Israel-Palestinian Conflict Resurgence 2021: Al-Aqsa attacks, riots, rockets, military clashes and Jerusalem conflict 2v

[Hassan Al-Somal]

Hamas refuses the two state solution .

The only thing that they agreed so far is hudna , some version to a extended ceasefire.

" In January 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six-Day War, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and the unlimited "right of return" for all Palestinian refugees into Israel. Rantissi gave interviews with European reporters and said the hudna was limited to ten years and represented a decision by the movement because it was "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage; the hudna would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel "

eircom net Ireland-International / Irish news headlines from leading Irish newspapers

Daily International and Irish news headlines, Irish business, sports, and entertainment from the Irish Independent and the Irish Times.

web.archive.org

In short - for a complete Israeli withdrawal they offer a 10 years ceasefire , after which they can better attack Israel .

No one will except such a mad proposal - and as far as i know no Hamas leader came up with something better to offer since than.

If someone here claims differently i would I would very much like to see a source that shows ant Hamas leader stating so.

~

"In January 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six-Day War, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and the unlimited "right of return" for all Palestinian refugees into Israel."

The two-state solution is right there if you understood what is attributed to Al-Rantissi. The 10-year Hudna also means cessation of hostilities during that period, and once the Palestinian state is established on pre-1967 borders, then that state will negotiate with Israel on behalf of the Palestinian people on any future relations.

The Palestinian refugees in other countries should have the right of the return to their homes as well or there should be land-swap. That is what the Palestinians wanted.

The gorilla in the room is Israel doesn't want to go back to the 1967 borders. It doesn't want Palestinian refugees in neighboring countries to even return to the territory that will be controlled by the Palestinian state that should exist on the pre-1967 borders. They call it a "demographic threat". Even in a Palestinian state, Israel doesn't want those refugees to come back to it.

Instead, Israel wants a Palestinian authority who doesn't have an army, whose border entries are fully under the control of Israel, and whose territories aren't interconnected - meaning the territory would be made up by pockets which are all surrounded by Israel. It is basically what we have today.

This is the reason why former President Yasser Arafat walked-away in 2002 from making such a deal with Ehud Barak. The whole Hamas excuse is Israel doesn't want a Palestinian state on its borders where East Jerusalem is its capital. The Israelis made it very clear that they want Jerusalem united under their control, meaning no co-sharing the city with the Palestinians. Benjamin Netanyahu has also made it very clear in his speeches that he doesn't want to see a Palestinian state. Now the whole false claims attributed to Hamas repeatedly are all excuses designed to hide Israel's true intentions.

 

[Mohamed Bin Tughlaq]

"In January 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six-Day War, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and the unlimited "right of return" for all Palestinian refugees into Israel."

The two-state solution is right there if you understood what is attributed to Al-Rantissi. The 10-year Hudna also means cessation of hostilities during that period, and once the Palestinian state is established on pre-1967 borders, then that state will negotiate with Israel on behalf of the Palestinian people on any future relations.

The Palestinian refugees in other countries should have the right of the return to their homes as well or there should be land-swap. That is what the Palestinians wanted.

The gorilla in the room is Israel doesn't want to go back to the 1967 borders. It doesn't want Palestinian refugees in neighboring countries to even return to the territory that will be controlled by the Palestinian state that should exist on the pre-1967 borders. They call it a "demographic threat". Even in a Palestinian state, Israel doesn't want those refugees to come back to it.

Instead, Israel wants a Palestinian authority who doesn't have an army, whose border entries are fully under the control of Israel, and whose territories aren't interconnected - meaning the territory would be made up by pockets which are all surrounded by Israel. It is basically what we have today.

This is the reason why former President Yasser Arafat walked-away in 2002 from making such a deal with Ehud Barak. The whole Hamas excuse is Israel doesn't want a Palestinian state on its borders where East Jerusalem is its capital. The Israelis made it very clear that they want Jerusalem united under their control, meaning no co-sharing the city with the Palestinians. Benjamin Netanyahu has also made it very clear in his speeches that he doesn't want to see a Palestinian state. Now the whole false claims attributed to Hamas repeatedly are all excuses designed to hide Israel's true intentions.

