Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy reveals something extraordinary from 1997:
A few days before the failed assassination attempt on Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Jordan in 1997, King Hussein conveyed an offer from the Hamas leadership to reach an understanding on a cease-fire for 30 years. That offer, intended for then-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and conveyed by a Mossad representative, reached Netanyahu only after the botched hit.
We don’t want to hear this.
They are terrorists, want to drive us into the sea, they are terrorists………….
One of the things that is clearly illustrated is that moderate Arab leaders like the late Hussein were too afraid to reveal the full extent of their relationship with Israel and Jewish leaders. This is in contrast to the chest beating that happens at the Arab summits for the consumption of the masses. Conversely everyone in Israel knew that there were increasing economic and especially health connections with Jordan. I know of no one who would not applaud this.
“…..and especially health connections with Jordan..”
Oh yeah, King Hussein realized it was healthy for him to be buddy buddy with Israel?
Clap Clap
He realized that relationships with Syria, Iraq, and Egypt were unhealthy.
captain Mar 31st, 2006 at 8:41 pm
First “they” say one thing in English to the media, then “they” say another thing in Arabic to “the masses”, then “they” say another thing in god-knows-what to the Israeli government. Lord, they really have learnt how to be Westernised politicians, haven’t they?
No, ‘they’ are what ‘they’ have always been. It certainly no reflection on the west.
Al last Captain, you are gettgin the picture. So it’s safe to suggest that this talk about the desctructino of Israel falls into such a catergory, don’t you agree?
Do Israeli politicians not say one thing to the international community in English and another thing to the Isaeli population in Hebrew?
Addamo Apr 1st, 2006 at 12:43 am
How anti-semitic of you Addamo to suggest that Israeli politicians are, well, just like ordinary politicians.
This week, there were two historic political events in the Middle East. In one, Israeli voters chose a number of political parties for the next Knesset, with the ruling Kadima party earning the most votes. Kadema’s agenda, as articulated by acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is to seek negotiations with a Palestinian leadership that rejects violence. If no such leadership can be found, Israel will unilaterally set its own borders.
In the other development, the terrorist organization Hamas formally assumed control of the Palestinian Authority legislature. Due to Hamas’ unwavering support for terror and the destruction of Israel, the United States and Canada immediately cut off funding to the PA.
Christiane Amanpour has penned a column with the title “From terrorism to trash collection.” She implies that merely by winning the Palestinian elections, Hamas has moved on from terrorism to concern itself solely with municipal functions.
The only problem with her theory is that there has been no evidence that Hamas has indeed changed its views on terrorism. According to the new PA Interior Minister, Said Siam, “We will not put our sons in prison for political membership or resisting occupation… resistance is a legitimate right.”
Amanpour feels that the real reason the Palestinians voted for Hamas was that:
During this year’s election, Palestinians fed up with the rampant corruption and lawlessness of the late Yasser Arafat’s government turned to the only alternative, Hamas.
So when people ask: “Why did the Palestinian people elect a terrorist group?” The answer is because they see them as a lifeline.
Yet, as Robert Satlof of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy points out in the Weekly Standard:
The problem with this view is that it has little basis in fact. Other parties on the ballot offered alternatives to Fatah, including the good-government Third Way, but Hamas won 74 seats and the squeaky-clean liberals just 2. Indeed, it is an uncomfortable truth that an absolute majority of Palestinians voted for parties publicly committed to the destruction of Israel–Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. To suggest that Palestinians were oblivious to the political meaning of their votes is, as President Bush has argued in a different context, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
It is disturbing to see a such a senior CNN correspondent making excuses for the Hamas terror group, even resorting to baseless claims that conflict with all indications.
E-mail CNN at: http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/
The New York Times On Israel’s New Government
In an editorial, the Times argues that Olmert’s plan is doomed to failure because:
Whatever borders Israel fixes are not likely to get international recognition, particularly if those borders leave Palestinians cut in half — in the West Bank and Gaza — and unable to get from one part of their country to another without going through Israel.
However, there have already been numerous proposals agreed upon in which Gaza would be connected to the West Bank with some kind of link that does not necessitate either Israelis or Palestinians crossing through each other’s lands. The same type of links could be worked out in other places to ensure contiguity for both peoples.
