Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 11:54 pm:

---

Quote:

Hamas faces new responsibilities and expectations by the Palestinian people. Primary is addressing the will of the Palestinian people, not only the 95 percent of whom, according to polls, place corruption as a top priority, but also the 80 percent of whom reject a return to
violence and the 70 percent of whom support a two-state solution. Hamas will find that advancing statehood and even improving Palestinians' daily lives will necessitate dealing with Israel, the United States and the European Union, all of which will have legitimate pre-conditions before that happens.

---

Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:17 am:

The following are excerpts from an address by Hamas leader Khaled Mash’al at a press conference that aired January 29, 2006 on Al-Jazeera TV.

"I say to the American administration, to the Europeans, and the international community, which make all these demands, like stopping the resistance - or stopping 'terrorism,' as they call it - and to disarm... I say to them: If you have a problem with the factions' weapons, we are prepared to unite the Palestinian weapons based on Palestinian understandings, and to form an army, like any other country, even though our country is not yet independent. We will form an army like all independent countries. We will conduct reforms within our society, with democracy, pluralism, with partnership, and clean administration, which are the slogans of international and Western society, and at the same time, we will have an army, which will protect our people from aggression and will strive to recapture Palestinian rights. ...

The Palestinian people has chosen Hamas with its known stances. If America wants to negotiate with Hamas - it is most welcome, but based on the positions for which the people chose us. If Europe wants to negotiate with Hamas - it is most welcome, but based on the choice of the Palestinian people. However, they must not impose conditions on us. Our internal affairs must not be subject to extortion and external pressure. ...

We will not accept any formula that undermines some or all of our rights. In other words, we are committed to the liberation of the land and to Jerusalem. We will not agree to any kind of disregard [of our right] to Jerusalem. We are more committed to Jerusalem than Sharon and the enemy leaders. We are committed to the right of return and to our rejection of the settlements. We are committed to the resistance and adhere to its weapons. These are our choices and our fundamental principles, which the Palestinian people supported even before the elections. In the elections, I believe, the Palestinian people clearly demonstrated this support, in a democratic manner. No one should accuse us of being out of line or singing out of tune. There are internal Palestinian agreements. True, the Palestinian Authority was founded on the basis of the Oslo Accords. We recognize that this is a reality, and we will deal with it with the utmost realism, but without neglecting our fundamental principles and our rights. We will honor any agreement or commitment, as long as they benefit our people and do not infringe upon its rights. In other words, we will honor our Palestinian commitments, provided they serve our people and do not infringe upon its rights, and we will not accept dictates. This is, very clearly, our position. We are capable of maintaining this position, despite all the pressure. As for recognizing [Israel] and amending our charter - Hamas is not the kind of movement that succumbs to pressure. The occupation has no legitimacy. We will not recognize it, no matter how much time passes. We will never recognize the occupation as legitimate, and we will not give up on our rights. However, we are realistic, and we know things are done gradually, in stages. ...

There is a difference between regarding the period of calm as divergence from the resistance - which will never happen - and regarding the period of calm as one of the tactics of the resistance."

Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 5:25 am:

---

Quote:

"we are committed to the liberation of the land and to Jerusalem"

"We are committed to the right of return"

"We will never recognize the occupation as legitimate"

---

Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 11:56 am:

Mark's points are valid, and even more relevant, in light of the Hamas victory, which in my view, would not have happened if the Sharon Government had treated President Abbas as a partner instead of as a leper, and cooperated with him in the Gaza withdrawal to enable Gaza to trade with the outside world.

Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 4:55 pm:

---

Quote:

Now let's get back to your earlier assertion, Paul, which is the reason for my belief that you are a pacifist and a leftist first, and allied with Israeli patriots chiefly for the sake of legitimizing your views:

---

---

Quote:

Mark's points are valid, and even more relevant, in light of the Hamas victory, which in my view, would not have happened if the Sharon Government had treated President Abbas as a partner instead of as a leper, and cooperated with him in the Gaza withdrawal to enable Gaza to trade with the outside world.

