Discussion in 'Serious' started by yodasarmpit, 26 Jan 2006.
oh dear looks like Israel has already reacted ( source: beeb) , so much for giving them a chance
They always say that. It's a basic rule of leading politicians, "We do not negotiate with terrorists". But it's double-talk, macho man; the underlings will be having little chats through 'contacts' until the top guys can come out and take the credit for a peace deal.
I guess that's what Nexxo said, but I'll throw in Makarios, Kenyatta, and Mandela as examples of 'terrorist' leaders kept on ice until a deal had been brokered.
We can only hope both sides will be more dilligent in working toward peace. Neither side is on 'high ground' in that regard.
News of violence in Gaza amongst Palestinians isn't bringing much hope though.
I thought it was to realize there was a problem to begin with...
as has already been mentioned, one, if not the, reason that the majority in Palestine voted for Hamas was simply for the fact that Hamas promised (and in the past has proven to do so) to get rid of pressure from Israel. the fact that Israel has been dropping in the west bank and gaza strip as 'retaliation' for , does this not suggest that in fact Israel is being simply petty? and now as the organisation which they were 'targeting' is in the public eye, they cant go about dropping everywhere, and, also, as a result of this, perhaps Hamas will tone down the ings? time will tell. but the fact of the matter is that Hamas has promised 'freedom' in a sense of the word from the Israelies, (<sp?) and that was why they were elected.
we cant go jumping to conclusions like 'goodbye to peace in the middle east', perhaps it is the start to peace in the middle east.
Hamas has proven that it will not stand idly by and let Israel treat palestine like the underdogs, they've proven that they will act against israel. time will tell. people need to be optimistic. by condemning peace talks, that ruins any chances there were at all.
I'm all for the idea of peace, and of giving Hamas a chance. However, Hamas has not shown the world, or the Palestinian people that it will stop the israelis treating the Palistinians how the Israelis feel like treating them, its just shown us all that it'll blow up some Israeli's in return for any injustices it percieves. Defense and Offense are not one in the same.
Almost all will agree that Israel is as much if not more to blame for the "current" problems, but Hamas have traditionally not been protagonists in achieving peace.
Both sides are to blame and both sides need moderates in charge
this is why aliens have never communicated with us directly. we are a realy evil and savage species.
Or maybe just delusional
So far, so good. THere has been some minor violence, but so far it had been restricted to within Palestine. I think that all sides need to take a breather and see how things sort out in the next few weeks. The biggest danger I see is the US cutting off aid to Palestine in response to the Hamas victory which will set of a wave of nationalisim and anti-American sentiment in the area while weakening the Hamas led government before it has a chance to show it's true position. I think the worst thing we can do is pay too much attention to the rhetoric at this point until thngs settle some. I remain optimistic that the Hamas victory is a tremendous opportunity for peace.
I wonder what that would be like.
You mean they might burn our flag? Will they chant "death to the great satan" and fire AK-47's into the air, too?
I, and many other Americans, despise these terrorists. Why should our money be stolen by the Feds and given to terrorists that call for our destruction?
Like them or not, they are the democratically elected government of Palestine and if the United States wishes to remain in volved in the peace process, they we are stuck with them. I can't speak to the stealing of money by the government, but if our policy reamins a desire to be invloved in the peace process and see it to a successful outcome, then I think a pragmatic approach will best serve that policy.
I think that the US, and indeed much of the world is making a mistake by demanding too much up front. The rhetoric so far has been an "all or nothing" approach to dealing with Hamas. Specifically, it has been demanded that they renounce violence, disarm, and recognize Isreal all at once. If the organization were to try to do all this while making the transition from opposition party with a militant wing to ruling government they would likley implode.
This is the best path forward as I see it:
THe US and other donor nations acknoledges that Hamas was democratically elected by the people of Palestine. This is not, as far as I know in dispute.
The US and other donor nations draw up a framework by which aid will continue so long as Hamas continues to honor the cease fire with Isreal. THis framework would extend forward for a transitional period while the new government is formed.
Beyond the transitional period, continued aid will be tied to the ability of the Palenstian authority to halt attacks by all terrorist groups (keep in mind that the two groups thich have been active recently, Al-Quaasa Martyr's Brigade and the Islamic Jihad are not part of Hamas. The first is the militant arm of the Fatah party and the second is an independent player).
It has long been recognized in human interaction that deeds count more than words. I think that the goal of diplomacy in this situation should be to encourage Hamas to show by it's deeds, if not it's words, that it is willing to peacefully coexist with Isreal. If this can be accomplished, regardless of the formal relations between the states, then we have taken a big step on the road to peace in the region.
There is a number of precedents for such a peace based on prolonged cease fire rather than formal diplomatic recognition. For example, the Korean war has never officially ended, it is simply in a state of indefinate cease fire, and has been for over 50 years now. There is a de facto if not de jure peace in effect. Closer to the region in question, Isreal negioated successfully with Egypt for a number of years before the latter formally recognized it's neighbor's right to exist.
The alternative strategy is to follow tough words with strong deeds. If the donor nations pull their support for the Hamas led government it is likley to result in a powerful nationalistic backlash within Palestine. News reports indicate that the Palestinian authority has already secured commitments of aid from Iran and is in contact with other Arab nations to secure support. Currently the US is viewed in a positive light by both Palestinians and Isrealis for it's efforts on behald of a peaceful outcome. It seems likeley that the anti-American and anti-western backlash resulting from a removal of aid would not only impair the ability of the US to be a player in the process, but also lead to polarization between the primary parties involved.
Finally, if the US were to pull it's support of the fledgling Palestinian state, it would only reinforce the view held by many abroad that the US is willing to back a repressive dictator who supports our policies, but will throw a democracy to the wolves the first time they step out of line. Is this what we want the legacy of our involvement in the Mideast peace process to be?
Separate names with a comma.