IAP Political Forum

Poor poor Jimmy... Maybe it's his advancing years... or maybe it's just his far left liberal ideals exposing themselves... Either way, Hamas is "playing him" like a fiddle...

Hamas wants legitimacy and wants to play on the world with their sympathy card... WITHOUT having to change their agenda of Israel's elimination... And along comes naive Jimmy Carter attempting to provide them with such (against the recommendation of US officials).

Hamas made no new meaningful concessions... didn't back off of their agenda of Israel's elimination, advocacy of violence, ... didn't agree to change their charter which calls for Israel's destruction or agree to stop fired Kassam rockets at Israeli citizens... but Jimmy apparently wants to pretend there's been a breakthrough.

What Israel and the world got through Jimmy's naivity was more Hamas PR... talk again of a truce (which would allow Hamas it re-arm, train terrorists, and import weaponry basically unpoliced... sure... they've LOVE a truce...)... and new "verbage" falling far short of Hamas agreeing to recognize Israel's right to exist.


How nice... Israel can "live as a neighbor" in peace (until Hamas decides otherwise, as they clearly made no statement as to perminancy )... but Hamas refuses to ever recognize them (Israel)... clearly indicating that their agenda with regard to Israel's ultimate destruction hasn't budged... AND HERE COMES JIMMY CARTER to save the day by attempting to give Hamas some legitimacy by encouraging the US and Israel to negotiate with this terrorist group....  ;D ;D.  Meanwhile Hamas gets international attention and an opportunity to attempt to "appear" to the naive like they're actually willing live in a meaningful, lasting peace with Israel and blame Israel for all that troubles them.... And of course, a good number of the generally naive world actually buy it.

While I do actually think Jimmy means well, I tend to believe he's lost touch with reality, especially with regard to the agendas at play in the middle-east.

Apparently a majority of Israeli citizens believe the Israeli government ought to meet with Hamas for 'one on one' talks.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958473.html (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958473.html)

The elites are always out of touch and still trying to re-fight the last battle.

Very true... As that same article also states the reason for such numbers:

Unfortunately "Average citizen's" (of any nation) generally don't understand the "big picture" and only know that they want fast relief from any number of issues which may threaten them.   If you or I lived in a Southern Israeli city under the constant threat of a missle/rocket landing on your head, or a suicide bomber blowing up your family while they eat lunch, we'd vote for our government to do almost anything or talk to almost anyone to stop it too.  That they expressed these opinions in an opinion poll isn't surprising.

Hamas seeks Israel's destruction... plain and simple.  They tell us so almost daily through their leadership's actions and have even been so kind as to document this goal in their Covenant:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

They have demonstrated that they have no intention of accepting Israel.  And  Khaled Meshaal was kind enough to CLEARLY refresh our memories of this just 2 days ago, as referenced on the original post  (for those who may have began to believe otherwise).

While the citizens who are victims of Hamas' (and other groups) terror may want instant relief, negotiating with terrorists is likely only to benefit the terrorists which ultimately hurts those they're terrorizing.  Negotiating with terrorists only invites MORE TERRORISM, as they (the terrorists) believe their tactics can work.  This is why most civilized nations avoid negotiating with terrorists as a general policy.  Reward Hamas by negotiating with Hamas for  the release of Shalit, and Hamas will be encouraged to take more hostages (as they've tried to recently) knowing/learning that they can use those hostages to get what they want.  A BAD IDEA in my opinion.

 

Realityman, I agree that the current Hamas discourse makes negotiations with it impossible. But even if Hamas were to immediately recognize Israel and declare readiness to live in peace, Israel's territorial positions would be unacceptable. Annexaptable. We have been through that during the 2000 negotiation cycle. I never heard you calling Israel to renounce annexation policy.

You've just explained why the USA is having kittens over the idea of direct talks between Israel and Hamas.

Nothing must ever be permitted to interfere with a good propaganda argument for endless war.

ahhh... nonsense.  As before, your willful lack of understanding of the situation and desire to "balance" (no matter what the facts may say) continues to shine through Dormouse.  But as before, your seem anxious to share you opinion anyway...  ;) http://www.itsallpolitics.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,26/topic,1984.15/


And I agree Peisi that "IF Hamas were to immediately recognize Israel and declare readiness to live in peace (and take real and meaningful ACTION demonstrating such), Israel's territorial positions would be unacceptable... But that "IF" is no more than wishful thinking at this point and highly unlikely anytime soon.

Israel has agreed in principal (on many occasions) to giving land, settlements/"annexations" in exchange for peace... Egypt is a clear a substantive example of this... and has netted both sides a meaningful peace which benefits both...  The Palestinians have never gotten off the ground (or shown a willingness to get off the ground, in more than empty words) with demonstrating a willingness (or ability)  to provide security, and act against terrorism toward a meaningful and permanent peace (THEIR part of the bargain)... This is why you won't hear/see me calling on Israel to renounce any "annexation policy"... because it's likely such a policy change would be met with nothing but more violence from the Palestinian side as they would claim some sort of "terror victory" as with the Gaza withdrawal...

IF, and only IF we see a real change (in more than empty words) of Hamas (and their offshoot terrorist organizations) accepting Israel's right to exist (or Abbas/Fatah taking meaningful action against them), and showing (in more than words) a willingness to live with Israel as a permanent neighbor without terms which would ultimately mean Israel's destruction, THEN, and only then would you see me advocating not only a "policy change", but withdrawal from many settlements toward a "reasonable" permanent peace settlement.  However, this seems like little more than a pipe dream at this point in time.  While I'm not in favor of additional settlements or housing on existing settlements being built, I can certainly understand Israel's desire live life as normal a life as possible, as if the Palestinians will/would never be peaceful (with history as their guide).

Peace is not a one way street... Under ANY peace settlement/agreement, the Palestinians (through their leadership) will have obligations... "A two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty... "... I didn't just make that up, those are words from the now defunked "roadmap to peace" ( http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm )...

"Phase 1" under the "Roadmap", as an example, reads" "Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel's right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere (Which clearly never happened then, and is clearly unlikely to happen anytime soon given that the Palestinian people elected a terrorist organization into power). "All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel."(Which obviously never happened then as Abbas refused to confront his inbred terrorist organizations", and is less likely to happen anytime soon as the newly elected Hamas, which IS a terrorist organization, has taken over Gaza and is certainly not going to ACT against itself or their own agenda.

Obviously Israel has obligations as well under any peace settlement as well.  Those obligations will no-doubt include no more settlements, dismantling certain settlements, withdrawals, etc... But Israel is not obligated to do anything when/if the Palestinian side shows/demonstrates no intentions of living up to their obligations.... IF the Palestinians somehow surprised everyone and started to ACT in a meaningful way against their inbred terrorism and voiced a desire settle for less than full "right of return" destruction of Israel and/or full '67 borders... and Israel continued building settlements, THEN I would be blaming Israel for a lack of progress.  BUT this has yet to be the case.

Palestinian leadership will someday have to realize that in negotiations, neither sides gets everything they want.  Israel settled for a fraction of the land originally implied under the Balfour Declaration and Palestine Mandate, yet agreed to such in an attempt for peace... The Arabs chose war instead... Israel gave back land it conquered from Egypt for peace, because Egypt showed and demonstrated a willingness to live up to their end of the bargain.  Egypt didn't get everything they wanted - Israel didn't get everything they wanted... but it worked for both and has benefited both... The Palestinian Arabs seem slow to learn that in negotiations, "neither side gets EVERYTHING they want".  But this is a lesson the Palestinians will have to learn someday if they truly seek peace.  '48 borders weren't enough for the Arabs in '48, '67 borders weren't enough for the Arabs in '67, and the more they keep up their violence while refusing to act against it, the more they will lose...

