Hamas: ready for ceasefire

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:28 pm

Well, sort of.

DAMASCUS, Syria - The leader of Hamas said Monday that his Palestinian militant group would offer Israel a 10-year "hudna," or truce, as implicit proof of recognition of Israel if it withdrew from all lands it seized in the 1967 Middle East War.

Khaled Mashaal told The Associated Press that he made the offer to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in talks on Saturday. "We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition," Mashaal said.

In his comments Monday, Mashaal used the Arabic word "hudna," meaning truce, which is more concrete than "tahdiya" - a period of calm - which Hamas often uses to describe a simple cease-fire.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Hudna" implies a recognition of the other party's existence.

Mashaal said Hamas would accept a Palestinian state limited to the lands Israel seized in 1967 - that is, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. But he said the group would never outright formally recognize Israel.

Carter comments
Earlier, Carter said that Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to "live as a neighbor next door in peace."

Carter said the group promised it wouldn't undermine Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum.

In the past, Hamas officials have said they would establish a "peace in stages" if Israel were to withdraw to the borders it held before 1967. But it has been evasive about how it sees the final borders of a Palestinian state and has not abandoned its official call for Israel's destruction.

There was no immediate reaction from Israel to Hamas' truce offer.

Israel, which evacuated Gaza in 2005, has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state there and in much of the West Bank. But it has resisted Palestinian demands that it return to its 1967 frontiers.

In Washington, the State Department dismissed Carter's assessment of his meetings, saying there was no indication Hamas wanted peace with Israel.

"What is clear to us is that there certainly is no change in Hamas' position," said deputy spokesman Tom Casey. "It does not recognize Israel's right to exist, it has not eschewed or walked away from terrorism and violence, nor has it said it will honor any of the previous agreements that have been made with the Israeli government."

Carter's comments came after his much criticized meetings with the top Hamas leaders in Syria in last week.

Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he decided not to meet with Carter in Israel because he does not wish to be seen as participating in any negotiations with Hamas.

Carter also urged Israel to engage in direct negotiations with the Islamic militant group, saying it was a "problem" that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with Hamas. Both governments consider it a terrorist organization.

'Problem' with Israel, U.S., Carter says
"The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria," he said. "The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved."

"There's no doubt that both the Arab world and Hamas will accept Israel's right to exist in peace within 1967 borders," he said.

In his comments Monday, Carter said Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking has "regressed" since a U.S.-hosted Mideast conference in Annapolis, Md., in November.

Click for related content
Opinion: Carter's meeting comes at a bad time
Priests scuffle at Jesus tomb on Palm Sunday
World Blog: Hamas draws Israeli fire, Palestinian praise

Israel has been negotiating directly with Abbas, who heads a moderate government based in the West Bank. Abbas lost control of the Gaza Strip last June, when Hamas violently seized control of that territory.

Carter said Hamas has promised to let a captured Israeli soldier send a letter to his parents, and said the militants "made clear to us that they would accept an interim cease-fire in the Gaza Strip."

However, Carter said Hamas rejected his specific proposal for a monthlong unilateral cease-fire.

Source

Post by **Teaos** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:34 pm

The leader of Hamas said Monday that his Palestinian militant group would offer Israel a 10-year "hudna," or truce, as implicit proof of recognition of Israel if it withdrew from all lands it seized in the 1967 Middle East War

So this will never happen...

sunnyside · Post by **sunnyside** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:32 pm

In this case I think the Israelis prefir land over peace. Resolving this thing would probably take some country making Israel withdraw from the illegal settlements.

However there is only one country that could do that and I don't know that we're going to do so.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:47 pm

So this will never happen...

You pretty much summed up the whole thing there.

Post by **Mikey** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:17 pm

sunnyside wrote:In this case I think the Israelis prefir land over peace. Resolving this thing would probably take some country making Israel withdraw from the illegal settlements.

However there is only one country that could do that and I don't know that we're going to do so.

What do you mean? Israel claimed the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai in all fairness, by way of winning them in wars that the Arab nations started. Yet, they have in part or in full returned all those lands. Even just discussing Sinai - which has FAR mroe religious signifcance to Israel than it does to Egypt - how can you say that Israel "prefers land over peace" when that parcel was peacably given to Egypt?

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:47 pm

Honestly Israel is an illegal occupation. That whole god gave them that land is BS in my opinion.

I'd really have to see the treaty for the 1967 war. If they ceeded the land to them then Israel deserves to have it, they won afterall. But if Israel just occupied the land then Palestine deserves to have it.

Post by **Mikey** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:24 pm

Monroe wrote:Honestly Israel is an illegal occupation. That whole god gave them that land is BS in my opinion.

I'd really have to see the treaty for the 1967 war. If they ceeded the land to them then Israel deserves to have it, they won afterall. But if Israel just occupied the land then Palestine deserves to have it.

#1 - Without any reference to divine right, why do the Israelis have LESS claim to that land than anyone else? I'm not trying to be sarcastic - I'd like to see the answer as to why the Palestinians have more claim over that territory. As far as the legality of it, see Great Britain, c. 1948.

