16 thoughts on “Three Demands of Hamas: Two Can Play at This Game – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. I also think this is excellent. I support the conditions of the international community towards Hamas and the conditions of the PA towards Israel (as prerequisites for negotiations). From this post, can I surmise that you do as well?

  2. One small problem, no-one should ever be forced to concede Israel’s right to exist without Israel conceding they are squatting illegally in Palestine.

    It’s deluded – sort of like the victim of a gang rape being told to smile nicely at the rapists and then telling them she accepts their right to gang rape her and saying “thank you”.

    It is also a false claim by Abbas, who is not the president and has not been since January, because Khalid Mishal offered Israel a 30 year truce way back in 1997 and the answer was the attempted assassination 3 days later by Bibi.

    And Richard, Israel has not much of a bargaining position at all. They do not get to steal the house, the land, the car, the furniture and the garden shed and when caught out only offer back the garden shed.

    It is time the thugs in the settlements were told by the Palestinians to just go home.

    1. Except that some of the settlements are on land that was owned by individual and collective Jews prior to 1948, before they were ethnically cleansed from then Jordan.

      The rule of law would facilitate their restoration of title (or compensation), as similar is required to perfect title for Israelis living on land for which Palestinians have title claims.

    1. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. As long as the U.S. and Israel want to maintain an absurd charade regarding Hamas it’s perfectly fine w. me if Abbas creates his own artful charade.

  3. They did not own much of the land in 1948 Richard, a mere 6% over all and most of it around Jaffa and Haifa. You need to check the maps and stats. in the back of Ilan Pappe’s book.

    And jews were not ethnically cleansed from the west bank or anywhere else.

    Where do you get that sort of tripe from?

    1. The settlements are on what 8% of the West Bank, and of that 1/6th were Jewish owned prior to 1948.

      That doesn’t seem outlandish to me in the slightest.

      Jews were forcefully removed and dispossessed of land that they held title to.

      Of the 100% of the land that you are referring Marilyn, what percentage was state owned land (British, prior Turkish). What % was unnoccupied and untitled.

      You are comparing 6% to 94% (it was 7% anyway, not a big difference). When an apples to apples comparison might be more like 6 to 25%. I’m not sure. You’re not either is the point.

      1. Who says 1/6 of the current settlements are on formerly Jewish owned land? And besides, this isn’t a question of honoring old titles. If that were so then Israeli Arabs should have recourse to their own titles being honored for property in Jaffa, Jerusalem & scores of other places now inhabited by Jews.

        This is really a question of resolving an international conflict. That requires that Israel return to pre-67 borders & such an agreement should & will trump honoring old titles. Perhaps some current settlements will remain under Israeli sovereignty. Perhaps some won’t. It’s really what the 2 sides agree. And if Israel wishes to continue war over old titles that’s something about which the rest of the world may not be too keen.

        Richard, stop already with the percentages, quibbling & legalisms. It’s boring.

        1. Palestinian residents of Jaffa or elsewhere should get their day in court. That would uphold the rule of law, and the requirement that title be perfected, rather than determined by ANY political logic solely.

          I distinguish between the questions of sovereignty and title. Most that reference their “tikkun olam” on political orientation, don’t bother.

          The significance of sovereignty is that it is the permanent determination of borders, definition of process of self-governance within those borders.

          The significance of title is that by the “reasonable man” test, title is determined to be perfected (consented), or imperfect (contested). It applies to CASES, not to general borders.

          I prefer the 67 borders with the right of current residents to remain, but required to perfect their title primarily by compensation (case by case in color-blind courts). It constructs an environment of 80/20 majority/minority relation in each state. The 80% is sufficient to retain clear majority and character of the state. The 20% is sufficient to create a significant minority presence that cannot be ignored or suppressed, but also does not threaten the majority character.

          I OPPOSE either the Lieberman versions of sovereignty that seek 98% majorities (the number is not a quote), or the Palestinian nationalist version that seeks to make the West Bank free of Jews with any religious affinity for the “return”.

          If mutual consent to modifications is agreed, with some provision for compensation to those that have had title rights expropriated (both ways), then that would be wonderful.

          The numbers as to % of land expropriated NEEDS to be addressed skeptically. The quote “Zionists owned only 6% of the land” in 1948 is often sited, but in a manner that MISREPRESENTS the reality.

          We need to be skeptical, so that we understand reality, and not gullibly propagate.

  4. So if there were no conditions for talking to Hamas, you would be against Abbas’ conditions?

    (One of the ironies of all this, of course, is that Abbas has essentially said that Hamas need to meet the three conditions as a prerequisite for Fatah taking part in a unity government)

    1. if there were no conditions for talking to Hamas, you would be against Abbas’ conditions?

      Yes, of course.

      That being said, there isn’t a hope in hell that Bibi will negotiate in any serious way about I-P peace unless the U.S. really puts his feet to the fire, the Moshiach comes, or Bibi does a Sharon & turns into a centrist pragmatist. The first option is possible, the others aren’t.

      1. Obama has signalled recently that he won’t accept Israel relenting on prior agreements.

        Lieberman and Netanyahu state that they will abide by the “letter of the agreements”, but no more than that.

  5. Marilyns:
    And Richard, Israel has not much of a bargaining position at all. They do not get to steal the house, the land, the car, the furniture and the garden shed and when caught out only offer back the garden shed.

    Since the Israelis have no bargaining position, there’s no point in negotiations. That will help the Palestinians a lot.

  6. Yes Julian, typical stupid spin. You know very well that I meant Israel is in the wrong and in the weaker position legally and this answer is nonsense.

    Fancy allowing the criminals to judge themselves and adjudicate how much of the their crimes they should be punished for.

    That is what is happening with Israel. They stole most of Palestine after an illegal, immoral and non-binding UN general assembly resolution and have ignored every resolution since while they steal more.

    I can’t believe you are so dense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *