• Hamas and Egypt

bpors: your crocodile tears for the Palestinians are quite transparent. Here's what you wrote last February  when you were denouncing me for having pointed out that the election of Hamas was positive:

History is littered with dangerous, fascist, nationalistic, groups who offer the people a chance to regain their pride only if they vote for them. And desperate people sometimes vote them in. This is how Hamas got in. ...


When you seemed to think it was ok for the Muslim Brotherhood to be operating in Egypt. I disagreed and gave my reasons. Thats pretty straightforward, isn't it? You also said Hamas getting elected was a positive. I don't see it as a positive in the long term. Democracy and theocracy don't mix well, IMO. Israel is the perfect example of that.


Do you recall a few years back when Israel was holding Arafat accountable for terrorist attacks by Hamas? But when Hamas wanted to win an election, they went quiet on that score. Believe me Arthur, Hamas will be back into the fray soon enough. Maybe even slaughtering their own to increase their power. Begin and Sharon were terrorists in their younger days. And neither stopped being like that. Sabra and Shatilla and Jenin. They don't change their spots.

So your view (not mine) was that Hamas is a theocratic terrorist group that would be back in the fray "soon enough" and even slaughtering their own to increase their power. You oppose Hamas and its Egyptian equivalent, the Muslim Brotherhood, being allowed to operate at all. Its not "ok" for them to even be allowed to run in elections, let alone win.


Now, a year later, you imagine you can get away with pretending that you regard the US not providing a subsidy for them as equivalent to the US preventing democratic elections - as though the Palestinians big hope was US funding!


Your hatred for "Pals" is exceeded of course by your hatred for Jews which is probably exceeded by your hatred for America. But your pretence that you actually give a damn about anything except spewing bile is quite unconvincing.

Arthur,

 

I denounced you for claiming the Hamas victory was going to be a positive??!! You are not making sense. The part you just quoted of what I have said back then has all come to pass.

 

1/ Hamas's election has been a negative. Like I predicted.

2/Hamas is slaughtering their own to increase their power. And so is Fatah. Like I predicted.

3/ Hamas because it is a religious radical group and fixed in its charter IS proving unable to govern in these circumstances. Like I predicted.

 

And nothing you have said has eventuated. NOTHING, Arthur.  Its not too early to tell. It has been a disaster for the Palestinian people. And it hasn't been all the fault of Hamas. America and Israel did not give them time to stuff things up by themselves before they started interfering and working on the removal of the elected government. Also, as I predicted.

 

I accused you of being a neocon zionist because I could not think anyone could  not see that this was going to be a disasterous result. I accused you of being a neocon zionist because I have yet to see you diverge one iota from neocon zionist stated policy in the Middle East. Not one iota. And when I say "stated" policy, I mean what they say they want - as opposed to their real goals which is U.S./Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. If democracy was such an important policy to the neocons (it is only a cover), they would have made an effort to make the Pal elections work.

 

The alternative to you NOT having neocon roots is not very complimentary.

 

In reply to Bpors:

 

I'm afraid that country A is under no obligation to country B to fund anything if that funding is tied to previous internationally endorsed agreements which country B has chosen to  unilaterally abrogate.  The principle holds whether or not the governments of countries A or  B have been chosen in  democratic elections.

 

Contrary to your (rather patronising) implication that Hamas had only a victim's option after the election, it could easily have found a way of abiding by the Agreement without setting aside its principles, as Kattoub pointed out. It chose not to do so.

GurJane: I'm afraid that country A is under no obligation to country B to fund anything if that funding is tied to previous internationally endorsed agreements which country B has chosen to  unilaterally abrogate.  The principle holds whether or not the governments of countries A or  B have been chosen in  democratic elections.

 

I was not aware that the Hamas government had repealed the Oslo Accords in the PA. Can you provide evidence for it.

 

By taking part in the election, Hamas was seen to be moving toward accepting it. Hamas immediately after the elections offered a truce. They also offered to have meetings with Israel. Olmert refused almost before the votes were counted. Olmert said he would not have anything to do with the Hamas government.

 

Given those facts, any advice on how Hamas should behave seem a little gratutious.