Palestinians are not owed '67 borders and will not get them due to their previous violence.  They will not get full "right of return" allowing them to demographically destroy Israel over time.  A "reasonable settlement" will give them a good majority of the land they occupy, and possibly compensation of additional lands for lands Israel will not and is under no obligation to cede.  A "reasonable" settlement will allow "some" Arabs to return to within Israeli borders, and offer 'reasonable compensation to others who can prove ownership (even though the Arab states will offer nothing to Jews they forced to flee in those times)... Hopefully the Palestinian people and their leadership will someday recognize what they have to do... AND DO IT... Until then, talk is cheap.

i said before that Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel is incompatible with peace, as long as Hamas holds any power to be a spoiler between Israel and Fatah. And I criticized Fatah's position on refugees. My opinion is that justice is on the Palestinian side, yet a pursuit of infinite justice is too bloody a business. While Fatah has tacitly and implicitly accepted the reality of a very limited return, it used confused language, double talk (in English and Arabic) which complicated the task for the Israeli moderates.

But it's a two-way traffic, Israel is also complicating things for the Palestinian peaceniks. As I said many times, Syria is the major factor here, and the Syrian problem, that is, tha Golan problem has to be solved before the numerous Palestinian problems can be tackled. What is obstructing the path to the Israel0-Syrian rapprochement? Again, it's Israeli annexationism. The basic trade-off is land for peace, in this case, Golans for a peace agreement. Syria has long ago accepted fairly humiliating conditions of the Gola return, - no right to deploy military there, an international observation post, easy access for Israeli citizens. That's all in the Dennis Ross and Clinton books about the 1999-2000 negotiations between Barak and Assad-Senior. Syria has accepted things downright humiliating, it cannot cede any more on the Golan issue. Israel refused returning the entire territory. People are against this, Likud is against it, even many Labor people are against.

So the Golan issue is the first step in my Roadmap. Once the Syrian policy of spoiling the Israelo-Palestinian talks is removed (and this policy is natural in the light of Sadat's betrayal of Syria, and the Syrian fear that once Palestinian issue is somehow resolved, pressure be taken of Israel to return the Golans), we'll se a very different reality. Syria hosts and sponsors Hamas. Hamas will have to find new ways to exist without Syria.

Simultaneously, the perspective of the 1967-based deal for the Palestinians must be REAL and PROXIMATE, that is, a 1967-based Palestine must be reachable with 1-2 years from the cessation of fire. Palestinians have been taken the fraudulent route far too often, - they must stop ALL hostilities NOW, and receive SOME land SOMEDAY. Maybe. Israel has been playig this game all the way long. Palestinians stop violence, and Israel will simply say: no, we can't accept 1967 line, we can't cede East Jerusalem and Maale Adumim and other blocks, but let's continue talking for another 50 years, we'll find some solution. When Palestinian stop violence, they need to know WHAT and WHEN they gonna get. It's land for peace; we know which peace we're talking about, but we don't know what land.

So the first step, in my opinion, is the Israeli withdrawal from the Golans. After that, we'll have additional space on the Palestinian theatre.

Agreed  ;D


Here I have to disagree.. While Syria is certainly an issue with their support of Hamas, they have little to do with Hamas' agenda or the failure of the numerous other peace efforts - Palestinian Terror, Palestinian societal values, and Palestinian leadership does.   "Fixing" the Syria situation will be worked on as well, but does little to change Hamas' agenda or stop the terrorism.  Hamas, their agenda, and their tactics must be delt with directly by a Palestinian leadership who recognizes that no meaningful peace can ever be achieved while terrorists are allowed to run free terrorizing a neighbor while openly advocating their eventual destruction.

Any "roadmap" or "peace plan" has to begin with a Palestinian leadership who is willing to take ACTION toward stopping the violence and terror.  They don't have that leadership at the present time.  Hamas', Islamic Jihad, (etc.) "agendas" aren't going to go away on their own.  They eventually need to be delt with...preferably by the Palestinians themselves... But clearly this seams highly unlikely in the near term as it was the Palestinian people who elected this terrorist organization into power.


While I agree it would be "nice" to be able to present the Palestinian People with...IF you agree to A, B, and C, you will get X, Y, and Z (as done with previous peace proposals).  There is no unified representation the Palestinian people have able to accept such on behalf of ALL the Palestinian people... Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc... will certainly not agree to any peace "deal" Abbas works out with Israel short of Israel packing up and leaving... And as such, any deal Fatah/Abbas reaches is meaningless while he also refuses to police Hamas, or call in outside help to police Hamas and their agenda.  So long as Fatah has no control over Hamas, any overall deal reached with Fatah is little more than pie in the sky... as Hamas will simply ignor it, or apply it's own rules to it.  Fatah would certainly not be able/willing to implement any meaningful peace/security concessions/assurances agreed to... and we'd be right back to square one... as with the now defunked "roadmap"

As I mentioned before, the Palestinian people (through their elected leadership) are clearly not ready to recognize that they will not get everything they want... and ARE NOT OWED, nor will they receive everything they want.

You may recall that Olmert recently (2 years ago or so) proposed establishing permanent borders unilaterally as it was viewed as unlikely the Palestinians (through their representation) were going to be a real partner in peace anytime soon.... There was talk of final borders being established by 2010... pulling out of many settlements, a good part of the West Band, parts of Jerusalem... declaring borders, and leaving the Palestinians to the rest... Though this was proposed as more of a "carrot on a string" to entice the Palestinians to the peace tables thinking that maybe at some point they'd make real concessions toward peace in an attempt to ultimately get more, little has appeared to work... Now with Hamas in power...with control of Gaza, real peace seems less likely then ever.... Israel has no desire to police these people forever, but when they don't police them, they get terrorism as a reward.  Gaza, as an example, was a concession giving the Palestinians the opportunity to demonstrate that they could police their own and live in peace... And now Israel has "Hamastan" and an almost daily barrage of rockets as a reward.

The Palestinians (as a people represented by their leadership) need to decide who they are and what they want.  If they seek Israel's destruction, then they will have "made their own bed" and will know nothing but war... If they truly seek peace WITH Israel (not on top of it), then they need leadership (leadership which is actually in charge) in place to ACT toward this... Meanwhile having Abbas/Fatah negotiate with "peace" he's clearly unable to provide means little.

Syria has little bearance on Hamas' aspirations, but it has vast influence on Hamas' capabilities. And you know of course the capabilities-aspirations link. Appetites depend on power level. Hamas will be physically, structurally, financially reduced without Syria. It is the aid programs run by Hamas that are the backbone of its popularity, not the radical agenda. Besides, SYria probably quite directly instructs Hamas on certain actions. It's more complex than a bunch of radicals prepared to pursue their agenda at the cost of their own lives and lives of their families, prepared to live in poverty and deprive their children of future. Hamas is not a mass suicide cult of zombies with paralyzed self-preservation instinct and no appetite for good things in life. It is a structure with a budget and all the power interest games. It depends on its sponsors and calculates its abilities, etc. Hamas people are liable to all same motives that the corrupted multimillionnaires from the Fatah are.

Fatah failed to give Palestinians a dignified existence. Occupation, check points, denial of Jerusalem, poverty. The reasons for that are Israel's persistence in territorial issues, and lack of international support.


yet it was not Hamas who broke periods of peace in 2000 and 2003. Sharon disrupted the 2000 peace process with his Temple Mount crusade; and he broke the long ceasefire Hamas was holding by an incursion into a refugee camp after.

Once again, Hamas can be weakened by the exit of Syria from the "spoiler" enterprise; it can be voted out, it can be defeated at a referendum on the basic questions of peace with Israel. Two things I want to stress: a solution of the Golan problem will weaken Palestinian hawks and create a new reality in Palestine; and Palestinians will support peace deal with Israel if it's acceptable in terms of territory (1967) and temporal conditions (real independence within 1-2 years). If there is total clarity that Palestinians can have a genuine state based on the Greenline, with a limited refugee return and a generous treament of those who will not return, the case for the continuation of unequal struggle at horrible costs will be too unattractive.

