Hamas says Israel recognition not for discussion

[oberliner]

CAIRO (AFP) — The Islamist Hamas movement said on Saturday that it will not discuss the recognition of Israel with president Mahmud Abbas's Fatah party during reconciliation talks in Cairo.

"We can discuss with Fatah all the options... which do not contradict our national goals and the rights of our people, except the American card which stresses recognition of the Zionist entity and the conditions of the Quartet," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum said in Gaza.

"This is not open for discussion."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5glm0NkJdJAoe4j5Mb2lYVMn7wHNA

[billyoc]

1. Huh. Personally, I hate the smell of white phosphorous burning.

I guess it's an acquired taste.

[Chulanowa]

3. Well, that's charming

[Sezu]

10. Hamas to kids: Death is honor and victory

"Hamas continues its compelling message to children that death, not life, is the prime value.

The following lyrics have been appearing regularly in a song on the children's program Tomorrow's Pioneers on Hamas TV: "Teach the children that death is honor and victory. Through death, we seek to bring the dawn and the day."

While the words are being sung, a young girl throws darts shaped like missiles at a target shaped like the Star of David, promoting another repeating Hamas message - violence against Israel. When the target is hit and the Star of David falls, the young girl raises her hands in victory."

http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelnews/terrorism/81-terror/1037-hamas-to-kids-death-is-honor-and-victory.html

Evidently you are right.

[Chulanowa]

2. And?

I really don't think very many people see the situation the Palestinians are in, or what Israel's constant demand to be recognized means.

By recognizing the state of Israel, the Palestinians are effectively ceding all that land that Israel has annexed since 1948 - or 1967, depending on how generous a given Palestinian is about violations of international law. This is of course, exactly what the Israeli government wants, and will no doubt press to have its colonies in the West Bank "recognized" as well, creating, as Arafat put it, "Palestinian bantustans", little isolated enclaves. Ghettos is a better term than Bantustans, given their size.

And in return for recognition, what does Israel offer? Squat. It's a "precondition". Much like how our former squatter in the oval office tried to tell Iran to give up its nuclear energy program so we could talk to them about their nuclear energy program, Israel wants the Palestinians to give up all claims to their lawful territory before Israel talks about returning their lawful territory.

And to top it off as it pertains to this particular article, the Palestinians DO have issues that don't revolve around Israel. if Hamas would rather discuss, well, anything else with Fatah, that's fine. After all, the discussion over Israel would just bog the talks down and end them without progress. Best to hash things out between the two parties without having both of them arguing about a third.

[oberliner]

4. The PLO has already recognized Israel

The idea that if Hamas wishes to be a part of the Palestinian government, they must agree to adhere to agreements that have been previously agreed to is not really all that complicated.

This is a requirement that the Obama administration has stated repeatedly.

Arafat's letter printed in 1993 included the following text:

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

Nothing of land being ceded or "Bantustans" or anything else of that nature is included or implied by that statement.

All that is implied is that there will not be future attempts to destroy Israel (aka "liberate all of historic Palestine) which is an idea that Hamas apparently is unwilling to embrace.

[Chulanowa]

5. Good for the PLO

Say, how's the PLO doing these days? Defunct, again?

Normally, I would agree, Hamas should stick to agreements made by the previous governments. There's just one problem. Well, two, but the major one is that the PLO was never the government of Palestine. It was just the only party Israel would speak to. And I don't know about you, but I don't think Israel is any more qualified to designate a Palestinian government than Hamas is to designate an Israeli one. The second problem is, of course, that Israel has a very bad habit of not abiding its own agreements made with the Palestinians, or even with its own government - if the Israelis will not be held to the promises and agreements of their previous governments - or even the current ones - then why hold that standard for the Palestinians? Of course, two wrongs don't make a right, but why hold the Palestinians to a standard that you refuse to hold the Israelis to?

[oberliner]

6. What entity is authorized to negotiate with other countries on behalf of the Palestinian people?

Is it your opinion that prior agreements reached between Israel and the PLO are invalid?

As recently as last week, the Obama administration stated that Hamas must recognize Israel, renounce terror and abide by past deals with Israel.

I do not think that what Obama is asking for is unreasonable.

Contrary to your argument, I feel that Hamas has everything to gain and nothing to lose by recognizing Israel.

If Hamas is interested in having any kind of relationship with the US then it would be wise of them to reconsider their recalcitrance on these matters.