---

---

Quote:

You then go on to argue that your views are simply those of Peace Now, which you insist is not a "blame Israel" movement. But plainly, your view is that Israel is primarily responsible for the election of Hamas. Is it your assertion that this is also the position taken by Peace Now?

---

Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 9:30 pm:

The following are excerpts from an interview with Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahar, which aired on Al-Manar TV on January 25, 2006.

"Palestine means Palestine in its entirety - from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, from Ras Al-Naqura to Rafah. We cannot give up a single inch of it. Therefore, we will not recognize the Israeli enemy's [right] to a single inch. That is one thing.

"The second thing is that if the right of return is an individual right, neither Mahmoud Al-Zahar nor 'Abbas Zaki can relinquish it, because all these concessions will constitute a national catastrophe.

"The third point is that we can found a state on any piece of the land, and this will not mean we give up on any other part of the land."

Interviewer: "Condoleezza Rice has demanded that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist. How do you respond?"

Mahmoud Al-Zahar: "Why should we recognize Condoleezza Rice... or Israel's right to exist? In this region we have faced Roman occupation, Persian occupation, Crusader occupation, British occupation - they are all gone. The Israeli enemy does not belong to the region. It does not belong to the region's history, geography, or faith. When you enter the land occupied in 1948, it is like entering an enclave. But when you go to Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, you feel at home. It is your homeland."

"If at present we cannot bring about a decisive victory, which will restore all our rights - and there is a difference between a peaceful solution of surrender, which is temporary and is referred to as 'settlements,' and a peaceful solution which is based on justice, and means the return of all the land and all the refugees. We are saying that we may agree to found a state on any part of the land, but this must never be at the expense of the other parts.

"If today we are unable to win the conflict decisively, for reasons known to all, we must not pass on to our sons a disgraceful defeat by recognizing the Israeli enemy's right to exist, where it has no such right."

Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:13 pm:

---

Quote:

underlying this desire to sensationalize a story well beyond the facts, is a visceral hatred of Jews. Do not be confused when you observe leftist Jewish journalists such as Tom Friedman, Joel Greenberg, Mike Wallace, etc., as the point men for hostile journalism against Israel ... take a look at the gaggle of leftist Jews who were chosen by former President Bush and Sec. of State Baker: Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, Dan Kurtzer -later retained and expanded by President Clinton, along with Madeleine Albright, Martin Indyk, Sara Ehrman, Sandy Berger and others. Indeed, they were profiled as the best selection for finessing the Peace Process while, in fact, they act as Administration watchdogs for the American Jewish leadership

---

Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 1:30 am:

"...the Hamas victory, which in my view, would not have happened if the Sharon Government had treated President Abbas as a partner instead of as a leper, and cooperated with him in the Gaza withdrawal to enable Gaza to trade with the outside world. Additionally, the Sharon Government's construction of the security wall inside Palestinian territory instead of on the Israeli border was a big factor in undermining the credibility of Abbas and his program of nonviolence.

First, Shikaki's contention that most Palestinian refugees would abandon "returning" to Israel is not easily reconciled with the fact that 95% of the respondents agreed with the statement that the "right of return" is a "sacred right that can never be given up."[17] Second, when asked if there are circumstances in which "you would live with Israeli Jews in peace, security, and reconciliation," only 20% of the respondents from the West Bank and Gaza said "yes," while more than 79% said "no." Third, less than half of the respondents said that they would "live in peace in the Jewish state and respect Israeli law" upon "exercising" the "right of return."[18] Shikaki does emphasize the first point in his analysis in the Arab media, but he has carefully avoided mentioning points two and three and has even expunged them from the translated copy of the poll posted on his organization's official website.[19]

The 'Right of Return' Debate Revisited, Max Abrahms, http://www.meib.org/articles/0308_pal1.htm

1) Popular revulsion with ongoing corruption associated with the ruling Fatah party;

2) Popular appreciation of Hamas for providing social services that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority failed to deliver;

3) Fatah’s intra-party conflicts;

4) Internal chaos and lack of security in the West Bank and Gaza;

5) An absence of ongoing peace negotiations with Israel that Fatah could point to as a reason to keep that party in power; and

6) A lack of Israeli and U.S. actions to help bolster Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah while they were in power and extending an open hand to negotiations.

Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 6:26 am:

---

Quote:

Like I said, Paul, you're just hiding behind Peace Now's skirts.

---

Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 6:38 am:

---

Quote:

Israeli Police, Settlers Clash in West Bank Outpost Evacuation
Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Israel's security forces started dragging away hundreds of Jewish settlers who barricaded themselves inside and on the roofs of nine houses in a West Bank settlement the Israeli government has pledged to tear down.

The clashes at the illegal Amona outpost were the worst since August, when the government evacuated more than 8,000 residents of Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank. Unlike those settlements, Amona is one of more than 30 outposts that were built without Israeli permission.

``Israel will not tolerate a situation of lawlessness and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the rule of law is upheld,'' David Baker, a spokesman for acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said in an interview from Jerusalem.

At least 40 people, including two members of parliament, were treated for injuries as paramilitary border police officers used water cannon and clubs to subdue the Amona settlers, Israel Radio said.

---

Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 10:45 am:

---

Quote:

The Israeli government today demolished nine permanent homes, built without permits on privately-owned Palestinian land, at the illegal outpost of Amona.

The government action resulted directly from a Peace Now court petition that asked why the Israeli authorities had not acted to stop the illegal construction and to demolish it. In court proceedings, the government committed to demolishing the homes by the end of January.

The settler movement resisted the demolition in order to raise the political cost of law enforcement efforts that run counter to the settler agenda. Press reports indicate that dozens of policemen were injured, one of whom is in serious condition after being hit in the head with a brick. A border policeman was also reported to have been stabbed in the stomach.

Despite the politically-motivated violence, it is vital that Israel enforce the law and roll back unauthorized settlements, which undermine Israeli security and create points of conflict with the Palestinian population. Indeed, Haaretz reported that right-wing activists entered the nearby village of Ein Yabrud last night and threw stones at Palestinian cars.

Peace Now will continue to turn to the Israeli judicial system to compel the Israeli government to enforce the laws against settlement expansion the West Bank.

---

Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 11:09 am:

"Are these settlers "anti-Israel?"

Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 12:14 pm:

"As far as whether my remarks place all blame at "Israel's feet" -- I should remind you that I'm advocating the position of the Israeli peace movement, so it is illogical to suggest that I'm blaming "Israel.""

The American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) has issued its Statement of Principles on the Palestinian Refugee Issue. ATFP advocates direct negotiation between Israel and Palestine aimed at ending Israeli occupation and establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The text of the Statement of Principles follows. For more information, see www.americantaskforce.org.

The objective of ATFP is the establishment of a Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, and an end of the Israeli occupation that began in 1967. ATFP is opposed to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, but is not opposed to the state of Israel in its internationally recognized borders.

1. A resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue can only come about through direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian officials as an expression of their national policies. No other parties are entitled to negotiate on this issue. However, individuals and organizations are free to express their opinions on this issue in the spirit of free, open and respectful debate.

2. There are many parties responsible for the suffering of the Palestinian refugees. Responsible parties include first Israel for displacing the Palestinian refugees, refusing their return and confiscating their property without compensation. Some Arab states also bear varying degrees of responsibility; some for allowing generations of refugees to languish in camps under miserable conditions, or by placing various restrictions in terms of their legal status, employment and travel rights, and others for not having done enough to ease the suffering of refugees. Finally, the Palestinian leadership has been at fault for not communicating honestly and openly with the refugees on what they can expect for their future.

3. The right of return is an integral part of international humanitarian law, and cannot be renounced by any parties. There is no Palestinian constituency of consequence that would agree to the renunciation of this right. There is also no Jewish constituency of consequence in Israel that would accept the return of millions of Palestinian refugees.