#2 - "Ceded?" Who cares? Did Poland "cede" their land to Germany? If Egypt, Jordan, et. al. didn't want to lose any land, they shouldn't have attacked. Or, they should have won. In fact, they did attack, and they didn't win. The point at issue is that even thought they lost those territories in a war that they began, Israel peacefully returned them.

PS - not positive, but I believe a small bit of the land in question was lost five years later, when six Arab nations attacked Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar... and STILL lost. But I suppose an attack like that merits not having to suffer any consequences, right?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:21 am

Mikey wrote: #1 - Without any reference to divine right, why do the Israelis have LESS claim to that land than anyone else? I'm not trying to be sarcastic - I'd like to see the answer as to why the Palestinians have more claim over that territory. As far as the legality of it, see Great Britain, c. 1948.

The entire Israeli claim to the Palestinian Territories is based on religion, there is no reason why Israel has to be located in Palestine, they could have set up shop in Madagascar for all it mattered (through irony should have won out and they could have had part of Germany). Frankly the Palestinians should have it based on the fact that they lived there for centuries while the Jews scattered across the world. At the least it should have remained a British controlled territory. The entire justification for Israel's location is based on a book that is at least 2000 years old and of highly questionable worth and accuracy.

I'd like to see someone come up with a reason for Israel to have that land that isn't religious based (there's not much worth having there otherwise).

Post by **Teaos** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:36 am

I think giving Israel away after the war was the single worst move the UN has ever done. It by far out does any little good they have done in the world.

For an organisation to walk in and tell people. Oh we're just going to take a large part of your land of large cultural signifigance to your enemies and there is nothing you can do about it... yeah great move.

Post by **Mikey** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:52 am

For the record, does anyone here know that the Hebrew people are originally from the area that was to become Israel, more so than any Arab nation? If you weren't aware of that, I would have recommended finding out before speaking on the subject. Although I think all the Christians would have known that, what with the "scion of David" and all that.

So, that land was parceled out in 1948 to become Israel because that was the (cultural) nation of Israel's historical homeland, not because of some arbitrary gerrymandering. Why couldn't we say, for example, that the Australian homeland is near to New Zealand, and they would really like to annex New Zealand, so let's just kick out all the New Zealanders and give the islands to the Aussies?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:55 am

Mikey wrote:For the record, does anyone here know that the Hebrew people are originally from the area that was to become Israel, more so than any Arab nation? If you weren't aware of that, I would have recommended finding out before speaking on the subject. Although I think all the Christians would have known that, what with the "scion of David" and all that.

And it was virtually abandoned. If we're going back thousands of years to justify a land claim than perhaps the First Nations should get a part of Siberia and Mongolia.

Post by **Mikey** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:59 am

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Mikey wrote:For the record, does anyone here know that the Hebrew people are originally from the area that was to become Israel, more so than any Arab nation? If you weren't aware of that, I would have recommended finding out before speaking on the subject. Although I think all the Christians would have known that, what with the "scion of David" and all that.
And it was virtually abandoned. If we're going back thousands of years to justify a land claim than perhaps the First Nations should get a part of Siberia and Mongolia.

Well, they should at least have a hell of a lot bigger chunk of your country and mine.

And let me see if I read you right - the Palestinian claim on the land that is currently Israel is stronger because it's younger?

Post by **Teaos** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:10 am

What does it matter if the Jews were there a few thousand years ago?

They werent there back in the late 40's early 50's when the land was to stolen from the Arab nations and given to their enemies.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:12 am

Mikey wrote:
Well, they should at least have a hell of a lot bigger chunk of your country and mine.

And let me see if I read you right - the Palestinian claim on the land that is currently Israel is stronger because it's younger?

No, read what I wrote. The Jews abandoned it, the Palestinians then lived there for hundreds if not thousands of years. The.Jews.Left. Ergo they have no claim to the land, if it was so important to them than they should have stayed.

sunnyside · Post by **sunnyside** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:08 am

Cpl Kendall wrote: No, read what I wrote. The Jews abandoned it, the Palestinians then lived there for hundreds if not thousands of years. The.Jews.Left. Ergo they have no claim to the land, if it was so important to them than they should have stayed.

Oh come on. I'm a Christian not a Jew and I know better than that.

The Jews didn't "abandon" it. They were driven out at swordpoint.

Actually they were forced out a couple times in their history, but they'd always managed to get back to some degree.

Before WWII there was already a sizable Jewish population in the area, particularily Jerusalem.

And a bit of it was sort of handed to them by the British, but most was taken by the Jews who had apperantly remembered how to fight after the holocaust. Britain actually tried to stop them a couple times, as did the Arabs.

I guess the point to that last bit being that Israel as it is now wasn't given to the jews, and I think Isreal was the only place that the Jews would have fought and died like that for. It also helping that the region was more or less in chaos anyway so a few thousand people with small arms was a sufficiant force to wage war with.

The annoying thing about Israel though is that it just won't stop trying to gain more land.