donsutherland1

Today, Haaretz reported:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will meet in the coming weeks with top Hamas official Khaled Meshal in Damascus, a Lebanese daily reported on Thursday.

On Wednesday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called for the first time for renewed dialogue with Hamas without demanding the militant Islamic group first relinquish control of Gaza.

Hamas has steadfastly rejected Israel's right to exist on which any peace agreement must be based. The Hamas Charter also declares:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment 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...

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion.

Such a move by President Abbas would constitute a serious blow to peace prospects given Hamas' rejectionist positions. Any partnership with Hamas would undermine the credibility that the Palestinian leadership seeks a state that would to co-exist with Israel given Hamas' position on Israel's existence.

All said, this latest development, if in fact President Abbas carries it forward, would make it necessary for Israel to consider alternative solutions based on the idea that President Abbas may, in fact, turn out not to be a viable Palestinian partner for peace. It would be essential that Israel have a strategy should Israel need to wait until the emergence of new Palestinian leadership.

For now, this is an evolving and uncertain situation that bears watching.

G-Man

As the democratically elected leaders of Palestine, any agreement reached without the inclusion of Hamas would be useless. Whilst Abbas may be commited to a peace agreement any deal he reaches, which is not agreed to by Hamas, is pointless.

To this end it would be imperative for him to engage in conversation with Hamas and try to get them to change (or at least modify) their position re: Israel. By ignoring Hamas (and their supporters) no long term peace plan will be possible.

By trying to bring Hamas into the discussions and any resultant peace plan, this would seem to be the best way for him to bring about an agreement which the Palestinians would not just accept but also abide by.

I'm not entirely sure why you think this is a bad idea? Abbas has not given in and agreed with the Hamas ideology - he is simply trying to bring them into the peace plan.

To put it another way - do you think a peace plan will have a better chance if Hamas has agreed to it or not?

donsutherland1

G-Man

So do you think an agreement is possible (or worthwhile) without their inclusion or not?

The Hamas position needs to change for sure but the chances of it changing by excluding Hamas from the picture are very remote. They will only change if they are a part of the discussions and indeed their 'approval' of any peace plan would be a must if we are serious about the plan working.

This is not to say that all their demands must be met, in fact they should not be. But to simply ignore them (as the elected government) and they try to implement a peace plan which they have not agree to would be foolish to say the least.

donsutherland1

G-Man

I shall reply to the above shortly but I am interested - you post numerous threads commenting on the Palestinians not engaging the peace process but have not commentated at all on the thread I put up showing the complete Israeli disregard for the peace process. Is it just a case of turning a blind eye?

Tashah

I can't speak for Don of course, but I can comment on my own behalf.

Neither side has embraced and/or implemented all facets of the Road Map. I personally believe that the Road Map became a moot vehicle for moving forward when Hamas partitioned Palestine. Since the Palestinians in-toto either cannot or will not adhere to the Road Map, I see no sensible reason for Israel to be bound by its constraints either. It's a simple either/or scenario. Either both sides meet their pertinint sign-post goals, or these lofty goals are rendered into useless and moot objectives.

__________________

donsutherland1

G-Man,

As I have argued in the past, reciprocity is key to success with respect to agreements. One side simply cannot reasonably expect that when it fails to honor its obligations that the other side will do so. That's the way human nature is.

In my opinion, if the Palestinians seek Israel to let's say cease new settlement construction, the Palestinians will need to give Israel something substantive in return e.g., something to address Israel's security needs such as initiating a campaign to disarm Hamas, among other options.

G-Man

I'd agree but Hamas are not going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly change their mind. This will only be brought about by discussion with others - particularly Abbas - yet you criticize him for doing so. If you truely want this to happen you should be praising Abbas for trying to bring Hamas into the peace discussions and change their position, not saying this is damaging to the peace process.

Interestingly though you say "If a party does not recognize the other's legitimacy", yet Israel has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the democratically elected Palestinian government.

Yes but this applies to both sides. Neither have shown a desire to stop their violence to the other yet. Its strange that Hamas can only join peace talks if it stops violence but Israel it not under any such requirement - BOTH should be compelled to do so.

Exactly what agreements are you referring to?

I have never said Hamas have done all they could, for sure they have not.

How about the other side of the coin though. The minimal step Israel could take to bringing forward the peace agreement is to stop building more settlements. In fact this requires Israel to actually do NOTHING - yet they refuse to do this and have never stopped this behaviour. If Israel cannot do the very minimum which is asked of it then we must seriously consider its commitment to any peace plan.

G-Man

This is fine, other opinions are always welcome.

Which is kind of my point. Israel has not complied with its requirements under the road map yet Don criticizes Palestinians for doing exactly the same thing. To list all the instances where Palestinians have not acted in accordance with peace agreements yet ignore each and every such act from Israel does not reflect a fair position of what is occuring.

He seems to be trying to paint the picture that peace is not progressing because of Palestinian acts only. As I highlighted in the other thread Israel is doing to plenty to halt the peace programme by its own actions.

Also, I would not agree that Hamas has partitioned Palestine. They are the elected government that the people voted for and in any other case the people of Fatah who refuse to hand over authority to the elected government would be labelled criminals or terrorists.