Israel urges Abbas to end Hamas pact

[webfact]

Netanyahu says Abbas must abandon unity deal with Hamas

(BBC) Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas must abandon Fatah's pact with Hamas if he wants peace, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told the BBC.

Israel earlier suspended peace talks with the Palestinians in response to a unity deal between the two factions.

The US has voiced its "disapproval", but is not ready to declare the talks over and is "still making the effort".

Fatah and Hamas agreed on Wednesday to form a unity government within weeks and hold elections six months later.

They have been at odds since Hamas, which won parliamentary elections in 2006, ousted forces loyal to Mr Abbas and Fatah in the Gaza Strip during clashes in 2007 and set up a rival government.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27142594

-- BBC 2014-04-25

[hard124get]

One thing is now obvious to the whole world. Israel does not want peace, it wants land.

[Somtamnication]

Give the Palestinians their land back and surprise! All the problems will go away. So easy to do, but it will never happen. The war of civilizations started in 1947 and it is getting more and more dangerous.

[Credo]

Give the Palestinians back their land and there will be peace in the Middle East? I think not.

I think their problems go back further than 1947.

If you give them their land, then they will want someone else's land. There are just a lot of really unhappy people in that part of the world.

[Morch]

The USA said Abbas assures them that the reconciliation pact includes Hamas and Islamic Jihad recognition of Israel.

Senior Hamas officials were not all that straightforward on the subject when it came up. Didn't see any comment by Islamic Jihad on this matter.

So right now it isn't quite clear what this agreement means as to the Palestinian stance vs. Israel and how it will effect the negotiations.

If it indeed becomes a reality (which is not certain, some serious issues not ironed out), then the Palestinian will have a new, unified leadership.

Under these conditions, I'm not sure there was a way for the Israeli government to continue negotiations.

By the way, the announcement about the agreement came a very short time after Netanyahu actually agreed to conduct specific negotiations on borders and other issues, provided these negotiations will take place on higher levels (i.e. with Abbas, so far it was more on a ministerial level). Wouldn't be the first time one of the sides gets cold feet when things get serious. Both leaderships got very strong opposition, making concessions and compromises difficult.

[hard124get]

Jordan and Egypt both have treaties with Israel, neither include recognising Israel. Palestine did recognise Israel when it signed the Oslo Accord. How can Israel be called a Jewish state when 20 % of its people are Arab? This was not a requirement in previous negotiations. It is just the latest Zionist excuse. Did USSR have the right to exist? Or Yugoslavia? Israel does exist, everyone accepts that sometimes unpleasant fact.

[Morch]

Jordan and Egypt both have treaties with Israel, neither include recognising Israel. Palestine did recognise Israel when it signed the Oslo Accord. How can Israel be called a Jewish state when 20 % of its people are Arab? This was not a requirement in previous negotiations. It is just the latest Zionist excuse. Did USSR have the right to exist? Or Yugoslavia? Israel does exist, everyone accepts that sometimes unpleasant fact.

The recognition issue was mentioned in the context of the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, which do not recognize even Israel's right to exist as a country. As for "Palestine did recognize Israel when it signed the Oslo Accord" - it can be inferred from the OP that the Palestinians are not quite as unified as one would wish, and that the PA's more pragmatic approach isn't necessarily accepted by all Palestinian groups.

Does integration of these two organizations within the PA mean that they are ready for a political solution and compromise? Or maybe it can be seen as a move by the PA toward a more hardline position? Guess we'll have to wait and see.

The above refers to accepting Israel's existence, and not to Israel being a Jewish state. The latter condition, introduced by Israel's right-wing oriented government, is indeed bogus. It came up at a time when some sort of advancement in negotiations was possible, and used to squash another chance. Both sides are adept at pulling such stunts (see the OP for another example). I do not believe that even supporters of the "Israel as Jewish state" condition had clear concept of how this can be applied when they came up with it. Ever since, it sort of got added to the list of unclear/improbable conditions both sides present.

The "Israel as Jewish state" thing wasn't present when the negotiations with Egypt and Jordan took place, so was not made a part of these agreements.

On a side note: Could you possibly master the art of quote and reply within a single message? Easier to read this way and does not clutter the topic. Thanks.

[Scott]

<snipped>

On a side note: Could you possibly master the art of quote and reply within a single message? Easier to read this way and does not clutter the topic. Thanks.

We do try to get those posts deleted, but it's best to try and get the quote and reply right the first time around, at least most of the time.

