Hamas proposes 10-year truce for Israeli pullback

[Resistance]

Reuters AlertNet

RAMALLAH, West Bank, Jan 26 (Reuters) - A top official of the main Palestinian militant group, Hamas, has said it could declare a 10-year truce with Israel if the Jewish state withdrew from territory occupied since 1967.

"We accept a state in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. We propose a 10-year truce in return for (Israeli) withdrawal and the establishment of a state," (Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi) said in a telephone interview from hiding in the Gaza Strip.

[Jack Rabbit]

1. If I were Israel, I wouldn't take it

In exchange for withdrawal and recognition of a Paestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, Israel should demand recognition of her right to exist as a state with borders approximating the Green Line but subject to negotiation and a pledge of nonagreession forever. Period.

There is no absolutely no reason the Israelis should accept less. Rantissi's proposal is a morbid joke.

[GabysPoppy]

60. Let is also be noted

Hamas' concept of 'peace'

The terror chief was careful to point out the deal would not include official recognition of Israel's right to exist, nor would it spell an end to Hamas' violent conflict with the Jewish state.

Phased destruction

According to the plan, the Palestinians would first establish a state on any chunk of land vacated by Israel as a result of a "peace" agreement, international pressure or war. From this rump state, the Palestinians would then mobilize a general Arab assault on a far less defensible Israel.

http://www.jnewswire.com/news_archive/04/01/040127_hamas.asp

You are 100% correct Jack

[Jack Rabbit]

62. Absolutely

There is nothing in this for Israel except a promise of a ten year hudna. Presumably Hamas would use that as time to gather stregnth. The Israelis, one might suppose, would do likewise. It isn't even a peace proposal. It's more like a request for a time out.

This proposal makes the Road Map look serious. That's about the worst thing that can be said about a Middle East peace plan.

[Darranar]

2. This proposal is junk...

The usual from Hamas.

With a two-state solution, all hostilities should end permanently.

[GabysPoppy]

3. A paragraph was missing

"Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi told Reuters late on Sunday Hamas had come to the conclusion that it was "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation"."

To translate from the Hamas dictionary, what he is sayng:

Jerusalem today and then Haifa and Tel Aviv tomorrow.

[Forkboy]

4. Yeah,Hamas can be trusted

:eyes:

[tinnypriv]

5. Here's an idea

Accept their offer.

The end of the occupation will likely remove the reservoir of support they have, and then Israel (in co-operation with the upper class Palestinians and outside states) can simply liquidate them.

I like the "from hiding" touch though. Cute.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. You must be joking

It is a fool's bargain. Israel will never take it thank God. The only negotiation Hamas knows is violence. Israel needs to "negotiate" with them as much as possible.

[Forkboy]

7. would "negotiate" mean

stepping outside of the law to perform assasinations like they do now?

Ignoring the rule of law hardly seems a fitting thing for a beacon of democracy to be doing...

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. It is not illegal to kill enemies

Those that threaten Israeli lives are enemies and pose a real and imminent threat. As such, they must be eliminated. Especially since the Palestinians won't prevent the attacks.

[Forkboy]

11. So then you favor stepping outside the law to kill enemies?

So if the Pals think Sharon is the enemy you wont have any problem with his assasination?

Sharon certainly poses a "real and imminent threat".What's good for the goose and all that....

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Enemies that pose an immediate threat

You are not stepping outside any law to prevent attacks. Enemies that pose an immediate threat must be dealt with.

Sharon, contrary to your opinion, is the elected leader of a democratic state. He poses a threat to the enemies of Israel only. Instead of considering him their enemies, the Palestinians would be wiser to consider peace.

[Forkboy]

14. Sharon poses a threat to the entire world,especially Israel

contrary to YOUR opinion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. No threat at all

Sharon is a stopgap measure until the Palestinians decide to pursue peace.

When/if that happens, Israel will choose a leader who will AGAIN propose peace.

