Hamas don’t want peace

[Icanthinkformyselfthanks]

A two day ceasefire was offered to them in return for four hostages but they declined. Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, said Hamas “once again refused to release even a limited number of hostages to secure a ceasefire and relief for the people of Gaza”.
Isreal has now offered a million dollars for each hostage and safe passage out of Gaza for their captors. Hamas have yet to respond.

So let’s say the Palestinian state was the area that wasn’t historically the kingdoms of Israel and Judah - do you think that would hold? Because most people who support a state of Palestine seem to think that the state of Palestine should encompass the whole of Israel.

it’s a shame that you choose to ignore all the atrocities carried out in Gaza which have nothing to do with Israel. Who do you think would be negotiating on behalf of the Palestinians, do you think Hamas would magically disappear?

I'm not choosing to ignore them I'm saying you can't conflate the actions of a terrorist group with the actions of a future Palestinian government. It's not based on anything and doesn't have a historical precedent. Its not ignoring the atrocities carried out by Hamas by saying that Israel (unlike Hamas) call them selves a democrative government and are signed up to international laws and rules of war which they consistently break. We don't expect terrorists to follow the rules, we do expect that of governments. That's why I said I wonder if your anxiety that a future Palestinian state wouldn't follow international law is because you see a country you hold as a democratic moral country continually not following it? It would explain why you don't have any faith in it.

@Feelingathomenow Because most people who support a state of Palestine seem to think that the state of Palestine should encompass the whole of Israel.

Where on Earth did you get that from? That's completely untrue. The majority of people, and governments support a two state solution - which categorically require a state of Israel to exist.

Unless by "whole of Israel" you mean a greater Israel including the Gaza strip and the West Bank - from the river to the sea as some Israeli ultras have proposed (not me appropriating the slogan BTW).

Well, that's how peace processes work. People find ways to co-exist because that's preferable to constantly fighting. A two state solution requires a peace process. Or are you suggesting that you don't think there should be two states?

"Because most people who support a state of Palestine seem to think that the state of Palestine should encompass the whole of Israel" - where on earth are you getting that from, @Feelingathomenow ? By definition, a two state solution is based on the existence of two states.

How supportive of a 2 state solution are Hamas, really?

You assume all parties want peace (see title of this thread) and a two state solution

Woiuld Hanas really agree with a two state solution - in reality when it came down to it? What about Jerusalem- who should control that?

And who do you think this “Future Palestinian Government “ would be- are you expecting Hamas to magical disappear?

Hamas are not "most people".

You claimed that "most people who support a state of Palestine seem to think that the state of Palestine should encompass the whole of Israel". Is that what you genuinely think people are saying when people say they recognise Palestine and its right to exist?

If we look at other historical situations where peace deals have been brokered, the largely or in full yes, it would be necessary for a peace deal just as it wouldn't be possible for the zealots in the Ireali government to stay in place. I notice you are reluctant to look at or talk about Israel's role in anything. We have seen successful negotiations in Northern Ireland and South Africa between groups with violent histories, is there a reason you are reluctant to believe in even a possibility that the same can be achieved on this region? It doesn't sound like you do in which case what exactly are you proposing as a solution? Because if you don't believe in negotiations, you don't believe in a two state solution and you don't believe that the innocent children in Palestine aren't accountable for Hamas I can't imagine what you forsee as a solution? You are asking a lot of questions of posters without responding to any of the information they've provided and asking people on Mumsnet to advise what the geography of the two state solution should be and which individuals should be in government without telling us what the alternative is to you. Could you clarify? Do you support a two state solution? If you don't, what's the alternative?

The Palestinians

Israel is making many of them magically disappear. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67103298.

These were powerful men, 4 billionaires included in there. With each one disappearing I sense Palestinians becoming a bit freer to openly criticise Hamas. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4vw1l8xvdo

Coup d'etats often take place as Tyrants power slips. Foreign powers often encourage and covertly assist.

