Let's hope that real change is possible in the region. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hamas Leader Says Group Open to Truce 2 hours, 18 minutes ago World - AP By MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH, Associated Press Writer RAMALLAH, West Bank - A top Hamas official said Thursday that the militant group is open to a truce with Israel and is no longer bent on destroying the Jewish state — a step beyond previous Hamas statements indicating it might accept Israel as a temporary presence only. Sheik Hassan Yousef, Hamas' West Bank leader and one of its founders, is known as a relative moderate within the group, and there's no telling whether his remarks represent mainstream Hamas thinking. But Hamas is clearly feeling pressure from a Palestinian public yearning for calm, and a post-Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) leadership eager for talks with Israel. A halt in attacks by Hamas, which has carried out dozens of suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israelis, would give newly elected Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas an important boost in his efforts to restart peace talks. In an interview with The Associated Press, Yousef said Hamas understands that the Palestinian people are weary after more than four years of fighting. "We read the regional and the international reality and the changes that have taken place based on this reality, and we take positions according to these changes," Yousef said. "Hamas doesn't want to eliminate Israel. Hamas is a realistic political movement," he said. "There is a thing called Jews and a thing called Israel and we deal with this reality." Yousef said the group is reconsidering its violent tactics but that a final decision hasn't been made. Other Hamas leaders couldn't immediately be reached for reaction. The group's main leaders are based in Syria and Lebanon, and they usually stick to the Islamic movement's uncompromising line against Israel. On Wednesday, Mahmoud Zahar, a top Hamas leader in Gaza, said Hamas has no plans to disarm and that Abbas has no authority to order an end to attacks on Israel. The official ideology of Hamas does not recognize a place for a Jewish state in an Islamic Middle East. In the past, the furthest Hamas leaders have gone is to say they would accept a "temporary" Palestinian state in only the West Bank and Gaza Strip (news - web sites) in the framework of a long-term cease-fire with Israel — but that Hamas would not make peace with the Jewish state and believes the Palestinians have the right to all Israeli land. Despite Yousef's remarks, Israelis were skeptical. "We're going to have to see what the reaction is. This guy has a reputation for piping off," cautioned Mark Heller, an analyst at the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. "I don't think he was speaking for the (Hamas) movement." A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Israel would deal only with Abbas' Palestinian Authority (news - web sites), not Hamas or other militant groups. After Yousef was released from an Israeli prison on Dec. 3, he endorsed the long-term truce formula and said Israel and the Palestinians could live in peace, a statement taken at the time as a sign of a new moderation among local Hamas leaders. Since then, Hamas has not carried out suicide bombings inside Israel, though the Israelis attribute that to the success of their security services in foiling plans and arresting militants. Hamas militants in Gaza pelt Jewish settlements there and Israeli towns just outside the fence with rockets and mortars on a daily basis, countering any feeling that the Islamic group is abandoning violence. Israel insists that Abbas dismantle the militant groups, according to the terms of the stillborn "road map" peace plan, backed by the United States, the United Nations (news - web sites), European Union (news - web sites) and Russia. Instead of cracking down, Abbas has been trying to prod the Islamic militants into a truce. A senior Palestinian militant, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Thursday that a meeting would take place in Cairo soon, with Egyptian mediators pushing for a commitment to a one-year truce. Nabil Amr, an Abbas confidant, confirmed the contacts are under way. "The signs that are coming from Hamas after the election are positive and indicate that they recognize the results of the election," he said. In public, the groups have resisted calls for a new cease-fire, but signaled they are open to the idea if Abbas can guarantee their safety from Israel. The Israeli army has killed dozens of militants, taking a heavy toll on the group and driving much of its leadership into hiding. In his brief tenure as prime minister in 2003, Abbas forged a cease-fire to halt attacks against Israel, but it collapsed after a few weeks amid Palestinian bombings and Israeli reprisals. Hamas' standing with the Palestinian public may also be waning. Fresh from his landslide victory in presidential elections, Abbas has strong support from his people. With Hamas planning to contest legislative elections in July, it is likely to think twice before launching any major attack for fear of antagonizing voters. Abbas said Thursday that he is eager to resume peace talks with Israel, adding that he is ready to honor the Palestinians' security commitments under the "road map" plan. "As you know, this plan starts with security commitments and eventually deals with the final status issues, like borders and Jerusalem. We are ready to implement our commitments. We hope the Israeli side will do the same," he told local and international Christian leaders. Abbas did not specify what security measures he is ready to take. He is to be sworn into office Saturday and says he expects to meet Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) soon after naming a Cabinet. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0050113/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_27
Absolutely. This is by no means definitive, but it is at least a shift from the stated positions of the past when their stated claim was not to allow Israel a place in the middle east. Now if former prime minister Bibi, and his bunch of yahoos on the Israeli side will ever agree to the idea of a palestinian state in the middle east we will be making real progress. Right now that group doesn't have power in Israel, but the ruling party did recently vote to never recognize a Palestinian state whether ARafat was there or not.