[Forkboy]

16. heh..."stopgap measure"

and a "man of peace" as well!

and on edit-what happened to the last Israel leader who proposed peace? He was assasinated wasn't he? And by what side I wonder....

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. You mean Barak?

No, he wasn't assassinated. He just had peace murdered by Arafat and company.

[Aidoneus]

19. I think he meant Rabin

who "proposed peace" only after his "Break Their Bones" and "Let's Bomb The Hell Out Of Lebanon" ideas didn't go over so well.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. The last Israeli leader who proposed peace

That was the question. Barak is the answer.

Too bad he didn't have anyone on the other side who would consider the concept.

[Darranar]

22. Question...

Would a one-state solution, with full rights of return, be peace?

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Not for the either side

It would take what we have and turn it into full-scale civil war.

[Darranar]

28. So how was Barak's 'generous offer' any better?

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. It was better than the response

Which was Intifada I and then Intifada II. Nice counteroffers those.

No, Arafat didn't want peace. Apparently, his supporters didn't either.

[Darranar]

31. That's not the point...

how can a solution where the Israelis make huge concessions (one state, right of return) not be peace, while a solution where the Palestinians make huge concessions (unfair land division) be peace?

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Peace

Peace is something both sides will have to agree on. When one side makes a major proposal and the other side responds with violence, that's not exactly the recipe for peace.

The facts of the situation are these: Israel exists, a Palestinian state does not. For the latter to occur, Israel must allow it to happen. For that to occur, there must be peace and peace includes the end of terror. Seems like it's in the best interests of the Palestinians for all of that.

For the Palestinians to acquire their state, they will have to make concessions.

[Darranar]

35. Of course they will...

they will be conceding a large portion of their homeland.

They will also be conceding the rights of their refugees to return to their homes.

But you still have not answered my question.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Peace

Peace means the creation of two states. The creation of one means more war.

[Darranar]

38. So...

what if there were two states, but Israel had to except the right of return? Would that mean peace?

What if there were two states, but the land was divided 50-50 instead of 78-22?

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. That's not two states

That's one Palestinian state. Why do you persist in asking Right of Return questions? It's like asking why doesn't the sun revolve around the earth. It simply doesn't nor will that change.

Why should Israel sacrifice what it has gained? The Palestinians have lost the war. The Arabs have lost several. They should have thought about that possibility in 1948 and accepted peace then.

[Darranar]

42. It is?

So Syria and Iraq are now one Arab state?

I think the Palestinians have lost enough, and if the Israelis attempt to try to make them lose more, the attempt will likely have very bad results for both peoples - as we have seen.

My point is this: peace can only be reached through a solution as just as possible while also being acceptable to both sides.

Barak's offer was not peace, because it was neither just nor acceptable to the Palestinians.

A one state solution would not be peaceful, because it is not acceptable to the Israelis.

[GabysPoppy]

44. Barak's offer was not peace?

Because you say so? That's not how it works.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. Syria and Iraq have little to do with this comparison

So why cite them as examples?

I think the Palestinians need to decide that they have lost enough. If they do, they will opt for peace. If they do not, they will continue on their path.

There is NO solution that will be acceptable to both sides. There can't be. Both sides want much of the same thing.

Somebody is going to be disappointed. Since Israel already has a state, it will be the Palestinians who are going to be disappointed if they are ALSO to get a state.

[Darranar]

47. You seem to have missed my point...

so I'll rephrase it as a question: how would two states with Palestinian majorities be one state?

I think the Palestinians need to decide that they have lost enough. If they do, they will opt for peace. If they do not, they will continue on their path.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing Israel could do to help.

There is NO solution that will be acceptable to both sides. There can't be. Both sides want much of the same thing.

Majorities of both populations support the Geneva Accords. A two state solution similar to that one would have support from both sides.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. How

Two states with Palestinian majorities would eliminate the distinction between the states. There would be no difference. The current main distinction is the fact that Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people. That would be gone.

The problem with the accords is that for them to work, terrorism must first be eliminated and no Palestinian leader has attempted to do that.

