Sunday, February 26, 2006

Hamas Dictates Its Terms...

{updated below}

Only in today's wacky PC world, where the weak have moral superiority over the strong (simply by "virtue" of being weak), can the vanquished dictate terms to the victor. Hamas, knowing that it cannot survive financially without Israel's tax reciepts and U.S. aid, has kindly bestowed upon Israel the conditions it is willing to offer for...
what, exactly?

The Palestinian Prime Minister designate said Hamas is "ready to recognize" Israel if it gives the Palestinian people their full rights and a state in lands occupied since 1967, including the
West Bank and East Jerusalem.


"Let Israel say it will recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release the prisoners and recognize the rights of the refugees to return to Israel. Hamas will have a position if this occurs," Haniyeh said.

Note the wording here - "ready to recognize"; "will have a position". No promises, even if Israel should completely capitulate to Hamas' terms of surrender, that Hamas will even then recognize Israel. They only will have a" position", about being "ready". OK, right.

Note how the media falls for this duplicity head over heels, not even commenting on how Hamas' "final solution" would effectively evicerate the Jewish State. I wonder, how long before the EU and the UN began to urge Israel to harken to these terms, in the name of some imaginary peace "process" ? The "process" has only been a process to destroy Israel, and in the time before Ariel Sharon, it was working. For most people, the scales have been lifted from their eyes; although Hamas still tries to pull the wool over...

Let's see which dhimmis will follow the lead of the media, and dance to Hamas' evil tune...

UPDATE: The full transcript of the interview with Hamas's new prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, is here in today's Washington Post ; which seems to be falling all over itself to find op-ed room for terrorists like Haniyeh, Mousa Abu Marzook, the Damascus-based chief of Hamas (here; with a coda to his tale here), and their sympathizers, like Jimmy Dhimmi Carter ( here ). Some more Q&A gems with this murderous animal:

Will you abide by past agreements made by the Palestinian governments and Israel?
We will review all agreements and abide by those that are in the interest of the Palestinian people.
What agreements will you honor?
The ones that will guarantee the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital with 1967 borders -- as well as agreements that would release prisoners.


**Note - no such agreements were ever made; Hamas is again demanding surrender for peace - or are they?

Would Hamas recognize Israel if it were to withdraw to the '67 borders?
If Israel withdraws to the '67 borders, then we will establish a peace in stages.
What does that mean?

Number one: We will establish a situation of stability and calm which will bring safety for our people -- what Sheikh [Ahmed] Yassin [a Hamas founder] called a long-term hudna .

**Note - a "Hudna" is simply a cease-fire, with the explicit understanding that it is to be used for re-arming and re-strategizing before continuing hostilities; with a peaceful conclusion of affairs not considered to be an option. Haniyeh, to his slimey credit, makes that clear by offering, even in the face of an complete Israeli capitualtion, nothing more than a longer-term cease-fire...

Do you recognize Israel's right to exist?
The answer is to let Israel say it will recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release the prisoners and recognize the rights of the refugees to return to Israel. Hamas will have a position if this occurs.
So will you extend the present ceasefire?
I will not say yes or no. The problem is with Israel.


So the problem is that the Israelis have the nerve to defend themselves against constant terrorist incursions; if only they would allow themselves to be blown up like good little Jews, maybe Hamas would think about making a gesture...

Israel does not have a charter calling for the destruction of the Palestinian state.
Our only position will be declared once Israel recognizes our right to exist.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accepted a two-state solution as did President Bush. What do you say about the two-state solution?
It all starts with Israel.


It is clear, no matter what the mouthpieces of Hamas say, that they will never commit to the existence of Israel, as seen above. Again, simple recognition is not even being offered, only the promise to "declare a position" once Israel meets their terms. There is no two-state solution in Hamas' eyes, only one - the state of Palestine, run by Muslim fanatics, with all Jews dead, deported, or dhimmis of their Islamic rulers.

Should not the WaPost editorialize on these duplicitious remarks? No, they are too busy hiding under their desks, lest a jihad be called down upon their precious liberal heads...
And meanwhile, as the WaPost editorial board quivers in fear, they cannot be bothered to write or give editorial space to stories like these; which show Americans as heroes, showered with thanks from Iraqi officials...might make their terrorist masters unhappy, you see...

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am sure that Hamas really does not hate Jews or want to destroy Israel; let's look for root causes!It must be because the Palestinians are poor (from constantly attacking Israel), homeless (from constatntly being at war with Israel), or just don't understand us (after all,those UN paid-for texbooks with Israel off the map didn't help them grasp the concept of peace).

So - this must be obviously, as Hamas's leader sya, ISRAEL's fault!
Why won't they fold already and make everything better?

Anonymous said...

What, your paper didn't report a huge article displaying just how little regard Hamas has for the Israeli state? Shame on them.

The fact that the Post reported this diligently doesn't mean that they're supporting the opinion - they've just let it be known that what you wrote was exactly correct (and linked to your page, too, which is how I found you). Odds are that they don't support this opinion but that it's important to make sure that people know it - so they can much more easily disagree.

The JerseyNut said...

I guess I was looking/hoping for a more explicit repudiation of Hamas; as opposed to a "moral-free" interview. Seems like the WaPost reporter pushed him a bit; but nowhere as much as they would have were the speaking to, say, George Bush!
Maybe my expectations of a MSM outlet "calling a thing what it is" is too much, and I should be grateful that they link to varient viewpoints...