This would sound much better if Meshal had said it. <hr color=green> I thought Hamas had a boycott of the recent election. Until there are elections with Hamas taking an active part.............I am unsure about the Abbas victory starting a decline in Hamas popularity/standing. <a HREF="http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3990800">Hamas Leader Rejects Call to End Violence</a> <i> Wed 12 Jan 2005 A top Hamas leader today said that the Islamic militant group had no plans to disarm, adding that the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, had no authority to order an end to attacks against Israel. The comments by Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, complicated Abbas’ efforts to persuade militants to declare a cease-fire. Abbas, who hopes to restart peace talks with Israel, was elected in a landslide victory on Sunday. While Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he was ready to meet with Abbas, Israel was pressuring him to crack down on Palestinian militants as a condition for resuming peace negotiations. Abbas has resisted calls to confront militants, preferring instead to persuade them to halt attacks. “Hamas is not planning to give the weapons of its fighters to the Palestinian Authority, but we will ask Mr. Abbas to protect the Palestinians in face of the repeated occupation incursions,” Zahar said in a statement posted on a Hamas website. “As long as occupation and aggression continue, and as long as occupation persists, then no one could disarm us,” he added. Zahar said Hamas would soon meet with Abbas, although he did not say when the talks would take place. Zahar said Abbas has no authority to order a cease-fire because Palestinian refugees living outside of the West Bank and Gaza did not vote in Sunday’s election. Hamas also boycotted the vote. “The Palestinian Authority presidential election was meant to choose a president for the Palestinian Authority only, and not for the Palestinian people, in order to run internal affairs,” Zahar said.</i> <hr color=green> Abbas sounded quite different during campaign speeches a few weeks ago and it will be interesting to see if he will be able to reverse his position on security issues. <a HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/01/01/international1419EST0490.DTL">AP Interview: Palestinian leader Abbas says he will protect militants from Israel</a> <i>Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said in an Associated Press interview Saturday that he wants to protect militants from Israel, rejecting Israeli demands that he crack down on them. It was his latest campaign gesture to court gunmen seen by many Palestinians as resistance heroes and by Israel as terrorists. Also Saturday, Israeli aircraft fired a missile at group of militants in Khan Younis in southern Gaza Strip. Hours later, Israeli troops pulled out of the area, ending a three-day operation to halt rocket and mortar attacks on nearby Jewish settlements and Israeli towns. The army said at least 13 armed Palestinians were killed. In the interview, Abbas defended a series of recent public appearances with gunmen and indicated he has no such plans, saying the Palestinian leadership has a responsibility to protect its people. "When we see them, when we meet them, and when they welcome us, we owe them," Abbas said. "This debt always is to protect them from assassination, to protect them from killing, and all these things they are subject to by the Israelis." Abbas spoke to the AP in his Gaza City office hours after he was warmly welcomed by dozens of Palestinian gunmen in the Rafah refugee camp, a frequent flashpoint of Israeli-Palestinian fighting. The rally, in which he praised Palestinian fugitives wanted by Israel as heroes, was the latest in a series of public appearances alongside gunmen. Abbas' aides have described the campaign stops as election politics. Abbas, who has criticized violence and favors a negotiated peace settlement with Israel, will need to rally the young gunmen behind him to push forward with his agenda after the Jan. 9 election. Abbas is widely expected to win the vote. But his campaign tactics have raised concerns in Israel about his commitment to peace. Israel refused to negotiate with longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who died Nov. 11, accusing him of backing terrorism. "We will see how he acts when he is elected, whether he will follow the path of