Quote:
Today, Haaretz reported "Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said on Monday that Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to 'live in peace' within 1967 borders. He also said the Islamist group would willing to accept a peace deal initiated by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas if it were favored in a national referendum."
However, if one reads through the article one finds the proverbial "fine print" that offers a material detail. The article continues, "Abu Zuhri [Sami Abu Zuhri, a senior Hamas leader] also noted that Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, would regard any future Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War, as 'transitional'." In other words, what President Carter hailed as a breakthrough would merely constitute a "transitional" situation according to Hamas. It would not represent a permanent peace.
|
In fact, 'transitional' does not peace cannot be achieved. It simply means that Hamas's long term will always be a unitary state. Sounds a bit unreasonable doesnt it?
But did you know that even after the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland Sinn Fein has not given up its goal to unite Ireland? It simply intends to win its objective by the ballot box instead. Knowing that the long term demographics are on its side. Yet peace is still achieved. This is likely to be Hamas's thinking also.
If anything, the "transitional" situation would merely constitute one of the severe preconditions Hamas attempted to impose on Israel as outlined in an op-ed written by Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas (
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle...post1057589301 (Zahar's Op-ed Highlights Hamas' Rejectionism)).
The points made in this thread have been countered quite effectively also, so I recommend readers to indeed look at this thread. Its a good debate.
BB