Let me ask you this. If there was a magic button that you could push that created a second, sovereign Palestinian state today (along either the Green Line, or even the 1948 Line) - what do you believe Hamas’ role in that state would be?
5 Likes
Of course they think they can count on the US’ support, no matter what they do. Seems almost everyone running for POTUS, over the decades, makes a pilgrimage to AIPAC to pledge fealty to Israel.
Same thing happens wrt to Cuba: everyone with POTUS ambitions pledges fealty to the people in Florida who are still fighting the civil war they lost 65 years ago.
Steve
1 Like
It’s possible the US is running a close second for that…
2 Likes
“USA #1…USA #1”
/sarcasm
Steve…put that in your hypernationalist pipe and smoke it.
You do not have a clue what you are trying to argue.
I “was there”, in Israel, at the Israel/Lebanon border. First half of 1973. 10-15 minute bus ride to Tiberius. 10-15 minute ride to the Med coast. Much of the fighting was over, but ongoing terrorist groups kept coming over the border and killing people every day or two. I identified a problem with border security. Why? Because it was my life on the line if a terrorist group got through to where I was staying. I told the regional military officer in charge of the Galilee what I identified and how it was a risk. I was told “thanks” and that was all. After I left Israel, there was a successful attack by terrorists. They departed where I said they would, they came via the method I said they would, and they attacked the target I said they would. Int’l news item. People died–as did the terrorists. When it happened a second time, the Israeli govt suddenly got the idea and “shut down” that access point. So it is likely you have FAR LESS of an idea about what is really going on in the Middle East than most people.
4 Likes
Hamas has to go.
That is far less painful for millions of Palestinians and other Arabs who worry about the Muslim Brotherhood than having a series of wars because Hamas survived.
If you remember ISIS was an easy war to fight for the US. It went on a lot longer and probably 60k people died.
Yemen civil war 227k dead.
Syria 613k dead.
The Islamic schism is causing this.
Jews have always faced prejudice. No surprise if a smaller war in Israel happens Israel is considered by some in the wrong.
This is just a small part of the Islamic schism give this headline time…
On the 12th Anniversary of the Popular Uprising: A Total of 230,224 Civilians Documented as Dead, including 15,275 Who Died due to Torture, 154,871 Arrested and/or Forcibly Disappeared, and Roughly 14 Million Syrians Displaced
I would say more like "Netanyahu is so morally small and evil, intent on his own political survival above all else, that he bites hands of those who were long time personal political allies, discards potential long term for short term solutions, and savages the hand that keeps them safe.
d fb
(I had immense respect for his older brother, but damn…)
2 Likes
Hamas would have to make many changes including disarmament, recognition of Israel, and agree to a Palestinian peace treaty with Israel. Also the Palestinians in Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem need to form a strong government, without Hamas involvement, and establish an independent country recognized by the UN security council with its own security forces.
Of course Israel needs to stop occupation of Palestinian lands in the Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem, stop harassing Palestinians, eliminate the illegal settlements and annexations and sign a peace treaty with Palestinians.
1 Like
It is likely that you have FAR LESS idea about how to end the IDF mass murder of civilians in Gaza and West Bank.
Why would Hamas need to do that? I mean, we’d like them to - but there’s no way to make them do any of that. It makes much more sense for them to refuse to disarm, recognize Israel, or agree to a peace treaty. Their goal - their purpose for existing - is to eliminate Israel and drive the Jews from the holy land, not to just have a state.
As long as the rest of the world will continue to condemn Israel for not agreeing to a two-state solution, Hamas can (and should) just choose to hold out and wait for Israel to have to capitulate and agree to a two state solution. And then take power in the new state. And then just keep attacking Israel, having established in the current conflict that Israel can’t successfully counterattack without being pressured into abandoning the effort…
If Israel were to agree to a two-state solution in the next couple of years without destroying Hamas, then there’s literally no chance that this new state would be ruled by anyone other than Hamas. Hamas will have won the Palestinians their state by their bold attack on Oct 7. They will be the Founding Fathers of the new state. Regardless of whether they agree to disarm and leave Israel alone. So why should they agree to those things?
6 Likes
All of that was unbiased and completely true. I support it entirely. I think most Americans and American Jews support all of that. I think most Israelis would dump Netanyahu for that.
The problem is the Islamic schism won’t go there. The individuals will. MBS will go there with Israel, but Saudi Arabia will not be a pluralistic state with freedoms or rights.