terrorism like Arafat or not," a senior Israeli official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. In the interview, Abbas made no mention of a crackdown. But he said the armed militants are ready "to live within the society" if they are granted peace and security. "To remain wanted here and there, this is something no one could accept." He also said that Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is "unacceptable" and demanded a resumption of peace talks based on the internationally backed "road map" peace plan. "There is a Palestinian partner, and there always will be a Palestinian partner who is going to practice his right to negotiate and speak on behalf of the Palestinian people," he said. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon initially envisioned the Gaza withdrawal, which is scheduled to begin next summer, as a unilateral act. But he has said he would coordinate the pullout with the new Palestinian leadership if it acts against armed militants after the election. Abbas called for a comprehensive solution of the conflict, including an end to Israel's control of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, and a fair resolution for hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. "We should bring all of these subjects to the table in order to reach a final settlement," he said. In Rafah, Abbas received a warm welcome from tens of thousands of residents. When his convoy arrived, several hundred gunmen stopped his vehicle to greet their leader. Abbas got out of his car and waved to the ecstatic crowd. The gunmen, members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent group with ties to Abbas' ruling Fatah party, placed a black baseball cap on his head and briefly hoisted him on their shoulders. Chanting pro-Abbas slogans, they escorted him through the noisy crowd before he headed indoors to deliver a speech. Abbas' speech, marking the 40th anniversary of the founding of Fatah, included numerous gestures toward the militants. Abbas repeatedly praised Arafat, hailed Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel and described fugitive militants on Israel's most-wanted list as heroes. "We will not forget those wanted by Israel. These are the heroes that are fighting for freedom," he said. The large crowd chanted pro-Abbas slogans, and the hall became so crowded that Abbas had to exit through a window. Palestinian analysts have said Abbas, who lacks the popularity of Arafat, needs to toughen his staid image to win support from young Palestinians caught up in the struggle against Israel. Ahmed Subah, an aide to Abbas, said in a recent interview that the candidate's "real" agenda is "ending the Israeli occupation through peaceful negotiations, attaining security for Palestinian citizens and achieving reform and development." Through his outreach to the al-Aqsa militants, Abbas is signaling that he wants to co-opt them, not confront them as Israel and the United States have demanded. Abbas must also figure out how to work with Hamas, the largest Palestinian opposition group. Hamas, which has carried out dozens of suicide bombings, is boycotting the election, although it has said it will honor the results. In the West Bank town of Ramallah, more than 2,000 people took part in a Fatah anniversary celebration. Dozens of gunmen joined the march, occasionally firing into the air and sending people running for cover. Also Saturday, a 10-year-old Palestinian girl was killed when a Palestinian rocket veered off course and ripped through her home in the Jebaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza, residents said. The Israeli army said there were no troops in the area at the time. It said that militants fired nine homemade rockets into southern Israel and 15 mortars at settlements in the Gaza Strip since Friday. No injuries were reported.</i> <hr color=green> I am still expecting Israel to go to early elections because of the fracture in the <i>Likud</i> party. In regards to Bibi, some others in the <i>Likud</i> and parties to the right of the <i>Likud</i>recognizing a viable Palestinian state...........I am not holding my breath. It will take new elections to bring a different political situation in Israel for that to happen. The recent vote of the ruling party (<i>Likud</i>) that you mentioned to never recognize a Palestinian State...........was that an overall <i>Likud</i> membership vote or in the Central Committee?