[bangon04]

One thing is now obvious to the whole world. Israel does not want peace, it wants land.

Yes the Israelis under Netanyahu have never negotiated in good faith, and now they have the perfect excuse. The Jewish lobby in the US must be delighted.

[Ulysses G.]

The Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers, no matter how generous the deal. They are not serious about making peace and never have been.

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state with Arab control of the government. The Arabs refused.
In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.
In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.
In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.
In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.

Also, from 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. It is not Israel who refuses to negotiate in good faith.

“Barak made a proposal that was as forthcoming as anyone in the world could imagine, and Arafat turned it down. If you have a country that’s a sliver and you can see three sides of it from a high hotel building, you’ve got to be careful what you give away and to whom you give it.”

— U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

[Morch]

The Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers, no matter how generous the deal. They are not serious about making peace and never have been.

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state with Arab control of the government. The Arabs refused.

In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.

In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.

The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.

The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.

Also, from 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. It is not Israel who refuses to negotiate in good faith.

“Barak made a proposal that was as forthcoming as anyone in the world could imagine, and Arafat turned it down. If you have a country that’s a sliver and you can see three sides of it from a high hotel building, you’ve got to be careful what you give away and to whom you give it.”

— U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

To be fair, both sides had their share of missing chances, causing negotiations to fail, upholding impossible demands, going back on promises and agreements on the flimsiest of excuses and acting in bad faith. I seriously doubt this can be blamed on one side only, takes two to tango.

This atmosphere and the sizable (in many cases, the majority or near enough) popular oppositions makes leaders on both sides hesitate before taking major decisions. Sometimes the leaders' own political orientation means they are not favorable toward solutions involving a compromise. A lot of the decisions and positions are dictated by domestic politics rather than foreign policy and national security considerations (if dictated sounds to strong a word, exchange it with "heavily influenced by").

Basically, there's such a level of hostility and distrust between Israelis and Palestinians (with good reasons on both sides) that even seating down for negotiations is considered a minor successes, nevermind actually reaching an agreement or upholding it to the letter. The terms, issues, positions of both sides are well known. The main reason negotiations continue in a seemingly never-ending loop is that no side is willing to take the plunge and compromise, or at least no leader is willing to. The negotiations continue because they are cheaper than outright hostilities, and enable both sides to keep a "reasonable" image, while pointing out the shortcoming and misdeeds of the other.

The current episode frees the Israeli government from taking domestic political risks (coalition was split on negotiations), and delayed tricky foreign policy decisions vs. the Palestinians. The Israelis can get away with it, maybe, as their concerns about Hamas/Islamic Jihad are quite understandable. So they could be off the hook, without messing relationship with USA/EU further.

The FA got some serious support issues from the Palestinian public, some due to political moves, some due to economy and corruption. This agreement takes public eye off their domestic problems, makes them look good on the unity issue, and with Israel's almost unavoidable response, releases them from making any concessions on their side.

Hamas took a serious hit since last clashes with Israel - mainly to do with the economy, messing relationship with Egypt and seemingly going a wee bit soft on fighting Israel. So they got a domestic politics win, maybe a chance to patch things up with Egypt and so far, no actual commitment to change stance vs. Israel. As for the Islamic Jihad - not quite sure, they haven't said all that much about the current agreement, remains to be seen how they fit in.

[Morch]

One thing is now obvious to the whole world. Israel does not want peace, it wants land.

Yes the Israelis under Netanyahu have never negotiated in good faith, and now they have the perfect excuse. The Jewish lobby in the US must be delighted.

Not arguing about the good faith thing. But think it is something both sides do.

Pretty obvious Abbas knew how Israel will react to such an announcement, yet he didn't care to mitigate it with any real assurance or explanations as to how things are supposed to go ahead. Not exactly "in good faith". At the same time providing a "perfect excuse" for Abbas as well, releasing him from taking unpopular hard decisions.

Holding negotiations with the PA is one thing, and the "good faith" (or lack of) certainly applies. If the PA now changes to PA+Hamas+Islamic Jihad, and the latter two are not interested in negotiations (putting it mildly), that sounds like a good enough reason to review Israel's position. You are right in that it also makes a perfect excuse for Israel, in exactly the same way it does for the Palestinians.

Can view it as Win-Win or Lose-Lose...

[Ulysses G.]

To be fair, both sides had their share of missing chances, causing negotiations to fail, upholding impossible demands, going back on promises and agreements on the flimsiest of excuses and acting in bad faith. I seriously doubt this can be blamed on one side only, takes two to tango.

