Hamas official says group would lay down its arms if an independent Palestinian state is established

https://lemmy.world/post/14679784

Hamas official says group would lay down its arms if an independent Palestinian state is established - Lemmy.World

A top Hamas political official told The Associated Press the Islamic militant group is willing to agree to a truce of five years or more with Israel and that it would lay down its weapons and convert into a political party if an independent Palestinian state is established along pre-1967 borders.

If you consider that Hamas only exists to fight against Israeli oppression over an ineffective PA, it makes sense that if the oppression ends, Hamas becomes irrelevant.
It’s important to note that for most of its existence, “fighting against Israeli oppression” explicitly meant Israel no longer existing. This is the first time I can remember them even implying that they would accept a two state solution.
Well, they did fuck around and find out. Now they are facing an existential threat of their own and suddenly reasonable?
they accepted a two-state solution previously, the isreali PM that was negotiating with them at the time was assassinated.
Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli law student who didn’t believe in the peace talks. Hamas didn’t even kill him, Israel did it. No fucking surprise there.
Hamas was also not in power back then, in no position to accept or reject any solution.

You saying Israel killed him is like saying Palestine committed Oct. 7th’s terrorist attack.

Israel didn’t kill the guy, a lone Israeli student did. This is one of those times when facts and nuance matter.

Better check that history video again. It wasn’t Hamas at that table

That was in the 70’s, he was killed by a student, not the government.

And the PA, including Yasser Arafat, have turned it down 4 or 5 times. Yasser Arafat turned it down last time in 2002/2004(?). They have never taken it seriously.

If Arafat wasn’t serious about negotiations, why sit down at all and risk his position in the PLO? For decades the ‘Three Nos’ stunted any Arab-Israeli diplomacy, and the maximalists still hold sway today as they did then

Israel refused the right of return for Palestinians as a whole, while for decades doing all within their power to boost Jewish immigration, bankroll Aliyah flights, rubber stamp naturalization, and regular ‘missionary’ trips to visit US and European nations - all only for ethnic Jews, and their spouses.

A two-tiered system based on race is hardly a fair deal, especially in a democratic system where your people are denied fair representation whilst Jew from the world over are invited to jump on a plane and become a full citizen after three months

Khartoum Resolution - Wikipedia

Camp Davis and the Oslo Accords were a way for Israel to change the De Facto annexation of the West Bank into a De Juro annexation. While giving the PA a ‘semblence’ of a state still under Israeli Military Control. There was no offer of a sovereign state, nor of right of return. Arafat didn’t reject a Two-State Solution, he walked away from a verbal ‘offer’ of taking 90% (later ~80% once written up in Oslo) of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, while ignoring all Palestinian wants such as Right of Return and Sovereignty with an end to Occupation.

Camp David: a tragedy of errors - The Guardian

[Deconstructing Camp David](www.aljazeera.com/…/deconstructing-camp-david wet) - Al Jazeera

What Really Happened Between Barak and Arafat at Camp David? - Haaretz

Camp David: a tragedy of errors

Blaming Arafat for the failure of the peace process is a dangerous mistake.

The Guardian
Every offer has been in bad faith, though, designed to be a non-starter so that Israel could claim they tried.

they accepted a two-state solution previously, the isreali PM that was negotiating with them at the time was assassinated.

That was Fatah, not Hamas. Hamas was irrelevant back in the 90s and didn’t rise to prominence until the mid-2000s.

Before 1948, Palestinian Leadership repeatedly advocated for a Unitary Binational State for decades: Palestinian Arab Congress advocating for Unified State 1928, Arab Higher Committee advocating for Unified State 1937, Arab League advocating for Unified State 1948

After the founding of Israel, the Two-State Solutions were utilized to further annex the Palestinian Occupied Territories and enact military control over Palestinians while denying them human and civil rights. This is apartheid. Despite this, both Fatah and Hamas have accepted a Two-State Solution on the 1967 borders, with the two most important factors being the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees and an end to the permanent occupation.

Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ

History of peace process - The Intercept

The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.

  • Avi Shlaim

How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution

‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe

One State Solution, Foreign Affairs

Palestinian Arab Congresses | Encyclopedia.com

PALESTINIAN ARAB CONGRESSES seven congresses convened by palestinian arab politicians between 1919 and 1928 to oppose pro-zionist british policies and gain independence. Source for information on Palestinian Arab Congresses: Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa dictionary.

