This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Calling it a thorny and sensitive issue, he stressed that it's "not absolutely prohibited....from a legal or political perspective," but must be subject to "equations, regulations, calculations, circumstances, contexts and proper management...." Otherwise, "it becomes a negative and destructive tool."
Currently, he calls it the wrong choice, given the imbalance of power favoring Israel, saying it "refuses to withdraw from the (seized) land, and does not recognise Palestinian rights." Negotiations under such conditions are fruitless. Israel demands but won't give. On equal fair terms, negotiations are very acceptable.
(2) Recognizing Israel
As things now stand, he believes recognition means legitimizing occupation, "aggression, settlement(s), Judaization, murders, arrests, and other crimes and atrocities against our people and our land." Recognition must be earned, not demanded or given, based on equity for both sides. Israel shows no sign of agreeing.
(3) Suggesting Israel and international insistence on recognition a sign of weakness, not stength
"Without a doubt, the enemy is concerned about (its) future....no matter" its regional strength. "The demand for recognition is certainly a sign of weakness, an expression of....inferiority, (and) a feeling that it is illegitimate and still rejected" by regional states "as alien" intruders.
However, superiority feelings also come into play, or in other words, the way "Western nations deal with third world countries," believing they alone dictate terms from a position of strength, including negotiating preconditions.
(4) Why Israel and the international community reject Hamas' proposed long-term truce
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
