Hamas denounced the governments of US and Israel for "interference" and "collective punishment" after it was reported that they were discussing ways of using a halt to funding to oust it from power later this year. Both countries denied they had a deliberate plan to force elections in the hope of an early end to Hamas's majority in the newly elected Palestinian Legislative Council, which meets for the first time on Saturday.
Both countries denied they had a deliberate plan to force elections in the hope of an early end to Hamas's majority in the newly elected Palestinian Legislative Council, which meets for the first time on Saturday.
That's not setting preconditions on what grounds you want to talk, there's simply no ground for a talk. You walk away from it. Or at least, I would. So, I don't share your view it's hypocrite - in this case. There's plenty of hypocrisy in Israel.
To me you're comparing pears with apples. If we're starting to pry on the thread of acts, the whole carpet gets unraveled. Since I could counter with Hamas terrorist attacks and the whole tit-for-tat Israel policy that is so extremely self-defeating. We're talking about promises by words, or at least, I was. Your point conveys that acts speak louder than words.
Well, you've to start somewhere. If both parties at least agree by words that they shouldn't eradicate each other, there is the start of a bridge. Acts will have to follow the words. But in a conflict, it has to start with the words, not with the acts. Hamas is lacking those words - so far.
So I hope that also explains why I find your counter point unanswerable.
And yes, Hamas vows for eradicating Israel and the Israeli people. (And they have acted accordingly.)
Anyway. I wonder whether this gets read. Onto the next crisis.
Nope. Israeli colonisation of Palestine is not tit-for-tat for anything, it is land-taking pure and simple. Hamas terrorism vs Israeli wanton bombing and destruction vs. Hamas terrorism vs. Israeli etc. is tit-for-tat. Suicide bombers and AK-47's won't drive a nuclear power into the sea. Any Hamas word about eradicating Israel is only empty rhetoric, it doesn't and won't get the means for that - but Israel's land-taking is not just a real intention but something carried out. And that for a lot longer than the existence of Hamas. (Indeed Hamas only got this strong because Israel in the eighties thought that a strong Hamas would weaken the then uniting force for Palestinians, the PLO.) To illustrate what you and Steinmeier demand in my view, imagine:
Your in-law moves in on your estate. Then he takes over three-quarters of it and brings his aunt and son. Then he builds a fence, but continually relocates it so that the one quarter left to you is further reduced, he drives his car across your lawn, tears down the tent you camp in, his son makes noises about throwing you out, and he ocassionally peppers your ass with a shotgun.
Now, to resolve this situation, is the first prerequisite really that you stop throwing stones across your in-law's fence and stop yelling that you want an eviction order on him?
How so, beyond the rhetoric from Israel and neocon-inspired press? You may want to read this and this. The second is one example how Hamas is often misrepresented in the Western press (which doesn't mean that the original message is something I'd approve of). From the former:
The real stumbling block, of course, lies in the Hamas charter with its promise to eradicate the Israeli state, which the leadership probably cannot abandon. Yet, even Sheikh Abdessalam Yacine, shortly before his death at Israel's hands, had hinted that Hamas could live with and accept political realities so that - in practice - accommodation could be possible. And the yearlong ceasefire suggests that violence is not the only path that Hamas will follow.
Indeed the assassination of Sheikh Yassin (one of the Israeli extrajudicial killings called 'targeted assassination' that wasn't even a retaliation for a prior attack), just after he made those noises, was a clear message from Sharon's government that they don't want peace. And Hamas's unilateral ceasefire is another indication that Hamas is pragmatist enough.
Finally, I recommend that you read this article in full. It was written by a CIA analyst on Hamas. Quote from the conclusion:
In the end the Israeli occupation remains the central problem, from which all other problems--despair, rage, and terrorism--flow. We must start by treating the core of the problem and not its symptoms. If the trajectory of other democratically-based Islamist parties is any indicator, there are reasonable hopes that Hamas, given the chance, will continue its evolution towards hard-headed pragmatism, even while not yielding its bargaining cards for free in advance.
