Can anyone tell me why?
i don’t know much about this issue so hopefully someone more knowledgeable will come along to correct me. Here’s how i perceive the answer to your question:
-
Although many of Sharon’s cabinet members have rejected - outright - a viable Palestinian state, technically the ‘roadmap’ declares an attempt to reach a “permanent two-state solution”, of “an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel”. This would entail that the land taken away from the Palestinians (British Mandate) in 1948, and some (or 2/3?) of the land occupied by Israel since 1967, would not be returned to the Palestinians - two states, Palestine and Israel, would technically be living side-by-side. Hamas, as i understand it, wants not just a return to the 1967 borders, but a full return to the 1948 borders (i.e., prior to the official establishment of the State of Israel and usurping of Palestinian lands).
-
Under the terms of the ‘roadmap’, Palestinian groups such as Hamas (and others) would have to disarm their weapons - which Hamas has already stated they will not do so for as long as Israeli military operations persist in the West Bank and Gaza. They also insist that settlement building must cease - something that i believe was written in the original version of the ‘roadmap’ but i think Sharon wants to dilute that demand.
-
Right of refugees to return - remember that, during the Israeli cabinet meetings that were just recently held in order to debate Israel’s acceptance (or not) of this ‘roadmap’, one of the thorniest issues was Palestinian refugees’ right to return. In order to approve the ‘roadmap’, Sharon had to obtain approval from the majority of his cabinet members - there was an explicit rejection of Palestinian refugees’ right to return, (their right to return is one of the demands of groups such as Hamas and even moderate Palestinian groups). The compromised wording Sharon’s cabinet eventually agreed upon was that “the resolution of the issue of the refugees will not include their entry into or settlement within the state of Israel.” I.e., the refugees are free to go anywhere else just as long as they don’t return to their original homes.
If you want to read more about this, this is a good analysis.
Yup, Nadz got it right.. If I were to answer, since I've been in a cynical mood lately, and it's always fun to oversimplify things, I'd say this:
Take each point on which the Israeli extremists object, find that point's inverse and you have the answer..
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
They also insist that settlement building must cease - something that i believe was written in the original version of the 'roadmap' but i think Sharon wants to dilute that demand.
[/QUOTE]
This may be the only time you will find me defending Sharon.. but I seriously doubt that he, personally, stands behind the settlements. We have to remember, he is a military man. No officer grade veteran, especially one with the knowledge and experience he has, could ever argue their case on fact alone. The settlements are an indefensible liability that gives insufficient returns with respect to cost--financially, politically, and most of all, strategically. It is the strong but minor voice of the Israeli rightwing extremists that provide that indispensible voter bloc to Sharon's party; much like the same phenomenon in America that sustains some of our more insane policies.
hello,i from china,this is my first psot
in my opinion,
Israel is a superpower in MIddest east,it can beat all arabic countries' army,and USA support Israel,
palestan is a poor and weak nation,so Israel can do anything .
Palestan people can only accept it.
i am sorry for my english.
Welcome, morecool. Pakistanis always has a warm welcome for our Chinese friends :)
I must say, though, that your comment here is not entirely correct. The Palestinians have managed to significantly damage the Israeli economy - Israel's economy has never been worse than it currein all of Israel's history. By forcing Israel to over-spend on its military, the Palestinians are trapping Israel in a an economic quagmire.
Israel is getting trapped in a situation where in order to avoid increaing poverty, it will have to agree to a peace plan together with the Palestinians. The Palestinians may not have any military powers, but the have managed to spectacularly burst Israel's economic bubble.
oh wow mad you are a mod now..thats cool..congrats
and i must say that was a very good post..i didnt know their economy was getting this bad..its good though i hope they can have peace now with the palestinians
You're right Nadia. We have to remember that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and they will die for their cause and fight for their cause and God forbid they should ever compromise. Hamas has said time and again they want the entire Palestinian land or nothing at all, that's why they were so opposed to the Oslo Peace Process. They believe it's Palestinian waqf to occupy the land and they will continue to carry out terrorist activity even if negotiations get underway.
well, the Prophet (pbuh), made peace with the jews. Why can't hamas? oh wait, they don't know how to do anything other than fight....
when it get down to negotiations, I'm sure palestinians would fare better if they could control all these groups hell bent on destroying Israel.
israel is there now and its here to stay. the idea that the arabs can somehow get the land back is retarded. they should accept the situation, and try and make the situation at hand better.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by nomaan: *
well, the Prophet (pbuh), made peace with the jews. Why can't hamas? oh wait, they don't know how to do anything other than fight....
when it get down to negotiations, I'm sure palestinians would fare better if they could control all these groups hell bent on destroying Israel.
israel is there now and its here to stay. the idea that the arabs can somehow get the land back is retarded. they should accept the situation, and try and make the situation at hand better.