Does Hamas want a Palestinian state along side of Israel or a Palestinian state taking the place of Israel? If it is the latter than the prospects for a peaceful resolution to this conflict will be quite dim (especially considering the positions of the current Israeli government).

If Hamas continues to make statements like the one found in the OP then they are wasting the opportunity they have to work with an American administration that is much more willing to do so than the preceding one.

Were Hamas to do what Obama has asked (recognize Israel, renounce violence, agree to adhere to past agreements) then it would put the RW Israeli government in a really difficult position. However, if Hamas continues to refuse to agree to these requests, then they will continue to let the Israeli leadership off the hook.

[Chulanowa]

12. No offense, but that's a stupid question

Whatever entity is authorized to do so by the Palestinian people themselves, of course. The PLO never had that distinction, having been self-appointed, then only "recognized" after Israel's attempt to build a fundamentalist Islamic front against the PLO failed (we call that front 'Hamas' today, go figure). As I'm sure you're aware, the PLO's main agenda was self-enrichment.

These days, the people of Palestine are represented by the elected men and... well, men of Fatah and Hamas. They're having this meeting to hash out how to work together and, one would hope, do their mutual job better.

Here's what Obama (And Bush, and Clinton, and all the presidents before them) are asking of Palestinians - this week it's Hamas, last week it was Fatah, next week, who knows.

1) Complete and total abdication of any and all property rights in the annexed territories, as well as any Palestinian resources currently being tapped by Israel. The call to "recognize Israel" is also a call to accept the current status quo of the I/P situation.

2) Abandonment of the one and only thing the Palestinians have to negotiate with in the first place - violence. When (if) all the various Palestinian groups give up violence, what then? At that point, they become totally reliant on charity - charity from the exact same entities that created their current situation.

3) Look the other way when Israel breaks a deal. The Palestinians are expected to keep their deals and truces, but the Israelis are free to do as they please - note last year's assault on Gaza, where operations began under a truce, a truce that happened to have been pretty damn successful. A truce that was so clearly broken by Israel, that even the Israelis say they broke it. This is the entity that Palestinians are supposed to extend total unwavering trust in. Not only that, but the Palestinians are further expected to respect deals that were made by an unelected, power- and money-hungry old man suffering from dementia, who's agreements were clearly not in the best interests of Palestinians, but in his own "legacy."

Call me a cynic, if you like. it would probably fit in most cases. But in this case? I'm not the least bit cynical - I'm informed.

These terms of surrender (and that's exactly what they are) were offered to each and every Indian nation in the United States - at least the ones that weren't just destroyed outright. The Palestinians have absolutely no fucking reason in the world to assume that they will be different than my people, or the many other peoples who have been offered these same conditions (say, the Jews under Rome... say, do you know the origin of the word "zealot"?)

The fact that it's Obama asking, instead of Bush, means nothing. Obama is asking the same thing from the Palestinians that Bush did, for the same reasons, to the same results. The fact that he's a Democratic president means jack shit, because the absolute rightness of Israel, and the absolute wrongness of the Palestinians, is the one thing that draws both Democrats and republicans together. US policy towards the situation will continue as before, with hte US always on the side of the powerful, and always against the powerless.

It's what your nation was founded on, paleface.

[oberliner]

14. No offense, but your information is completely inaccurate

In 1974, the PLO was recognized at the Arab League Summit in Rabat as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." This was quickly followed the PLO being granted observer status at the United Nations, representing the Palestinian people in that body as well.

Here are the relevant clauses excerpted from the 1974 Arab League Summit resolution:

"The Seventh Arab Summit Conference resolves the following:

To affirm the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.

To support the Palestine Liberation Organization in the exercise of its responsibility at the national and international levels within the framework of Arab commitment."

Palestine as represented by the PLO has been a member of the Arab League since they issued this resolution in 1974.

Soon thereafter, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution which similarly recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.

Thus, the PLO was recognized as the representative of the Palestinian people by the Arab League in 1974, and approximately 100 countries worldwide by the end of that decade, nearly 20 years before Israel recognized them as such.

As to what is going on "these days" I do not think it is entirely clear who is authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people, which is why I had asked you that question. Although you chose to dismiss the question as "stupid" you seem to acknowledge that you do not know what the answer is. You cite meetings to "hash out how to work together" going on between various parties (you mention Hamas and Fatah, but I would add that there are other groups represented in these meetings also).