To add to some of what Mango said, 1. I've heard 4 or 5 times on radio stations like the BBC & NPR & Bloomberg, that the elections and more importantly once (and if!) Sharon's disengagement plans are carried out that Hamas was going to have to come up with a more complex philosophy. Until now it has more or less been "destroy Israel" and they have implemented this policy in part by specifically rejecting any institution or option or interface offered by the Israelis. If this policy hadn't changed, Hamas would've been essentially excluded from any political voice in the "Palestinian Administrative Areas". They could either learn to deal with Israeli-tainted institutions or abandon any legitimate political aspirations. The question is whether it is any real sea change in Hamas philosophy, or whether they are participating as an intermediary step. The first thing that comes to mind is the way that To wit, in the "preamble" from the Hamas charter (translated): Furthermore, as a related piece from a CNN a bio of Abbas: This would suggest to me that the Hamas shift is not genuine, but instead a shift as a means to enter the Palestinian political world. 2. Whenever I see a quote like this, my first question is "was it said in English or Arabic?". Arafat used to be the master of saying something soothing in English and turning around and following it later with something completely different and very millitant in public addresses. Given this history of overtly deceptive behavior (interesting to note the way that similar overt lies appeared from both sides in the presidential campaign -- is this the future of politics?) one has to always weigh whether any surprising comment or action was to pander to a specific element. For instance, last week Abbas said "We came to you today, while we are praying for the souls of the martyrs who were killed by the shells of the Zionist enemy in Beit Lahia." This was much more confrontational than anything said before. Was this an election spin, or the real Abbas? If I remember correctly, Abbas was arrested briefly by the Israeli's and let go. Western media were shocked, as he was supposed to be the West's guy or Israel's guy to succeed Arafat. One has to wonder whether this might have been some sort staged action to distance himself from that image for the Palestinian people in general. I've also seen the opinion expressed that the Israeli strategy to stalling the peace process has been to disable the Palestinian Authority so that they lack the apparatus to stop terrorism, and then for the Israeli's to hold the Authority to a higher standard than they themselves can dream of attaining with all their security apparatus. In any case, everybody involved seems to enjoy doing or saying things that don't express their true motivations when it is viewed as expedient. I would take surprising comments with a grain of salt.
Funny how Abbas gets elected, and promises to start cracking down on Hamas and they all of the sudden want peace. Arafat.....GOOD RIDDANCE !! DD
I don't think Abbas has the clout for a true crackdown on Hamas. That is why the talk is more of a <i>truce</i> than an actual crackdown.
I think we should definitely wait for actions before we mark them our good neighbors list. But these words are better than their old words. Hamas hasn't been a group to go around saying they like Israel and then try to bomb it. They have spoken truthfully about their intention to get rid of Israel all together. Now, this is an improvement in what they are saying. Actions will have to follow.
I don't know that a shift to enter Palestinian's political world isn't genuine. Trying to enter that world and solve things through those means would be much better bombing civilians in pizza parlors. As far as Abbas quotes about honoring martyrs killed by Israeli shelling. I am not alarmed by that. I applaude that. The Palestinians have suffered at the hands of an occupying nation. They should honor their fallen, and given the situation there, it is wise to reassure the people that you are on their side.
I don't think Abbas' election alone would signal that decline in their popularity. They still do charitable works, provide school, shelter, etc. to orphans, and for an oppressed impoverished people that speaks volumes. But if Israel can actually procede toward peace and a viable Palestinian state, then things will get better for the people, and it will be in spite of Hamas, unless they become more active in that process. I think they recognize this and are preparing for it should the need arise. It actually wasn't that recent. It was probably about two years ago, and there was a split. I know Sharon was against the idea of never recognizing a Palestinian state. I think the central committee initially and then the general committee. I know Sharon and some others voted against it, but the resolution still passed. I can't remember. I posted an article about it long ago, and I will have to hunt down some more info about it later.
