West Bank pull-out will only bring more trouble, says Hamas

Hamas dismissed Israel's plan to withdraw from part of the West Bank yesterday and gave warning that it was likely to stir yet more violent resistance from Palestinians.

While Israel regards the partial withdrawal as a gesture towards peace, Riad Dayeh, a senior figure in the Islamist group, said that it would leave the Palestinians with a disjointed piece of territory incapable of being made into a genuine homeland.

Hamas appeared particularly incensed that Israel is considering dividing the West Bank unilaterally. "Unless the future status of the West Bank is agreed by both parties, there can be no long-term solution,'' said Mr Dayeh.

The ''quartet'' of international mediators - the United States, the European Union, Russia and the UN - increased pressure on the newly sworn-in Hamas government of the Palestinian Authority yesterday when it repeated threats to withhold aid worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

more...

Unilateral drawing of Israel's borders is the status quo and it will not, therefore, induce any change in the larger situation, although it will introduce some differences in the tactical situations on both sides.

Seems this is more of "damned if they do, damned if they don't."

only a fraction of them will be required to leave.

As some Palestinians may well remain under Israeli rule. It is the unilateralism that is the issue. Friendly neighbors do not deal with each other unilaterally.

I agree. However, what is Israel supposed to do when Hamas won't negotiate? If Israel doesn't do something, the occupation continues, indefinitely. Hamas is doing nothing to solve the issue of the occupation.

(note to mods...is there anyway to get "Hamas" added to the spell check feature?)

""This is completely inadequate as it would not leave the Palestinians with a viable, independent state. The Palestinians will only end their armed struggled when they have a viable, independent state and the sooner Israel understands this the better. A half-way solution is exactly that, a half-way solution."

"Mr Dayeh confirmed that his group had no plans to meet these conditions and warned that the armed struggle would continue at least until Israel's occupation of every square inch of the West Bank and Gaza had ended."

seems like Hamas has stated what it would take.

a timely end to the occupation, and that they would have the support of the vast majority of the Palestinian people in doing so. This does not mean all issues would get settled, but it would provide a more peaceful modus vivendi, and leave Hamas with reason to defend the resulting cease-fire/peace/hudna, and that would be a good thing. They have stated on a number of occasions that, while they do not accept the existence of the Israeli state, they are willing to compete in the civil and political arenas, and to leave the final outcome to the future. The present situation leads nowhere; an honest chance to rebuild and defend the Israeli dream in a peaceful competition with the Arabs would be good for both, and Israel would have the support of the vast majority of the international community in doing so. (IMHO.)

Edit: thank you for asking.

unilaterally pull out of ALL of the west bank, as it is required to do under international law....

Israel alone has rejected it.

Can you point to this international law? What are you accusing Israel of violating?

ICRC;
'Implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories: history of a multilateral process (1997-2001)'

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList325/D86C9E662022D64E41256C6800366D55

___________________________


Geneva Conventions;
'Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)'

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

_________________


UN Security Council;

Resolution 446 (1979)
of 22 March 1979


The Security Council,

Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representative of Jordan and other statements made before the Council,

Stressing the urgent need to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;


http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc?OpenDocument

Resolution 452 (1979)
of 20 July 1979

The Security Council,

Taking note of the report and recommendations of the Security Council Commission established under resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, contained in document S/13450,

Strongly deploring the lack of co-operation of Israel with the Commission,

Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949,

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/0b7116abb4b7e3e9852560e5007688a0?OpenDocument

_____________________________

AI;

'Israel/Occupied Territories: The fence/wall violates international law'

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE150182004

________________________

jfjfp;

http://www.jfjfp.org/factsheets/geneva4.htm

____________________________

Wiki;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_settlements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict

Only ONE party is blamed...ISRAEL. Tom implied Israel was the SOLE violator of international law....that's just not true.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Well, since 2001 until now, Israel has refused to negotiate while the Hamas seems willing to negotiate.

In my opinon, nationality should not be defined by race or religion.

It is, after all, a fairly recent invention, and it's history is bloody and feckless.

citizens of the new Palestinian state. To do otherwise would be ethnic cleansing.

...they should not be Palestinian citizens. There is no reason why Jews should only be citizens of Israel. Jews must be able to live anywhere in the world as equal citizens of that nation.

There is no reason why Palestinians should not allow other religions in their nation and any group who needs extra security can certainly find money somewhere to finance such.