I think that one of the many difficulties facing those who wish to work towards a comprehensive peace agreement is precisely that there is no entity that is authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people that has legitimacy both internationally and in terms of the Palestinian people themselves. For some time there have been two separate Palestinian government, so to speak, each rejecting the legitimacy of the other. Overlaid on top of that, we have the PLO, whose current role in status is also somewhat undefined and/or in a period of transition. This puts Israel, the US, the EU, and the Arab League in a somewhat difficult position when it comes to negotiations.

[shira]

16. most of his post was inaccurate

What matters to him (and those like him) is what he wants to believe about history, not what the actual history and facts are. It's impossible to have any rational discussion with such a person who is incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction. No argument you make will be assessed by its relative merits (his opinion is just as good as yours). In fact, there's no amount of evidence you can provide to such a person that will ever shake him from his belief (like fundy religionists).

Check this garble out:

2) Abandonment of the one and only thing the Palestinians have to negotiate with in the first place - violence. When (if) all the various Palestinian groups give up violence, what then? At that point, they become totally reliant on charity - charity from the exact same entities that created their current situation.

What do you do with that? It's hopeless.

[shira]

17. and part of Chuli's post was highly disingenuous

3) Look the other way when Israel breaks a deal. The Palestinians are expected to keep their deals and truces, but the Israelis are free to do as they please - note last year's assault on Gaza, where operations began under a truce, a truce that happened to have been pretty damn successful. A truce that was so clearly broken by Israel, that even the Israelis say they broke it.

see, this bit of propaganda was cleared up a while back:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x250119

our friend Chuli feels it's more important to believe in his own version of history and fact (playing loose with facts is fine if the cause is just) and like that thread regarding the "ceasefire" shows he is only capable of argument based on instinct, intuition, and personal experience. No amount of evidence can change his 'religious' belief.

[Chulanowa]

19. That's an amusing assertion coming from you...

Since never once have you been able to prove me wrong. Since you have never once been able to bolster any of your arguments after I tear them to shreds. You especially amuse me with your hypocrisy, since every "historical" argument you have ever brought up has been completely wrong at best, and outright mythological at worst.

If I were to someday be presented with evidence that puts me in the wrong, I would happily accept it. In fact I have done so in the past. The problem is, there is no such evidence to counter my overall views, but lots to support it. You compare me to a religious fundamentalist... Well, I'd refer you to Richard Dawkin's fine line of books to explain the difference between being a fundamentalist, and simply refusing to lie about the facts for the sake of anothers' wrong opinion.

Again, I have to laugh at your hypocrisy. Here you are, someone who believes that Jews are a divine, flawless people, who hold a title to the Levant given to them by a magical sky-fairy who especially likes the stench of an incinerated oxen (or in a pinch, a couple dozen doves) that is inviolate for any reason, and that the Arabs who live there are all subhuman, backwards squatters unfit to live. You're comparing me to a religious fundamentalist? Get bent.

Now, as for my (strangely articulate?) "garble"... can you counter it? Or just insult it?

Violence is what the Palestinians have to negotiate with. It's an unpleasant fact, but it IS a fact. If Israel wants peace - and I'm sure that for the most part, the Israelis want peace - then this is what they have to work with. Let's be honest on this. Reaganism didn't even work for the Reagan administration. Thump your chest about how you won't negotiate with terrorists all you like, but it's not going to get you anywhere.

If the Palestinians give up violence, they have nothing to negotiate with. Thus, they become reliant on the goodwill of the international community - the same international community that created the problem, supported Israeli violence, and, at least within the Arab world, did their level best to undermine the Palestinians (Seriously, I think we can both agree that if Egypt and Jordan hadn't kept poking Israel, the Palestinians would have ended up a lot better-off)

[shira]

32. it's impossible to have any rational discussion with you

You're either incapable or unwilling to distinguish between fact and fiction (it doesn't matter which) but worse, you have an over-inflated ego. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.

This was a blast.

"Again, I have to laugh at your hypocrisy. Here you are, someone who believes that Jews are a divine, flawless people, who hold a title to the Levant given to them by a magical sky-fairy who especially likes the stench of an incinerated oxen (or in a pinch, a couple dozen doves) that is inviolate for any reason, and that the Arabs who live there are all subhuman, backwards squatters unfit to live. You're comparing me to a religious fundamentalist? Get bent."

Who do you have me confused with?

