Last night on Charlie Rose, the great Henry Siegman said that he had met recently with Hamas leaders in Beirut. He related Hamas’s aims.
Hamas is prepared to explicitly recognize the state of Israel. But it cannot do so without Israel recognizing the legitimacy of the Palestinians’ aspirations. That means a recognition of the Palestinians’ right to a “viable state” in Gaza and the West Bank, within the ‘67 borders, and a recognition of the legitimacy as a negotiating point of the desire by Palestinian refugees to return to lands lost in Israel, even if they never get to return there.
Siegman said the “heart” of the disagreement between Israel and Hamas remains the definition of the borders of the Palestinian state. “[Hamas is] convinced that the overriding strategic goal of [the ruling Kadema party] continues to be setting unilaterally a permanent border, resolving the issues without Palestinian involvement, and consequently they have despaired of returning to the peace process.”
Siegman’s points underscore the importance of a forceful and independent American role here to end this conflict. His points also underscore what Stephen Walt said about opposing the pro-Israel lobby on C-Span the other day, “[The Israel/Palestine conflict] is a national security priority for the United States, given the role that it plays in contributing to Islamic radicalism and anti-Americanism generally… The U.S. has never been willing to do anything to halt Israel’s settlement policy. Many Israelis now regard [that policy] as a tragic mistake.”
Related posts:
{ 6 comments }
Israel will never go back to the '67 borders. With the '67 borders, Israel cannot insure its security. Israel was vulnerable in '67 because of the exposure from the borders at the time. Why would the country retreat to those borders and expose it self to attacks again?
Why would "Palestinian" refugees want to return to Israel after they are given a country of their own? Why should they be allowed to?
"Palestinian" refugees should be compensated for the land that was taken from them in 1948. Thirty billion dollars in compensation was offered in 2000. Arafat walked away from the deal without a counter-offer.
The "Palestinians" are screwed by their leadership, just like the Romanians were screwed by Ceausceau and the Russians were screwed by Stalin. They are lucky to live next to the the most peaceful, Democratic and prosperous nation in the Middle East. Hopefully, the Palestinians will rise up against their "leadership" and allow peace and prosperity to flourish.
Fortunately, the world is slowly understanding this reality and support for Israel is growing, while support for the "Palestinian Leadership" is falling.
Maybe there's hope for the "Palestinian" people:
Nasser al-Kidwa, the former Fatah foreign minister and nephew of the late Yasir Arafat, said today "The Israelis are trying to send a message, of course, but what's really at stake is the continuation of the existence of the Palestinian Authority."
Presumably this is Joey again – note the word "prosperous" in the otherwise completely false statement 'The "Palestinians" … are lucky to live next to the the most peaceful, Democratic and prosperous nation in the Middle East.' (why on earth is the 'D' in 'Democratic' capitalised here?)
In fact, precisely because obviously the 'Israelis' will never go back to the '67 border, any Hamas declaration to abide by mutual recognition of this border would itself be completely meaningless and in a sense dishonest, which is why they resist making it – they prize honesty, unlike Jews.
– regarding which : there has never been a George Washington type ideal in Jewish education ("I cannot tell a lie") and there never will be. Instead there is mutual polemic ("Thou art the man!") and empty hysterical utopianism ("Let righteousness poor down like floods and justice like a mighty river!"). This also will never change. Jews are Jews, and facts (as Benjamin Freedman noted) are facts.
I always get the idea that the only plan the Israeli Right and Jewish Right have is to wait until the Palistinians go away. Of course the Palistinians are a huge problem, and they are not pleasant neighbors. But I have never understood what Israel thought they would do with all these non-israeli people who came with the land.
Its not the taking of the land that was the original sin, it was the refusal to take the people too.
and how do all the non-jewish citizens feel about living in a state by and for the Jewish people? must feel kind of creepy being an arab israeli.
"must feel kind of creepy being an arab israeli"
– god, that's perceptive :-)
Comments on this entry are closed.