Hamas Agrees to Recognize Israel Right to Exist
 |
James Joyner | Friday, April 14, 2006 |
The Palestian Authority’s Hamas government has backed off its previous statements that it would never recognize Israel’s right to exist by saying that they might do it if Israeli agreed to retreat to its 1967 borders. The Jerusalem Post quotes Al-Jazeera:
According to a Thursday report on Al-Jazeera, the Hamas government will recognize Israel if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders. Hamas officials close to Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh expect Haniyeh to announce the change in the organization’s platform in the next few days, Army Radio reported.
Ed Morrissey thinks this great progress:
This would appear to vindicate the hard line approach taken by the US and surprisingly echoed by the EU. Hamas had threatened to get its cash needs fulfilled by other countries in the region, especially Iran, after having the West wash its hands of the Palestinians when they elected Hamas into power. It now looks as though Hamas had its bluff called and perhaps once again proved the historical disregard that Arab nations have always had for the Palestinians.
Except that this essentially moves the “peace process” back to where it was fifteen years ago. Indeed, it is tantamount to saying, “We agree not to go to war with you if you just surrender.”
Jeff Goldstein gets it right:
It tells you something about an organization when it is big news that they’ve decided—provisionally—to acknowledge the right of another state “to exist.” And yet these people still find supporters—at least for their “political” platform—among many Americans and Europeans.
Surely, this is simply a non-starter as a negotiating ploy.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Paradox of Choice Paradoxically Untrue
- Private Forecasters Support Claim That Stimulus Worked
- Entertaining Kids During the Holidays
- How Much Will Escalation Cost?
- No Party of No
- Thought of the Day
- Queer International Studies
- OTB Latenight – r.e.m.
- Krugman on the Debt and Deficits
- A Question About Bonuses and Bailouts
Going from every Jew must die to you must move back to borders that would leave you vulnerable to attack is progress in negotiations. Getting to a point of a viable two state solution and how peace/security is going to be guaranteed is a long ways away.
Yes, this is actually a very big step, Goldstein's snark aside. Hamas might actually be maturing now that they're expected to act like 'grown-ups' at the international table. The big question is - will they be able to maintain discipline amongst their own hard-liners who disagree with this?
John/Legion: Sure, this is better than we were two days ago. But not much. And it still is several steps back from where we were at Oslo. Negotiations can't start from scratch every time a new party comes to power.
James,
I agree with what you would like to see (continuity of the peace process, lets not always start from square one). But the reality is that Hamas came in and didn't even want to start from square one. Taking away their money until they get close to where we left off is the right approach. I certainly wouldn't want to start the money taps again, but I would be willing to sit down at the table and talk.
yetanotherjohn; life experience should teach you that you can't negotiate with a liar.
Comments are Closed