[/QUOTE]
Prophet also migrated from makkah to madina. should palestinians also do the same and go somewhere else?
hamas is fighting for a just cause. its their land and no one can take it away from them. they are fighting for their home and they have every right to do so. Hats off to hamas for fighting against the opressors.
**
hmmm interesting point, Spoon. You are probably accurate. i should have been more careful when i stated that “Sharon wants to dilute” the settlement issue. 
You are probably accurate, his voter bloc may hinge upon the “strong but minor voice” of the rightwing Israeli extremists.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by EntityParadigm: *
Prophet also migrated from makkah to madina. should palestinians also do the same and go somewhere else?
hamas is fighting for a just cause. its their land and no one can take it away from them. they are fighting for their home and they have every right to do so. Hats off to hamas for fighting against the opressors.
[/QUOTE]
What i'm saying is that, fighting will not lead to peace. arab forces are no match for israel. they just might end up losing more land if they try to retake their lands. blame america all you want for arming israel. point is, palestinians are not going to get anywhere by fighting.
There are times when you fight, and there are times when you try and end a conflict.
Hamas, on the other hand is all for fighting. They won't have it anyother way. Even if the palestinians themselves want peace, and want this conflict to end, Hamas will be like, we won't stop.
Thanks All for all your input everyone…appreciated…
I think Hamas has hit Israel hard…and I can’t trust Sharon that he’s in for peace…
Hamas also builds hospitals and schools as i have heard…their intentions are all for terror then?..hmmm
Morecool…ni jiu jia nali a?..Welcome…
maddy…you 've become a mod…congrats…
has Hamas put forth any peace plans?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by nomaan: *
has Hamas put forth any peace plans?
[/QUOTE]
Hamas does not accept the right of Israel to exist. Their version of a peace plan is to push Israel into the sea. Their violent actions in the name of religion have caused their terrortories to be occupied and their people oppressed in Israel's attempt to protect her citizens lives.
From their charter: Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.
Article 3 - They have raised the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors in order to extricate the country and the people from the [oppressors'] desecration, filth and evil
Article 7 - *The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim). *
Article 13 - There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
* Although many of Sharon's cabinet members have rejected - outright - a viable Palestinian state, technically the 'roadmap' declares an attempt to reach a "permanent two-state solution", of "an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel". This would entail that the land taken away from the Palestinians (British Mandate) in 1948, and some (or 2/3?) of the land occupied by Israel since 1967, would not be returned to the Palestinians - two states, Palestine **and* Israel, would technically be living side-by-side. Hamas, as i understand it, wants not just a return to the 1967 borders, but a full return to the 1948 borders (i.e., prior to the official establishment of the State of Israel and usurping of Palestinian lands).
[/QUOTE]
That is simply flat out wrong and/or historical revisionism. There were no borders before the Partition in 1948 that recognized the existence of a place called Palestine that belonged to Palestinians. The Partition in 1948 created the borders from which both Israel and Palestine would theoretically emerge creating two states. Land was not ** taken away ** from anyone. Land that did not belong to anyone at the time was in fact ** given ** to both sides. The Arabs did not recognize the gift given to either the Palestinians or the Israelis, went to war with the newly created state of Israel and the Palestinians have been homeless since.
The allocation of land to the Palestinians and the Israelis in 1948 followed on the heels of allocations of land that also created Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.
Hamas does not recognize a two state solution and will not recognize the existence of a state of Israel ** on any borders in the region. ** Not the 1967 borders and not the ones created in 1948.
Land was not taken away from anyone. Land that did not belong to anyone at the time was in fact given to both sides<<
by whom?
The Arabs did not recognize the **gift **given to either the Palestinians or the Israelis<<
As if the ARabs where different from the Palestinians at that time. At that time the ARabs where given chunks of Arabia in the name of Syria, Eye-Rak, Trans-Jordan, Saudi Arabia. I really don’t blame the ARabs for the gifts, they have served their masters well.
anyone know the history and orgins of hamas? I mean i know it was created as a alternative to PLO to decrease PLO strength ..but beyond that?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MiniMe: *
Land was not taken away from anyone. Land that did not belong to anyone at the time was in fact given to both sides<<
by whom?