Then there's this:

"Since never once have you been able to prove me wrong. Since you have never once been able to bolster any of your arguments after I tear them to shreds. You especially amuse me with your hypocrisy, since every "historical" argument you have ever brought up has been completely wrong at best, and outright mythological at worst.

If I were to someday be presented with evidence that puts me in the wrong, I would happily accept it. In fact I have done so in the past. The problem is, there is no such evidence to counter my overall views, but lots to support it."

Super-inflated ego.

See above, post #17 genius - for one of many examples. I'll even make it easy for you and provide a link so you won't have to scroll up a few inches on your monitor:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x275077#275121

You were proven wrong there, just as you are being proven wrong here by Oberliner. You were proven wrong, you bailed on the discussion, and then you felt you could just foist that crap again on someone else in this thread months later. You were presented with evidence proving you wrong then but you didn't accept it.

Like I wrote previously, no amount of evidence will shake you out of your 'religious' views (understand that I'm assuming you're a secular religionist meaning you have blind faith in your views on I/P and are impervious to any counter-evidence). You are in the faith-based and not reality-based community. You are not persuadable. I think you are even deluding yourself into thinking that you are a liberal (progressive). Like some people whose politics are formed by emotion, not reason, you are not amenable to learning, only to indoctrination.

"If the Palestinians give up violence, they have nothing to negotiate with. Thus, they become reliant on the goodwill of the international community - the same international community that created the problem, supported Israeli violence, and, at least within the Arab world, did their level best to undermine the Palestinians"

If they give up violence and turn to nation-building and attempt to play nice with their neighbors, they will soon have their own state, the conflict will be over, and Palestinians will no longer suffer at the hands of Israelis. The international community would bankroll whatever "trusted" govt they have at the time to help ensure they have a real chance at success. But with advice from you, this conflict would rage on another 60 years and many more Palestinians would suffer and die due to playing the "terror card". I fail to see any "progressive" merit in such an argument.

"Seriously, I think we can both agree that if Egypt and Jordan hadn't kept poking Israel, the Palestinians would have ended up a lot better-off."

Under even more brutal Jordanian and Egyptian occupation? There's no way Egypt and Jordan would have allowed for a Palestinian state had 1967 never occured, or had they negotiated some peace deal at Khartoum shortly after.

[Chulanowa]

18. You say I'm wrong, then go on to say something that doesn't counter my point

My argument is that only a truly representative government chosen by the Palestinian people is "legitimate." That the PLO was self-appointed and then recognized by foreign nations, never elected and thus not truly representative. You argue that... the Arab league recognized the PLO as leaders of the Palestinians. Well, no kidding. Egypt (naturally), Jordan, Syria, Iraq, all these nice nations did indeed get together and decide who was in charge of the Palestinians. Then the UN - notable as the entity that created the entire problem to begin with - agreed, too.

But curiously, Palestinians were pretty much uninvolved in this, or any later decision-making. Thus the reason for the steady decline of the PLO and the rise of other factions.

I do however, contrary to your assertion, "know hat the answer is" - I even said it. The people that the Palestinians have elected are who the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians are. This meeting is so these various individuals and factions can figure out how to work together - and again, I'd like to presume that their interest is in how to do the best job for their people.

"International legitimacy?" Are there any other governments that need the express permission of, say, Argentina to exist? Are there any nations that can point at the United States, India, France, or Israel, say "You're not legitimate" and then fully expect the leadership of those nations to change? Of course not. This is a standard only applied to the Palestinians.

[oberliner]

21. One hundred different countries independantly recognized the PLO

as the organization representing the Palestinian people.

That you personally deem this organization to have been "not truly representative" does not change the fact that they did indeed negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people, sending ambassadors to foreign countries and representatives to the United Nations.

There are a plethora of leaders who were not elected and are not truly representative (most members of the Arab League, for example); however this does not mean that any agreements reached by other states with them are, therefore, invalid. Would you argue that the US ought to ignore Mubarak, for example, and refuse to negotiate with him as he is not a truly elected representative of the Egyptian people? Would this not be giving tacit support to "regime change" efforts there?

Your answer to my question is not an answer. To say "whoever the Palestinians have elected" does not answer the question, as the Palestinians have dual governing bodies at this point each rejecting the legitimacy of the other. Who, I would ask, are Palestinian ambassadors in foreign capitals answerable to at this point in time? If the Israeli PM decided he wanted to reach a permanent status agreement, with whom would he negotiate the details? What signatures from the Palestinian side would need to be present on an international agreement that would make it legitimate and binding?