 

Your position is in perfect sync with the neocon zionists.

Reply Bpors: It was a verbal abrogation/repudiation not a legislative one as made clear in an earlier post of mine. Hamas made their position perfectly clear and public regarding abiding by the previous Govts international agreements  and have continued to do so. Offering a truce, or offering to talk to Olmert is irrelevant to the connection between international donor funding and the Oslo Agreements as Hamas would have been aware, or at least were made aware shortly after. 

 

According to Kuttab it was friends and allies of Hamas who were offering the advice. Gratuitous?

 

I'm not sure what the relevance is of your last comment?

GuruJane,

 

you said:

"I'm afraid that country A is under no obligation to country B to fund anything if that funding is tied to previous internationally endorsed agreements which country B has chosen to  unilaterally abrogate."

 

 And by the way, to abrogate is to repeal, to cancel by authority; to terminate; to abolish. Since you now say Hamas did this "verbally", your comment does not make sense, unless somehow the Oslo Agreement was a verbal agreement. I suspect you are holding on to this because you want to justify the American/Israeli position at all costs. 

 

Here is what a senior Hamas representitive said in Feburary. It totally repudiates your claim:

There is no authority that inherits another authority without abiding by the agreements already made but the other party also should be committed to the agreements,” said Hamas' Lebanese deputy political leader, Moussa Abu Marzouk on Sunday 05 February 2006.

“If the agreements contradict logic and rights, there are legal measures to be taken ... there are no eternal agreements,” Marzouk said.

He added that recognition of Israel in the past was a “mistake” that “must be corrected.”

“Where are the borders of the Israel we are supposed to recognize? Are the settlements included in the borders of Israel? ... Is the return of the refugees acceptable to Israel?" Marzouk asked.

“Until these questions are answered, it is not possible to propose,” he said appearing to leave the door open for the future, though according to its charter Hamas would never accept any form of Jewish state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

 

I would have thought that is a fairly reasonable position given the circumstances. As for Israel renouncing violence toward the Palestinian people, thats a hope we all want for the region.

 

I can find nowhere where Hamas has abrogated the Oslo Agreement.

 

BTW, I would be most interested in your answer to where Israel's borders are that the Palestinian people - and the ELECTED government - are supposed to recognize. Israel has different boundaries than it did in 1993.

 

 

Reply to Bpors.: you are correct about the meaning of "abrogate". When  first used in the 2nd para my post of 2007-01-28 it was qualified by "verbally". In my next use of the word in the 4th para of that post it was intended to be used in its UNqualified sense.

When next  used  in the 1st para of my post of 2007-01-29 it should have been qualified by "verbally" as in the my first reference. Apologies, since you were obviously misled by my  inattention to clarity.

 

Re:  Moussa Abu Marzouk's comments of   Sunday 05 February 2006. You  should note his reported comments were made by  a  so-described "Senior Hamas representative" apparently either in Lebanan or delegated  to Lebanese affairs by Hamas. ie:  comments did not come from the elected Prime Minister  of the new Hamas govt (or whatever the designation used) speaking with authority of being an elected government. As such Abu Marzouk's comments, while interesting, have no weight  at all when  assessing Hamas' position as the new government of the PA to the serious issue in question. Whether or not you or I or anybody thinks  Abu Marouk's is a "fairly reasonable position" is not relevant. One can only assess a government's public position from the public position its elected leader takes.

 

Your last point while interesting to me does not seem to be relevant to the issue we have been discussing? Perhaps there is some other thread more appropriate for us to take it up?   

GuruJane,

 

I had no problem with you using the word "abrogate", except that you didn't back it up in a reference to anything that proved your point. Nowhere have I seen the Hamas government renounce, abrogate, or repeal the Oslo Agreement. Neither have they enacted any law that is in opposttion to the 1993 agreement; written, or verbal. They say they don't like it, their leaders compain about it, and they want to review it. And after reading for myself and looking at the history of the past 13 years I can't see any Palestinian that would like it.

 

But the Hamas Government has not repealed it, verbally or otherwise AFAIK.

 

Please show me where they have said they will no longer asbide by the terms of the Oslo agreement.