I see your point... but I think you're giving Syria more credit for "influence" and support of Hamas that it actually has... Syria seems to be little more than a pawn of Iran...

Just like how when Hamas doesn't want to take credit for a particular bombing or attack and the smaller "Islamic Jihad" or "Popular Resistance Front" takes the public credit (when it's clear Hamas is really pulling the strings),... Syria serves this purpose for Iran.  THIS is why there's reluctance on Israel's part to allowing Syria into Golan... NOT that it's just Syria there, but that it basically invites Iran in.


Peace with Syria also does little to stem the flow of "terror funds" from underground charities and organizations support and actively fund Hamas and their terror operations.  Weapons are smuggled in from outside sources funded by outside dollars, and Syria has little to do with it.


Iran is one of the real major threats... and there are no common borders to be given for peace with them.


As disputed above, I tend to disagree that a peace agreement and exit of Golan will change Hamas... Iran and numerous underground support organizations will continue to flow funds, and weaponry to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the others...

Voting out Hamas will also do little to weaken their position.  Long before Hamas was "voted in" they were a main obsticle to peace.  Fatah with Abbas and Arafat before him refused to ACT against their violence and agenda...

Even today, Palestinians are attempting to get ALL Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails  released... Many of their prisoners have blood on their hands... have purposely been involved in killing innocent civilians.... yet if set free, would not be jailed in Palestinian prisons, but hailed as "heroes"  and freed to roam the Palestinian streets... free to kill again... That these "terror activities" aren't viewed as illegal under Palestinian rule isn't going to change on it's own... Abbas shows no signs of a willingness to ACT to change these ideologies,... and Hamas is certainly not going to do this on their own...

While I agree that stopping and/or greatly reducing the funding will slow Hamas... Syria unfortunately is only a small player in this game... Iran will simply divert what would have moved through Syria through other channels... Hamas' agenda will remain unchanged...

Hamas is headquartered in Damascus, and it's known that the hardcore line is mostly pushed by the Damascus group around Meshal, not   by the Gaza leadership.



the Iran factor in Palestine and Syria is a new one, and not the prevalent one. Syria is PUSHED into Iran's arms by the Israeli and Western policies. But Syria is a completely independent player who will deal with Iran, buy Korean high-tech, purchase Russian weapons, and maintain secret channels with Israel.

.

there are first-hand sources of info about the Israeli-Syrian negotiations on the Golans, sources that can hardly be pro-Syrian suspects, - Clinton, Ross, Indyk, Aaron Miller, Ben-Ami,... They pretty uniformly attest that in 2000 Barak refused to give up the entire area because of political pressure from the right, because of the Israeli public opinion, because of the water factor. And nothing about Iran.


Mofaz does what Israelis are good at, - finding excuses to keep the land. And this one is impossible to defend. The deal on the Golans was supposed to include numerous provisions about the military deployment, Israeli warning stations, international forces on the territory, special visa regimes. All this was discussed in detail in 1999-2000 between Barak and Assad governments, under Clinton's mediation. There is ZERO possibility that these provisions would allow any Iranian presence in the Golans. Barak killed the deal due to internal Israeli politics and water concerns. Nothing to do with Iran. Now that Iran has become so "omnipotent", Israelis are using it as a pretext. But real motives were revealed in 2000, with no Iran connection.



in that case it's power status will change dramatically. As I said many times: give the Palestinians a choice between a sovereign Plaestine in the 1967 borders and within reasonable time, and continuation of bloody fruitless struggle in poverty, - and they will choose the former. But such choice was never theirs.

To be constructive, I'll offer my "road map", and it's fist steps will be -

1. Beginning immediately voluntary resettling programs for refugees whereas permanent residence with financial support will be offered by a number of countries including the Arabs and the West. Disappearance of the destitute and desperate camps in Lebanon, Syria and possibly Gaza and West Bank will make a deal on the refugee issue much easier.

2. Solution to the Golan problem with a full Israeli withdrawal under provisions for demilitarization of the area, and under international guarantees.

That will create moe space to maneuvre against other problems. Until the refugee factor and the Syria factor remain as they are, Palestinian moderates will be under too much pressure. But again, moderation of the Israeli side can hardly be expected as long as Israel enjoys unconditional American support.

Peisi... We seem to agree that cutting off support/funding to Hamas is/would be moving in the right direction... Though I've yet to see substantive evidence that an Israel/Syrian peace treaty and "land for peace" deal would mean anything of substance toward changing Hamas' violence or agenda. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for peace with Syria... and a land for peace deal ASSUMING security concerns and assurances are made and followed through on.  But again, I see little evidence this will have any significant impact on Hamas' violence and agenda.   There are WAYYY too many other outside sources of funding and support making Syria only a minor player, no matter who may be operating there.


Headequaters can be moved...  Meshal (or any other leadership) can be moved ...  The "agenda" is pushed from numerous worldwide sources.  Where Meshal or his "group" is located means little as their operatives in Palestine would continue to receive funding and arms.


That's ONE "opinion"... an opinion I dissagree with.  Whether the "Iran factor" is new or not doesn't change the fact that Hamas is supported by numerous outside sources, Syria being only one.


You'll notice that Syria isn't even directly mentioned above (but I suppose could be lumped in with "oil rich" states, even though many others are far richer)... Regardless of a potential peace with Syria, Hamas will continue to be funded and to act on their agenda. 


lol... There you go again.  IGNORING THE OBVIOUS REASONS... Ignoring that which you prefer not to see (The long history of Arab/Muslim violence, wars, terrorism against Israel). 

The fact is that Golan is militarily strategic and has been used as such in the past against Israel.  The fact that Syria is a weak state in relation to Iran and would not be able stop Iran from imposing it's will, whatever that may be.


Yeh Peisi... Sort of like all the "guarantees" given with Lebanon and Hezbollah with all the international monitoring, etc??  "ZERO possibility"... Right...  ;D ;D

Nevertheless, Israel seems willing to give Syria the benefit of the doubt, assuming Syria can follow through on security issues (something Palestinians have never even attempted to do).


Regardless of any potential future peace with Syria, Hamas will continue to be funded from numerous outside sources.  There's little reason to believe otherwise. Hamas will continue to terrorize Israel and refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.  It's who they've defined themselves to be after all.

... THE COVENANT OF HAMAS: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

While certainly attempting to cut of funding to Hamas through various means will help reduce the terror, it will not change objectives or re-educate those who've been raised/trained to hate and seek Israel's destruction... ULTIMATELY it will take direct confrontation... something the Palestinian people (through their leadership) are clearly unwilling and/or have no desire to do.  Fatah/Abbas aren't going to do it and Hamas certainly isn't going to do it themselves.

Today, suicide bombing attacks are praised... the families of the bombers congratulated, often paid... streets, parks, various honors bestowed upon the names of those who kill innocent civilians.  THESE ARE NOT THE ACTIONS AND BEHAVIORS of a "people" ready to embrace peace.


Again... That appears to be your opinion... and an opinion, (in light of the evidence presented) that you've failed to back up... but if you have more evidence to back up your opinion that  hasn't come to light, I'd like to hear it.

If Israel does end up ceding Golan for peace with Syria... and (as I predict) little changes with Hamas and their agenda, I also "predict" you'll be out here blaming Israel for your prediction not happening (Hamas changing)... But on that one, we'll just have to wait and see.

Peisi... We seem to agree that cutting off support/funding to Hamas is/would be moving in the right direction... Though I've yet to see substantive evidence that an Israel/Syrian peace treaty and "land for peace" deal would mean anything of substance toward changing Hamas' violence or agenda. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for peace with Syria... and a land for peace deal ASSUMING security concerns and assurances are made and followed through on.  But again, I see little evidence this will have any significant impact on Hamas'.   There are WAYYY too many other outside sources of funding and support.  Syria is only a minor player, no matter who may be operating from there.


