More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

If they weren’t already clear, Hamas has once again reiterated its goals

Exiled Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal said reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas must be based on jihad (“holy” war) against Israel.

“The first step [to liberating Jerusalem] is refusal to negotiate with Israel,” Meshaal told participants at an al-Quds conference in Sudan on Sunday, adding that reconciliation between the two factions is “to establish a new, reconciled Palestinian position based on jihad,” AFP reported.

Meshaal said the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have injected new life into Hamas.

“Today we are witnessing Cairo returning to its natural state, after it disappeared from that state for a long time,” the Damascus-based Hamas chief said.

 But that is absolutely no problem for our so-called “peace partners” of the PA.

"That Charlie sure knows how to party"

The Palestinian Authority said Monday it wants Hamas removed from international terror lists so it can join the PA in a unity government.

After meeting in Cairo with Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, PA negotiator Nabil Shaath said he broached the issue with several governments during a visit of European Union capitals, The Jerusalem Post reported.

“We are seeking to have Hamas removed from the list of terror organizations,” Shaath said. “We want EU countries to recognize a Palestinian unity government that would include Hamas and other factions.”

Shaath said the Fatah faction was eager to end its dispute with Hamas, the Post said Sunday.

“The current circumstances require us to reorganize our Palestinian home,” he added. “I have announced several times that we have accepted the Egyptian (reconciliation) initiative. We have agreed to a national unity government (with Hamas) that would implement the Egyptian document and prepare for elections.”

Shaath was referring to an Egyptian reconciliation plan presented in 2009 to Hamas and Fatah.

Former PA Foreign Minister Shaath said a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation would embolden a “Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation.”

Why the international community insists that Israel should negotiate with the PA, and why they think we are the ones who are not pursuing peace may make sense to Charlie Sheen , but it sure as hell makes no sense to me.

9 thoughts on “Clear Intentions”

  1. Jim from Iowa

    At this point, there are probably no good options left for Israel. Even some within the present governing coalition don't see the status quo as a viable long-term solution. Should Israelis embrace a one-state solution where only Jews have the full rights of citizens? Or Israel as some kind of bi-national entity (I can't even get my head around that one.) Or is it possible that Israelis and Palestinians can find a way to sit down and negotiate a 2-state solution? Not a solution imposed by America or the EU or the Arab League, but one that would be acceptable to the majority of the Israeli people. I have to hope that that is the case because I don't want to think about any other alternatives.

    1. I think our cousins just answered your last question – there are no negotiations possible. They are butt crazy and that's not going to change any time soon.

      1. Jim from Iowa

        OK, but that was not particularly helpful in coming up with a successful strategy on how to bring the two sides together. Maybe if we asked the wisest of the wise, a guy with experience, the 2,000 Year Old Man, he could give us some advice on how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. It would probably go something like this:

        From me you want advice? If you should ask me 'How do you make a venetian blind?' and I'd say 'With the fingers you go "ka-plink" right in the eyes.' But that other thing you asked, the conflict with the Hebrews and the Phillistines–how to end it? What are you asking me for? You kids, always with the mashugana questions! Now, let me ask you a question–When is lunch?

  2. Negotiations start when competing interests are satisfied that they have more to gain by reaching an agreement than otherwise.

    The Oslo process was more a reflection of the best of hopes of the Israeli left -that sans a credible sponsor the Palestinians would come to a peaceful co-existence;thereby ridding the left of it's perception of Israel's collective guilt.While on the Palestinian side -after the blunders by Arafat they had come to conclusion that the West would be their new long term sponsors till they saw a ripe time on embarking on the final solution to the Jewish problem( I emphasise that the problem was not a "Zionist entity"but the Jews occupying what they thought was Muslim land.)

    Now that the Israeli right has decided that status-quo would be more beneficial and the general disarray in the Palestinian ranks and most importantly sponsor fatigue the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that there will be no "peace" as in "land for peace" but only security arrangements as in "you don't fire rockets into my country and I guarantee that I don't blow you to smithereens".

    Doesn't seem like a bad idea- unless the Israeli businesses grow short sighted and start craving for Arab markets-which by the way they will never be able to access with or without peace- and demand that the government should promote "peace" at the cost of the nation.

    1. Jim from Iowa

      What if America showers both sides with billions of dollars (that we borrow from the Chinese) to come to the bargaining table? Wouldn't that be a game-changer to the current impasse? We don't have money to meet the basic needs of the poorest of our own citizens, but I bet we have the political will to do something like this. I shouldn't complain about money, though. Our "Wheel of Fortune" still looks a whole lot classier than Israel's version of that game show.

  3. In the 64 years since the U.N. partition of the British Mandate into what was intended to become two states, the Arabs have failed to create even one, or two Palestinian states. Their primary objective has always been the eradication of Israel, with the creation of a Palestinian state purely insignificant in comparison.

    As the Arabs have prosecuted several unsuccessful wars and otherwise dithered for nearly two-thirds of a century, why not set an irrevocable deadline in which they must establish peace with Israel and one, or two Palestinian states, or forever forfeit their rights! A full century should be an adequate period of time to establish peace with Israel. If they are unwilling, or unable to accomplish that within the next 36 years, then the Palestinians should be deemed to have forfeited any rights to statehood and any lands between the Jordan River and the Egyptian border and Israel should have the right to expel all foreign nationals from its territories!

    This must be their "put up, or shut up" moment and a test of their commitment to peace and statehood. If 36 years is an inadequate time to make that commitment, the Palestinians will have run out of time and forfeited their opportunity!

    1. I really like the idea of giving the Palestinians 100 years to make peace. And at the end of that time, the Israelis could mark it with some kind of ceremony–maybe something like "This Is Your Life" with Ralph Edwards. Or something more like "The Gong Show."

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top