He should have taken the deal it was a mistake. This time the two state solution will come back again and Palestine should accept even if they lose some territories from pre-1967

 

[kingQamaR]

A bravo to Otterman Muslim soldiers who held this land for centuries, then cane the useless new owners who lost it all to the Jews :-(

 

[Meengla]

"In January 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six-Day War, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and the unlimited "right of return" for all Palestinian refugees into Israel."

The two-state solution is right there if you understood what is attributed to Al-Rantissi. The 10-year Hudna also means cessation of hostilities during that period, and once the Palestinian state is established on pre-1967 borders, then that state will negotiate with Israel on behalf of the Palestinian people on any future relations.

The Palestinian refugees in other countries should have the right of the return to their homes as well or there should be land-swap. That is what the Palestinians wanted.

The gorilla in the room is Israel doesn't want to go back to the 1967 borders. It doesn't want Palestinian refugees in neighboring countries to even return to the territory that will be controlled by the Palestinian state that should exist on the pre-1967 borders. They call it a "demographic threat". Even in a Palestinian state, Israel doesn't want those refugees to come back to it.

Instead, Israel wants a Palestinian authority who doesn't have an army, whose border entries are fully under the control of Israel, and whose territories aren't interconnected - meaning the territory would be made up by pockets which are all surrounded by Israel. It is basically what we have today.

This is the reason why former President Yasser Arafat walked-away in 2002 from making such a deal with Ehud Barak. The whole Hamas excuse is Israel doesn't want a Palestinian state on its borders where East Jerusalem is its capital. The Israelis made it very clear that they want Jerusalem united under their control, meaning no co-sharing the city with the Palestinians. Benjamin Netanyahu has also made it very clear in his speeches that he doesn't want to see a Palestinian state. Now the whole false claims attributed to Hamas repeatedly are all excuses designed to hide Israel's true intentions.

Nailed it!!!
Undeniable truth.

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

He should have taken the deal it was a mistake. This time the two state solution will come back again and Palestine should accept even if they lose some territories from pre-1967

This is what the Israelis offered to Yasser Arafat that prompted his rejection of that offer: A completely demilitarized Palestinian state in West Bank and Gaza, parts of East Jerusalem would come under it and other parts would be considered "autonomous" under Israel, no Palestinian state sovereignty over Temple Mount (Masjid Al-Aqsa and the entire compound that surrounds it), and no right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel while some of the Jewish settlements in West Bank would've remained under Israel (Keep in mind these settlements are the ones that cut the land connection between different Palestinian cities, towns, and regions). In my view, no sane leader would've accepted such a humiliating deal.

Arafat had insisted he wanted the land connection between Gaza and West Bank to be there; and if Israel didn't want to accept the Palestinian refugees to come back to their homes before the 1967 war, then no Jewish settlements should exist on any territory that was before the 1967 borders. He wanted all of East Jerusalem to be the capital of the Palestinian state, full Palestinian sovereignty over Haram esh-Sharif , and if Israelis don't accept it, then the whole holy places should be governed by an international body. He was also adamant that Palestinian state will have the means to defend itself. The Israeli leadership refused this counter-offer.

 

[sammuel]

What is it that you did not understand

"In January 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six-Day War, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and the unlimited "right of return" for all Palestinian refugees into Israel."

The two-state solution is right there if you understood what is attributed to Al-Rantissi. The 10-year Hudna also means cessation of hostilities during that period, and once the Palestinian state is established on pre-1967 borders, then that state will negotiate with Israel on behalf of the Palestinian people on any future relations.

The Palestinian refugees in other countries should have the right of the return to their homes as well or there should be land-swap. That is what the Palestinians wanted.

The gorilla in the room is Israel doesn't want to go back to the 1967 borders. It doesn't want Palestinian refugees in neighboring countries to even return to the territory that will be controlled by the Palestinian state that should exist on the pre-1967 borders. They call it a "demographic threat". Even in a Palestinian state, Israel doesn't want those refugees to come back to it.