Headequaters can be moved (or can go underground)...  Meshal (or any other leadership) can be moved (or go underground) ...  The "agenda" is supported from numerous worldwide radicalized Muslim charities/funds.  Where Meshal or his "group" is located means little as their operatives in Palestine would continue to receive smuggled funding and arms.  It should also be noted that much of this "underground" funding and arms smuggling comes through nations Israel HAS PEACE TREATIES WITH...namely Egypt and Jordan...


That's ONE "opinion"... an opinion I dissagree with. 

Whether the "Iran factor" is new or not doesn't change the fact that Hamas is supported by numerous outside sources, Syria being only one.  Iran is far wealthier than Syria and has far more influence regionally than Syria.  That you believe their "factor" is not "prevalent" (regarding Hamas)... in light of the arms smuggling and Iranian-made weaponry being used by Hamas, and estimates of $20-30 million per year of funding, brings into question how you might be defining "prevalent" (??)... or what you might consider to be substantive.


You'll notice that Syria isn't even directly mentioned above (but I suppose could be lumped in with "oil rich" states, even though many others are far richer)... Regardless of a potential peace with Syria, Hamas will continue to be funded and to act on their agenda. 


lol... There you go again.  IGNORING OBVIOUS REASONS and RATIONALE...and taking an unstubstatiated "jab" at Israel.... Ignoring that which you prefer not to see (The long history of Arab/Muslim violence, wars, terrorism against Israel). 

The fact is that Golan is militarily strategic and has been used as such in the past against Israel.  The fact that Syria is a weak state in relation to Iran and would have little ability to counter Iran from imposing it's will, whatever that may be.


Yeh Peisi... Sort of like all the "guarantees" given with Lebanon and Hezbollah with all the international monitoring, etc??  "ZERO possibility"... Right...  ;D ;D

Nevertheless, Israel seems willing to give Syria the benefit of the doubt, assuming Syria can follow through on security issues (something Palestinians have never even attempted to do).


Regardless of any potential future peace with Syria, Hamas will continue to be funded from numerous outside sources.  There's little reason to believe otherwise. Hamas will continue to terrorize Israel and refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.  It's who they've defined themselves to be after all.

... THE COVENANT OF HAMAS: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

While certainly attempting to cut of funding to Hamas through various means will help reduce the terror, it will not change objectives or re-educate those who've been raised/trained to hate and seek Israel's destruction... ULTIMATELY it will take direct confrontation... something the Palestinian people (through their leadership) are clearly unwilling and/or have no desire to do.  Fatah/Abbas aren't going to do it and Hamas certainly isn't going to do it themselves.

Today, suicide bombing attacks are praised... the families of the bombers congratulated, often paid... streets, parks, various honors bestowed upon the names of those who kill innocent civilians.  THESE ARE NOT THE ACTIONS AND BEHAVIORS of a "people" ready to embrace peace.  Abbas certainly isn't taking an substantive actions toward changing this... Hamas is certainly not going to change without being forced to.


Again... That appears to be your opinion... and an opinion, (in light of the evidence presented) that you've failed to back up... If you have more evidence to back up your opinion that  hasn't come to light, I'd like to hear it.

If Israel does end up ceding Golan for peace with Syria... and (as I predict) little changes with Hamas and their agenda, I also "predict" you'll be out here blaming Israel for your prediction not happening (Hamas changing)... But on that one, we'll just have to wait and see.

A few quotes from sources you'll find trustworthy:

""In fact, Syrian sponsorship of Hamas has had an enormous impact on the group's operational capacities. Since the mid-1990s, Damascus has been the operational headquarters of the Hamas military wing and a nexus for the transfer of external funds to Hamas operatives in the territories. Syria and Syrian-occupied Lebanon have become major conduits for funneling weapons and explosives to Hamas and safe havens for training hundreds of its operatives.""

On the motives of the Syrian "spoiling":

"Ehud Ya'ari, the Arab affairs correspondent for Israel's Channel 1 News, explained why Syria allowed these commanders to operate in Damascus: "Assad is telling us: Look, I hold the strings of terror in Lebanon - Hezbollah - as well as the strings of terror in the West Bank. Give me more, talk to me differently."

"PA officials also complained about Syria's role in sponsoring Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel. "We have come to realize that the orders being issued by the military branches of the Islamic groups are coming from the outside," said PA Planning Minister Nabil Shaath in a March 1996 interview. Shaath specifically pointed the finger at Lebanon and Syria, "where the most hard-core military wing is based."

"As more and more resources were put at their disposal, Hamas leaders on the outside adopted a much more uncompromising position than their internal counterparts.."

Again on the difference between more pragmatic Hamas in the Territories and the radical Hamas outside:

"the PA has ostensibly sought to broker a halt to terrorist attacks by Hamas and other militant groups in the territories. Again, the external leadership in Damascus has thwarted the initiative. "Those sitting in Damascus and Teheran see things in a different way from their friends in Gaza or Jericho," explained one PA official. "The local Hamas leadership is much more pragmatic. But, in the end, it is the outsiders who set the tone because they have the money."

""Syria is "cradling the Palestinian resistance and its various factions with pride and steadfastness," he (Mashal) said,

also don't forget the Hamas-Hezbollah cooperation which is important to Hamas in many ways, - shipment of arms and learning tactics. Hezbollah is also under heavy Syrian influence (as well as Iran's).

http://www.meib.org/articles/0210_s1.htm

Further:

""Responding to the June 25, 2006, kidnapping of Corporal Shalit, on June 28 four Israeli F-16 fighter jets “buzzed” Asad’s Latakia home. Unlike 1998, when Turkey successfully compelled then President Hafiz al-Asad to deport Kurdish terrorist leader Abdullah Ocalan, Israeli efforts to convince Bashar to jettison Mashal or otherwise pressure Hamas to resolve the Shalit crisis do not stand a good chance of success. This is at least in part because Syria today is more confident than at any time since the U.S. invasion of Iraq."

As you see, Israel regards Syria to have enough influence over Hamas to pressure Syria over the Shalit case.


http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2486




how could it be any different given the immense trauma of the Palestinians? I think the West is applying to Palestinians moral standards that it would not apply to itself. Were a Western nation to ever find itself in the Palestinian shoes (loss of a native country, loss of property, dignity, symbols, and kept in refugee camps generation after generation) it would hardly be concerned with the ethics of harming innocents.

I repeat my basic idea for seeking a way out: let's address the refugee populations, and the Golan problem, - that will create more space for tackling the issues of recognition, Jerusalem, settlements, etc.


 

Peisi... The forum is tagging a lot of longer posts as "spam"... As such, I see that you made a post, but can't read/see your last post (It's happened to me several times too)... Try posting something short (so it's not screened as spam), THEN go back and edit in what you want to post.   :)

RM

RM, I'll try to un-spam my most; it's not length but links, i suppose, that invite spam suspicions. I brought a  few links about Syria's influence on Hamas. Generally, I think it's no use to foretell the uselessness of the ISraelo-Syrian accommodation before it happens. I'm sure it will have positive effects on the entire region; and i also stress the dire need to begin voluntary resettling of the refugees immediately.

