Hamas support two-state solution

by Red Angel Wed May 06, 2009 09:53

This is not a surprise, Hamas have been going down this road for a while especially the prisoners. What does this mean for the organisations in Ireland who support a one state solution? The IAWM, the SWP, the IPSC support one state solutions but now every Palestinian organisation in the region (except Islamic Jihad and those linked to Al Qaeda) support a two state solution based on the 1967 borders.

Are these Irish based groups going to support the wishes of the Palestinian people?

by Reporter12 Wed May 06, 2009 12:13

US owned Arab States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are currently in a plot to relinquish the inalieanble right of return for Palestinian refugees. After abandoning this internationally recognised right and promoting the Ghettoisation of Palestine ,euphemistically called "Land Swap", Abbas will demand the Palestinian right to put up flags on some streets in occuppied Jerusalem.

In return for these bitter and painful concessions by Israel, the US-owned Arab states will try to legitimise the rogue fascist entity.

This is what is Obama, Netanyahu and Co. will try to sell to the Palestinians , and the world, as a two-state solution.

" According to the Palestinian sources, the new initiative will call for the settling of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries and in a future Palestinian state, following a land swap with Israel. The US administration has also demanded that the Arab countries set a timetable for the normalization of their ties with Israel with the aim of encouraging Jerusalem to take practical steps towards the establishment of a Palestinian state, they added. "

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3711551,00.html

by Kev - IPSC & IAWM (pers cap) Wed May 06, 2009 12:23

To 'Red Angel': Whatever about the individual members (who are entitled to their own view on the solution), neither the IPSC or the IAWM as organisations endorse either the One or Two State solutions.

by Mr Man Wed May 06, 2009 12:54

"neither the IPSC or the IAWM as organisations endorse either the One or Two State solutions."

Kev, what do you endorse then?

by Red Angel Wed May 06, 2009 14:58

That may well be the official position of both organisations but it certainly isn't the position of their leading figures.

On every demo I have ever been too either organised by the IPSC or by the IAWM on Palestine or the Lebanon, the leading spokespersons have always without exception put forward the arguments for a one state solution.

I remember being outside the Central Bank on an IAWM demo with Boyd Barrett chanting "From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free". I have also been to debates on the Middle East and heard leading reps from IPSC argue for a one nation solution.

I personally have never heard a representative of the IAWM or the IPSC argue for a two states solution.

by Kev - IPSC & IAWM (pers cap) Wed May 06, 2009 16:16

Firstly, neither organisation advocates ANY solution, believing it is up to Palestinians (in Palestine, Israel and the diaspora) to decide what kind of solution they want. Neither organisation is a homogeneous political party-like entity and there is diversity of opinion within each organisation on the one/two state issue. There may indeed be more one than two staters in each organisation (I've never taken a poll), but they are the personal opinoons of individuals. However, the position of the organisations is not to take a position.

Secondly,

- "On every demo I have ever been too either organised by the IPSC or by the IAWM on Palestine or the Lebanon, the leading spokespersons have always without exception put forward the arguments for a one state solution."

I can only speak for the IPSC here as I am more involved in that, but I have never heard an IPSC rep (as opposed to an invited speaker speaking in either an individual capacity or on behalf of another organisation) put forth the case for a one state solution - unless you are referring to the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees, which is a right endorsed by the IPSC... and UN Resolution 194.

- "I remember being outside the Central Bank on an IAWM demo with Boyd Barrett chanting "From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free". I have also been to debates on the Middle East and heard leading reps from IPSC argue for a one nation solution."

"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" can of course refer to either a one or two state solution - Gaza is on the coast, the West Bank on the Jordan. Just as the simple chants 'Free, Free, Palestine' and 'End the Occupation' can be interpreted in a one or two state manner - they could simplly be referring to the Occupied Palestinian Territories or to the whole of pre-1948 Palestine. Is it a bit ambiguous? Yes, but then that's kind of the point, it can mean whatever one wants it to mean.

As regards debates, I'm curious as to which debates you are talking about? Are you talking about IPSC speakers from the platform or the floor who are there explicitly representing the IPSC (as opposed to speaking in an individual capacity - like I said, the IPSC is not homogeneous nor does it demand a 'party line' on people's personal views)? Unless someone gets up and says 'I am speaking on behalf of the IPSC', then I would assume they are personal views. I know I'm always careful to make it known that I'm speaking in a personal capacity when I want to argue something that is not 'party line' (for want of a better phrase).