Instead, Israel wants a Palestinian authority who doesn't have an army, whose border entries are fully under the control of Israel, and whose territories aren't interconnected - meaning the territory would be made up by pockets which are all surrounded by Israel. It is basically what we have today.

This is the reason why former President Yasser Arafat walked-away in 2002 from making such a deal with Ehud Barak. The whole Hamas excuse is Israel doesn't want a Palestinian state on its borders where East Jerusalem is its capital. The Israelis made it very clear that they want Jerusalem united under their control, meaning no co-sharing the city with the Palestinians. Benjamin Netanyahu has also made it very clear in his speeches that he doesn't want to see a Palestinian state. Now the whole false claims attributed to Hamas repeatedly are all excuses designed to hide Israel's true intentions.

Hamas has nothing to do with the two state peace solution.

What they offer is a two state " hudna " solution - for 10 years and afterword's resume there efforts to destroy Israel.

Please explain to us why do they Insist to call it " hudna " rather than peace.

Please show us one document , one statement . one interview where Hamas say he would consider peace with Israel under any term.


~

 

[Trango Towers]

Sinwar: Gaza conflict only a drill of what will come if Israel violates Al-Aqsa


Hamas’s Gaza leader Yahya Sinwar tells Palestinian journalists that fighting between Hamas and Israel could renew if the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is “violated.”

“The occupation must know — Al-Aqsa has men who will defend it,” Sinwar says.

Unrest and Israeli police raids on the mosque compound in the Temple Mount in early May preceded the Hamas rocket barrage on Israeli cities and towns that began the 11-day conflict.

“What has happened is but a drill for what will come if Israel violates the Al-Aqsa Mosque,” Sinwar says.


He also praises Arab Israeli riots in which Jewish Israelis and their property were attacked in recent weeks. He says that there are “10,000 fighters in Israel” willing to respond to any Israeli “violations” in Jerusalem.

He says Arab Israelis “have proven that so-called ‘Israelification’ — the attempt to turn them into Israeli citizens rather than Palestinians — and ‘coexistence’ have fallen once and for all,” Sinwar says.

Sinwar also dismisses an Israeli operation to bomb Hamas’s underground network of tunnels, ahead of which Israel attempted to convince Hamas its ground forces were entering Gaza in order to get it to send its men into the tunnels.

“It was clear to our military intelligence that this was a deception, and that there was no ground invasion,” Sinwar says.

Sometimes it's better to stay quiet and say nothing

 

[khansaheeb]

What is it that you did not understand



Hamas has nothing to do with the two state peace solution.

What they offer is a two state " hudna " solution - for 10 years and afterword's resume there efforts to destroy Israel.

Please explain to us why do they Insist to call it " hudna " rather than peace.

Please show us one document , one statement . one interview where Hamas say he would consider peace with Israel under any term.


~

A hudna (from the Arabic هدنة meaning "calm" or "quiet") is a truce or armistice. It is sometimes translated as "cease-fire".
So after all the apartheid oppression, ethnic cleansing and systematic genocide, what do you want from them , flowers?

Tell me one thing, what gives you, the Jews, the right to emigrate to a foreign country, attack the indigenous people with the support of colonialists and throw them out of their own houses and lands? Why should they negotiate with you from their perspective, with barbaric oppressors? Are you so blinded by your racist bigotry that you cannot see what you are doing is outrageously wrong? You are murdering and torturing on a daily basis the first thing Israel needs to do is stop this and be serious about peace. Grabbing land by force isn't a good long term objective as the victims will get it back one way or another. Become civilised and stop your criminal behavior. The negotiations must be serious and favour the Palestinians as it is their land.

 

[sammuel]

A hudna (from the Arabic هدنة meaning "calm" or "quiet") is a truce or armistice. It is sometimes translated as "cease-fire".
So after all the apartheid oppression, ethnic cleansing and systematic genocide, what do you want from them , flowers?