Generally I'll agree that peace with Syria will/would have a positive effect on the region (as does peace between any nations in the region)... What I'm dissagreeing with is your implication that somehow peace with Syria will significantly weaken Hamas in Palestine...or that it needs to come first (before peace with the Palestinians) as if it would significantly smooth the way:


As I stated before: I'm all for peace with Syria... and a land for peace deal ASSUMING security concerns and assurances are made and followed through on.  But again, I see little evidence this will have any significant impact on Hamas'.   There are WAYYY too many other outside sources of funding and support... You seem to be "assuming" and/or implying that a peace tready/deal with Syria would make Hamas simply go away in Syria... and that the funding and support from there would simply dissapear... As I mentioned before: Headequarters can be moved (or can go underground)...  Meshal (or any other leadership) can be moved (or go underground) ...  The "agenda" is supported from numerous worldwide radicalized Muslim charities/funds.  Where Meshal or his "group" is located means little as their operatives in Palestine would continue to receive smuggled funding and arms

I don't discount what you've presented regarding Syria... They certainly are currently an important source of support for Hamas... BUT Simply because Syria agrees to peace..signs a peace deal, and land is given, etc... doesn't mean Syria (or international peacekeepers) will actively go after Hamas in their country, OR that the funding/support coming from Syria will go away... OR that this support channel won't/can't simply move more underground and continue operation which would then only not be "officially" supported or harbored by Syria...

Peace with Syria also does little to stem the flow of "terror funds" from underground charities and organizations support and actively fund Hamas and their terror operations.  Weapons are smuggled in from outside sources funded by outside dollars, and Syria has little to do with it.  As I also mentioned, much of this "underground" funding and arms smuggling comes through nations Israel HAS PEACE TREATIES WITH...namely Egypt and Jordan... Peace with Syria, while worthwile in persuing (as was peace with Egypt and Jordan), will only push Hamas underground in Syria, or they may simply chose to relocate... The funds and general support are likely to continue to flow with only minimal interruption.

Ultimately Hamas (and the like) will have to be directly confronted.  And it currently comes down to the fact that Abbas/Fatah is not willing/able to do this.  This being the case, Hamas will continue to operate and pursue Israel's destruction through their terroristic tactics until physically stopped... If the Palestinians aren't willing to do this, ultimately someone else will have to.  Until then we have the status quo. 

RM, it is not only me but Israelis and many Fatah men who consider Syria a decisive Hamas factor; here are excerpts from a JPost article whic I don't link because any link seems to tag my posts as "spam":

""
Syria disrupting Shalit negotiations


Negotiations over the release of kidnapped IDF soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit have stalled because of the intervention of Syria, which is exerting pressure on the Hamas leadership not to accept proposals made by the Egyptian mediators for a prisoner swap with Israel, Palestinian Authority officials here told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

Syria is playing a very negative role," said one official. "[Hamas leader] Khaled Mashaal, who is based in Damascus, is refusing to approve an Egyptian-brokered deal because the Syrians are inciting him."

From Haaretz:

"Gilad Shalit's father: One phone call from Assad can free my son
 
By Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent
 
The father of abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit called on Syrian President Bashar Assad on Monday to apply pressure on the Hamas leadership based in Damascus to bring the affair to a positive conclusion...""


there are many, yet how significant? Never discount the difference between a large state structure and private charities. Presently, Syria is indispensible for Hamas because -

- Syria is a stable dictatorial state with full organizational, intelligence, financial capabilities of a solid state machine;

- Syria is geographically proximate;

- Syria is Arab;

- Syria is Sunni;

- Syria has established links with Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups in Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf which cooperate with Hamas in smuggling, etc;

- Syria has leverage over Hezbollah and Lebanon where some of the Hamas training is done (although major Hezbollah sponsor is Iran, the two would be "disconnected", to a degree, without the Syrian link between them).

Finally, we can fruitlessly argue about the effects of the Israelo-Syrian deal on Hamas capabilities, but we'll never know those effects until the deal is reached. Peace between the two is also obviously valueable per se, not only as a tool towards the resolution of the Pal question. I think we agree that things should be moving towards a deal between Israel and Syria based on the complete Golan return, comprehensive peace under international auspices, possibly international presence on the Golans. I really expect a lot from that. And I blame Israel for the absense of the agreement. Israel is not ready for a complete Golan withdrawal (much of Israel not ready even for partial). Any peace-sympathizer should have this message for Israel: time to leave the Golans in return for peace with Syria. I support what many moderate partisans of Israel wish for: a solid defense pact between Israel and the US. Since the international community is reluctant to commit to M-East military obligations, the over-zealous Americans should simple conclude a bi-lateral defense agreement with Israel, of a NATO-like nature. Of course, with the 1967-based Israel. That would remove the concerns that the UN would never enforce peace guarantees for Israel.

 

As before, you've again shown the influence Syria currently has... I'M NOT DENYING THIS... AS I PREVIOSLY STATED: ..."I don't discount what you've presented regarding Syria... They certainly are currently an important source of support for Hamas...
...BUT Simply because Syria agrees to peace..signs a peace deal, and land is given, etc... doesn't mean Syria (or international peacekeepers) will actively go after Hamas in their country, OR that the funding/support coming from Syria will go away... OR that this support channel won't/can't simply move more underground and continue operation which would then only not be "officially" supported or harbored by Syria

As I also clearly pointed out before (which you apparently don't want to consider)... "smuggling comes through nations Israel HAS PEACE TREATIES WITH...namely Egypt and Jordan... Peace with Syria, while worthwile in persuing (as was peace with Egypt and Jordan), will only push Hamas underground in Syria, or they may simply choose to relocate.


You've made the point that Syria is currently a significant influece... HOWEVER, you've NOT shown sufficient evidence (in my opinion) which would lead one to believe that solving the "Golan problem" has to or needs to come before "Palestinian problems can be tackled"... And while you've shown that Syria currently has a great influence over "Hamas' capabilities, there's little reason to believe that a peace tready with Syria would cause the sources of support/funding within Syria to simply dissapear or be "vast"-ly influenced/reduced with the signing of a peace tready or that this would "dramitically" change the power status...

...Who is going to go after Hamas (in Syria) and the fund flow in Syria??  Who is going to break up their organizational structures??  And if their organizational structure is able to be broken up (to the satisfaction of outside observers), WHO is going to prevent this organization from simply moving underground and continuing operations??

The majority of Hamas' funding comes from Saudi Arabia, NOT Syria ( http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-4.htm ).. Hamas (and the like) also receive great amounts of support from Iran and numerous other private groups worldwide... Syria is only one... NO DOUBT an important one, but still only one.

Should a peace tready be signed with Syria, Hamas in Syria will simply go more underground and/or relocate to Iran or possibly under Hezbollah's protection in Lebanon... There are many other outside sources of funding and support (including from nations Israel HAS peace treadies with) which will allow Hamas to continue on with their terrorism and violence even if/when there's "peace" with Syria..

"
it's not worth mentioning that smuggling under border in secret from authorities is quite different from open support by a state machine. It's well-known that Egypt and Jordan are entirely pro-Fatah (I'd say, pro-Israel) in the Palestinian politics. The US uses Egypt and Jordan for anti-Hamas projects, transpotting weapons for Fatah through these countries, etc. So there is a difference between a bunch of youngsters digging tunnels miles long to smuggle modest quantities of TNT, and dozens of trucks laden with US weapons openly crossing from Egypt and Jordan to arm Fatah against Hamas. There is much more weaponry crossing from Egypt and Jordan to be used AGAINST Hamas than BY Hamas.



and why not deal with the CURRENT problem before prophesising the next one? I promise I'll acknowledge you were right if the Syrian issue will prove little effect on Hamas. What's the point to argue if we both see the necessity of the deal even if only for the Syrian dimension?


Hamas is underground in the entire ME already... there is a difference in terms of capabilities when you're undeground and when you're an open client of a state machine.



Syria has a number of advantages as a Hamas sponsor which Iran won't have (my previous post). Hezbollah dimension will be included
in the Syro-Israeli deal.

We seem to agree that, in any case, exit of Syria from the anti-Israeli front (which now consists of Syria and Iran) will weaken Hamas and Hezbollah. Syria is the only Arab country, besides the noisy but passive Lybia and the ambiguous Sudan, with actively anti-Israeli stance. It's a big player at any rate. So if you recognize there will be positive effect from the deal, why prematurely argue that this effect won't be great enough? I say it will be, you say it won't. We won't know who's right unless Israel is pressured to cede the Golans. I feel like you simply discard any initiative requiring return of the occupied territories.