Hamas raison d'etre is the total obliteration of Israel. So they would be a one state solution. As there is no way this will ever be allowed to happen it means we get a war. The war will continue until either Israel is obliterated or Hamas is. We need to stop delaying the inevitable as it just causes more suffering. Smash Hamas and the civilians stop dying.

Are you saying the Palestinians should control Jerusalem?
You do know that Jew is the word meaning someone from Jerusalem?

Yes unfortunately for Palestinians they are only represented at meetings by Hamas who want to take over all of Israel. Their virtue signalling lefties over here in Europe chant things like "Palestine from the river to the sea" which implies the total removal of Israel and is classified as hate speech.

this isn’t true and is something that is constantly used to justify the genocide . The Hamas charter was changed in 2017 . The Israeli finance minister has however openly called on national
tv for the West Bank to
be annexed . A total call for genocide . Mike
huckabee America’s ambassador to Israel has been going around saying ‘there’s no such thing as the West Bank just judea and Samaria.’
this has been going on for decades ! What gives the Israelis the right to openly call for genocide and why on earth do people
like you support this ! By your reasoning the Palestinians have the right to go on a killing spree in Israel considering the Israeli ministers have been so brazenly calling for the genocide of the Palestinian people !!!!

Hamas aren't the only political entity representing Palestine, but it would be difficult to negotiate an end to the conflict without them having some role in those negotiations (given that most people, I think, would want any negotiations to cover hostage release, cessation of hostilities on all sides, and the dismantling/disarmament of terrorist groups).

In relation to "from the river to the sea", it's a phrase I dislike, for reasons I've previously explained. I would point out, though, that it's also used by prominent groups in Israel calling for 'Greater Israel' "from the river to the sea" - would you be ok with people using it in that sense? Also, it's not in itself classed as hate speech or illegal in the UK or many other countries.

Thanks for sharing. The voices of more reasonable, less homicidal people in Palestine haven't been getting heard, but they do exist.

You mean the people occupying Palestine?

Feelingathomenow · 13/11/2024 15:20

And what “compromises” were expected of Israel? You don’t think it was anything to do with trying to stop Israel being attacked from all sides?

Not that old trope, Israel isn't being attacked on all sides, most of its neighbours have normalised relations with them. Israel has surrounded, enclosed and besieged Gaza for 16 years. Air raids, artillery strikes and killings with small arms, by the Israelis, have long been a daily occurrence for Gazans.

Now, Hamas can all die in a fire for me, but surely you can see why they exist? Much of their success is a result of Israeli funding and support, which they did, in order to weaken Fatah.

Ah I see, Iran is their friend, I was speaking also metaphorically (and the current trend fuelled by social media hysterics is somewhat bearing this out, don’t you think) I think Israel was aiming for the two terrorist groups to weaken each other within Gaza.

I can see Hamas exist because the want the land Israel occupies and think it should be an Islamic state rather than Jewish. Tbh the purpose of the story of Muhammad being taken up into heaven (the same as the Jewish Prophets) conveniently from Jerusalem was contrived with the purpose of marking its territory at Jerusalem (this is tactic well known amongst various religions from the days of Alexander the Great through Christianity eg many churches are built on old pagan sites). So it’s really set up to cause issues and has done for centuries.

I would think the best thing would be for Jerusalem to come under international control as the starting point for any negotiations to immediately take this out the equation. It would be better if a two state solution would involve a Palestinian state being to the north so it was linked onto Iran so it wasn’t trapped between Israel and the sea.

I hope you do see that your statements are neither linked to the facts on the ground today nor international law. They are somewhat connected to some parts of history, so I'm not saying you make it all up, but the picture you build from those parts does not reflect what we observe today.

Do we agree on the starting point of international law?
If not, than it's 'might makes right' principle for all.

Well perhaps we can first back track and you can link your comments to my post?

This one too is a good example.

I'm asking you if you agree with the principle of international law established in the 20th century and you give no answer but ask for references of your earlier posts where you also give no answer.