Hamas To Israel: Want Peace? Destroy Yourself
From an article by Vladimir Isachenkov of the AP:
The leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas rejected pressure to soften hostility to Israel Friday, saying the Jewish state must first withdraw from territories occupied in 1967 and allow refugees to return if it wants peace.
Embarking on the group’s highest-profile diplomatic mission ever, Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal said that if Israel took these steps, “our movement will have taken a big step toward peace.”
That statement while sticking to Hamas’ tradition of ambiguity could be significant, because Hamas in the past has called for Israel’s elimination altogether.
Mashaal elaborates:
Mashaal struck an uncompromising stance.
“If Israel officially announces its readiness to withdraw from all territories occupied in 1967, the return of Palestinian refugees, the closure of settlements, the dismantling of the dividing wall, the release of all prisoners, then our movement will take a big step toward peace,” he said. The Israelis have rejected such conditions.
…”The issue of recognition (of Israel) is a decided issue,” Mashaal said. “We don’t intend to recognize Israel.”
This is not progress, no matter how anyone spins it. Hamas is still calling for the destruction of Israel, by two means (the third mean, of military destruction, it is, of course, incapable of on its own): (1) leaving itself defenseless against its belligerent neighbors Syria and Iran (the dismantling of the wall, the relinguishment of land Israel took after it was attacked in 1967, to keep as a defensive border), and (2) by demographically destroying its character (the ‘right of return’, a thinly veiled and longstanding attempt to destroy Israel from within).
There is nothing at all here; Israel should continue unilateral disengagement and fortification…
Your point (1) is not valid. Israel now is vastly more powerful than its neighbours — even without the nukes! Israel had no difficulty smashing the Arab armies in 1956 and 1967 without possession of the West Bank, and the disparity in military power is even greater these days (in Israel’s favour).
Regarding point (2), the ‘right of return’ could perhaps be extended to the aging refugees themselves, as part of a peace settlement. If it were also extended to their descendants, it would, as you say, have very unpleasant demographic consequences for Israel.
Oh, and Israel was not ‘attacked’ in 1967, it launched a pre-emptive strike against the Arabs. This attack was quite justified in my opinion, given the highly threatening behaviour of the Arabs, but nevertheless one should not describe it as an Arab atttack.
RINO Sightings 34
Hello and welcome to RINO Sightings 34, where the Republicans / Independents Not Overdosed on party kool-aid gather to shoot the, er, stuff. If one were to sum up the beliefs of the Raging Rinos, it would be independent minded. Wait, that’s two …
[...] Mark at Decision ‘08 notes Hamas’ proposal for progress isn’t exactly that. [...]