4 ms·

> Hamas need to agree that Israel has the right to exist. Agreed And maybe Israel needs to agree that Palestine has the right to exist

wahnfrieden 3y ago
The Hamas charter literally says that Israel will exist: >It advocated for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, describing this as a "formula of national consensus". 1967 borders means two state.
- vacuity 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    Should they act completely peacefully while Israel maintains settlements and themselves don't honor the agreed upon 1967 borders? Why is it wrong for one side to behave violently but not the other?
    - vacuity 3y ago
      I don't condone those Israeli policies, but I don't think terrorist attacks are a productive way to incite peaceful reform. There's no fair solution when one side is much more powerful and cruel with that power, but responding with violence sure doesn't convince people to shake hands.
    - biorach 3y ago
      It's wrong for both sides to behave violently
    - ashirusnw 3y ago
      The 1967 borders, as strongly as they feature in all discussions, were never "agreed upon". Even the famous UN security council resolution 242 deliberately does not define those borders. Every peace discussion has used them as a basis for a future settlement, but until that happens it's premature to call them agreed anything.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - nahumfarchi 3y ago
    [flagged]
- WrongAssumption 3y ago
  The full quote 'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    You are aware in Islam there’s a concept of God dealing with the oppressors, right?
- ashirusnw 3y ago
  What you're apparently referring to is slight change in Hamas charter in 1997. In fact, what they actually said was "Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights" i.e. they would support the creation a Palestinian state within 1967 borders in the interim but not give up their fight for the rest of Israel. This "softening" (as one left-wing newspaper called it apparently unironically) was in contrast with their previous stance which would reject a Palestinian state offer if it was based 1967 borders. They have never gone back on their stated aim to reconquer all of Israel and never indicated they will tolerate Israel existing.
nahumfarchi 3y ago
Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions. Some are for a two state solution (center-left), some for a one state solution in the form of "greater israel" (hard right, fringe elements if you ask me), and others that honestly just don't give it much thought. Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel.
- biorach 3y ago
  > Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel. > Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions. That may be so but the Israeli state as a whole has been quite consistent over the last few decades in its systematic destruction of any political or geographical possible basis of a Palestinian state, be it in the West Bank or Gaza.
  - nahumfarchi 3y ago
    Before Netanyahu there were at least four prime ministers - Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin - who've made honest attempts at peace. Not to mention Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza (at a tremendous political cost). You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side.
    - biorach 3y ago
      > Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza This was not an attempt to further the peace process. It was motivated by the expense and difficulty of a military occupation of a densely populated urban area. > You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side. Please, no need for that. I'm aware of Hamas' efforts to counter any moves towards peace. And of the effects of the suicide bombing campaign. Similarly any talk of peace from the Israeli government is meaningless while settlement of the West Bank continues.

wahnfrieden 3y ago

The Hamas charter literally says that Israel will exist: >It advocated for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, describing this as a "formula of national consensus". 1967 borders means two state.

vacuity 3y ago
[flagged]
- p_j_w 3y ago
  Should they act completely peacefully while Israel maintains settlements and themselves don't honor the agreed upon 1967 borders? Why is it wrong for one side to behave violently but not the other?
  - vacuity 3y ago
    I don't condone those Israeli policies, but I don't think terrorist attacks are a productive way to incite peaceful reform. There's no fair solution when one side is much more powerful and cruel with that power, but responding with violence sure doesn't convince people to shake hands.
  - biorach 3y ago
    It's wrong for both sides to behave violently
  - ashirusnw 3y ago
    The 1967 borders, as strongly as they feature in all discussions, were never "agreed upon". Even the famous UN security council resolution 242 deliberately does not define those borders. Every peace discussion has used them as a basis for a future settlement, but until that happens it's premature to call them agreed anything.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- nahumfarchi 3y ago
  [flagged]
WrongAssumption 3y ago
The full quote 'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  You are aware in Islam there’s a concept of God dealing with the oppressors, right?
ashirusnw 3y ago
What you're apparently referring to is slight change in Hamas charter in 1997. In fact, what they actually said was "Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights" i.e. they would support the creation a Palestinian state within 1967 borders in the interim but not give up their fight for the rest of Israel. This "softening" (as one left-wing newspaper called it apparently unironically) was in contrast with their previous stance which would reject a Palestinian state offer if it was based 1967 borders. They have never gone back on their stated aim to reconquer all of Israel and never indicated they will tolerate Israel existing.

nahumfarchi 3y ago

Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions. Some are for a two state solution (center-left), some for a one state solution in the form of "greater israel" (hard right, fringe elements if you ask me), and others that honestly just don't give it much thought. Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel.

biorach 3y ago
> Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel. > Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions. That may be so but the Israeli state as a whole has been quite consistent over the last few decades in its systematic destruction of any political or geographical possible basis of a Palestinian state, be it in the West Bank or Gaza.
- nahumfarchi 3y ago
  Before Netanyahu there were at least four prime ministers - Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin - who've made honest attempts at peace. Not to mention Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza (at a tremendous political cost). You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side.
  - biorach 3y ago
    > Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza This was not an attempt to further the peace process. It was motivated by the expense and difficulty of a military occupation of a densely populated urban area. > You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side. Please, no need for that. I'm aware of Hamas' efforts to counter any moves towards peace. And of the effects of the suicide bombing campaign. Similarly any talk of peace from the Israeli government is meaningless while settlement of the West Bank continues.