Really? Both Arafat and Abbas turned down excellent deals. What exactly are they waiting for?

In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.

Abbas turned it down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html

[Frank James]

Give the Palestinians their land back and surprise! All the problems will go away. So easy to do, but it will never happen. The war of civilizations started in 1947 and it is getting more and more dangerous.

Started a little longer ago than 1947. The Bible says God told Moses to go to a land He would show him. It was only about 100 miles from the Nile delta, but took forty years of wandering to get too. When they got there, finally, to the "Land of Canaan", it turned out that people were already happily living there. God said no problem, kill them all and take the place over. There has been constant warfare there ever since those days, and always will be. Don't believe me, read the first five books of the Bible.

The surprising thing is how Israel always acts like they are going to "negotiate in good faith", and then something happens where they have the excuse to break off talks. And the US goes along with this puppet show, ever since the days of Jimmy Carter. Or really, since the days of Harry Truman. Israel will NEVER willingly give back anything to the Palestinians, not even scorched earth. Nothing. Never. And as long as the US keeps dancing to their tune, the show will go on.

[Ulysses G.]

Give the Palestinians their land back and surprise! All the problems will go away.

Israel will NEVER willingly give back anything to the Palestinians

What exactly are they supposed to "give back? There has never been an Arab country called Palestine in history.

The first "Palestinian" leader was born and grew up in Cairo and the "Palestinians" did not start claiming to be "Palestinians" until Israel trounced all those Arab armies in 1967.

Before 1947, It was the Jews who were known as Palestinians and the Arabs were known as Arabs, because that is exactly what they were - most of them came from Syria and Egypt, just like most of the Jews came from Europe, but the Jews were there first and always had a presence for something like 3,000 years. The Arabs started the hostilities in the first place and repeatedly got their butts kicked, but they have been whining about it ever since.

[Frank James]

"Right of return" seems to mean something different to Palestinian than to Israel. Right of return to a Palestinain means "I can go back to my old home in Haifa that got knocked down in 1962 for condos. Maybe you'll give me a deal on a condo?"

When you look at the very confusing history of the so called "Holy Land", both Jews and Palestinian Arabs were able to live in relative peace there when it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Not all would agree, of course.

[Scott]

Stop the argument about things other than the topic of this thread.

[Frank James]

UG says "Jews were there first." Not according to the Bible. Philistines and Amorites, and many other non-Jews were there first. I wouldn't take refuge in the Bible, but some Jews claim ownership of the turf based on the Old testament.

But that was then, and this is now. Actually, if we're pointing fingers, the UK left a big mess when they pulled out. (Just like when they left India.) They trained the Arab Legions to fight British style, but it seems they vastly underestimated the strength, cunning, and determination of the Jews.

I love Israel. My wife and I lived there for a while and worked there. Great people, if a little abrasive. It's the right wing leadership of the present day that I don't like, and I don't like the undue influence they have on US foreign policy.

[Frank James]

OK, I give up.

[Morch]

To be fair, both sides had their share of missing chances, causing negotiations to fail, upholding impossible demands, going back on promises and agreements on the flimsiest of excuses and acting in bad faith. I seriously doubt this can be blamed on one side only, takes two to tango.

Really? Both Arafat and Abbas turned down excellent deals. What exactly are they waiting for?

In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.

Abbas turned it down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html

It might seem an excellent offer, and it might be the best offer they could get - still doesn't necessarily mean it's acceptable to the Palestinian public. Not sure letting go of the "having it all back" dream is something that they are ready for. Certainly non of their leaders felt secure enough to make such a move. Same goes for the Israeli side, there's a large portion of the public that is not willing to let go of the West Bank.

The two offers mentioned were made by Israeli Prime ministers who didn't necessarily had a majority to support them. Caused quite an uproar at the time. Even the late Sharon, with all of his right-wing credit, found it hard to pull out of Gaza, which was more palatable to Israelis.

From the Palestinian point of view, agreeing to accept only the West Bank and Gaza is by itself a huge concession. Dropping the "Right of Return" demand is even more problematic for them. The numbers of refugees entitled to return was never to be massive, in relation to Palestinian expectations.

I'm not trying to say the Palestinians were smart about it or that they are right, just to point out that the situation is somewhat more complex.

[Ulysses G.]

Not sure letting go of the "having it all back" dream is something that they are ready for.