That's exactly the point...

As I stated early on : "Generally I'll agree that peace with Syria will/would have a positive effect on the region (as does peace between any nations in the region)... What I'm dissagreeing with is your implication that somehow peace with Syria will significantly weaken Hamas in Palestine...or that it needs to come first (before peace with the Palestinians) as if it would significantly smooth the way:

Syria is one player of many... The funds and support will continue to flow.


Much to the contrary... Land for peace... when it doesn't compromise Israel's security.. AND when the party receiving the land in exchange for peace CAN and HAS demonstrated an ability to delivery on providing the "peace" can work well... as it has with Egypt... Egypt demonstrated "peace" for several years prior to land being exchange for a peace agreement... Syria, on the other hand, was just developing nukes and allows Hamas (and other terrorist regimes) to operate under their watchful eye... There's good reason to be skeptical.

the best argument for the return of the Sinai was the 1973 breakthrough. It was Egypts ability to cause troubles, not Egypt's ability to "demonstrate peace", that convinced Israel to return Sinai. Israelis have a sense of entitlement to much more than what they hold now, and readily spread settlments to any piece of land wrestled from Arabs. Whatever territory Israel returns to the Arabs is always a "forced" gift, not voluntary.


i would evaluate Syria's role in Hamas capabilites at 50%. Say, you will evaluate it in 10%. You know, if Germany had extra+ 10% on top of what it had in either of the world wars, history could go different.

Besides, as I said, the Syrian rapprochement will work best in conjunction with certain initiatives on Palestine. Here are the three things that will secure peace if combined:

- Israeli recognition of the 1967 line as the future border with independent Palestine;

- well-funded and organized volunary resettling programs for the Palestinian refugees;

- Israeli-Syrian peace based on complete return of the Golans, with the agreed international guarantees.

That will increase peace incentives and diminish motivations for conflict, will strengthen peaceniks and weaken radicals. Not instantly, but over the time. Societal processes are synergetic. But if your only interest is presenting a case for keeping the land, you can stick to the dead-end "First demolish Hamas, then we'll see!" narration. It won't work as a solution, but it can work as an excuse, - in certain quarters (which are already pro-Israel by default).

Why do I have the feeling that anytime Israel gives land.. you'll be out here telling us why that basically they HAD TO...   ;D lol... If Egypt had stayed violent toward Israel and had not demonstrated a willingness and ability to live in peace, Israel would have never voluntarily given them land... land which would have served as a buffer zone against their violence...

THE FACT REMAINS... Egypt demonstrated "peace" for several years prior to land being exchange for a formal peace agreement... They weren't threatening Israel, taking aggressive action against Israel, etc... As I stated: Land for peace... when it doesn't compromise Israel's security.. AND when the party receiving the land in exchange for peace CAN and HAS demonstrated an ability to delivery on providing the "peace" can work well..

And to the contrary, Syria was just developing nukes and allows Hamas (and other terrorist regimes) to operate under their watchful eye... There's good reason to be skeptical and cautious before giving strategically valuable land to a regime with a violence history.  That you don't want to see this as "obvious" only exposes your radical bias.


50%, 70%, 10%.. Whatever that number is.... If a peace agreement with Syria is reached and land is given, ARE you nieve enough to believe that... all of a sudden... the 50% (or whatever percentage you want to use) will then just magically disappear?? ... OF COURSE NOT... Is Syria going to, all of a sudden, start actively going after/targetting Hamas in their country??.. OF COURSE NOT... Hamas and their other support/funding mechanisms will simply go more underground as they and their support struction do in many other nations/countries.. Sanctions against Hamas greatly reduced their funding, YET THE KASSAMS CONTINUE TO FLY... Apply "basic logic"...

Again, back to the "issue"/your statements which brought up this discussion"... As I said..."Generally I'll agree that peace with Syria will/would have a positive effect on the region (as does peace between any nations in the region)... What I'm dissagreeing with is your implication that somehow peace with Syria will significantly weaken Hamas in Palestine...or that it needs to come first (before peace with the Palestinians) as if it would significantly smooth the way:

While you may want it to be so, I'm still awaiting evidence that such is a likely outcome...

now reverse that. If Egypt didn't get at least the Sinai, it would have "stayed violent toward Israel". Israel defeated Egypt thrice. But each time it was getting more difficult. Israel would probably beat Egypt for the 4th and 5th times, yet at a far greater price. Besides, the threat of the Soviet interference would rise in the event of yet another Arab defeat. Menachem Begin decided that peace with Egypt was worth the Sinai. Land for peace. Yes, Israel HAD TO give Sinai back, - in order to avoid another war.

 
deals are not done this way. This is not about a misbehaving child punished by daddy until "demonstrating an ability to deliver". Not exactly same balance of power. Now, IF the agreement is already reached, it's natural to expect that peace is given before land. Say, if Israel concludes a deal with Syria, there could be a period of up to several years when Israel already enjoys peace from Syria but has not yet vacated the territory. But "demonstrating ability to deliver" WITHOUT any guarantees on the extent and the time of reciprocal actions, - that's a sonny//daddy situation, not inter-state politics.


i gave you quotes. Make a search of your own about Syria's leverage over Hamas. If you agree that Hamas would be even somewhat, even slightly, weakened by the deal, why not work for it and see what the effect is? Or possibly you have a better plan. I've given a few ideas. Seems it's your turn to be constructive rather than dismissive. But please try to be realistic, don't simply repeat ad nauseum that Israel will probably do something some day after violence is unconditionally stopped.

Yes you did, and they all delt with the present, NOT the likely result.

As I stated (logic you seem to want to hide from)... If a peace agreement with Syria is reached and land is given, ARE you nieve enough to believe that... all of a sudden... the 50% (or whatever percentage you want to use) will then just magically disappear?? ... OF COURSE NOT... Is Syria going to, all of a sudden, start actively going after/targetting Hamas in their country??.. OF COURSE NOT... Hamas and their other support/funding mechanisms will simply go more underground as they and their support struction do in many other nations/countries.. Sanctions against Hamas greatly reduced their funding, YET THE KASSAMS CONTINUE TO FLY... Apply "basic logic"..



Again, I'm not contesting that there won't be "some" positive affect... I believe there would be...

And Again, What I'm dissagreeing with  is your implication that somehow peace with Syria will significantly weaken Hamas  in Palestine...or that it needs to come first  (before peace with the Palestinians) as if it would significantly smooth the way:

You're trying, with all your might, to pretend that Hamas (and Islamic Jihad, etc) won't have to be directly confronted.. Pretending that this agreement, or those borders, or peace with someone else, is going to change their agenda, make them live peacefully next to (not on top of) Israel... The truth you apparently don't want to recognize is that at some point in time, they're going to have to be FORCEFULLY DISMANTLED, policed and/or weakened to a point where they pose little threat.... Preferably this will be done by their own people, but if not by their own people, by someone else if there's ever to be a meaningful lasting peace....

present role of Syria = future lack thereof. It is your contention that Hamas will be able to (almost) fully recuperate the loss of the Syrian support. So the burden of proof is on you. I seem to have proven Syria's importance to Hamas. Now you have to prove that this importance is unimportant because easily replaceable.


without the loss of efficiency?


Was Syria among those who applied the sanctions? Apply "basic logic".



they might be indirectly confronted. Undermined. Rendered powerless. They might be DIRECTLY confronted, - WHEN it is clear that they stand on the road to Palestinian independence within 1967 lines. But not until then. You want Palestinians to destroy their only means of pressure on Israel without any guarantees of Israel's future actions. And when Israel is liberated from pressure, it will be entirely at her discretion to decide what and when Palestinians get, if anything.