They wanted a unified Arab state, and they wanted the non-Arab immigrants out

And failing that, they tried to put a genocide on them

Small details, I know

They wanted a unified Arab state, and they wanted the non-Arab immigrants out

It’s true they wanted it to be an Arab state, since the vast majority were Arab. It’s not that they wanted ‘non-arab immigrants’ out, it’s that Zionist Settler Colonialism was quite different from normal immigration. Instead of integration, the early land purchases led to the expulsion of tens of thousands of Palestinians in the early 1900’s. Many Palestinians opposed the Zionist Land Purchases and Immigration because of fears they would be forced out of their homes and communities, not because they were Jewish.

The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948

Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.

And failing that, they tried to put a genocide on them

Are you talking about the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians? Because that was planned and carried out. There was nothing remotely equivalent from Palestinians or the Arab Liberation Army.

It’s true they wanted it to be an Arab state, since the vast majority were Arab

If you have sympathy for that argument, what’s the difference with jewish people who want the same? Both wanted to be the first class citizens in their country.

the early land purchases led to the expulsion of tens of thousands of Palestinians in the early 1900’s

That’s true, but it’s not different from renters who are forced out after their landlord sells the property. It’s not a ‘nice’ part of humanity, but it’s generally accepted as ‘fair’. Of course it’s true that most zionist immigrants had no plans to integrate with non-jews. Partly because of their own religious backwardness, partly because they moved there specifically to escape religious oppression.

There was nothing remotely equivalent from Palestinians or the Arab Liberation Army

There certainly was: Nebi Musa riots; 1929 Palestine Riots; etc. certainly showed the intent of many Palestinian Arabs to put an ethnic cleansing on the jews.

You’re quite wrong if you don’t think the ALA or others didn’t go in with the same intent. You should look up their logo or statements from their organizers prior to their attack. The only reason one side won is because the other side lost

1920 Nebi Musa riots - Wikipedia

They said they would accept 1967 borders in their 2017 charter, so it’s been done before. It was also less antisemitic than their previous charter. I think they’re trying to be less extreme and more flexible to get more recruitment maybe, but that’s just my guess.
They’ve publicly held this position for nearly 20 years now. When they publicly adopted it and got elected as the new Palestinian Authority because of it, Israel immediately declared war and prevented them taking power.

4 or 5 other times it was offered and every time it was shot down by the PA because either it wasn’t from the river to the sea or all jews have to leave.

It was never about sharing, it was about keeping it all to themselves.

That’s a chicken and egg problem, though, isn’t it: Netanyahu’s government wants Hamas because the conflict keeps Bibi out of prison, and Hamas wants to remain relevant. All the same, the Israeli and Palestinian people are the ones who suffer due to both regimes being in power, and Hamas doesn’t shed its guilt just because Israel doesn’t want a reasonable Palestinian government. Neither side wants to blink because they have multi-generational hatred for the other side, and that means popular support for further violence probably isn’t going anywhere. You back down! No, you back down!

The result is that neither side is going to take real steps to deescalate, because both sides benefit from the conflict. That the Palestinians are suffering more, by orders of magnitude, doesn’t make either side’s position any less entrenched: Bibi wants to stay in power (and free), and Hamas wants to remain relevant and in power, and they’re more justified now than ever. Both regimes need to be replaced.

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’

-Article 7 of Hamas’ founding charter

They were founded to kill Jews and push them out of Palestine. They’re not righteous freedom fighters.

“Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one.”

-prayer of Sheik Ahmad Bahr

They’re just as genocidal as Israel has been as of late, they just lack the same capability Israel does.

Hamas began twenty years into the occupation during the first Intifada, with the goal of ending the occupation. Collective punishment has been a deliberate Israeli tactic for decades with the Dahiya doctrine. Violence such as suicide bombings and rockets escalated in response to Israeli enforcement of the occupation and apartheid.

Hamas 1988 Charter and Revised 2017 Charter

The 1988 Charter, which is certainly unreasonable in its fundamentalism with Sharia Law and is antisemitic, does not call for the extermination of all Jewish People. Hamas wants an end to Israel as an Apartheid State, not an extermination of all Israelis. Under Ahmed Yassin in the 1990’s, truces were offered in exchange for Israeli to withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank to the 1967 borders. The 2017 Revised charter explicitly accepts a Two-State Solution of the 1967 Borders. Check Article 7 and 13 of the 1988 Charter to see yourself, compare it to Article 20 and 24-26 in the revised charter.

The slogan From the River to the Sea is about Palestinian liberation that started in the 60s by the PLO for a democratic secular state, not Genocide. The Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad in 1966 maybe, but he’s not Palestinian.

History of Hamas supported by Netanyahu since 2012

No I don’t support Hamas as a ruling party, I want Palestinians to be able to have free fair elections.

