Leader says Hamas ‘won’t recognise Israel’

In case anyone actually believed that the Palestinians were interested in peace, here’s the story right from the horse’s mouth:

Hamas is ready to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders but “it will not recognise Israel,” the Islamist movement’s exiled chief Khaled Meshaal told a news conference Monday.

“We accept a Palestinian state within the June 4 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital — a sovereign state without settlements — as well as the right of Palestinian refugees to return, but without recognition of Israel,” he said.

Isn’t that nice? So they’re willing to negotiate with Israel as long as Israel agrees to cease to exist. Yep, all this violence, it’s Israel’s fault. 8-|

Meshaal was making his first public comment following two meetings in Damascus with former US president Jimmy Carter, who said earlier Monday Hamas told him it would accept the right of Israel “to live as a neighbour” if a peace deal was approved by a Palestinian referendum.

Jimmy Carter is an embarassment to the United States and a useful idiot to terrorists.

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Responses to “Leader says Hamas ‘won’t recognise Israel’”

  1. Kansas Bob says:

    Carter is an example of an ideology taken to the extreme.

  2. Isaiah says:

    It’s probably the peanuts making him go nuts. :D

  3. LaVrai says:

    Shouldn’t you provide some context?

    What is being said is that they will not recognize Israel as a state, as they firmly believe what is called Israel has eclipsed what they believe was there before — a nation called Palestine.

    It is the same thing the Israelis say. How often have your read them say ‘there is no Palestine,’ ‘Palestinian is the incorrect term’…?

    Israel will never allow a ‘nation’ called Palestine to exist and would certainly not recognize it. The same with Hamas…they refuse to acknowledge that the nation is ‘Israel.’ They’re not looking to make the people living in Israel disappear.

    I am not for one or the other…I am for the innocents caught in the crossfire. I believe most people just want to live their life without the threat of a bomb or flechettes tearing through their home or their body. I don’t believe a child born into an Jewish or Arab home has much of a choice…

    And how about a parallel situation? — Russia refuses to recognize Kosovo as a nation.

  4. He got sooooooo played. I wish he’d stick to building houses. Habitat for Humanity has been the only useful thing he has done since leaving office.

  5. casey says:


    Thanks for stopping by. You’re kidding, though, right? You do realize that Israel is a state whether Hamas recognizes it or not, don’t you? You can twist the words of the terrorists all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that Israel exists and will continue to do so. You also realize that the whole point of these talks is to set up a two-state solution, right? If the Hamas leaders are unwilling to consider a two-state solution, how do you think peace is going to be achieved? Show me where Israeli leadership has stated that they will never recognize a Palestinian state. I’d love to see a reference for that assertion. The Palestinian population at large showed that they are not interested in peace when they voted to put a terrorist organization in charge.

  6. Scott says:

    So Casey are you saying that because Israel exists as a state (thanks in no small part to a bunch of our money and perhaps a small dash of luck) it has a right to continue to exist in spite of the fact that there are people that lived where Israel now is and were forcibly removed?

    I mean I’m no expert but having a group of outsiders who come in and kcik out the locals, declaring that they have a right to live there and backing that with some degree of force doesn’t strike me as (you should excuse the expression) kosher.

    Also I’m no fan of Hamas (not really a big fan of Israel either) so don’t think I’m excusing the acts of terrorism they’ve committed, but aren’t they trying to take back their homes? What lengths would you go to in that instance?

  7. casey says:

    Scott, who do you think lived in Israel 2,000 years ago in the time of Christ? The “Palestinians”? Do you know where they got their name? It was the Romans who named Israel “Palestine” after the Philistines to add insult to injury when they occupied Israel’s land. There was never a people called the Palestinians. There is no Palestinian culture, no Palestinian language and there has never been a Palestinian land governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.

    Before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland. In the Six Day War Israel captured Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem…not from Arafat, but from Jordan’s King Hussein. Why all of a sudden after Israel won the war did all these people decide they were going to identify themselves as Palestinians? If we’re going to identify the people who were living there as some nationality, then they were Jordanians, so why didn’t Jordan take the refugees in after losing the war? Those who stayed in Israel are now Israeli citizens. Did you know that? Did you know that Jewish people cannot become equal citizens of Arab states?

    I also wonder where you got the idea that the Israelis kicked out the locals. Even before the UN’s November 29, 1947 partition resolution Arabs were beginning to leave the land. A British intelligence brief from October 23, 1947 stated, “…leading Arab personalities are acting on the assumption that disturbances are near at hand, and have already evacuated their families to neighboring Arab countries.” In April of 1948, two National Committee members, Farid Saas and Sheikh Murad were involved in encouraging Arab residents to leave, stating that the Arab Legion had 200 trucks ready to transfer refugees from Haifa to a safe haven where they would be given food, clothing, and lodging. The Haifa Arab community was ordered to leave by the Arab Higher Committee’s official local representatives. The Israelis didn’t uproot the Arabs; they left of their own accord, and this can be proven by official records from the time.

  8. Carter is a real idiot. On his last visit a year or two ago, he was unaware the Palestinians teach their children in elementary schools to hate Israel and admire martyrdom.

  9. Scott says:

    Like I said Casey I’m not an expert and I don’t have answer to your questions, but then you don’t have answers for mine. The Jews came in after having no homeland in that area for centuries and with the help of the UN decided to retake it. What gave them the right? Do we have a right to use martial force to retake an area after it has been occupied for a thousand years by other people?

    If the Palestinians decide to self identify as Palestianians why is this a problem? If they decide that where Israel now sits is where there should be a Palestinian nation because after all Arabs (which in and of itself is a pretty broad term) did live there for centuries. And having just looked at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_Palestine it seems that Palestine had its boundaries set at least in part by the League of Nations/Britain, so maybe being a Palestinian isn’t as loose as you think? I don’t know. And the whole shootin’ match belonged to the Ottoman Empire before that.

    Ultimately my question is who decides who can hold what land? I guess it gets back to “might makes right”. Israel is a democracy and as such they should get our support to a degree, but considering what a mess that whole region is I’m just advocating that we be careful in choosing sides and carefully examine our motives.

    Sorry if this is a little scattershot.

    Also you should check out my post on this.http://www.spiritualtramp.com/2008/04/israel_vs_palestine.html Some interesting discussion.

  10. Scott says:

    Also USB dude I’d be careful calling any president an idiot. Even I wouldn’t call bush an idiot. Disagree with Carter if you like but you don’t get to be a president by being stupid.

  11. casey says:

    Scott, I guess I should have stated my point more explicitely. If it was appropriate for the Palestinians to hold the land after it was conquered and taken from Israel by the Romans then is it not just as appropriate for Israelis to hold the land after it was given to them by the ruling government (the British)? If the Israelis have no claim to the land because it was won by war, then the Palestinians have no claim to it, either, because that’s precisely how they got it in the first place. No Arabs were forced (uprooted) by the Israelis out of the land that became the state of Israel.