[Jim Sagle]

55. How silly.

[Forkboy]

Sorry,I forgot to add the word RAWKS into my post

I'll do better next time.

[Darranar]

21. Sharon is a legitimate target...

of Palestinian resistance. All high level Israeli governmental officials are. Palestinian terrorist leaders are also legitimate targets.

The fact that he is an elected leader does not matter. He is still a leader, and even if he were the most benevolent leader of Israel ever, if Israel was at war he would be a legitimate target.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. There is no "legitimate" Palestinian resistance

All of the Palestinian groups promote terror as a weapon.

[Darranar]

34. Yes, there is...

there may be no legitimate Palestinian resistance groups, but that is a different thing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. Same thing

Until a resistance group steps up and foregoes terror, none of the groups are legitimate.

[Darranar]

39. How is it the same thing?

Resistance does not need to be organized. Also, the fact that a group uses illegitimate tactics does not make all its actions illegitimate.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Because it IS the same thing

Resistance doesn't need to be organized but it is. It always is.

Yes, a group using illegitimate tactics is, as a result, illegitimate itself.

[Darranar]

43. It always is?

So the Palestinian attacks on Israeli soldiers were all organized?

Every group of Palestinians throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers was organized?

Every individual boycott of a company due to policies someone didn't like was organized?

Actions are independent from those who do them. The fact that the Government of Israel is pursuing an illegal policy in regard to the settlements does not make every policy of the GOI illegal.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Yes, they wee all organized

How were they not?

By definition, a group has organization.

Actions are NOT independent from those who do them.

[Darranar]

48. So is every action of the Israeli government illegal?

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Nope

[Darranar]

51. You are claiming...

that because certain actions by a group are illegitimate, all actions by that group are illegitimate.

The settlements are illegal. Are all the actions of the Israeli government then illegal? No, of course not. It is the same with the palestinian terrorist groups.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Not exactly

I am claiming that there is NO legitimate resistance group. To be legitimate, they would have to ONLY target military targets.

Israel is a state. It IS legitimate.

[Darranar]

53. So how are strikes on Israeli soldiers illegitimate?

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Because they are part of the same organizations

That attack civilians.

[Darranar]

56. So...

since some Israeli government policies are illegal, all are?

Or does that only apply to Palestinians?

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. States are inherently legal

Even if all of their actions are not.

[Darranar]

58. Governments and states are different things.

[Jackie97]

63. Muddle, you mean?

Kids throwing rocks at bulldozers are organized resisters? I don't think so. Terror groups are not the only means of resistance.

[Darranar]

23. Such attacks are legitimate according to the laws of war...

they are still a failure, however, from a moral or tactical perspective.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. How can accepting the unacceptable be tactical?

Israel won't accept those borders without modification. Jerusalem is and will be the capital of Israel.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[tinnypriv]

26. Repost: You may be unaware that Israel is doing the same right now...

(Note: I'm unaware of the reason for the previous deletion, and will assume it to be an error, and repost from memory)

With regards to the Roadmap, which it has in principle rejected but rhetrorically accepted, for tactical reasons.

In that case, the duplicity is a bad thing. I'm suggesting duplicity in pursuit of a worthwhile goal - namely, the draining of support for Hamas and elimination of them as an organisation, by violence if necessary.

Onto your other remarks, I see no need to respond except to say that you're having a debate with yourself. Not even Yachad proposes a return to the 1967 lines without modification¹, nor does anyone sane. Nor does anybody propose that Jerusalem not be the capital of Israel, except hysterical anti-semities.

-----

1. 'Peace between Israel and Palestine', Yachad (-pre) Party Platform, p9 (Nov 2003)

[Gimel]

17. Yeah

You mean "liquidate" them? Look at all the backlash from the targeted assassinations today. What would happen if Israel "liquidated" them when they were powerless? That would be worse than what's happening in Iraq now.

[tinnypriv]

27. I'm not sure why you have liquidate in quotes

It's the term used in Israel, which I've adopted. I see no reason for you not to do the same, but that's your choice.