There is a nice article here that touches on both of our viewpoints: <a HREF="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/527119.html"> A Palestinian turnaround?</a> ....but then events like the recent bombing at the Karni crossing show the challenges that Abbas faces: <a HREF="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/527106.html"> Israel cuts ties with Abbas until he 'makes effort to stop terror'</a> <a HREF="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/527368.html"> Analysis: Karni attack part of Palestinian power struggle</a> <a HREF="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/527436.html"> Abbas says won't use force against militants</a> If Abbas will attempt to show strength and take strong action against Hamas and other violent factions..........it isn't a good bet that he could win at this point in time. If he fails to show strength and lets the violent factions continue...........the settlers and the rightwing in Israel will say that there can never be peace and why should Israel strive to create a viable Palestinian state because it will only be an interim step to the destruction of Israel. OK............I didn't think it was that recent. There are still a noticable amount in the <i>Likud</i> that aren't progressive in regards to anything approaching a viable Palestinian state.
Thanks for the article. I'm still reading it, but in general I agree that Abbas has a tough road ahead. It sucks about that attack, and it is not only horribly cruel and wrong, it is stupid timing to do this before Abbas has even been sworn in. As for the statement. Here are a couple of links to it. So maybe it passed both the general and central comitte votes. It was in 2002. Of course there are others in Israel who go even further in their desire to remove Palestinians Muslim holy sights from the region. I just hope that those extremes on either side don't win out in this.
It doesn't surprise me that Netanyahu said that. Seems like we are about done with this topic..........see you in another thread.
Crackdown on Hamas, disarm them, and then what?...... When Israel commits itself to real peace and not just taking advantage of the Palestinians and live up to their commitments under the "Road Map" by dismatling ALL (not some, not a fraction) of its illegal settlements beyond the so-called "green" line, then the Palestinians will have something to go on and trust the Israelis to actually give them their own independent, sovereign state. Otherwise, what is their payoff? (This is not my opinion, but rather the reality of politics and the situation on the ground. Politics is give and take, and Israel will have to accept that sooner or later) Both sides are definitely at fault here, but the occupation is always the starting point: you end the occupation; then the Palestinians have no more reason to fight back through their proxy militias of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Brigades, etc., and they disarm them, forming instead an official security force by incorporating these militias into the security force (it is the only thing that will work in my opinion and get them to disarm); then both sides are able to actually sit together and negotiate all the different issues; the major powers, the Quartet (UN, US, Russia, EU) certifies the agreement between both sides; the Palestinian state becomes a reality. The two issues that have proven to be dead-ends for both sides have been specifically: 1) 'Right of Return' of Palestinians displaced by Israel since 1948. This will simply never happen, the Palestinians know that, and therefore the only thing that can work is for the Palestinians to agree to forfeit their 'right of return' in exchange for a handsome financial compensation for the families that have been displaced over the decades. Like it or not, this will have to be done, and most of the money will come from - you guessed it - the American taxpayers. We will basically have to carry the burden of repaying those people in order to settle this big issue once and for all, which would be worth any amount of money at this point if it does buy peace. 2) Jerusalem: this is definitely THE issue that both sides are completely unwilling to pudge on. However, in exchange for the Palestinians giving up their 'right of return' (which would be a huge step on their part) the ISraelis will have to swallow a tough pill here. They are going to HAVE to give up control over East Jerusalem, plain and simple. It is not just for the Palestinians, but also because the Muslim and Arab world will never accept anything less. Jerusalem is of immense importance to the Muslims and the Jews, so they will both essentially have to split it (although the Israelis will get the larger side of the city) If these two issues are settled, I guarantee you we will see peace within a few months only after an agreement on Jerusalem and the 'right of return' has been forged. Otherwise, any peace talk is a pipe dream
There was some momentum in the Israeli <i>Peace Camp</i> Post Oslo, but actions on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides took that away. The sad part about the siuation is that the preferred <i>goal</i> is to achieve final boundaries somewhere along the 1967 borders. <b>In 1967, the Arab world had that land. The 1967 War, the 1973 War and the violent actions to the present date will have been for nothing. </b> <hr color=green> Arafat & others started before the 1967 War, so to end up with Israel still standing and back at something along the 1967 borders will have been a defeat for the Palestinian cause. Some Palestinians are tired of the struggle and will take an agreement while there are others that will never accept <i>defeat</i>. Disarming the various groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc will be a very delicate issue. <hr color=green> If the Palestinians know that the <i>Right of Return</i> is a major sticking point on closing a deal with Israel, then Arafat seemed to be unaware of that. It seems like the EU could chip in a good sized chunk of funding on this matter. <hr color=green> It will be hard to sell that to Israel in the current domestic (Israeli) political situation. I think Sharon might have a house in the part of Jerusalem that would become Palestinian........so it will take different leadership for some type of Jerusalem partition to happen.
