In the wake of Jimmy Carters speaking with Hamas, the leaders of that group claim to have offered Carter a deal that would amount to "a ten year truce with Israel if Israel agrees to withdraw from all the lands it seized in the 1967 war," according to the associated press.
According to the article, "Hamas would accept a Palestinian state limited to the lands Israel seized in 1967 — an implicit acceptance that Israel would exist alongside that state
"But... the group would never outright formally recognize Israel."
To me, however, this deal seems a bit awkward, especially considering Israel won that land back in 1967 fair and square, and every other time one nation wins a war over another, it gets to take whatever it wants from the losers. So, why is Israel considered to be "seizers" of this land it won in 1967.
In reality, Israel did not seize the Gaza strip and the West Bank, it won them. It has a rightful ownership of them. However, if Israel chooses to give back this land for the sake of an attempt at peace, it has a right to do so.
Once again, this deal would seem a bit awkward, considering that during the Clinton administration's Camp David Accords, Arafat (then head of the Palestinians), was offered everything the Palestinians wanted, and all he had to do was sign on the dotted line.
But, when all was said and done, he refused to sign. What makes Carter think the Palestine ans would actually sign this time around?
The failure of the Camp David Accords gave many Conservatives their proof that Arafat and the Palestinians do not want peace with Israel. They will talk the talk in order to make themselves appear good in the public eye, but when it comes crunch time, there's no way they would ever make any deal with the Israelites anything short of the complete annihilation of Israel.
Thus, if deal did go through, I smell a rat.
Do we take Hamas at its word? Do we do this, considering Hamas's charter specifically calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian State. Likewise, the organization has directed many suicide bombings at civilians in Israel in an attempt to accomplish its goal.
Hamas, in Essenes, is a terrorist organization. And, one must conclude, that Carter is relatively naive to actually think hamas is actually serious about agreeing to any long-term peace pact.
Until Hamas changes its charter to fully accept Israel as a Nation State, and until it completely stops terrorist acts against Israel, how is it than any person could believe anything Hamas's leaders say. And, as long as the Palestinians have Hamas officials leading them, how can we take the Palestinians seriously either.
With history as our guide, Hamas and the Palestinians want Israel to agree to this deal in the hope that one day Israel will let its guard down, at which time Hamas will move in for the strike and destroy Israel.
In essence, we return now to the doctrine: "You cannot negotiate with terrorists. Period."
On this, Mr. Carter said prior to his visit, "This is a study mission, and our purpose is not to negotiate, but to support and provide momentum for current efforts to secure peace in the Middle East."
To that I say this: "Mr. Carter, Hamas does not want peace with Isreal. Read their charter."