Despite pressure, Hamas leader says Israel has 'no right to exist'

[Behind the Aegis]

MOSCOW - Palestinian election winner Hamas will not recognize Israel despite pressure from Russia to do so during talks in Moscow, a senior leader of the Islamic militant group said on Saturday.

Moussa Abu Marzouk, Hamas's deputy political leader, told Reuters in an interview that recognizing Israel would negate all Palestinian rights.

"It means a negation of the Palestinian people and their rights and their property, of Jerusalem and the holy sites, as well as negation of their right of return. Therefore the recognition of Israel is not on the agenda," Abu Marzouk said.

"We believe that Israel has no right to exist", he added later in remarks to an Arab audience. "Hamas will never take such a step."

more...

[cali]

1. I don't get it

Is this just gamesmanship? political posturing? Why can't they recognize Israel within the 1967 borders? This statement seems self-destructive. I know Hamas has stated a willingness to work towards a truce, but how do you do that with an entity that you're not willing to acknowledge has the right to exist?

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Non-plussed.

I am with you. How do you negotiate with someone who doesn't exist? Israel won't negotiate with Hamas because they call for her destruction. Hamas won't negotiate with Israel because they want all of Israel.

I agree with another post you made, recognize Israel as the 1967 'borders' with Jerusalem as a split city. But, Hamas wants NO Israel.

[Pavulon]

3. Simple

it is hatred. These guys hate israel and want it destroyed. At least they are honest.

So they will have no position to fall back on when israel begins killing them.

Hamas has no interest in a truce.

They are betting on israeli inaction. That is the only real weapon they have.

[IndianaGreen]

4. This is not political posturing, this is the true Hamas position!

Hamas has never lied about its intentions. When they speak of peace, they mean a peace without Jews!

[cali]

5. I'd like to see what

some of those who are *supportive of Hamas have to say about this, but they rarely seem to show up on threads that don't paint Palestinians in a positive light.


*:For the record: I support Israel talking with Hamas. Hamas now represents the Palestinians, and communication is vital, even if you dislike those you're communicating with.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. What do you mean by 'supportive'?

And fyi there's very very few threads here that paint Palestinians in a positive light, so you may have to expand on that as well coz I don't get what yr talking about...

Violet...

[cali]

8. I guess it all depends on the lens one

views things through. The opinions on DU seem pretty evenly split to me.

I guess what I mean by supportive is someone who understands where Hamas is coming from with statements like the one in the OP. Does that help explain it?

[Violet_Crumble]

9. That helps a lot...

Except I understand where Hamas is coming from with that sort of statement, but totally disagree with what they're saying, and believe that Hamas has to recognise Israel's right to exist, even though in doing so, some of the more strident and unthinking among those who support Israel are probably going to go 'oh, yeah, that's what they say now, but WE know better!'...

Me, I think Israel and Hamas need to talk and there shouldn't be any pre-conditions demanded before talks can happen. Likewise, I don't think attempts by the US and Israel to internationally isolate the new PA and to bring about its collapse is very smart...

Violet...

[Igel]

6. Hamas charter, article 11.

'The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

'This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

'It happened like this: When the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, they sent to the Caliph of the Moslems, Umar bin-el-Khatab, asking for his advice concerning the conquered land - whether they should divide it among the soldiers, or leave it for its owners, or what? After consultations and discussions between the Caliph of the Moslems, Omar bin-el-Khatab and companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, it was decided that the land should be left with its owners who could benefit by its fruit. As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Moslem generations till Judgement Day. Those who are on the land, are there only to benefit from its fruit. This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.'

The waqf business is a mildly big deal in some interpretations of shari'a. Waqf land is land owned by non-Muslims at the conquest, and which no Muslim wanted to take over (or which the amir at the time didn't dole out). So it's held in trust, meaning that a religious group administers it. They can rent it to the people that live on it (a handy practice, quit-rent, if you're the conqueror and you're a bit thin on the ground), until you need it for 'your own'. Or you can make a rule saying that only Muslims can continue working that land, and see what the consequence is. But then you have to have forces around to put down the inevitable rebellion; death for the rebellious is ok, and solves the problem almost as well. One submits in and to Islam (in traditional forms of the religion); nothing Islamic should submit to anything non-Islamic--and having soil made Islamic suddenly submit to being non-Islamic, well ...