And you back that up with what historical precident... and/or what logic??  You must be kidding if you're trying to imply that Syria's role with Hamas will dissapear (??)... So IS IT your contention that Hamas in Syria will simply disappear when the appropriate papers are signed??  If so, Ridiculous... Simply more of your wishful thinking with nothing of substance to back it up.  Will the role of Syria with Hamas change?  Of course... Will it go away, OF COURSE NOT.  It will just go more under the radar, as it does in numerous other nations which actively support Hamas' operations.


LOL... Nice try Peisi...  Now you're apparently grasping at straws, while trying to change change your position under the radar...

WHERE did I ever state that Hamas will/would be able to "(almost)" fully recuperate the loss of Syria support??   Was that what we were discussing, or is that what you'd like to change the discussion to??

What I have stated was..."Generally I'll agree that peace with Syria will/would have a positive effect on the region (as does peace between any nations in the region)...
What I also stated  more than once was "I'm not contesting that there won't be "some" positive affect (referring to peace with Syria)... I believe there would be"

What I'm dissagreeing with is your implication that somehow peace with Syria will significantly weaken Hamas in Palestine...or that it needs to come first (before peace with the Palestinians) as if it would significantly smooth the way as YOU implied:

Did Al Qaeda fold up and dissapear when the government which harboured them was overthrown??  Of course not... their violence and agenda continue to this day.


As I stated, which you don't seem to want to digest: ...If a peace agreement with Syria is reached and land is given, ARE you nieve enough to believe that... all of a sudden... the 50% (or whatever percentage you want to use) will then just magically disappear?? ... OF COURSE NOT... Is Syria going to, all of a sudden, start actively going after/targetting Hamas in their country??.. OF COURSE NOT... Hamas and their other support/funding mechanisms will simply go more underground as they and their support struction do in many other nations/countries.. Sanctions against Hamas greatly reduced their funding, YET THE KASSAMS CONTINUE TO FLY..

I NEVER STATED (as you attempted to imply) that there wouldn't be a "loss of efficiency" .. (another attempt to back off of your previous contentions by changing the subject??)... OF COURSE THERE WOULD BE A "loss of efficiency"...BUT a "loss of efficiency" of Hamas' operations in Syria would not significantly weaken Hamas in Palestine or stop the terror...And it certainly doesn't need to come first (before peace with the Palestinians) as if it would significantly smooth the way[/size][/b] (which you clearly implied)... Syria isn't even Hamas' largest supporter in the region... While Syria is certainly an important factor in Hamas' operations providing a "safe haven", Hamas receives the majority of it's funding and support from numerous other sources and could/would ultimately find "safe haven" elsewhere if need be... Sources of funding and support would not simply dissapear because of a peace agreement with Syria..even if Syria were to actively go after Hamas in their nation.

Headequarters can be moved (or can go underground)...  Meshal (or any other leadership) can be moved (or go underground) ...  The "agenda" is supported from numerous worldwide radicalized Muslim charities/funds.  This being the case, Peace with Syria is highly unlikely to have a "vast influence on Hamas' capabilities", change dramatically the "power status", and certainly doesn't have to be "solved before the numerous Palestinian problems can be tackled"

Egypt and Jordan used to support Pal "radicals". Not any longer. Now they support Fatah against Hamas. Both Egypt and Jordan stopped supporting Palestinian "rejectionists" after signing treaties with Israel. Now make a case that it will be different with Syria. 



it will lose state support and thus lose a good deal of capabilities. How many times need i say that?

 

here:


the thesis that Hamas will NOT be significantly weakened by the loss of Syrian support is tantamount to the thesis that Hamas will be able to almost fully recuperate the loss of Syria support. Or are you implyiong that a peace treaty with Syria will not stop Syrian support for Hamas? Any grounds for that? Just for the record, do you agree that the loss of state support by Syria will considerably weaken Hamas?

THANK YOU for helping to make my point regarding Syria

... And where/which nations does Hamas get much of it's arms and cash flow funneled through??  Yes, that's right... Nations which Israel HAS peace treaty's with.  Sure, they'll make the occasional very public arrest or seizure of weapons being smuggled through their nations (to show the world they're fighting terrorism), but much get right through while "officials" purposely look the other way (sighting the recent cases of Egyptian guards looking the other way,etc) . 
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A6BAC60D-3F0C-4059-838C-1761F6084311

In fairness, Jordan does a fairly decent job of stopping the smuggling (far better than Egypt), but that's because they're not that fond of Hamas and their violence for their own reasons and fears ...having to fight and expel the PLO themselves 38 years ago ( http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_jordan_expel_plo.php )

AND what happened to those who supported violence against Israel in those countries when peace treaty's were signed?? Yes, that's right... They simply went underground and continued to operate, while occasionally being subject to a well publicized arrests so that those nations could "show the world" how they were fighting terror... The funds continued to flow, and the terror/violence continued in Palestine.


So in your mind, "not significantly weaken" equals "almost fully recuperate"??  hmmm

While Hamas will certainly be weakened to some degree in Syria, as (I've stated before):  Hamas and their other support/funding mechanisms will simply go more underground in Syria as they as their support structures do in many other nations/countries... Saudi "charities"... and Iran will continue to funnel the funds as well as charities worldwide... and Hamas leaders, if bothered too much by new restrictions in Syria, will simply relocate or move to areas where they won't be bothered as much, to continue on with their terror.


The quick answer is NO... Saudi (through underground charities) is believed to be Hamas' largest source of funding ( http://www.meforum.org/article/582 ,   http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2378 , http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-4.htm  ) ... Iran is a major source as well as numerous charities worldwide... They all continue to fund Hamas and many stepped up the funding when funding to Hamas was reduced due to sanctions... If "state support" from Syria  is cut off, history would seem to indicate that it's likely they'll simply adopt, getting additional funding and support from the many other friendly nations to their cause (Iran would certainly pony up) and Hamas would continue on... slightly wounded, but continue on with the terrorism, violent agenda, and Kassams targeting civilians none-the-less.

Your turn... "just for the record"... If a peace agreement is reached with Syria... Do you believe that Syria is going to, all of a sudden, start actively going after/targeting Hamas in their country in more than a symbolic fashion (for the press)??..

and your thesis is that there is practically no difference between capabilities of a state-supported structure, and that of an underground one ???




all three of your references, as well as both ones in Wikipedia, come from the same author, - Matthew Levitt. Even if his info is correct, Syria's role in Hamas capabilities is...ehhh..."enormous"...that's not my word, that's how an EXPERT expressed himself on the issue:

""In fact, Syrian sponsorship of Hamas has had an enormous impact on the group's operational capacities.""

""Since the mid-1990s, Damascus has been the operational headquarters of the Hamas military wing and a nexus for the transfer of external funds to Hamas operatives in the territories. Syria and Syrian-occupied Lebanon have become major conduits for funneling weapons and explosives to Hamas and safe havens for training hundreds of its operatives.

 http://www.meib.org/articles/0210_s1.htm

btw, "enormous" is italicized in the original.

Further, from Israeli gov source referenceв by Levitt whom you cite:

""The Organizational Structure and the Syrian Connection - Syria serves today as an important base of the Hamas organization, from a political, information and operational perspective. Officials in the Hamas leadership reside in Syria and conduct their operations from there. This applies particularly to the so-called political office of the Hamas, headed by Khaled Mashal. They are in regular daily contact with the Hamas leadership in the territories, headed by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and with the terrorist operatives of Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam (Hamas battalions) in the territories.

The Syrian Government enables the Hamas leadership and its terrorist commanders to conduct their various activities on its soil, including the formulation of the Hamas operational strategy, the training of terrorist operatives, the funding of terrorist activity against Israel and assistance in the purchase of arms and ammunition.""

You can't really argue that the loss of all that would have almost no effect on Hamas. Or can you ?