My question, then, which remains unanswered by you, is what person(s) or organization currently represents the Palestinian people internationally while these "meetings" that you mention are going on?

As to the fairness or unfairness of asking Hamas to acknowledge Israel's right to exist I would make the following point. The US, the EU, the Fatah wing of the PA, and much of the international community is calling on Hamas to recognize Israel. If Hamas continues to refuse to do this, they will remain isolated internationally whether they are elected and re-elected by the Palestinian people or not. If the goal of Hamas truly is the establishment of an independent state next to (and not instead of) Israel, granting this recognition will result in the international community putting more pressure on Israel and will help force the issue in a way that refusing to do so will not.

[Chulanowa]

23. That is the purpose of the meetings

For Hamas and Fatah - the two main elected bodies of the Palestinian people - to decide who does what. Yes, there is conflict there. But these are the people that the Palestinians chose, and thus vastly more legitimate than leaders imposed upon the Palestinians by foreign nations. I can't imagine my statement actually puzzled you or leaves anything ambiguous.

On the face of it, with the nature of the current demands being made the recognize Israel, let me ask you something. if Hamas dragged out a map of israel circa 1948, or even 1967, and say "we recognize this state's right to exist in peace and security, and will war against it no more" would that be acceptable to you? To Israel, you think?

No. I'd wager that you would find such a statement totally unacceptable, and I'm certain the Israeli government would laugh until they pissed their slacks. The demand to recognize Israel is exactly what I said it is. It is a demand that the Palestinians give up on their land that Israel has annexed, nothing more.

Now if the US, EU, Fatah, and the "international community" could put half as much effort into seeing Palestinian rights acknkowledged and enforced as they spend on trying to suck Jesus out of Israel's cock, we might get somewhere with this situation.

[oberliner]

29. Your statement remains ambiguous and inaccurate

You are saying then that there is currently no actual entity or person authorized to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people.

This may be your personal opinion, but it is not one that is held by the international community.

Are you suggesting that while these "meetings" are going on, the Palestinians are not authorized to engage in discussions or negotiations with foreign countries?

What if Hamas and Fatah are unable to reach an agreement in these meetings? Does that mean that the Palestinian people are without international representation? Would that render the Palestinians incapable of signing any kind of agreements with Israel or any other states?

In any case, here is the statement that Hamas is being asked to make:

"Hamas recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

Nothing about borders. Nothing about giving up Palestinian land. Nothing about ceding territory annexed by Israel.

[cali]

22. well, you're informed alright- ill informed

really, really not a good thing to simply pull things out of... a hat and pass them off as facts.

[Chulanowa]

24. Thank you for your in-depth rebuttal

As soon as I double-check your prodigious supply of counter-arguments, facts, and examples, I'm sure I'll come to you on my knees, thanking you for your even-handed correction of my wrongheadedness.

...Well, as soon as you provide any such material, I suppose that's what will happen. I eagerly await your refutation of everything I said.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Hamas and Likud share a common platform of not recognizing each other's country

Perhaps they can hold a rally together.

[oberliner]

8. Except Israel actually is a country

There is no Palestinian state yet to recognize.

Hopefully that will change soon.

[Chulanowa]

13. Depends on who you ask

Israel is a country according to a majority of UN members

So is Palestine, according to several others.

Similar to how Taiwan, China, Lichenstein, and so many other nations are in an "iffy" state (no pun intended) when it comes to recognition.

What is, and what isn't a state is a matter of opinion, since the concept of "state" itself is completely philosophical and transitory.

But hey, if Israel is a country, where - precisely as you can muster please - does its Eastern border lie?

[oberliner]

15. The Green Line separates Israel from the West Bank

Part of the West Bank may end up being incorporated into Israel in a future peace agreement that leads to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

[Chulanowa]

20. Then why are so many Israelis living on the other side of the Green Line?

Are they then Palestinians, and thus subject to the rule of hte Palestinian Authority?

[oberliner]

33. Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 War

They have since built settlements in that territory. Those Israelis living in the settlements are subject to Israeli law and are not Palestinians.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Well, they've certainly been very good in their own little ways at building each other up.

If not for the Israeli Right, the (crap) Hamas government would probably be in the toilet by now; and if not for Hamas, the Likud would probably be far from the seat of power.