Dahiya doctrine - Wikipedia

Thanks for the links, I’ll give this a read later today.
I think that person you’re replying to’s point is they won’t be able to recruit at the same right without the huge group of angry, oppressed people that Israel keeps producing.

Hamas exists because it and Islamic Jihad are the militant wings of The Muslim Brotherhood, a group founded in WWII as unit of the Waffen-SS Afrikakorp.

Their goal was and always has been the death of every single Jew on the planet.

Holy misinformation batman.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Ismailia in March 1928 along with six workers of the Suez Canal Company, as a Pan-Islamic, religious, political, and social movement.

They were opposed to colonialism, both in the form of British occupation and the threat of Zionism - the direct result of which we’re seeing today.

They did side with the axis powers in WW2, but we’ve seen that elsewhere: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army - the logic being that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Muslim Brotherhood - Wikipedia

Exactly. I can’t understand why people clutch their pearls at brown people siding with the Axis while accepting as an unfortunate side story the same thing from, say, Finland and nationalists in the Baltics or Ukraine.

Hamas has lied about peace and democracy in the past. They became the state of Palestine by winning an election in which they promised to stop attacks on civilians and be democratic, then refusing to hold an election for 2 decades.

Israel is a genocidal regime and needs to be stopped. But that doesn’t make Hamas the good guys. A long-term solution can’t include the current governments of either Israel or Palestine.

Hamas won an election in 2007, which no other country accepted the results of. Israel responded with a blockade. Not saying they’re the good guys but it’s not like it’s a level playing field.
What! They “won” an election that nobody outside HAMAS found legitimate??? And then the country they promise to exterminate reacted? No way!?!?!?!?

Don’t let facts get in your way:

en.wikipedia.org/…/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e…

International observers noted that the elections, for the most part, were conducted fairly and in accordance with international standards.

There were some reports of voter obstruction - caused by Israel.

2006 Palestinian legislative election - Wikipedia

Yes also don’t forget that Fatah immediately led a coup against them, with public support and arms from Israel and support from US.
Quite a long term they have, 17 years and counting.

I thought we don’t accept the results of the election?

Immediately after the election, Fatah, with US and Israeli support dismissed the Hamas government, which Hamas obviously disagreed with.

At this point there’s a stalemate where we (the West) and Fatah don’t recognize the Hamas government and Hamas can’t call an election because they have not officially governed.

Nothing is stopping them from holding another election. There’s clearly a desire for one, since Hamas has violently quelled dissent in the past.

The fact of the matter is that Hamas is looking out for Hamas, and that they haven’t held elections in 14 years heavily underscores that.

To be absolutely clear, Israel is still the greater evil here. But that doesn’t mean that Hamas isn’t an authoritarian dictatorship either.

HAMAS exists to exterminate Isreal and its inhabitants. Their offer is ‘free Palestine, let us be the dominant political party, and let us form and official national army, then we chill for 5 years! Don’t worry what we might do after that!’

Hamas isn’t going to just die out if they win. Isreal would be suicidal if they agreed to the ‘deal’.

Hamas ran in the 2006 election under a completely different name, in an effort to demonstrate that they can in fact separate themselves from their militant faction.

Remember, Israel also had its origins in armed struggle (against the British).

Oke, and Israel exists to exterminate Palestinians and other arabs in their holy quest for greater Israel. Why is Israel continuing to settle the West Bank if Hamas is the big bad?
Two issues. The first is that they aren’t going to get pre-1967 borders. The larger more important point though is that Hamas just admitted they aren’t a legitimate government power and are actually terrorists instead. Own goal.

Terrorism is a verb.

Terrorists are people that commit terrorism.

Official count is now 42,000 dead Palestinians, but that is because the ability to count the dead no longer exists. The number is probably closer to 100,000

Israeli doctors have come forward to detail how amputations are regular for Palestinians prisons who have been zip tied for months now.

Any definition of terrorism that includes Hamas, also includes the Israeli government.

You're at the very least anti-partsofspeech.
You just got downvoted for correctly realizing that terrorism is literally a noun. Strange times.
My comment was terrorismed.

I didn’t downvote you, but I didn’t understand your comment are all. But, I probably couldn’t diagram a sentence anymore.

But, at the risk of being stupid here, wouldn’t terrorist be the noun and terrorism the verb?

Terrorist is someone who uses violence against a civilian population to enact political change, and terrorism is the act of using violence against a civilian population to enact change?

Thanks for asking. I respect that.

Terrorism is a noun. It is the use or act of political violence to create fear in a populace. It's a little tricky because those sound like doing something, which would be a verb. But we're describing the thing those people are doing.

Terrorists do acts of terrorism. People do things. What do they do? They terrorize. They terrorized. They will terrorize. She terrorizes. That's the verb.