[/QUOTE]
By the UN. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations basically administered the land of the Middle East. The UN took over for the League of Nations. They carved it up and called one chunk Syria, another Lebanon, another TransJordan, etc. Interestingly, one of the biggest opponents of recognizing any body of land as "Palestine" was Syria. They claimed historical rights to much of it as did the Jordanians. The Arabs didn't go to war in 1948 to preserve land for the Palestinians. They went to war to grab the land for their own.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MiniMe: *
The Arabs did not recognize the **gift **given to either the Palestinians or the Israelis<<
As if the ARabs where different from the Palestinians at that time. At that time the ARabs where given chunks of Arabia in the name of Syria, Eye-Rak, Trans-Jordan, Saudi Arabia. I really don’t blame the ARabs for the gifts, they have served their masters well.
[/QUOTE]
If I understand you correctly, (and I think I do), I agree. In 1948, there was not any unified Arab position regarding creating a Palestinian homeland. What existed was Arab nationalism. None of the Arab states gave much consideration to any of the people living in the partitioned land who we now call Palestinians. Shoot, when Jordan grabbed the West Bank, do you remember what they called the Arab people living there who were now under Jordanian rule? They called them Jordanians. There was no Arab hue and cry to liberate the Palestinian people from the Jordanian occupation. The very concept of there being a group of people called "Palestinians" is a recent invention that only came into play once the Arab states realized they would not be able to destroy Israel and seize a bunch of territory for themselves.
This is my point as well MV the very people we are calling Jordanins and Syrians, Saudis and Iraqis are all recent invention. They were there serving thier masters, and are still doing that.
By the UN. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations basically administered the land of the Middle East<<
and at that time the league of nations was representing the will and aspirations of the ARabs, I agree.
Pir, ji there are several "mosad" sources, but Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (HAMAS) came in action when there were clear indications from Tunis that the PLO would strike a deal with Israel, before that for almost twenty years they (al Akhwan) were the only reliable source for providing health and education in the occupied lands, especially in Gaza.
Hamas-A mideast peace roadblock
Can one ever negotiate with terrorists? Abbas had the insight to call Sharon out. Only to be stabbed by hamas. Abbas should take hamas out. I am sure he will find support in Israel and many other states.
Hamas Halts Truce Talks With Abbas
By REUTERS
Filed at 7:46 a.m. ET
GAZA (Reuters) - The militant Islamic group Hamas said on Friday it was breaking off talks with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas on ending its attacks on Israelis in a strong challenge to peace pledges he made at a U.S.-led summit.
The announcement set Palestinian hard-liners and Abbas’s new reformist government on a collision course likely to stoke fears of civil war.
We have stopped the dialogue with the Palestinian Authority,'' Hamas founder and spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin told Reuters. This is our choice and we have no alternative. (Armed) resistance will continue.‘’
He said Abbas made unacceptable commitments at the landmark summit in Aqaba, Jordan on Wednesday with President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in which they affirmed initial steps in a ``road map’’ for peace.
Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, called for demilitarization of a 32-month-old Palestinian uprising for independence, effectively advocating an end to an armed struggle for a state.
Bush, cementing his new role as chief Middle East peace mediator after the U.S.-led war in Iraq, won a promise from Sharon to dismantle some settler outposts in the West Bank and endorsement of the creation of a ``viable’’ Palestinian state.
Hamas has spearheaded attacks on Israelis, including dozens of suicide bombings, during the revolt and said Israel must end all occupation before peacemaking can begin.
The road map calls for a halt to Israeli-Palestinian violence and reciprocal confidence-building steps, including a freeze of Jewish settlement expansion on occupied land, leading to establishment of a Palestinian state in 2005.
PALESTINIAN CABINET MINISTER RULES OUT FORCE AGAINST HAMAS
Hoping to avoid confrontation with Hamas, Abbas held truce talks with the group before the Aqaba summit and had expressed confidence he would persuade it to declare a cease-fire in subsequent talks.
Yassin said Hamas was ending dialogue since Abbas ignored at the summit key issues like the right of return of Palestinian refugees to what is now Israel and the future of Jerusalem.
Commenting on the Hamas move, Palestinian cabinet minister Ziad Abu Amr signaled Abbas would do his utmost to steer clear of armed conflict with the group. The government, Abu Amr said, made a commitment ``not to resort to force’’ in internal affairs.
There was no immediate comment by officials in Israel, where government offices were closed for a Jewish holiday.
The peace plan, which the Palestinians accepted and Israel endorsed with a string of reservations, calls on the Palestinian Authority to mount ``effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror.‘’
Such action, the road map says, includes the dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure'' and confiscation of illegal weapons.‘’
Since the summit, Israeli forces have raided a militant hideout in the West Bank city of Tulkarm and destroyed in the southern Gaza Strip two tunnels through which the army said arms were smuggled from Egypt.
``The Israeli enemy continues its raids and they assassinated two people in Tulkarm,‘’ Yassin said, referring to the killing on Thursday of two Hamas men wanted by Israel.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-mideast-hamas.html