The WaPo says that Israel should just hope that the terrorists in Hamas decide to stop killing Jews because, well, I think it’s the “Mussolini made the trains run on time” argument.
Having prescribed democracy as an essential condition for a Palestinian state, the Bush administration can hardly stand in the way of electoral participation by a movement that represents a large fraction of Palestinians. It must hope that Hamas eventually will embrace democracy as the sole means of advancing its agenda, rather than as a mere tool to prevent its own disarmament or any Palestinian concessions to Israel, and that it will feel obliged to moderate its tactics and agenda while serving in government. Whether or not that happens, a Palestinian Authority backed by Hamas may be able to restore a semblance of order to Gaza. In the dismal present circumstances, that would be a step forward.
So let me see if I get this straight: The PA is corrupt. Hamas is not. Hamas may kinda sorta possibly stop being terrorists once they assume public office. Do we have any evidence for that? Please don’t bring up the Irgun again. Menachem Begin was in the Irgun in the 1940s. The Irgun was forced to give up arms by other Israelis–not by outside sources–and Begin became Prime Minister thirty years later. There is no such comparison in the current status of the PA and the other palestinian terror groups.
And what does Hamas have to say on the subject?
Ismail Haniya, the top candidate on the Hamas list for Palestinian parliamentary elections, said Sunday that Hamas supports only as a temporary solution the establishment of a Palestinian states along the 1967 borders and with Jerusalem as its capital.
Haniya emphasized that Hamas does not recognize the existence of the State of Israel and maintains its vision of establishing a Palestinian state throughout all of the area west of the Jordan River.
He also reiterated that there is no chance that Hamas would voluntarily disarm as long as Israel exists, Israel Radio reported.
The Hamas has repeatedly stated things like this, then, of course, repeatedly pretended that they might, just might, negotiate with Israel after all.
It is a lie. They have not changed their charter. They have not softened their stance. Their candidates repeatedly deny negotiating with Israel. Their candidates repeatedly deny giving up “resistance” once they get into office. Their candidates repeatedly deny giving up the Hamas charter. Their aim is still to establish an Islamic state on the land where Israel now exists.
The media are wilfully blind. We have to keep pounding on this issue.
David’s got a take on this as well.
Trust. Doesn’t trust have to be based on something? Normally, of course, but not when it comes to Israel, well, we just have to trust and give and hope and pray. And if something bad happens to us, well, sorry, it really is sad, but don’t react. Just try to trust again!
As in: at some point you’ll(Jews/Israel)all be dead and then we can be sad for a week.
At least that is the feeling I get.
I think that Sharon started defining boundaries because there is no trust.
There is no peace partner and there will not be peace in the short term.
M.Y. wrote:
” They have not changed their charter. They have not softened their stance.”
Now, I realize this was about Hamas.
But, you know, those two statements are ALSO true about Fatah. In English, well French actually, Fatah says the part in it’s charter about liquidating Israel is ‘caduc’ … er … ‘Null and Void’.
But in Arabic there is no change at all.
… sigh …
Didn’t some literate personage once say something like those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it?
Fatah or Hamas or IJ or Hezbollah AQ or PFLP … they are all the SAME.
I read that editorial this morning – I had the same reaction you had, punctuated by almost gagging on my coffee and using words my daughter isn’t suppossed to hear me say. The WashPos editors are fortunate Hamas is an ocean away and not just across the Potomac from them.
NPR did a story this evening about Hamas’ campaigning in Gaza – I was shocked when the NPR reporter suggested that in spite of Hamas’ pronouncements to the Western media to the contrary, they really hadn’t changed and were not going to negotiate with Israel about anything.
Israel trusted the Palestinian Arabs at Oslo and we now see the result. It is up to the Arabs to earn any future trust from the Israelis, for there is no reason for Israel to extend the smallest amount of trust to such treacherous, murderous liars. Israel should put no trust in them until they have basically surrendered, disarmed and given up, explicitly and publically, their aims of destroying Israel and wiping out its Jewish inhabitants. And Israel should fight as necessary, since the Arab say they are at war with her and act on the statement. Ere Israel’s crown of sovereignty goes down there are (Arab) crowns to be broke.
Pingback: Soccer Dad
“Two-state solution” is simply another (and equally meritorious) culture’s way of saying “one-state zero-Jew solution.”