Moreover, while the argument that Jerusalem's (and the haram al-sharif's) importance has waxed and waned over the centuries as political exigency has demanded holds a fair amount of water, there's even the current attempt to deny any Jewish claim to Israel. Jews were never there, or Arabs predated them, or the Temple Mount was actually a mosque, and not only was al-Aqsa special, but all the surrounding areas. With some trying to make the surrounding areas expand from the immediate area to all of Palestine. This is, of course, the extremist view. Then again, the context is Hamas.

Hamas would have to change its overt theology; since it's painted it in such absolutist terms, direct from Allah's lips to Yassin's ears (yes, I know this isn't at all how they'd put it, cut me some slack), they're hoist on that petard of their own making. On the other hand, the ideologues seem to believe it, and it's comforting to the masses of 'refugees' who believe themselves entitled to wealth and honor and ... You get the picture. Selling people on their true glorious past and why *they're* really the important folks never fails the populist leader.

[Burning Water]

13. I've lurked

on the I/P forum for a long time, although I just recently registered and not posted much on I/P. However, you're going to have a hard time selling that to a number of posters here.

Facts that get in the way of certain notions are totally ignored.

[Igel]

20. From time to time I've run into

a DUer that's a stalwart believer in ignoring a person's stated motivations, if the DUer can't get his mind around it. It's a strange kind of intellectual ethnocentrism. I find it amusing to observe.

I've been in far too many truly strange organizations to not realize that it doesn't matter what *I* think somebody's motivation is. People usually have a good idea as to why they do things, and if anything, put their motivation in a more favorable light than it merits. Hamas seems a straight dealer. Rather refreshing, actually; some of the Hamas double-talk reported a few weeks ago from the Russian media was wishful translations. Then again, I'm truly grateful I don't have to deal with Hamas.

It's going to be an intriguing year.

[Burning Water]

39. It's certainly going to be

an intriguing years. What's that ancient Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times."

As for me, I think it useless to inquire into a person's motivations. I'm not a mind reader and I don't own a Tarot deck or a crystal ball. Their actions are all that concern me, and all that I would presume to judge. Their thoughts, and souls if such exist, are in God's province.

[ShockediSay]

22. World Zionist Organization charter/resolutions call for ALL of

Biblical Israel (more recently Palestine) to be held by the Jewish people.

Does Palestine have a right to exist?

[Burning Water]

10. That is why

Hamas will eventually have to be destroyed.

Wonder how many innocent Israeli men, women, and children will have to die first? How many Palestinians? How many people from other nations who just happen to get in their way??

[Violet_Crumble]

11. So yr all for destroying anything and anyone who doesn't recognise Israel?

How exactly is that sort of attitude any better than that of Hamas?

Violet...

[Burning Water]

12. Well, it's better in a number of ways.

First, that is a total and malicious distortion of what I said. I said destroy Hamas. I seem to have failed to mention to destroy anybody else. I don't really care whether they recognize Israel, or not. Just so long as they stop trying to destroy it.

Second, I said destroy Hamas, not their wives, not their children, not random Palestinians trying to go about their daily lives.

Third, Let's all have a good laugh and suppose Israel gave back all the land they won by right of conquest in the 1967 defensive war against a ruthless and powerful enemy intent on destroying them. Let's say they recognize a Palestinian state governed by Hamas. Will Hamas cease to try to destroy Israel then? By their own words, they will not. So why should Israel give even one inch of land or recognition or, what's gonna hurt, money, to Hamas? No rational reason at all.

The Palestinians freely and democratically chose Hamas to govern them {i]because they agreed with Hamas' platform. That is their right and it must be respected by the whole world. But it doesn't obligate the world to recognize, or aid, the PA while it is governed by Hamas.

The Palestinians freely chose, and can freely face whatever consequences there are. This is as it should be.

[Scurrilous]

14. There was a war in 1976?

I must have missed that one.

BTW..what is 'right of conquest?'

