsequently that they were prepared to go much further than ever before toward a settlement with Israel. At Khartoum, Nasser and Hussein reached a genuine understanding and formed a united front against the hard-liners. King Hussein later gave a glimpse of the debate that went on behind the scenes:

At Khartoum I fought very much against the three noes. But the atmosphere there developed into one where all the peopel who used to support Nasser...turned on him and turned on him in such a vicious way that I found myself morally unable to contine to take any stand but to come closer to him and defend him and accuse them of responsibility in things that happened. That was the first collision I had with many of my friends in the Arab world.

But then we talked about the need for a resolution and the need for a peaceful resolution to the problem. And his approach was that "I feel responsible. We lost the West Bank and Gaza and that comes first. I am not going to ask for any withdrawal from the Suez Canal. It can stay closed forever until such time as the issue of the West Bank and of Gaza is resolved and the issue of the Palestinian people is resolved. So go and speak of that and speak of a comprehensive solution to the problem and a comprehensive peace and go and do anything you can short of signing a separate peace." And I said in any event I am not considering signing a separate peace, because we want to resolve this problem in a comprehensive fashion.

The Khartoum summit thus marked a real turning point in Nasser's attitude to Israel. At Khartoum, Nasser advised, and indeed urged, King Hussein to explore the possibility of a peaceful settlement with Israel. This was, of course, not known in Israel at the time. As far as Israel was concerned, the Khartoum declarations closed every door and every window that might lead to a peace settlement. On October 17 the cabinet took a decision that amounted to an official cancellation of the decision of 19 June (conditional offer of Israeli withdrawal). The new decision, which was adopted by the Knesset following a statement by the prime minister on 30 October, said, "The Government notes with regret the fact that the Arab states adhere to their position of not recognizing, not negotiating, and not concluding peace treaties with Israel. Faced with this position of the Arab states, Israel will maintain the situation fixed by the cease-fire agreements and reinforce its position by taking into account its security and development needs." On the same day that the Knesset adopted this decision, the cabinet took a further decision, which remained strictly secret and was not communicated to the US government. This decision cancelled the principle of seeking peace with Egypt and Syria on the basis of the international border. The decision did not specify the areas that Israel needed for security and for settlements. It simply stated that the agreements with Egypt and Syria must give Irael secure borders.