4. Although the right of return cannot be renounced, it should not stand in the way of the only identifiable peaceful prospect for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: a resolution based on a state of Israel living side-by-side with a Palestinian state in the occupied territories with its capital in East Jerusalem. Implementation of the right of return cannot obviate the logic of a resolution based on two states. The challenge for the Israeli and Palestinian national leaderships is to arrive at a formula that recognizes refugee rights but which does not contradict the basis of a two-state solution and an end to the conflict.

5. As part of any comprehensive settlement ending the conflict, Israel should accept its moral responsibility to apologize to the Palestinian people for the creation of the refugee problem. Palestinians should accept that this acknowledgment of responsibility does not undermine the legitimacy of the present-day Israeli state.

"Many leftists worldwide, including many even in the Israeli peace movement, believe Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state. All Palestinian wrongs therefore are thought to flow inexorably from Zionism's original sin. There are Israelis in movements like Peace Now who do not hold such views, but who believe nevertheless that Israel has a greater responsibility and capability to direct the Palestinians toward peace and coexistence than it actually does. And this too is based on faith—that the weak are freer of blame than the powerful, and so the powerful bear a greater moral burden to seek peace than the weak. Thus, Israel is to blame when the weak are not pragmatic enough."

Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 3:22 pm:

---

Quote:

3. The right of return is an integral part of international humanitarian law, and cannot be renounced by any parties. There is no Palestinian constituency of consequence that would agree to the renunciation of this right. There is also no Jewish constituency of consequence in Israel that would accept the return of millions of Palestinian refugees.

---

Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 8:05 pm:

* The Palestinian people have the right to self-determination, including the right to establish its own state alongside the State of Israel.

* The Green Line will constitute the guiding line for the determination of the permanent borders between the State of Israel and the Palestinian State.

* Israeli settlers in locations which, after the determination of the permanent borders, fall within the Palestinian State, will be able to return to Israel and will receive appropriate compensation. It will not be possible to achieve a permanent agreement without evacuating settlements. During the negotiations the two sides will determine those settlements in which Israeli settlers may remain; settlers will be required to recognize and respect Palestinian sovereignty.

* The permanent agreement will provide security arrangements enabling the Israel Defense Forces to protect the security of Israel. These security arrangements will include, inter alia, the demilitarization of the Palestinian State with regard to certain types. Israeli and Palestinian authorities will cooperate against hostile elements from within the Palestinian state who pose a threat to Israeli security.

* Jerusalem will not be divided. It will be recognized that members of both nations live in the city, and that both have national and religious rights. The area of the city will be redefined and agreed and coordinated municipal frameworks will be established within its borders in order to enable each community to manage its own internal affairs. Two capitals will exist within the municipal area: the capital of Israel in the Jewish areas, and the capital of Palestine in the Arab areas. The status of the holy sites will be determined through negotiations based on maintaining the religious rights and freedom of worship of all religions.

* The permanent settlement will include a comprehensive solution of the problem of the refugees (from 1948) and the dislocated residents (from 1967). The Palestinian State will be entitled to absorb refugees within its borders according to its own considerations. A compensation arrangement for refugees will be agreed upon with international support. After such agreement is reached, the parties will categorically waive any further claims for the return of refugees, restitution of property rights or the right of settlement in the area of the other state.

* Improving the economic conditions and well being of the residents of Israel and Palestine will help to stabilize and consolidate the peace agreement. Israel will advocate joint management of natural and environmental resources and economic cooperation with the Palestinian State. The framework and scale of cooperation between the two states will reflect the needs and capacities of each. Borders will be open to the passage of goods and workers as agreed upon by the two parties. Israel will actively support the Palestinian economy and will help recruit international support and investments to promote economic development of the Palestinian State.

Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 1:17 pm:

---

Quote:

* The permanent settlement will include a comprehensive solution of the problem of the refugees (from 1948) and the dislocated residents (from 1967). The Palestinian State will be entitled to absorb refugees within its borders according to its own considerations. A compensation arrangement for refugees will be agreed upon with international support. After such agreement is reached, the parties will categorically waive any further claims for the return of refugees, restitution of property rights or the right of settlement in the area of the other state.

---