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.

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).

Adding to the information that Hamas did not accept peace with Israel, today's edition of the Jerusalem Post reported:

The former president added that Hamas would not undermine Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum.

However Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Carter's comments "do not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum."

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 The former president added that Hamas would not undermine Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. However Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Carter's comments "do not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum." [/left]

My Web Profile Page

The real reason that Israel does not want to negotiate with Hamas has nothing to do with terrorism. Olmert has made this clear in an interview he gave as Minister of Industry and Trade in 2003: "We are approaching the point where more and more Palestinians will say: we have been won over. We agree with [National Union leader Avigdor] Lieberman. There is no room for two states between the Jordan and the sea. All that we want is the right to vote. The day they do that, is the day we lose everything. Even when they carry out terror, it is very difficult for us to persuade the world of the justice of our cause. We see this on a daily basis. All the more so when there is only one demand: an equal right to vote.... The thought that the struggle against us will be headed by liberal Jewish organizations who shouldered the burden of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa scares me." Olmert makes important point, that Israel feels that its future as a Jewish state is threatened by a "demographic time-bomb"; that if they fail to impose their own unilateral settlement on the Palestinians---by seizing land and creating de facto borders--Jews will eventually become a minority in Israel. This's the fear that's driving the policy, not racism or terrorism. Olmert is merely implementing Ariel Sharon's policy of "disengagement" which cuts off all real dialog with the Palestinians and imposes a unilateral settlement. That's why Carter has been treated so brusquely; his trip just draws attention to the intransigence of Israeli policy.

That is not correct.

From the Mike Whitney opinion piece: On Friday, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Hamas Foreign Minister, Mahmoud al-Zahar which clearly articulates the position of Hamas. It is well worth reading in its entirety.

If one then goes to the Zahar op-ed (about which there is a thread in this subforum), one finds that Zahar wrote, "Our movement fights on because we cannot allow the foundational crime at the core of the Jewish state...to slip out of world consciousness, forgotten or negotiated away." The "foundational crime" is a reference to Israel's re-establishment. In that op-ed, Zahar reaffirmed Hamas' rejection of Israel's right to exist (the "foundational crime" to which he referred and said could not be "negotiated away").

So, it is not a matter of "Zionists" who oppose "real peaceful" solutions, it is Hamas that continues to reject Israel's right to exist. Terms of peace that require Israel's elimination--or that of any sovereign state for that matter--are unreasonable. Unfortunately, while Mr. Whitney recommended that Mr. Zahar's op-ed be read "in its entirety," he ignored the crucial language in that piece that reaffirmed Hamas' opposition to Israel's continued existence.

Tashah,

I agree. Informationclearinghouse is a well-known anti-Israel site. Its content has little to do with trying to assess the facts and circumstances of the historic dispute. It is not surprising that Mr. Whitney omitted Mr. Zahar's key point. Otherwise, Mr. Whitney's argument that Israeli policy was precluding peace would not be viable.

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.

Originally Posted by Bad Biscuit 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.

Originally Posted by Tashah Mr. Carter sees and hears only what he wishes to see and hear.