By the way, the IPSC has hosted speakers who advocate both one state (eg Ghada Karmi) and two state (eg Norman Finkelstein) positions, and will continue to do so in the interests of provoking genuine debate on the issue.

I hope that clarifies some of the issues.

by Moshe Wed May 06, 2009 17:38

"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" can of course refer to either a one or two state solution - Gaza is on the coast, the West Bank on the Jordan. Just as the simple chants 'Free, Free, Palestine' and 'End the Occupation' can be interpreted in a one or two state manner - they could simplly be referring to the Occupied Palestinian Territories or to the whole of pre-1948 Palestine. Is it a bit ambiguous? Yes, but then that's kind of the point, it can mean whatever one wants it to mean."

ROTLMAO

"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is a slogan that has existed among the Palestinian political leadership and armed wings for years - it incapsulates what was the policy of the Arab states and the Palestinians since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 - the conquest of the Jewish state and death or explusion of the Jewish people.
It only ever had one meaning and that meaning has remained unchanged until now that Hamas leaders have apparantly caved in to reality following their crushing humiliation in Gaza and conceded that the only way forward is the two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians.

The activists who swallowed the Hamas line for years are apoplectic that the Palestinians leadership including Hamas are getting on board the peace train leaving them at the platform.

by Feyadeen Wed May 06, 2009 18:04

now that Hamas leaders have apparantly caved in to reality following their crushing humiliation in Gaza and conceded that the only way forward is the two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians.

Just one problem with your little rant, Moshe - Hamas have been saying for years that they would sign a long-term truce on the basis of a full Israeli withdrawal from the 1967 occupied territories with all settlements, army bases and checkpoints dismantled and removed. This has nothing to do with the Israeli massacre of 1,300 people (900 of them civilians) in Gaza at the beginning of this year (only a lunatic would describe it as a "crushing humiliation" for Hamas - who on earth expected a lightly armed guerrilla force to defeat the fourth most powerful army in the world in open combat, without heavy artillery, missiles, tanks, planes, APCs etc?). The main obstacle to a two-state settlement is and always has been the refusal of Israel's political elite to consider a full withdrawal from the occupied territories and allow an independent Palestinian state to be formed.

by Vincent Wed May 06, 2009 19:51

Well said,

Moshes definition of humiliation also does not seem to account for Hamas sharp rise in popularity since the Gaza massacre. Haniyeh is now a more popular candidate than Abbas for the Presidency thanks to the "humiliation" he received at the hands of the IOF.
It is a very similar situation the surge in popularity of Hizbollah after the Lebanon massacres by the IOF.

Hizbollah were so humilated by that offensive that they are poised to take over the Lebanese parliament in the next elections.

With Israel making heroes of every Islamic organisation in the region there seems to be no need for Al-Queda anymore.

by Reporter12 Thu May 07, 2009 09:53

Report that Israel rejects the two state solution and the notion of Palestinian independence enshrined in international law.

Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Aharonoth, reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to inform the US president, Barack Obama, that his government would support the establishment of an autonomous Palestinian Authority, but will not accept a two-state solution.

http://www.imemc.org/article/60291

by Chaim Fri May 08, 2009 09:20

So Netanyahu doesn't support a two state solution. Why should he when the majority of Palestinians don't either.

Neither do the pro-Palestinian groups - "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is hardly an advocate for a two state solution.

by Feyadeen Fri May 08, 2009 12:39

"So Netanyahu doesn't support a two state solution. Why should he when the majority of Palestinians don't either."

They do, and have done for decades - the whole point of this story is that Hamas has re-iterated its willingness to sign a long-term truce on the basis of a full Israeli withdrawal from the 1967 occupied territories, a position it has held for years. Hamas is the biggest Palestinian party, and the second biggest Party, Fatah, has of course been committed to the two-state position for decades, even going so far as to renounce the right to resist the occupation and recognise the state of Israel in advance of any withdrawal from the 1967 territories (much good it did them). Netanyahu is just stating openly the real position of the whole Israeli political elite, from Barak to Lieberman - they will not withdraw from the 1967 territories and allow a Palestinian state to exist. Trying to blame the victims is a feeble trick that nobody with any knowledge of the situation will fall for.