What Effect Will Hamas Have on Negotiations Over the Future of Israel and Palestine?

Posted by Frederick Jones
November 28, 2007

At the recently concluded Annapolis Conference, representatives from 40 countries heard Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Abbas pledge to begin negotiations next month in an effort to reach a peace agreement. Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, was not invited to the Conference.

What effect will Hamas have on negotiations over the future of Israel and Palestine?



Syrian P.
November 28, 2007

SNP in Syria writes:

Disappointing, it was not even a nice photo op for the losers. In reply to your blog post question, neither Abbas nor Olmert have their people mandate to negotiate or conclude anything. Not only the opinion poles numbers are lower than the lowest numbers of Bush poles for both wannabee leaders, but Abbas has no power whatsoever to have his wife make him breakfast let alone order militants that are really in effective control abide by his agreements with Olmert who when he will return will be faced with massive police investigation that most likely will bring him down before the promised negotiation next month starts.

Now what for Bush and his State Department. Was that the goodbye party, or the cover up for Bush-Maliki agreement on permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq on the expense of the Jews divine rights and national inheritance?

United States
November 29, 2007

JCG in U.S. writes:

As if it was not known already, why ask the question? The Hamas will have their say no matter what. To have a Palestinian State will mean the destruction of Israel. That has been stated before and will not be negotiated. "Land for Peace" is a fallacy. The more land the Palestinians get, the more they will want. The statement, "Peace, peace, but there will be no peace", ring a bell. Israel will always have to fight for what was originally given to them by British mandate after WWII. The Arabs fought with the Germans, lost to the Allied forces, and the land was divided. Israel was never given the chance to live there without a battle, and never will. Now the UN and apparently the U.S. want to divide up the land again. Jordan was to be the land for people displaced by the original agreement after WWII. Question answered.

Tennessee, USA
November 29, 2007

Joe in Tennessee writes: The overall identification of the Problems seems very misunderstood.

Israel and Palestinians want peace, but Hamas is only one element of many problems.

The problem now is no different than decades ago when Arafat was Made the leader of the Palestinians. President Abbas is without doubt a much more level minded, better educated and compassionate leader; however? how do you enforce Authority without any infrastructure? He has no Army, Navy, qualified intelligence organization or police force to depend on to initiate any reform, much less unification. He faces a multitude of problems with the splintered State as it is, even if not at war with Israel. Israel has for the most part become only a whipping post for Palestinian problems. The only common denominator the people can relate to is a mutual enemy. The fact both sides have been battered beyond any normal relationship is merely consequential.

What needs to be done is build an infrastructure within Palestine first. Peace can only come after this.

Hamas needs to be eliminated. You do realize the Russians are directly responsible for the growth and spread of Hamas?

November 30, 2007

Zharkov writes:

A total waste of time, as predicted. It took 40 countries from around the world to begin a discussion of peace that could have been started with a simple telephone call. Next time, hold the conference in Zimbabwe and don't allow anyone to leave until they sign the peace agreement.

Tennessee, USA
November 30, 2007

Joe in Tennessee writes:

The point isn't on simply signing an accord.

President Abbas needs control of his country first. They can sign any agreement, but nothing worthwhile will come of it until the Palestinian peoples have unified to a committed unified country first.

The crux of the problem is with Palestine, not Israel in actuality. Too many external elements need to be eliminated for any peace to work that is not within Israel’s realm of responsibility beyond ridding them of Hamas. The more Israel gives, the more the Palestinians want. Israel has showed beyond any normal means that it wants peace. To the point of driving its own citizens from homes established. Look what Hamas has done to Gaza alone. I believe it is only due to the oil there and the Russian element associated to Hamas of finance and arms. They are simply blackmailing peace to have ties to Russia, not Democracy. This is a power play by a third party.

President Abbas must make the choice to rid his country of all aspects which deny the people of peace, regardless of culture or religion. Peace must take priority. That is his responsibility. He then must have the physical and judicial means to enforce and implement the decisions in the same manner Israel has already done.

All children deserve peace, all adults have a responsibility to provide it.

New Mexico, USA
December 1, 2007

Eric in New Mexico writes:

The task that lies before the international community is basically that of ensuring the peace during this period of negotiation and transition into separate sovereign entities with defined borders.

I use the plural because both Israel and Palestine because there is much acrimonious debate as to what the make up and social dynamics will be of a basically 99.9999...% genetically identical people who have attempted by any and all means over many century's time to define themselves as separate, apart, above the other in moral character , intelligence, worthiness to exist....add infinitum..

Generations of dysfunctionality compounded daily.

Generates a lot of interest as it were, paid in pain and suffering, lost economic opportunity, and whether Hamas is able to reflect upon an alternative to this dysfunctional mindset, and act in the interests of the children of Palestine; then they be no more than elected ethical infants in dire need of a nanny's help to clean up the mess they've made.

I say a recall vote is in order.

Violence and terrorism has also had its vote in negotiations past, and this, internal or externally sponsored, must be prevented from happening, if it means by UN mandate a total disarmament of Gaza (and Hamas and other groups), then I'm all for it.

Really, how long has this been going on? Time to end this, with Logic over emotionalism, Truth over viewpoint, Ethics over all.

Then the parties will make the right choices for their children's future. One foot in front of the other, in motion, one gains momentum. The road may be long, but there is an end.