[Burning Water]

16. Typographical error

I've corrected it now.

I suggest you go ask your history teacher to instruct you about what "right of conquest" is.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. I checked with my history teacher...

They said you should go ask any good teacher to explain international law to you and how this 'right of conquest' is a load of crap...

A question: Do you think the Occupied Territories are rightfully part of Israel?

Violet...

[Burning Water]

31. Do I think the occupied

territories are part of Israel? No. Not unless they are formally annexed. I do hope there can be a compromise, but I feel that Israel, attacked so many times since its founding by hostile neighbors, is entitled to keep enough land to have secure and defensible borders.

And I was not talking "international law", but history. Ask her again about about oh, say, what happened to the Byzantine Empire, Whether it was Christian or Muslim, what geographic extent it covered. ASk here about what the present size of Germany as compared to its size before WW1. Ask her why Scotland isn't an independent country instead of part of the UK. Ask her why Palestinians are so much more special than other peoples. I'd like to know that one.

[Scurrilous]

19. Well...

...if I ever bump into my old history profs, I'll ask them. I'll also ask them how this 'right' pertains to Saddam's conquest of Kuwait.

[Burning Water]

32. Saddam's reach

exceeded his grasp.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. It's just as bad, if not worse...

Of course you won't be able to explain how Hamas is trying to destroy Israel right now, will you? Or is the mere refusal to acknowledge Israel an attempt to destroy Israel?

While yr wrong about the reasons Palestinians voted for Hamas - there's article after article in this forum saying that they voted in reaction to the corruption of Fatah, not because they agree with the extremism of Hamas), yr callous 'can freely face whatever consequences there are' should also apply equally to Israelis, who voted Sharon in, not once, but twice...

Oh, and I'm glad you did point out that Hamas was freely and democratically elected. Which is a reason why those who carry on about 'bringing democracy to the Middle East' should now sit back and stop trying to overthrow a democratically elected govt with all their attempts to bully the rest of the world into not funding the new PA...

Violet...

[Burning Water]

18. Violet, you are wrong on

so many levels that I hardly know where to start.

When you say "Of course you won't be able to explain how Hamas is trying to destroy Israel right now, will you?" What, exactly do you mean? That there hasn't been a rocket attack or suicide bomber since yesterday (that's an example, don't take it too literally)? OK, here's what I mean. Hamas has vowed to destroy Israel. Until they say differently, we have absolutely no evidence that they still don't intend to do so. Israel is not obliged to sit around until they are attacked to react. They can, pre-emptively attack Hamas as Hamas, unlike say the Iraq/USA situation is a proven danger to Israel.

"Or is the mere refusal to acknowledge Israel an attempt to destroy Israel?" No, in general it would not be. But what it shows is a reluctance to renounce the goal of the destruction of Israel. Therefore Israel is entitled to withhold taxes (why should they pay for their own destruction), target Hamas leaders, and any other action that can be taken in a time of war.

As for why the Palestinians voted for Hamas, I'm not so simple-minded as to suppose that they could only have one reason. But it doesn't matter, does it. There were numerous reasons, I'm sure, that the American people voted for Bush, but we still have to pay the consequences in lost respect, economic collapse, slaughtered Iraqi civilians, etc.

As for the Israelis, well they are facing the consequences of voting in Sharon, aren't they. As they should.

Finally, the Ps may have voted in Hamas, as is their right. This should not be interfered with. On the other hand, it does not obligate any other country to help them out in any way, does it?

[kayecy]

21. On the other hand........

Why did it take the USA and Israel 50 years to recognise the juustice of allowing a Palestinian state? Not until Aqaba in 2003 did the USA and Israel accept 'Palestine' could exist and even now, only with limited sovereignty. Just give Hamas time and don't drive them into the arms of Iran and Russia.

[bemildred]

23. Israel has the same right to exist as any other political entity

throughout history: 0.

So this fellow is correct. Of course, the same could be applied to him.

[cali]

24. Huh? I don't understand what

you're trying to say here. Could you elaborate?

[bemildred]

25. No. nt

[cali]

26. I'm sorry you're incapable of doing so n/t

[bemildred]

27. Your logic is sorry, to be sure. nt

[cali]

28. OK, this is rather a cryptic statement

and the author is unwilling or incapable of fleshing it out. I'm not sure it's worth addressing, but since he/she has made such a big deal about not explaining it, I feel an urge to tackle it.

The recognition of the existence of a state is determined by both internal and external factors. The consent of the governed is a form of recognition. The broad recognition, by other state entities of another state is also an affirmation of existence, ie diplomatic relations.

Recognition of the existence of a state is not a value judgement. It doesn't neccessarily indicate that any particular state is either a good actor or bad actor on the world stage.

[bemildred]

29. Unwilling, since the original is perfectly clear.

However, in your defense, I must say you have missed my meaning cleanly. I mention neither "recognition" nor "legitimacy", nor does the Hamas fellow, and that is no accident. The question was about "right to exist".

Edit: mea culpa, the Hamas fellow does. Nevertheless, I did not.

That's fairly interesting, as that puts the Hamas fellow at odds with past agreements of the PNA.

[cali]

30. Look, I wasn't trying to be contentious, I was

attempting to understand your point. And although what you stated is crystal clear to YOU, it wasn't to me, ergo it wasn't crystal clear. When I write, I want people to understand my point. If I write something that is perfectly clear to me, but elicits a question from another, the onus is on me to clarify. Evidently, our standards are different.

[bemildred]

34. You're perfectly right, it was sloppy of me.

The point is that the original post, in the headline, conflates "right to exist" with "refuse to recognize", which are entirely separate ideas. I did a sort of pun on that, being unintentionally sloppy because I did not read the OP much, else I would have understood your point better. One could say the headline mislead me, as it was intended to, by suggesting that Hamas disputes Israel's "right to exist" when in fact it merely refuses to recognize it or talk to it. (That is interesting, as I said before, because in terms of reaching a settlement, it's a step backward from the situation under Arafat and Fatah, since the Oslo accords. So Sharon and his policies have moved the peace process backwards.)

The other side of it is that political entities have no right to exist at all, they rule at the pleasure of their subjects. Does the USSR have a right to exist? Does Communist China? In what would that right consist but being secure in power and able to defend itself from ambitious candidates to replace it?

My apologies to you personally.

[cali]

42. Thank you very much.

I now see what you were saying. I agree that refusal to recognize and "right to exist" are plausibly two different concepts, though I thought I read that the Hamas spokesman did say "no right to exist". I can't even remember what was in the OP now. We disagree about right to exist- I don't mean Israel, but the larger question re political entities, but I suspect that much of our disagreement is rooted in semantics.

Again, thanks for the gracious apology.

[Burning Water]

35. In a Darwinian world,

such as we live in, you have the right to exist only so long as you actually do exist. But if you cease to exist for any reason whatever, so does your right to exist.

To decode this statement and apply it to Israel: Israel exists only so long as they can defend themselves. And have the will to do so. Something they are curiously lacking in given the kid gloves they've used to handle the intifada.

[bemildred]

37. More to the point ...

Everyone and everything is ephemeral, nothing lasts forever, and political entities tend not to last long at all.

[Burning Water]

33. A point that

seems amazingly hard for many people to understand. I agree completely.

[bemildred]

36. Well, given the forgoing conversation ...

It's nice to have a confirmation that I'm not completely opaque.
:hi:

[Burning Water]

40. Good morning bemildred.

No, I've never found you opaque. Nor completely transparent, either. I've often enjoyed your comments. :) :toast:

[cali]

38. Clearly I lack your stunning perspicacity.

Seriously, this is nonsense. X makes a statement. Y asks X to explain what he/she meant because, sorry, it wasn't as obvious as "the sky is blue". X refuses to expound by saying his/her statement was obvious. A clear example of both how not to make your point and how not to engage in a dialogue- although it may very well be that X had no desire to engage in a dialogue.

[Burning Water]

41. So why the sarcasm?

I was trying to help you out. (see post 35)

Also, FYI. I wasn't referring to you specifically. There are a LOT of people in this forum that think Israel has no right to defend itself.

[ShockediSay]

43. Does Palestine have a right to exist? n/t