That is a solution in and of itself (as long as all the groups are included, both Muslim and secular). No more terrorists for the Palestinians means no more bombings. No more bombings leads to no more incursions. No more incursions means no more Palestinian civilians getting killed. So you have no more Palestinians getting killed by the IDF and no more Israelis being killed by the terrorist groups. That is pretty much the definition of peace. You see if both sides can maintain that for a while, and then you can talk about making deals for other things. I think trading the settlements for Jerusalem is where I would go as Israel, since right of return is a non-issue. The Palestinians need to realize you have to give something to get something, and I haven't seen one proposal where they give ANYTHING.
That idea is a little strange. The Palestinians don't really have anything to give. That would be like us saying we will get out of Baghdad once the folks in the capitol give us something. What do they have to give? Actually it is more like the Black South Africans being told they can have a say in running S. Africa but they have to give something as well. What did they have to give? It doesn't make sense to asked an oppressed people who are systematically descriminated against to give up something. Again the oppression against them doesn't come as in an effort to stop attacks. Allowing the Palestinians to have new wells for water has nothing to do with that. The Palestinians need to give up violence against Israeli civilians, and the right of return. Israel needs to give up its settlements, oppression, and discrimination. It is as simple as that, but of course it's not really that simple at all.
WOW! Having a good fourth of the West Bank being settled illegally by Israelis is giving "nothing" away? What about the fact that some four million Palestinians will never be able to go back "home" again to what is now Israel? That counts for nothing in your book? It isn't enough that the Palestinians have been kicked out of their homes, put in refugee camps and scattered across the Arab (and Western) world after 1948 through today? Boy, please go back and learn your history to better understand what the Palestinians had to give up and concede If you cannot clearly see that EVEN with a Palestinian state, the Palestinians were royally screwed over the past decades, then I can't help you man. Go back and see the original agreement in 1948 by the UN to partition the "Holy Land" between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and look at what is left of the historic Palestinian territory, assuming they get ALL of West Bank and Gaza back (which probably won't happen) they will still have been royally screwed. But that is how it is in world politics, the weak is always the loser. Nevertheless, The Palestinians are constantly being asked to give up almost all their rights in exchange for a minimal return, and their piece of the pie seems to get smaller by the day. Yet they are asked to give up their legitimate right of resistance (although questionable methods are used, I agree, but they would tell you it is the only "weapon" afforded to them to fight with) while barely anyone is even bothering to raise an objection against the ever-expanding illegal Israeli settlements that are eating up at whatever little land is left for the Palestinians. Then Bush comes in, in order to secure Zionist support in his reelection campaign, and he makes a declaration that Israel can keep its illegal settlements (while the UN and the entire Quartet that worked on the"Road Map", which the US had created along with them, had rejected the whole concept of settlements, and still insist on 1967 borders) due to "reality on the ground"!!!!! Just the facts. But saying the Palestinians have not been willing to give up anything is just void of any factual evidence. But just remember that there is not much they can give up anymore, because they simply don't have much of anything to give.