To respond, the "backlash" you note is more than likely largely based on the tacit knowledge that Israel performs liquidations during the most peaceful periods, in order to provoke a response.

If you ask people "Do you support actions against ticking bombs" (a common formulation), you'll find the support rises to a majority, even among harsh critics of extra-judicial liquidations.

Assuming Israel is no longer occupying Palestine, or seen to be seriously disengaging from the territories, I think you'd find there would be a reasonable level of support for violent action against Hamas, given their brutal terrorist nature, and certainly no "backlash" of opposition.

Furthermore, as you probably are aware, liquidations and counter-terrorism operations do not have to be "loud", and could (as in the past), be performed in conjunction with Palestinian security forces.

[Gimel]

29. Quotation marks were used

because I was quoting you.


I think that you are quite wrong about that. Would you be willing to accept collateral damage in ten years in order to liquidate the Hamas leadership? (who have been dormant for 10 years?) What about Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

No one can trust a Hamas hudna. They use the time to regain strength. They just want to prevent Israel from attacking them. They are a power that rivals the PA. Hizbollah is another, and linked to the terrorist organizations in Palestinian areas. Arafat is afraid of them. He doesn't want a "civil war". They would love Israel to abide by their cease fire. But one thing the GOI will not do is negotiate with the terrorists.

[tinnypriv]

59. Reponse

Regarding your question: it depends.

If indeed they had been "dormant" for 10 years, I doubt they would be much of a threat at all and could be taken out of circulation by the Palestinian security forces and police, in conjunction with a democratic court system (which I assume would be in place by then).

If they were "dormant" but retained significant weapon stocks and represented a threat to Israeli security, I would probably on balance understand (not "accept") any unavoidable loss of civilian life as a result of liquidating them.

I see no reason for the Palestinians to take that position, and I probably would not regard it as legitimate if it was applied to Great Britain, but I'm not aware of anyone who isn't to some extent a hypocrite on these matters.

In addition, I'd demand that such liquidations be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and must be only carried out as a last resort, in conjuction with a serious, concessionary political process. Note that in holding this opinion I'm only paraphrasing Ami Ayalon:

"Thwarting terror will also be more effective, and the level of security will be higher, if alongside the thwarting of terror there is a political process, a political vision and faith"¹

Of course, I (and he) could be wrong, but there is no "right" answer on this topic, just guesses as far as I'm aware.

By the way, you seem to have skipped over the part where I said liquidations could be "quiet", but that is also not just my opinion. Again, to quote another former GSS head:

"Terror is not thwarted with bombs or helicopters, but rather quietly. And the less we talk about it, the better. Believe me, if we were quieter, there would be fewer terror attacks"²

Moreover, I'm not sure where I said anybody should "trust" a Hamas hudna either, so I don't understand why you are pointing that out. Especially so since (as should be obvious), I wouldn't trust those murderous thugs as far as I could throw them, wouldn't expect anybody else to either, and have been explicity clear on this subject on many occasions.

Finally, and to repeat what I actually said in my post, I'd accept the offer of Hamas simply as a tactic in order to remove them in the long-term. I did not rule out civilian casualties in doing so, as should have been implicit in my use of "by violence if necessary" in one of my follow-ups.

It seems you disagree on tactics. That's fair enough.

-----

1. Quoted in Yediot Aharonot, 14 Nov 2003.
2. Avraham Shalom, ibid.

[Gimel]

61. It's a gamble

Your idea is a big gamble and assumes a great deal. Terrorism will continue whatever GOP does. The other terrorists will break the hudna and then Hamas will also break the hudna saying Israel is to blame (this happened the last time, and the hudna did not even reach the 3 months it was planned for.)

the only way to protect Israel's citizens is to keep the terrorists out of Israel.

[Resistance]

24. hey tinnypriv

Are you CRAZY!??! :crazy: :crazy:

You suggest caving in to the demands of TERRORISTS???! Holy moly man have you gone and lost your mind?!! :crazy: :dunce:

:eyes:

</sarcasm>