4 ms·

I mean, even Hamas currently calls for the '67 borders in their charter: > 20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or con

I mean, even Hamas currently calls for the '67 borders in their charter: > 20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. https://web.archive.org/web/20170510123932/http://hamas.ps/en/post/678/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170510123932/http://hamas.ps/e... Adding to show that the '67 borders are pretty generally supported. There's even support for them among some of the "from the river to the sea" crowd since the '67 borders touch both the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

nahumfarchi 3y ago
That's quite a bit of selective reading there. Where you see "'67 borders", I see "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea". River = the Jordan River Sea = the Mediterranean sea => calling for the destruction of Israel. But sure, we'll take '67 as an intermediate step.
- monocasa 3y ago
  > Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. I don't know how to read that except the willingness to compromise on 1967 borders, as long as those ejected in 1948 can return to their land and become Israeli citizens.
  - yyyk 3y ago
    Note no promise of peace. So they just continue the war. Besides, return just means they can take over 100% from within. Either way it's not a 'compromise'.
  - nahumfarchi 3y ago
    What about the Jews who were ejected from neighboring Arab countries during these various wars? Do they get to go back home? Do you truly believe a compromise can be reached with an organization that committed a massacre on the scale of October 7th? Personally, I'm willing to compromise a lot for peace (divide Jerusalem, give up the west bank, whatever. Fighting over land/religion is absurd), but I honestly don't believe that's what Hamas is aiming for. Their actions at least indicate otherwise.
    - monocasa 3y ago
      > What about the Jews who were ejected from neighboring Arab countries during these various wars? Do they get to go back home? Yes, they should also be allowed back and several countries have explicitly allowed such a thing. > Do you truly believe a compromise can be reached with an organization that committed a massacre on the scale of October 7th? Personally, I'm willing to compromise a lot for peace (divide Jerusalem, give up the west bank, whatever. Fighting over land/religion is absurd), but I honestly don't believe that's what Hamas is aiming for. Their actions at least indicate otherwise. I don't think compromise is an option that has legitimately been tried.
      - _rahy 3y ago
        Compromise has been tried. The creation of Israel was a compromise. Rejected by the Arab states. Oslo was a compromise. Rejected by Arafat. Camp David 2000 was a compromise. Rejected again by Arafat. The Palestinian position is that Oslo and Camp David were not good faith compromises by Israel, but even if so Arafat made no counter-offer. He rejected the offers out of hand. Then the second Intifada started and ushered in Likud and Netanyahu which led us to where we are today. As far as a Palestinian right-of-return to within Israel's borders. It would be the demographic end of a Jewish democratic Israel. It's the one thing that Israel absolutely will not and cannot compromise on. It's an unreasonable demand. To my mind: Palestinians have never had effective leadership and they've been used as pawns by the other Arab nations. The lack of Palestinian leadership is not entirely the Palestinians' doing, at least since Arafat anyway. Israel has intentionally kept West Bank and Gaza leadership divided. Nonetheless, Palestinians are going to need to figure out a way to have effective leadership. Someone who is motivated and empowered to negotiate for peace, recognizing that Palestinians are not negotiating from a position of strength.

nahumfarchi 3y ago

That's quite a bit of selective reading there. Where you see "'67 borders", I see "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea". River = the Jordan River Sea = the Mediterranean sea => calling for the destruction of Israel. But sure, we'll take '67 as an intermediate step.

monocasa 3y ago
> Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. I don't know how to read that except the willingness to compromise on 1967 borders, as long as those ejected in 1948 can return to their land and become Israeli citizens.
- yyyk 3y ago
  Note no promise of peace. So they just continue the war. Besides, return just means they can take over 100% from within. Either way it's not a 'compromise'.
- nahumfarchi 3y ago
  What about the Jews who were ejected from neighboring Arab countries during these various wars? Do they get to go back home? Do you truly believe a compromise can be reached with an organization that committed a massacre on the scale of October 7th? Personally, I'm willing to compromise a lot for peace (divide Jerusalem, give up the west bank, whatever. Fighting over land/religion is absurd), but I honestly don't believe that's what Hamas is aiming for. Their actions at least indicate otherwise.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    > What about the Jews who were ejected from neighboring Arab countries during these various wars? Do they get to go back home? Yes, they should also be allowed back and several countries have explicitly allowed such a thing. > Do you truly believe a compromise can be reached with an organization that committed a massacre on the scale of October 7th? Personally, I'm willing to compromise a lot for peace (divide Jerusalem, give up the west bank, whatever. Fighting over land/religion is absurd), but I honestly don't believe that's what Hamas is aiming for. Their actions at least indicate otherwise. I don't think compromise is an option that has legitimately been tried.
    - _rahy 3y ago
      Compromise has been tried. The creation of Israel was a compromise. Rejected by the Arab states. Oslo was a compromise. Rejected by Arafat. Camp David 2000 was a compromise. Rejected again by Arafat. The Palestinian position is that Oslo and Camp David were not good faith compromises by Israel, but even if so Arafat made no counter-offer. He rejected the offers out of hand. Then the second Intifada started and ushered in Likud and Netanyahu which led us to where we are today. As far as a Palestinian right-of-return to within Israel's borders. It would be the demographic end of a Jewish democratic Israel. It's the one thing that Israel absolutely will not and cannot compromise on. It's an unreasonable demand. To my mind: Palestinians have never had effective leadership and they've been used as pawns by the other Arab nations. The lack of Palestinian leadership is not entirely the Palestinians' doing, at least since Arafat anyway. Israel has intentionally kept West Bank and Gaza leadership divided. Nonetheless, Palestinians are going to need to figure out a way to have effective leadership. Someone who is motivated and empowered to negotiate for peace, recognizing that Palestinians are not negotiating from a position of strength.