It is not just the individuals that have to go there. It is the Arab and generally the Muslim governments that need to have a proper system of legalized rights.
This is focused on Israel right now but it is not about Israel.
Israel is outnumbered. Israel is not able to compromise with Hamas. Hamas is uninterested in any compromise.
The tie into Russia is that lack of rights. I get the Kremlin might have published something of a bill of rights. Would not surprise me but it is meaningless.
Governments hold life and death powers. There needs to be a check on that particularly for those who are not whatever flavor wants to be the majority.
1 Like
This is just more propaganda. Many violate organizations have changed in the past. Remember the IRA in Northern Ireland. Now they are highly respected.
The IRA sat down at the table. Hamas seemingly has refused to sit at the table.
If Hamas simply stopped fighting in the streets sometime going forward then that is a signal they want to talk. But hiding between women and children while firing weapons is making that hard to envision.
adding
I am more interested in Hamas holding open elections in Gaza than in making peace with Israel. The reason is governance of Arab society is more important. If Hamas can turn over power peaceably and the legal code can be changed and honored there is a partner. The West Bank is having this problem as well.
Just attacking Israel later because Palestinians among themselves have no settled law is why Netanyahu can make his case.
This goes for Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood…etc…across the Arab standoffs with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Entebbe?
The Captain
Yes, as the heroic test, but even more so his genuine discipline of honor and honesty.
d fb
1 Like
Albaby
You’ve already made it clear that a two-state solution has always been impossible. You have said before, without the “right-of-return” there can never be a two-state solution. The only two-state solution, going back to the peace accords with Arafat/Ehud Barak would require: “with Israel to agreed to return to its 1967 borders and to grant the ‘right of return’ to all Palestinian refugees.”
There has never been a possibility for a two-state solution even without the consideration of Hamas or no-Hamas.
1 Like
I think my position is more that barring some material concessions by the Palestinians on the right of return, there can’t be a two-state solution.
A two-state solution has never actually been possible in past negotiations and discussions, because the parties never actually had a meeting of the minds - even when events like Oslo created the illusion of being close to a deal. That’s because the parties had always just agreed to kick the can down the road on the right of return, and none of the negotiators on the Palestinian side had the ability (or had done the popular groundwork) to bargain that away, and it’s a really tough issue.
Such concessions aren’t impossible, of course. And there is precedent, after all - during the Partition of India (another complicated mess arising from the end of the old empires), millions and millions of people were displaced when they found themselves on the “wrong” side of the newly created borders of India and Pakistan (and later Bangladesh). It was horrific and disruptive and a scar on the lives of millions and millions of people, and it wasn’t mitigated by a subsequent right of return.
I don’t see it happening any time soon, but other folks seem to think it’s a resolvable issue and that a two-state solution is feasible. But even if that were the case, the persistence of Hamas as an organization and the likely Founding Fathers of any Palestinian state (if one were created in the near future) would present a new insurmountable obstacle to moving forward.
1 Like
Regarding the 2000 Camp David offer to Arafat for a Sovereign State of Palestine and the removal of the Israeli settlements within the West Bank with the exception of Kiryat, and a Gaza corridor to the West Bank, and Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and Gaza under Palestinian sovereignty.
Your opinion was that this was not a good deal:
if I can voice the Palestinian point of view for a moment, the Right of Return is very much a non-negotiable point for them…
voicing the Palestinian position, rejecting the right of return is not a “tremendous offer.”
Without the “right of return” you point out there could never have been a peace agreement in 2000.
Absolutely. In 2000. But it’s not 2000 any more. Not only have two and a half decades gone by (another generation in which the Palestinian people have been stateless), but the world and the region have undergone massive changes.
My point still stands as to the offer in 2000 - it was not one that the Palestinians were going to accept, and it wasn’t anything that was going to realistically lead to an agreement. Israel wasn’t going to offer a right of return, and the Palestinians weren’t going to accept a deal without it. But that might not be true, here in 2024? Maybe today the Palestinians might be willing to settle for an India/Pakistan outcome? Or one where a small(ish) number of Palestinians are permitted to return to their hometowns (or those of their 1948 forebears), and the rest get citizenship in the new state?
Personally, I’m very skeptical that’s the case. The right of return has always been viewed by the Palestinians as very important, at least in public polling that breaks out the different elements of the various peace plans. Maybe that’s changed, though, with the passage of time.