Secretary Rice talked about how life was in the segregated America at Annapolis, and I sometimes wonder if folks remember the global implications that our civil rights movement instigated on the world's stage.

So I thought I'd offer this:

"Today there is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. I feel that we've got to look at this total thing anew and recognize that we must live together. That the whole world now it is one--not only geographically but it has to become one in terms of brotherly concern. Whether we live in America or Asia or Africa we are all tied in a single garment of destiny and whatever effects one directly, effects one in-directly.

"I'm concerned about living with my conscience and searching for that which is right and that which is true, and I cannot live with the idea of being just a conformist following a path that everybody else follows. And this has happened to us. As I've said in one of my books, so often we live by the philosophy 'Everybody's doing it, it must be alright.' We tend to determine what is right and wrong by taking a sort of Gallup poll of the majority opinion, and I don't think this is the way to get at what is right.

"Arnold Toynbee talks about the creative minority and I think more and more we must have in our world that creative minority that will take a stand for that which conscience tells them is right, even though it brings about criticism and misunderstanding and even abuse."

Excerpted from a 1967 interview of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by Arnold Michaelis.

Tennessee, USA
December 1, 2007

Joe in Tennessee writes:

I would like to extend my answer regarding Hamas and the Russian alliance.

1. I believe they are unifying the Gaza strip for the sole underlying purpose of the natural resource of oil.

2. By unifying the Gaza strip and continuing terrorist activities against both Israel and fellow Palestinians they are trying to drive a wedge into any peace negotiations and nothing put on the table will present them with reason to stop their activities beyond the use of force. President Abbas will have to deal with this for the overall good of ALL his citizens and the Palestinian childrenãs future.

3. The overall objective of Hamas, I believe is to have the Gaza strip made Provincial to maintain control of the oil. There is no actual reason for their activities period. If they make a separate State for them, the citizens of Palestine will be denied the benefits which may be derived from natural resources.

The hardest decision for any leader is to fight the right war. Sometimes this war must be from within, not from external enemies. Hamas is a detriment to the populous.

While I do not personally agree with President Lincoln's Post Civil War activities to any degree and some of the false historical premise reasons to start the war, the objective was to establish One State, One People, One America. It was a "Greater Good" decision. President Abbas has this same decision to make. He cannot depend on Israel to end his problem with Hamas for obvious reasons and has stated he does not want American intervention.

Palestine has used this same 'game' to bleed funds from America for over 20 years now. They have to show leadership or it will just be a continuation of words, nothing more, nothing less.

December 1, 2007

FD writes:

Dear Frederick,

There are only two possible explanations for the obtuseness demonstrated by Condoleezza Rice and your other cronies at the State Department in orchestrating this misguided exercise. Either, 1) you are unbelievably naive in expecting the Palestinian Arabs to surrender their eternal religious conviction that there is no place for a Jewish state on land once controlled by Muslims, or 2) you fully recognize this reality but insist on plowing ahead despite the obvious existential danger for the Jews of Israel. I'm betting it's the latter.

Colorado, USA
December 4, 2007

ERG in Colorado writes:

As long as the State Department allows the Saudis to dictate the means by which the Jews can enter the Annapolis conference hall (through the service entrance) to prevent their sharing the same entrance with the Arab leaders, then the debate on peace in the Middle East is moot. This was not a meeting of "equals". Arab leaders make their position on the Jewish State and its leaders pretty clear. Why are these facts ignored by the West?

Everything that the Arab world prints and broadcasts about Israel for Arab consumption is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. Major Arab dailies carried anti-Semitic cartoons and editorials on their front pages on the day of the conference. So why press for an accord when the obvious agenda of the Arab side is Israel's destruction?

Israelis want peace, but at what price? Suicide with the aid of the U.S. State Department? What is the U.S. agenda and why does Israel have to pay the tab?

Tennessee, USA
December 4, 2007

Joe in Tennessee writes:

1. Naive? No. When you displace the children and adolescents from the environment and put them together they suddenly take on different views. If they never see any attempt at peace by their leaders there will never be any.

2. There are now a multitude of groups, on both sides offering everything from Nature programs for both Palestinian and Israeli children to Islamic leaders who are trying to un-fuse the negative teaching of the fundamentalist who are simply using the people for political purposes, not religious.

3. Islam is not a religion of hatred. Like Christianity it too has been used wrongfully and will evolve. If the Christians had a WMD back in the Crusades they or we would have used it. No doubt in my mind. Torture was nurtured by the Christian Bishops, not the Islamic culture. All Gods religions have been wrongfully used by individuals and groups of individuals who profit throughout history. The US objective is to try and circumvent this and plant a Seed of Peace.

4. The major group who is doing everything and anything to circumvent any peace is Hamas. Hamas was originally and continues to be supported by Russia, regardless of what they say. I know most recently from a Palestinian this is infacto. From Education of personal formally at Moscow University to the weapons in their hands.

5. It’s not about Religion, it’s about the misuse of religion by a third party. Period.

The objective is not to lose hope, expose these false leaders: religious, political and commercial who obstruct the natural laws of life which honor peace.

You have a President and Staff who are the only people who seem interested in trying to bring about peace by a multitude of methods and not submitting to blackmail.

If Miss Rice is so poorly equipped, why did Chavez lose his bid? Because this administration is doing it's job throughout the world for Democracy and it's working.


Latest Stories

October 6, 2010

From Paper to Progress

About the Author: Matthew J. Owens serves as a public affairs specialist in the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking… more