Terroristic would be the adjective.

Huh, okay, I think I see where you are coming from.

The only issue I have with trouble with understanding is that I don’t think terrorism and terrorize can be considered the same word.

If I’m a terrorist, I do a terrorism, I don’t terrorize.

Similarly, I terrorize my cats when the get poop on a paw with water, but I don’t commit a terroristic act against them when I wash their feet

Of course, I think most of that comes from creaturely a poorly defined word with an amorphous meaning that is based off of, but isn’t, a similar word.

Terror may be a root word for terrorism, but I fell like the definition has changed enough that the conjugation is different

I honestly don’t understand how people who think this is easy can think math is hard.

Than you got your previous response, too. I did find out useful.

It's fair to say "terrorize" isn't a verb that fits well. But then we're left with "doing" being the verb in "doing terrorism." And "terrorism" in that context is a thing - a noun.

Most "isms" are nouns. Mormonism, romanticism, communism, terrorism. Romanticists romanticize and are different than romantics who romance. Communists don't really commune. There's really no Mormonizing.

Thanks for that explanation!
I get that this is the other side of the conflict, but this is a whataboutism. All of that which you wrote can be true without invalidating what the previous person wrote.

When I’ve side is committing a genocide and intentionally killing children then maybe, just maybe, is important to call that out.

What the OP did was try to justify an ongoing genocide by calling the other side terrorists.

That is what you defending by calling responses to that as whataboutism. Good job.

One side? Both sides are doing this. The details are different, but both sides are being evil here.
Hamas did some war crimes by taking civilians as hostages, which is bad, I condemn them, etc. But they aren’t perpetrating a genocide like Israel is. It’s two very different scales of evil here, and it’s important to point that out.
Not for lack of trying, which you people intentionally ignore to suit your own narrative.
Since it’s inception, putting a genocide on the jews has been a stated goal of Hamas. They glorified those that put this into practice. The only reason they haven’t been as effective as the zionists is their lack of respective capability. But the evil is the same

What the OP did was try to justify an ongoing genocide by calling the other side terrorists.

I don’t believe that is what their comment was implying at all. Again, both things can be true. Hamas can be terrorists and Israel can be guilty of exceptionally disproportionate violence fueling an agenda of unforgivable genocide.

Reality doesn’t exist in black and white.

The number is probably closer to 100,000

Based on what exactly?

Based on time under starvation conditions, the mass graves the IDF seems constitutionally incapable of not leaving behind, and counts of missing family members.

It is interesting that Lemmy is so small that I can recognize the usernames of genocide easily so easily.

Tell me: is there any line crossed, any action taken by the IDF that you wouldn’t automatically defend?

Do you think it is right that Palestinians prisoners should be zip tied long enough that their limbs die and need too be cut off?

Based on time under starvation conditions, the mass graves the IDF seems constitutionally incapable of not leaving behind, and counts of missing family members.

Can you share your methodology of calculating this number? You are not basing this on anything but your gut-feeling. Given how most of your comments consist of blindly parroting propaganda instead of even trying to form any in-depth understanding of this topic, that's not surprising. Hell, you once attacked me for trying to bring nuance into this debate, at which point I was done with you for that day, because could there be anything more intellectually bankrupt?

is there any line crossed, any action taken by the IDF that you wouldn’t automatically defend?

Sure thing. If orders to deliberately exterminating Palestinians came to light, that would certainly be it. Those should exist if the goal of the IDF, as frequently claimed by people like you who make up fantasy numbers to then feel outraged about, was genocide. Of course, this clashes with various efforts of the same IDF to prevent Palestinian civilians from being harmed, which is kind of odd, don't you think?

So either they are using e.g. roof knocking and a whole range of other warning measures just for PR-purposes (even though it significantly hurts their military efforts and their PR - Hamas can escape and the moment any building is being roof-knocked, dozens of cameras are immediately on it in order to film it, with lots of people feeling perfectly safe, trusting that this building and only this building will be hit; strange that) or the truth isn't as simple as you are so desperately trying to make it be. You haven't exactly been writing particularly well thought out comments on this topic at any point. Not that this limits your enthusiasm for your self-righteous preaching. Dunning, meet Kruger.

Do you think it is right that Palestinians prisoners should be zip tied long enough that their limbs die and need too be cut off?

No, but good job trying distracting from your fantasy numbers. This might constitute criminal neglect. Those responsible should be punished and measures should be undertaken to prevent this from occurring. While internal review processes are far from perfect at the IDF, they do at least exist and are being applied. Two senior officers responsible for ordering the recent air strikes on aid workers were sacked, for example. The same could happen here as well.