[proteus_lives]

11. What else from Hamas?

Their only contribution to the peace process is rockets and half-assed jokes of "ceasefires" which are only attempts to re-arm and allow another generation of fighters come of age.

[Sezu]

25. And now THIS little fly in the ointment for those who think

there is only one workable solution for reaching peace with terrorists.

"COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) — The Tamil Tigers admitted defeat Sunday in their fierce quarter-century war for a separate homeland as government forces raced to clear the last pockets of rebel resistance from the war zone in the north.

Far from the battlefield, thousands of Sri Lankans danced in the streets of Colombo, celebrating the stunning collapse of one of the world’s most sophisticated insurgencies. But with rebel leader Velupillai Prabhakaran still at large, the threat of renewed guerrilla warfare remained.

Several rebel fighters committed suicide when they were surrounded, but it wasn’t clear whether Prabhakaran or other leaders were among them.

The Tamil Tigers once controlled a shadow state complete with courts, police and a tax system across a wide swath of the north. By Sunday, troops had surrounded the remaining rebels in a 0.4-square-mile (1-square-kilometer) patch of land and were fighting off suicide bombs and other attacks, the military said."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gVoaDFmbCYS-Usz9ACDRIengj21QD98848JO0

Hamas might need to do some rethinking if this win inspires the Israeli government.

[bemildred]

26. It seems to me you have to have a legitimate Palestinian national government first,

and then that entity would be in a position to negotiate an agreement which would include recognition of Israel. In fact we did sort of have that happen before,the Oslo agreement, but it didn't seem to stick somehow. In any case, I would think recognizing Israel would be something that you get something in return for, not a free gift.

[Sezu]

27. GIFT? Put the shoe on the other foot and see if it makes any freaking

sense to you. Israel: yeah we are gonna negotiate with Palestine but we are NEVER RECOGNIZE them (wink wink nudge nudge say no more)Sheesh, the parties may as well use cans on a string for all it will accomplish.

[bemildred]

28. So you feel foreign political organizations should not talk to the USA

unless the Republican Party first agrees to unilaterally "recognize" them?

[Sezu]

30. Your anaolgy skills are wayyyyyyy poor. n/t

[bemildred]

31. So, you feel that Hamas is a government, and not a political party?

Or what, exactly, is wrong with the analogy?

[Sezu]

39. De facto government in Gaza and elected Gov't in

Palestine in general. They are also a bunch of fucking murderous terrorists and supremists who want a HUDNA. They need to come back when they fucking grow up. What kind of crazy bastards think they can negotiate anything other than their demise when they act like this in the modern world.

"The military wing of Hamas movement on Tuesday said talks to exchange prisoners between Israel and the Palestinians are restricted by a time limit.

"We have an undisclosed time ceiling and after that we can decide according to the interest of the Palestinian people," said Abu Obaida, the spokesman of Ezz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades, in an interview posted on a Hamas-affiliated website.

Abu Obaida warned that Gilad Shalit, the soldier Hamas holds hostage since 2006, will go missing forever and his fate "might be similar to Ron Arad," referring to the Israeli air force engineer who went missing since his aircraft crashed over Lebanon in 1986.".

" He also stressed that Hamas will not give up any of its demands"

http://www.paltoday.com/english/news.php?id=34658

[bemildred]

40. So, you agree, they are not the sort of legitimate, elected Palestinian government whose

opinion on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would mean anything, so this story is histrionic drivel? That was my "analogy".

[TimesSquareCowboy]

34. Once they agree to recognize Israel, they are agreeing to live in a ghetto.

[Jim Sagle]

35. Ratso Rizzo, izzat you?

[shira]

36. nope, it means they choose 2 states and give up Right of Return

Right of Return means the end of the Jewish State and, let's face it, THAT's the main reason they don't want to recognize a Jewish Israel. They want their own Palestinian state in Gaza/W.Bank and inside the green line they want a "binational" state that would soon become the 3rd Palestinian state (along with Jordan which is mostly Palestinian).

[LeftishBrit]

37. How come?

Recognizing Israel does not mean accepting the Occupation.

I believe the USA recognizes Britain; this doesn't mean you consider yourselves as British colonies.

[Vegasaurus]

38. Baloney

They already live in a ghetto.

Wanting a state would be the way out of a ghetto, but trying to annihilate Israel ensures the ghetto status for awhile longer.