Respond to the editorial: Letters@NYTimes.com
The media should not expect Israel to take actions that jeopardize its own security. Instead the focus should be on explaining how Hamas has failed thus far to transform itself from the party of terror to the party of trash collection.
The media should not expect Israel to take actions that jeopardize its own security (i.e. territorial aspirations). Instead the focus should be on explaining how Hamas has failed thus far to transform itself from the party of terror (i.e. Israel’s poodle) to the party of trash collection (i.e. the party that puts Palestinian interests first).
Oh yes, peace is possible when terrorists from Fatah murder only to have their behaviour condemned by the leader of Fataha and applauded by the PA government.
Yes, Hamas will be a party of trash collection: this will be their primary task when Israel responds accodingly to encouraging terrorist acts.
As the rest of the world was being propagandized to believe that Sharon The Undead was a man of peace, if Begin and Shamir were men of peace and eventually learned to collect garbage, then why not Hamas. True, a few of their older and perhaps wiser former terrorists were actually assassinated by the glorious Israeli army - (the 4th most powerful in the world by their account-talk about breast beating, but in imminent danger of being driven into the sea by a couple of Kalashnikovs, a Molotov cocktail and three rocks, but I digress, ) Well I’m for give peace a chance with “centrist” Kadima (HAW HAW!!!) As they get the green light from bigW and the little fib embellishing Piano Player to do whatever the hell it wants, there’s one thing for certain, it will be a 3rd rate pantomime with very bad acting- but it won’t be for peace.
Captain,
You adn Chris can continue with your trash talk all you like, bu tthe fact remains that
Efraim Halevy, who headed Israel’s Mossad foreign intelligence service, aknowledges that Hamas offered Israel a 30-year truce in 1997 and Israel fucked it up.
So much for the argument that Israel are the opnly ones serious about peace.
The israeli government was already providing municipal services when the named gentlemen came into power.
Hamas, a terrrorist organization, was in no position to offer anything. Israel would have thrown it out, after spitting on it.
That’s pure conjecture. Efraim Halev, who is far better informaed and positined that you to decide the validity of the offer, obviously copnsidre it significant for him to write abotu it in his book.
What this shows is that Israel has a pattern of udermining peace initiatives, because these would lead to events that would force them to giove up what they are not prepared to give up.
You put it best when you said:
Which sums up Israel’s track record to any diplomacy.
Addamo, As I established earlier, even if HAMAS were as generous as is possible - offering all of the historical lands of Palestine to the Israeli government and destroying all their weapons, according to Chris, the Israeli government STILL wouldn’t take it because they/Chris doesn’t “recognise” HAMAS. Thus, you’ll get no-where with Chris on the 30-year cease fire offer.
Yes I totally agree Edward,
This deacedes long search for a partner in peace has been a joke from the beginning. After the 1991 Iraq war, the PLO were completely isolated. Israel had a choice to deal with either the Palestinian leadership or the PLO, and obviously chose to negotiate with the PLO because they knew they could have things their way.
Nonetheless, Arafat stood his ground and the mtyh that came out of those negotiations was that the Palestininas were offerd a golden opportunity and turned it down. What bollocks!!
This perpetuation of bollocks and associated myths continues anabated. When have you ever heard any “news” about the Israeli elections and the so called centrist Kadima party without hearing the word peace? Pretty soon anyone who says the Kadima party are a bunch of thieving, land hungry cock-heads - just like any other party in Israel, you’ll be asked to leave the room.
You put it best when you said:
Israel would have thrown it out, after spitting on it.
Yes I did. It sums up Israel’s track record on deals with terrorists.
“Somethuing ‘extraordinary’?” Oh dear. Me thinks somebody really needs to get out more.
Why would anybody expect Israel to negotiate anything with Hamas in 1997? Hamas was merely a terrorist organization, with no formal political role. By your reasoning, the Palestinian Authority, headed by Yasser Arafat, had no legitimacy, and it was Hamas with whom Israel was obliged to negotiate.
So are you arguing that the whole Oslo process, Camp David, Madrid, etc. are all null and void ab initio? Of course the implication becomes that the current PA, led by Hamas, is equally null and void.
History appears to have proven that any Palestinian agreement is worthless shortly after it is signed.