Syria will shut down its support for Hamas and restrain its activities in the country, but won't zealously go uprooting the uderground structure. Like Egypt and other ME states.  I'm not expecting a fanatic hunt for the underground; but that's not needed. The shutting down of those numerous support lines will be enough to downgrade Hamas capabilities.

and your thesis is that there is practically no difference between capabilities of a state-supported structure, and that of an underground one ???




all three of your references, as well as both ones in Wikipedia, come from the same author, - Matthew Levitt. Even if his info is correct, Syria's role in Hamas capabilities is...ehhh..."enormous"...that's not my word, that's how an EXPERT Gary Gambill expressed himself on the issue:

""In fact, Syrian sponsorship of Hamas has had an enormous impact on the group's operational capacities.""

""Since the mid-1990s, Damascus has been the operational headquarters of the Hamas military wing and a nexus for the transfer of external funds to Hamas operatives in the territories. Syria and Syrian-occupied Lebanon have become major conduits for funneling weapons and explosives to Hamas and safe havens for training hundreds of its operatives.

 

btw, "enormous" is italicized in the original.

Further, from Israeli gov source referenceв by Levitt whom you cite:

""The Organizational Structure and the Syrian Connection - Syria serves today as an important base of the Hamas organization, from a political, information and operational perspective. Officials in the Hamas leadership reside in Syria and conduct their operations from there. This applies particularly to the so-called political office of the Hamas, headed by Khaled Mashal. They are in regular daily contact with the Hamas leadership in the territories, headed by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and with the terrorist operatives of Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam (Hamas battalions) in the territories.

The Syrian Government enables the Hamas leadership and its terrorist commanders to conduct their various activities on its soil, including the formulation of the Hamas operational strategy, the training of terrorist operatives, the funding of terrorist activity against Israel and assistance in the purchase of arms and ammunition.""

You can't really argue that the loss of all that would have almost no effect on Hamas. Or can you ?



Syria will shut down its support for Hamas and restrain its activities in the country, but won't zealously go uprooting the uderground structure. Like Egypt and other ME states.  I'm not expecting a fanatic hunt for the underground; but that's not needed. The shutting down of those numerous support lines will be enough to downgrade Hamas capabilities.

There you go again... WHERE did I say anything of the kind??

What I clearly stated was:

Certainly a state sponsored structure is far easier for them than would be running from a more underground perspective... but ultimately the bulk of the operations would continue to function either underground in Syria, or from being relocated and/or from additional funding received from other sources...


AND there you go again... AGAIN:

WHERE did I state or attempt to "argue" that??  (not to mention your apparent "assumption" that "all that" would would be somehow "lost" because a peace treaty was signed...lol)

What I clearly stated on this topic was:
Get it??
 
At this point you're clearly trying to divert the subject to avoid having to back up your earlier statements:

As I stated early on: Generally I'll agree that peace with Syria will/would have a positive effect on the region (as does peace between any nations in the region)... What I'm dissagreeing with is your implication that somehow peace with Syria will significantly weaken Hamas in Palestine...or that it needs to come first (before peace with the Palestinians) as if it would significantly smooth the way.

Certainly peace with Syria would be a positive, assuming Israel's security needs are met... But even you had to admit that should an agreement be reached, Syria certainly wouldn't "zealously go uprooting the uderground structure" (of Hamas)...and, either way, that does nothing to stop the support Hamas receives from it's numerous other sources.  So while peace (under the right terms) with Syria would certainly be a positive, Hamas would continue on in Palestine


And FINALLY, THANK YOU.

Now it seems you're trying change the "point" to "downgrading hamas' capabilities"... WHICH IS A FAR CRY FROM trying to claim that the "Golan problem has to be solved before the numerous Palestinian problems can be tackled... or that Hamas' "power status will change dramatically".... MANY THINGS have downgraded "Hamas' capabilities" over the years... International sanctions, building a wall to keep suicide bombers out, targeting terrorists and terrorist leaders, etc....YET HAMAS CONTINUES ON ...and continue to fire Kassams, plot terror, and refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist...

I hope peace with Syria can be achieved... and it's certainly looking more likely as negotiations continue... Yet whether or not it's achieved, Hamas will still be in Gaza/Palestine... will STILL be refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist, firing kassams,...plotting terror.. and will ultimately have to be DIRECTLY CONFRONTED before any meaningful and lasting peace can be achieved.

playing your cat$mouse games??? I say "Hamas will lose Syria's support", you reply  "... AND what happened to those who supported violence against Israel in those countries when peace treaty's were signed?? Yes, that's right... They simply went underground and continued to operate..."

do you consider your argument a decent response to mine?


superb. After losing its major patron, "Hamas will certainly be weakened to some degree in Syria..."...yea..only "to some degree" and only "in Syria". Weakened not "massively" or "significantly", but only "to some degree". Whereas in Palestine it won't be weakened at all. It's like saying "After losing support of Pakistani government, Taliban will be weakened to some degree in Pakistan". But in Afghanistan it won't be weakened at all. Do you really like playing this phrasal scholastics dodging reality?


you may disagree, but you need to back it up. You did not comment on the key quote from the expert Gary Gambill:

""In fact, Syrian sponsorship of Hamas has had an enormous impact on the group's operational capacities.""

You clearly consider Syrian sponsorship does not have an "enormous impact", or even a "significant impact" on Hamas' operational capabilities, for the loss thereof will NOT "significantly weaken Hamas in Palestine." Any grounds for such contention? Quotes maybe?


yea, the accusation of "divertions" is really good coming from you. RM, you are the father of changing topics. I just don't deem it necessary to mention that every paragraph. Now, you say I failed to back up my statement that -

"it has vast influence on Hamas' capabilities..."

Didn't I bring you the Gambill quote that

"Syrian sponsorship of Hamas has had an enormous impact on the group's operational capacities.""

"vast influence" and "enormous impact".....no? still see no resemblance...still think I "failed" or smth?

Cat and Mouse??  lol... You keep pretending I'm making certain statements or taking certain positions, and when I EXPOSE THIS, then you accuse me of  playing "cat and mouse"??  lol

And again... Please show me  where I stated or implied that Hamas in Palestine won't be weakened at all...  Hint: I never stated anything of the kind...READ my previous posts.  I made it very clear.  You're, once again, picking and chosing between what you want to see, and what you want to purposely ignor.... So now are you going to divert again from the subject and accuse me of playing "cat and mouse" when you clearly accused me of making a statement I never made??

Have you been consulting with "Moshe"??  I'm starting to wonder... lol


At this point you're again getting ridiculous... I've clearly (and on several occasions) backed up my contentions, yet you're clearly ignored what I've stated.  SHALL WE TRY AGAIN??

As to your experts opinion as to Syrias impact... CERTAINLY SYRIA CURRENTLY HAS AN IMPORTANT IMPACT... CURRENTLY... YET you apparently want to pretend that support from Syria will somehow magically evaporate if a peace treaty is signed with Syria... IT CERTAINLY WILL NOT.

LISTEN CLOSELY NOW... See if you can follow this time...
...YES PEISI... Syria is a significant support entity for Hamas (as well as several other sources)... Should peace be achieve between Israel and Syria (future now Peisi... still following??), Syria's "open" support for Hamas (and the like) will be forced, to at least some degree, into hiding... BUT IT WILL CERTAINLY NOT DISSAPEAR (as you'd apparently like to pretend)...

As I clearly stated previously: Certainly peace with Syria would be a positive, assuming Israel's security needs are met... But even you had to admit that should an agreement be reached, Syria certainly wouldn't "zealously go uprooting the uderground structure" (of Hamas)...and, either way, that does nothing to stop the support Hamas receives from it's numerous other sources. 

Even as an "open" sponsor of Hamas (and the others), they (Syria) STILL have to smuggle resources/funding in and out, as Israel does not obviously allow them (or others who support Hamas) open access...