New Israeli/Palestinian peace plan

[MMMMMM]

So what do you think about the recent interview with that old sheikh(?) spiritual leader of Hamas? He basically said Hamas was going to fight any peace process and keep sending suicide bombers. How the hell can Israel have peace...with Hamas vowing to attack, and perpetually attacking even if Israel were to withdraw from the settlements?

Shouldn't the Palestinians have to crack down on Hamas? And if they don't, why shouldn't Israel just go and wipe out those Hamas terrorists?

Let's say Israel were to withdraw from ALL the "illegal territories" (whatever they might be), but Hamas et al kept attacking relentlessly. Wouldn't you then agree that Israel should wipe out those terrorist leaders and groups?

[Cyrus]

"Why shouldn't Israel just go and wipe out those Hamas terrorists?"

When they took the land the first time, the PLO were terrorists. Now that they don't want peace, Hamas are terrorists. And they are too! Keep hitting and you're bound to get it right.

"Let's say Israel were to withdraw from ALL the "illegal territories" (whatever they might be)..."

Ah but why don't you try and decipher for me what are the "legitimate territories" of Israel??

And I don't mean the borders recognized by the world community (e.g. Security Council Resolutions, etc), no, what I want are the borders that Israel would be satisfied with, in your opinion.

Take your time before responding. It's a trick question.

[nicky g]

"no matter what concessions Israel makes"
What concessions has Israel ever made? None.

[nicky g]

"Shouldn't the Palestinians have to crack down on Hamas? And if they don't, why shouldn't Israel just go and wipe out those Hamas terrorists? "

How exactly are they supposed to accomplish this? The Israelis have used the intifada to completely destroy the Palestinian security infrastructure, as well as the economy. The fact of the matter is that if Israel entered into sincere and meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians, support for Hamas, which has been high since the intifada began, would tumble, and such organisations can't operate on a large scale without widespread popular support. There would be few volunteers for suicide bombings if the settlers withdrew and the occupation ended.

[Chris Alger]

I can't find any reference to this interview on the web, not even on the ADL website.

The official position of Hamas, last time I looked, was that it will refrain from attacking civilians if Israel does the same. Israel refuses to consider it, so the terrorist war by both sides will likely continue. (Indeed, Israel won't even give the Palestinians the same deal it gave Hizbollah, which spared so many civilians in Lebanon: attacks limited to military targets. The reason? The Palestinians don't have many military targets.)

Here's Sheik Yassin's position on attacking civilians, set forth when Israel released him from prison in 1997. As far as I know, it is unchanged:

"Sheik Yassin Condemns Killing Civilians, Rules Out Joining PA (IINS News Service -Israel-10/18) Recently freed Hamas leader, Sheik Achmed Yassin has condemned the killing of civilians in Israel by his group, Hamas, in remarks published Monday according to the Jordan times.

Yassin also said Hamas can coexist with the Jews. His comments were made during an interview published in the London-based Arabic weekly, Al Wasat.

Asked to comment on Hamas operations that sometimes kill civilians, Sheik Yassin said: "We are a people who condemn the killing of civilians. We don't see this [killing of civilians] is a good thing."

"The civilians must be spared in the conflict," Sheik Yassin, who is also Hamas' spiritual leader, said in the telephone interview from his home in the Gaza Strip.

Sheik Yassin, however, said, Israel should avoid targeting civilians first, and "we will then be the first to do the same."

"Why are they demolishing the houses of civilians and displacing women and children? Why are they putting in jail civilians who have committed no crime? Why are they confiscating the lands and properties of civilians? Why are they strangling the people and leaving them without food or water?" he said."
http://www.cin.org/archives/al-bushra/199710/0130.html

"Shouldn't the Palestinians have to crack down on Hamas? And if they don't, why shouldn't Israel just go and wipe out those Hamas terrorists?"

It might surprise to know that very few people involved in Hamas are also involved in terrorism. The suicide bombers come from the Qassam brigades, a terror outfit associated with Hamas. For the PA to go into Gaza and "crackdown" on the clinics, schools, mosques and other areas where Hamas members are active would amount to a suicidal civil war for the sole benefit of Israel. Why should the PA do that, when Israel refuses to stop subsidizing settlements, demolishing homes, imposing curfews and checkpoints, targeting civilians, and, more fundmantally, refuses to acknowledge that Palestinians have national rights?

[Chris Alger]

Here's an example of the thinking that will probably doom the roadmap, from Safire's column in today's NY Times:

"If Abu Mazen can dismantle the all-or-nothing coalition [of Palestinian rejectionism and militancy], Israel can make peace with his Palestinian Authority. Sharon can help by relaxing some checkpoints, releasing tax revenues and ostentatiously closing the half-dozen illegal settlements."

Israel should make slight compromises (e.g., a half-dozen not-authorized-by-Israel settlements and refrain from "new" settlement "activity", leaving nearly 200 other settlements containing 400,000 settlers), but the PA must win what Safire forthrightly calls the "civil war" against any Palestinians willing to fight against the conquest of what's left of their homeland.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

I don't know what the "legitimate" territories of Israel should be, nor what Israeli leaders would say.

Let's start from the premise, "moral" arguments aside, that Israel exists and will continue to exist. Therefore defined boundaries are necessary. In order for there to be peace, large Palestinian factions cannot be avowed to perpetually attack Israel until Israel ceases to exist--as Hamas has vowed to do. Again, leaving aside all moral questions or implications, it simply isn't practical and it can't work.

If you are suggesting that Israel is as much at fault for not having "defined boundaries" you run up against the argument that Israel has always been attacked regardless of where the boundaries were.

[MMMMMM]

Israel was attacked by Arabs, by Palestinians, by suicide bombers long before the dispute over the territories. Further Hamas has vowed to send suicide bombers into Israel as long as Israel even exists. So it's just not true that if Israel would withdraw from the territories the attacks would cease or lessen. In fact, generally speaking, as soon as Israel lets up in any way, attacks tend to increase in frequency. Israel is not dealing with rational people in Hamas.

[nicky g]

You're ignoring my point. Hamas's terrorist wing cannot function without popular support, and with a Palestinian government that's both equipped and determined to stop it.. That support would disappear if a fair settlement could be reached with. They can vow what they like but they simply would not be able to carry on without the daily propaganda victories handed to them by Israeli terrorising of Palestine.

[MMMMMM]

Israel gave up a lot of land she could have held when the end to the Yom Kippur war was negotiated. The Arabs had planned to annihilate Israel but they lost. In retrospect, I think Israel should perhaps have held that land. The Arabs have always attacked Israel--which represents a mere 1/898 of the total Arab land mass--and Israel has been remarkably, even incredibly restrained in her responses to Arab aggressions.