Article

2006-06-27 Israel-Palestine-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2006-06-27 08:50|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 One for Hamas. One for Fatah.

Posted by ed 2006-06-27 09:03|| 2006-06-27 09:03|| Front Page Top

#2 In the past they've as much as said that they would agree to conditions now in order to achieve their ultimate goals later. They can't be trusted. So it doesn't matter what they "agree to." What have they ever done to demonstrate integrity (other than adherence to islamic rule domestically)?

After all, Israel pulls out of Gaza, Gaza becomes a staging ground for missle attacks.

Posted by PlanetDan">PlanetDan 2006-06-27 09:39|| 2006-06-27 09:39|| Front Page Top

#3 Yup, same old same old. Better count your fingers after shaking hands with them. They have shown nothing but duplicity and bad faith towards any agreement. Why would anyone believe Hamas or any of the Islamofacists. They have their own agenda and it is not ours.

Posted by JohnQC 2006-06-27 09:48|| 2006-06-27 09:48|| Front Page Top

#4 "Prisoners?"

Yup - guys like Bargouti, sitting in Israeli jails. Whose imprisonment makes them more immune to charges of treason. Also protects them from getting killed.

The position is of course an opener only, and so far from the mainstream of whats realistic that the Israelis probably wont recognize it as even an opening negotiating position.

The significance is that it represents the beginning of a climbdown from Hamas position on Israel, and a concession made in response to the sanctions on Hamas. On the one hand this shows that sanctions can work, and will encourage the West to use sanctions against the Pals again when needed in the future. OTOH it really undercuts the current sanctions, which the euros will now urgently want to drop. Israel will probably cooperate with dropping them, to a degree, to keep up its improved relations with the Euros (and US govt will want that too) but will probably hold for more to start negotiations, and will retain right to strike back. Meanwhile the issue of the kidnapped soldier remains.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-27 09:49|| 2006-06-27 09:49|| Front Page Top

#5 A Fatah/Hamas agreement, between themselves, won't mean diddly in the end.

Both parties believe that the minute they get their internal agreement on recognition and whatever conditions go with that, their decisions are immediately implemented. All the land back, Jeruselum back, right of return for everyone, all prisoners released, yada yada yada.

Israel will not accept their conditions, nor will US (or Canada) and the Pallies will explode with fury at the "duplicity of the devils and thier democracy" and reverse the "recognition"

Back at square one. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

Posted by Thinemp Whimble2412 2006-06-27 10:05|| 2006-06-27 10:05|| Front Page Top

#6 A Fatah/Hamas agreement don't mean diddly now. Both of 'em are lying sacks of shit.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2006-06-27 10:18|| 2006-06-27 10:18|| Front Page Top

#7 Look! Here's something shiney... nevermind about that kid we kidnapped.

The evil bastards are just hoping for enough of a distraction to delay the carpet bombing they know they deserve.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2006-06-27 10:22|| 2006-06-27 10:22|| Front Page Top

#8 Two states? That's looking likely to be Israel and "The West Bank" in a few days or so. Israel is going to have a lot of new beachfront.

Posted by Darrell 2006-06-27 10:47|| 2006-06-27 10:47|| Front Page Top

#9 Let's explore a real solution. One state. Israel. Right after the whole West Bank/Gaza shithole is decimated and cleaned out. All camel jockeys who survive can relocate to which ever sand trap that will take them.

Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-06-27 11:36|| 2006-06-27 11:36|| Front Page Top

#10 The announcement, if it is real, may mean diddly to our team but it means something to their team.

Hamas would gain a bit of good will in Amman and Cairo. In exchange they would be critized by Al-Q and maybe Iran and Hizb Allah also.

It is a little like Kos agreeing to suspend criticism of Hillary temporarily.

Posted by mhw 2006-06-27 11:39|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-27 11:39|| Front Page Top

#11 Me thinks we should drag out a solution we came up with in another war, another time. Only this time substitute Palestinian instead of Vietnamese.

So Israel goes into Palestine and loads all the "good" Palestinians onto to a raft floating off the coast. Then they go back into the land and bomb, blast, and kill everything that is left. Then a final carpet laying of nukes by B-52s to turn the sand into glass. Finally, go out and sink the raft.

Posted by vietvet68 2006-06-27 11:45|| 2006-06-27 11:45|| Front Page Top

#12 "Finally, go out and sink the raft."

LOL - they would've done that themselves within the first 10 minutes.

Posted by Fliger Unavirong3232 2006-06-27 12:01|| 2006-06-27 12:01|| Front Page Top

#13 That depends on what the definition of "agrees" is.

Posted by Xbalanke 2006-06-27 12:14|| 2006-06-27 12:14|| Front Page Top

#14 Hamas legislator Salah al-Bardaweel told Reuters: "We said we accept a state (in territory occupied) in 1967 -- but we did not say we accept two states."

It's more Taquiya.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2006-06-27 12:52|| 2006-06-27 12:52|| Front Page Top

#15 Have you read a translation of the document, liberalhawk? Apparently it doesn't even mention Israel by name.

Posted by Apostate 2006-06-27 13:31|| 2006-06-27 13:31|| Front Page Top

#16 no i didnt, but thats why they said implicit recognition. Which I agree is not adequate from my POV - i dont think Hamas should be let off the hook cheaper than Fatah was - they should have to sign on to the Oslo accords in full. But the reality right now is that implicit recognition would be enough to force at least loosening the boycott.

Though it seems that Hamas, or at least parts of it, are denying even that. Which I think means there is no such pressure to loosen the boycott. What I hope, is that this means Hamas may be on the point of increasingly bitter internal struggles of its own.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-27 15:22|| 2006-06-27 15:22|| Front Page Top

#17 Hamas is going to try to play a version of the same game that Arafat played, namely, say one thing to the westerners, a different thing to the parliment, a different thing yet to the street.

Its not going to be as easy for them as it was for Arafat. There are plenty of Hamas biggies who will say what they actually mean to Westerners.

even if Hamas doesn't break into a 'war of nuance', it is going to make it more difficult (but maybe not impossible) for the EU to pretend that the Paleos have recognized Israel.

The many acts of war committed by the Paleos have also made the situation difficult for the EU because EU biggies bragged about the Hamas truce and the attack showed that the truce didn't exist.

Posted by mhw 2006-06-27 17:03|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-27 17:03|| Front Page Top

23:59 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:52 twobyfour
23:48 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:23 Eric Jablow
23:15 Frank G
23:08 JosephMendiola
23:06 JosephMendiola
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:55 49 Pan
22:52 Barbara Skolaut
22:50 Barbara Skolaut
22:50 Frank G
22:48 Glenmore
22:47 Frank G
22:45 49 Pan
22:42 bk
22:39 49 Pan
22:38 JosephMendiola
22:37 Old Patriot
22:37 DanNY
22:34 Eric Jablow
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:33 Unavitch Unaviper3310
22:31 muck4doo