Hamas accepts Palestinian State along 1967 border.

catbear

Big news
http://www.euronews.com/2017/05/01/hamas-has-said-it-will-accept-the-formation-of-a-palestinian-state-along-the

The latest move, however, appears aimed at improving relations with Gulf Arab states and Egypt, which label the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation, while also mending a rift with the main Palestinian faction Fatar, headed by President Mahmoud Abbas.

A pretty big move. Is this the start of some sort of long term peace?

Is the recognition of that border an acceptance of Israel?

Hannibal

catbear wrote: »

Big news
http://www.euronews.com/2017/05/01/hamas-has-said-it-will-accept-the-formation-of-a-palestinian-state-along-the


A pretty big move. Is this the start of some sort of long term peace?

Is the recognition of that border an acceptance of Israel?

it's 50 years too late.

Israel won't accept the 1967 borders, they won't accept a shared Jerusalem nor will they accept the right to return for Palestinians robbed and ran off their land by the Zionists.

The Palestinians are dealing with a hard necked Israeli state that has no morals and no compassion. They believe they own the land as it says in the bible and ancient scriptures.

Now if the native Americans and Aboriginals made the same claim as the Zionists I wonder would the US Administrations apply the same standards..

johnnyskeleton

catbear wrote: »

A pretty big move. Is this the start of some sort of long term peace?

I'd like to think so but I don't think it will have much of an impact. Conceivably, if Hamas move away from the position of seeking the destruction of the state of Israel, the hardline supporters in Gaza will move to an even more extreme political group to become the more popular party.

Is the recognition of that border an acceptance of Israel?

I suppose it would mean that they would accept the territorial limits of the Palestinian State under the 1967 borders if it meant that Israeli troops and settlements pulled out and they got international recognition as a full UN member state. But they would still continue to have no diplomatic relationship with Israel and would conceivably use it as a stepping stone to a war with Israel in the future.

Hannibal wrote: »

Israel won't accept the 1967 borders, they won't accept a shared Jerusalem nor will they accept the right to return for Palestinians robbed and ran off their land by the Zionists.

Indeed. It is dissappointing to see the Israeli reaction to this move:

The Israeli Prime Minister’s spokesperson David Keyes said: “Hamas’ motivation clearly is to alleviate some of the international pressure against it and what they are trying to do is basically fool the world to say we are not as bad as you think we are, but when you look at what they tell their own people in Arabic, on Al-Aqsa TV, on Hamas’ TV stations, in their mosques, in their schools, they are calling on a daily basis to destroy Israel.”

Surely a more diplomatic response would have been to welcome the move and hope it is the start of a policy change throughout Hamas. I mean it's not like the IRA disbanded overnight and recognised the legitimacy of the NI assembly once the GFA was signed. These things take time and any move, however small or symbolic, should be welcomed.

The Palestinians are dealing with a hard necked Israeli state that has no morals and no compassion. They believe they own the land as it says in the bible and ancient scriptures.

Some do. But a lot of Israelis are secular Jews or at least don't subscribe to the extreme view. If there was a means of giving them peace and security, I would like to think most Israelis would accept the 1967 borders and the withdrawal of the settlements. The reason we see Likud in power is more that they don't believe that this is reasonable IMO rather than that there is popular sentiment behind an expanded Israeli state.

Overall, it seems to me that the whole situation is fundamentally unsolvable at the moment and probably for the next several generations. It's good to see any move that represents a thaw from either side, but being cynical it won't be long before some new event causes tensions to rise again.

catbear

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If there was a means of giving them peace and security, I would like to think most Israelis would accept the 1967 borders and the withdrawal of the settlements.

The Hamas declaration is pivotal, it's taken decades to get to this point and defuses some of the siege tension in Israel too but the west bank settlements are going to be a very sticky issue to resolve.

They're on a much larger and wider scale than than the settlements that were abandoned in Gaza.

At least with the border recognition the two states (three if west bank and Gaza counted) have a starting point.

blackpearl

catbear wrote: »

The Hamas declaration is pivotal, it's taken decades to get to this point and defuses some of the siege tension in Israel too but the west bank settlements are going to be a very sticky issue to resolve.

They're on a much larger and wider scale than than the settlements that were abandoned in Gaza.

At least with the border recognition the two states (three if west bank and Gaza counted) have a starting point.

Their will never be a starting point with the jews,they are the cause of all the trouble over the middle east.

goose2005

blackpearl wrote: »

Their will never be a starting point with the jews,they are the cause of all the trouble over the middle east.

an impressive achievement for one small nation.

goose2005

Hannibal wrote: »

it's 50 years too late.

Israel won't accept the 1967 borders, they won't accept a shared Jerusalem nor will they accept the right to return for Palestinians robbed and ran off their land by the Zionists.

The Palestinians are dealing with a hard necked Israeli state that has no morals and no compassion. They believe they own the land as it says in the bible and ancient scriptures.

Now if the native Americans and Aboriginals made the same claim as the Zionists I wonder would the US Administrations apply the same standards..

Well, what if the indigenous of the "Arab world" (which is suspiciously much bigger than Arabia) made the same claim? It's bizarre to hear Palestinian Arabs act like the most brutally downtrodden and oppressed people in history, considering that Arabs have been conquering and displacing and subjugating their neighbours for 1,300 years or so