Six decades later, that is the root of the problem. The two offers mentioned were made by Israeli Prime ministers who could have delivered, if the Palestinian leaders had only accepted. Now, due to their own intransigence, they are even worse off than they were before. Hamas refuses Israel's right to exist and they are a terrorist group. Good luck dealing with that.

[hard124get]

The Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers, no matter how generous the deal. They are not serious about making peace and never have been.

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state with Arab control of the government. The Arabs refused.

In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.

In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.

The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.

The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.

Also, from 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. It is not Israel who refuses to negotiate in good faith.

“Barak made a proposal that was as forthcoming as anyone in the world could imagine, and Arafat turned it down. If you have a country that’s a sliver and you can see three sides of it from a high hotel building, you’ve got to be careful what you give away and to whom you give it.”

— U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

[hard124get]

The Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers, no matter how generous the deal. They are not serious about making peace and never have been.

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state with Arab control of the government. The Arabs refused.

In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.

In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.

The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.

The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.

Also, from 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. It is not Israel who refuses to negotiate in good faith.

“Barak made a proposal that was as forthcoming as anyone in the world could imagine, and Arafat turned it down. If you have a country that’s a sliver and you can see three sides of it from a high hotel building, you’ve got to be careful what you give away and to whom you give it.”

— U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

[Morch]

Not sure letting go of the "having it all back" dream is something that they are ready for.

Six decades later, that is the root of the problem. The two offers mentioned were made by Israeli Prime ministers who could have delivered, if the Palestinian leaders had only accepted. Now, due to their own intransigence, they are even worse off than they were before. Hamas refuses Israel's right to exist and they are a terrorist group. Good luck dealing with that.

I think you're quite wrong on the "could have delivered" statement.

Both governments were not very stable at the time, and elections were looming.

As this is a highly controversial issue in Israel, pulling it though will never be easy - certainly not for those two PM's.

Agree that both offers were much better than what they are likely to get from Netanyahu & Co., and that Hamas stand is a big obstacle.

And yes, doesn't look like it's getting anywhere anytime soon.

[Ulysses G.]

I think you're quite wrong on the "could have delivered" statement.

Since the Palestinians refused the offers point blank, we will never know, will we?

[Morch]

I think you're quite wrong on the "could have delivered" statement.

Since the Palestinians refused the offers point blank, we will never know, will we?

Well, guess debating that specific point is sort of OT.

You know the way to my PM, if you're interested .

[Steely Dan]

This years pantomime, brought to us by John Kerry has taken the traditional theme of sabotaging the talks but making it appear that the other side was responsible for the inevitable breakdown. There is no peace process, there never was, it's just a shame that Israel released scores of murderers from it's jails in order to allow the charade to limp on for a bit. Perhaps Mr Kerry might choose an easier assignment next, such as opening a Disneyland in North Korea.

[Boo]

A post flaming another member has been removed, as has a reply quoting it.

Please keep civil or warnings will be issued.

[Jingthing]

This years pantomime, brought to us by John Kerry has taken the traditional theme of sabotaging the talks but making it appear that the other side was responsible for the inevitable breakdown. There is no peace process, there never was, it's just a shame that Israel released scores of murderers from it's jails in order to allow the charade to limp on for a bit. Perhaps Mr Kerry might choose an easier assignment next, such as opening a Disneyland in North Korea.

It was so doomed from the start. Oh well. So maybe forget about a two state solution. Like forever. Now what?

[Steely Dan]

This years pantomime, brought to us by John Kerry has taken the traditional theme of sabotaging the talks but making it appear that the other side was responsible for the inevitable breakdown. There is no peace process, there never was, it's just a shame that Israel released scores of murderers from it's jails in order to allow the charade to limp on for a bit. Perhaps Mr Kerry might choose an easier assignment next, such as opening a Disneyland in North Korea.

It was so doomed from the start. Oh well. So maybe forget about a two state solution. Like forever. Now what?

Back to the status quo: Israel continues to be a hub of scientific and technical advancement boosted by their massive oil and gas reserves. The despots of Fata continue to rake in foreign aid whilst their media indulges in medieval blood libel to keep their hatred of Israel going. Hamas does likewise whilst firing rockets into Israel as much as it dares, whilst their officials live in luxury in their millionaire mansions. The U.S and EU continue to stoke the fires with more 'aid' money. The OIC try to find another way to remove the 0.1% of the Middle east land mass that is not under Muslim rule.