Hamas: 'Resistance' Against Israel Is Only Option Left For Palestinians

By The Associated Press and Haaretz

Hamas leader Khaled Meshal told an international conference in Iran on Saturday that "resistance" was the only option left for the Palestinians.

Meshal was addressing the "5th International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada" in Iran’s capital Tehran.

"Palestinians must resort to resistance no matter how costly it is, until Palestine is free and Israel is destroyed," Meshal said.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who also spoke at the conference on Saturday, assailed a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, saying the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations is doomed to fail.

MORE...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-resistance-against-israel-is-only-option-left-for-palestinians-1.387504

They think their cause is really worth

OTHER people dying for.

always reaches that conclusion.

But then the option of going out and getting a real job is just too horrible to contemplate.

'Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who also spoke at the conference on Saturday, assailed a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, saying the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations is doomed to fail.'

Khameini and Hamas would hate it as much as the Likud if the statehood declaration succeeded; then they couldn't so easily continue using the 'Zionists' as a permanent scapegoat and instrument of deflection.

Hamas, as a terrorist organization, cannot be expected to understand that Israel isn't one-sided. They have many political parties, many of whom wish to see a two-state solution. I, as a Democrat who supports an independent Palestine, think Hamas is detrimental to the Palestinian cause. They severely harm it by rejecting the two-state solution. And they are not "resisting". They shoot rockets into Israel, and are a legitimate terrorist organization. The two-state solution is the only righteous and fair way to justice. Not only is it unfair for Palestinians to reject, but also just plain stupid. It will completely undermine their cause. We've seen the Israeli government's injustice by rejecting the solution, and we see Hamas' as well. The moderate Palestinian Authority can gain sympathy for their cause if they do what Israel has refused to do and accept the two-state solution.

Meshal is, sadly, quite right that there is very little chance of establishing a viable Palestinian state by peaceful means in the forseeable future.

Of course, 1) there is absolutely no chance of establishing one by force, ever, and 2) even if there were, it wouldn't make violence against civilians justifiable.

But I suspect that one of the reasons Hamas remains so popular is that when they say "look, we are never going to get anywhere without violence" a lot of the Palestinians (and me) agree with them. And the logical error from that to "therefore violence is our best option" is very easy to overlook for desperate people.

It would make getting rid of Hamas and ending violence against Israel an awful lot easier if there were a viable alternative.

In 2000, Israel offered the Palestinians a state in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, including Jerusalem. Was peaceful pressure unavailing in getting that offer? Arafat did not even make a counter offer. Why was that justified? Please don't argue that the Israeli offer was not, "generous," as I am not arguing that it was, and I don't care either way. What I am asking is why was the offer so bad that it did not deserve a counter offer?

Same questions regarding the 2001 Clinton parameters.

Same questions regarding the 2008 Barak offer.

Then, after Netanyahu agrees to a ten month settlement freeze, Abbas stays away from negotiations for nine months, and when he does show up it's to ask for a further three month freeze. How is that justified?

Israelis aren't saints, and Israel has some responsibility for the current impasse. What I don't get is why people are so hyped to deny that the Palestinians have no responsibility for it at all.

>In 2000, Israel offered the Palestinians a state in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, including Jerusalem. Was peaceful pressure unavailing in getting >that offer? Arafat did not even make a counter offer. Why was that justified? Please don't argue that the Israeli offer was not, "generous," as I am not >arguing that it was, and I don't care either way. What I am asking is why was the offer so bad that it did not deserve a counter offer?
>
>Same questions regarding the 2001 Clinton parameters.
>
>Same questions regarding the 2008 Barak offer.

There have been any number of Palestinian peace proposals over the years. Also, I think you overstate the importance of which side is presented as "offering" - if the person you're negotiating with says "this is as far as I'm going to go" then saying "go even further" isn't terribly different to saying "that's not far enough".


>Then, after Netanyahu agrees to a ten month settlement freeze, Abbas stays away from negotiations for nine months, and when he does show up it's to ask >for a further three month freeze. How is that justified?

As to Abbas refusing to negotiate with Netanyahu - a 10-month official moratorium on settlement expansion, during which it doesn't actually stop, is a far cry from a genuine, permanent-until-an-agreement-is-reached, freeze, and it's hard for two people to negotiate over the division of a pizza if one of them is eating it while they talk. I'm not convinced that not negotiating with Netanyahu has been a good tactic on Abbas' part, but given that there is no chance of any peace deal being reached with the current Israeli government I think that "to negotiate or not to negotiate" is a purely tactical decision, not indicative of whether Abbas is serious about peace.


>Israelis aren't saints, and Israel has some responsibility for the current impasse. What I don't get is why people are so hyped to deny that the >Palestinians have no responsibility for it at all.

The root cause of the conflict was the conquest and colonisation of the Palestinians' homeland by foreign Jews with no right to immigrate there, not vice versa, and that makes it squarely Israel's responsibility.

I think that there are things that the Palestinians should have done differently since then - most especially, I don't think that they should ever have targetted violence against civilians, and that those that did and continue to do should be in prison; and that while their desire to destroy Israel was entirely legitimate in 1947, they should have abandoned it sooner and more completely than they did. So I don't hold them entirely free of responsibility. But I think that few people targetted by colonists would have acted very differently - look at the response of the native Americans, Maori, etc.

That's part of why they have not allowed elections to take place.

They would get swept out of office in short order.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshal told an international conference in Iran on Saturday that "resistance" was the only option left for the Palestinians.

Meshal was addressing the "5th International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada" in Iran’s capital Tehran.

"Palestinians must resort to resistance no matter how costly it is, until Palestine is free and Israel is destroyed," Meshal said.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who also spoke at the conference on Saturday, assailed a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, saying the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations is doomed to fail.

Khamenei told the conference, which was attended by other by senior Palestinian militant leaders as well as Mashaal, that the Palestinians should not limit themselves to seeking a country based on the pre-1967 borders because "all land belongs to Palestinians."

"Our claim is freedom of Palestine, not part of Palestine. Any plan that partitions Palestine is totally rejected," Khamenei told the conference.

"Palestine spans from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean), nothing less."

Khamenei claimed that a two state solution would mean "giving in to the demand of the Zionists" and that it would "trample the rights of the Palestinian people" to live on their land.

Khamenei also called Israel a "cancerous tumor" that should be removed.

Hamas has repeatedly expressed its opposition to the Palestinian bid for statehood in the UN, led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Last week, Gaza’s Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh accused Abbas.of relinquishing Palestinian rights by seeking recognition for a state in the pre-1967 borders.

"The Palestinian people do not beg the world for a state, and the state can't be created through decisions and initiatives," Haniyeh said. "States liberate their land first and then the political body can be established."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-resistance-against-israel-is-only-option-left-for-palestinians-1.387504

"death to the jews".

How is this even news anymore? What would be news is if Hamas decided to abandon their terrorists way and openly and fairly negotiate with Israel as good stewards.

Khamenei also called Israel a "cancerous tumor"


:)