Tell me one thing, what gives you, the Jews, the right to emigrate to a foreign country, attack the indigenous people with the support of colonialists and throw them out of their own houses and lands? Why should they negotiate with from their perspective, with barbaric oppressors? Are you so blinded by your racist bigotry that you cannot see what you are doing is outrageously wrong? You are murdering and torturing on a daily basis the first thing Israel needs to do is stop this and be serious about peace. Grabbing land by force isn't a good long term objective as the victims will get it back one way and another. Become civilised and stop your criminal behavior. The negotiations must be serious and favour the Palestinians as it is their land.

Let me clear out why there is concern with this term Hudna

In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza , uprooted thousands of Israelis from Gaza and left the territory in the hands of the Palestinian Authority

The result was that Hamas took over and started to use Gaza as a platform to launch missiles at Israel.

Now you suggest that we continue to make concession and give them more territory without peace , when they declare that they would continue and attack us from those new territories - when they feel they are strong enough.

Sorry . we want peace but we are not suicidal .


~

 

[khansaheeb]

Let me clear out why there is concern with this term Hudna

In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza , uprooted thousands of Israelis from Gaza and left the territory in the hands of the Palestinian Authority

The result was that Hamas took over and started to use Gaza as a platform to launch missiles at Israel.

Now you suggest that we continue to make concession and give them more territory without peace , when they declare that they would continue and attack us from those new territories - when they feel they are strong enough.

Sorry . we want peace but we are not suicided .


~

Yes, you should be sorry.

What laws did Israel break?
Numerous UN resolutions and prevailing international opinion hold that Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979, 1980, and 2016.

 

[The SC]

 

[Meengla]

What is it that you did not understand
Hamas has nothing to do with the two state peace solution.

What they offer is a two state " hudna " solution - for 10 years and afterword's resume there efforts to destroy Israel.

Please explain to us why do they Insist to call it " hudna " rather than peace.

Please show us one document , one statement . one interview where Hamas say he would consider peace with Israel under any term.
~

What's wrong with 'Hudna' or a temporary peace?? Is it not better than continued violence?? Ten years could have been a long time to establish 'trust' in each other and who knows what would happen after that??? Even Jimmy Carter-- poor guy, tried very hard to make peace in that region, said that Hamas would eventually agree to a Live and Let Live situation.

At any rate-- What Hamas did was verbal. What Israel has been DOING is practical: Land grabs and expulsions.

Please don't fool the world! Saying something and actually DOING something are different. I believe Hamas would have ensured a truce for ten years and the region would go from there after that. But, no, the God-damned Zionists truly never wanted any sovereign Palestinian presence in that region. And they would--and should pay another historic price unless they compromise. I have been following American Jews and Jews in the Israeli blogsphere: Israel is right now losing the war of narrative and WILL lose the war on the ground if there is no rollback of the Zionazi dreams!

 

[sammuel]

What's wrong with 'Hudna' or a temporary peace?? Is it not better than continued violence?? Ten years could have been a long time to establish 'trust' in each other and who knows what would happen after that??? Even Jimmy Carter-- poor guy, tried very hard to make peace in that region, said that Hamas would eventually agree to a Live and Let Live situation.

You don't give territory to someone who already declares he would use this territory to launch attack against you.

I do not support settlements , and think all building should be frozen till the dispute ends , whether it is in a year or 50 years.

But no one is going to give anything to someone who does not guarantee our security . For the simple reason we already tried it in the past. We evacuated all of Gaza and in reply got a barrage of missiles on our cities.

~

 

[Meengla]

You don't give territory to someone who already declares he would use this territory to launch attack against you.

I do not support settlements , and think all building should be frozen till the dispute is ends , whether it is in a year or 50 years.

But no one is going to give anything to someone who does not guarantee our security . For the simple reason we already tried it in the past. We evacuated all of Gaza and in reply got a barrage of missiles on our cities.

~

Highlighted part in your post. Hypocritical. I'd believe your words only when your actions would reflect that! Gaza withdrawal was called a 'red herring' even back in 2005/6 because it was a worthless territory which was too expensive (and barren!) to occupy. South Lebanon, while fertile, was too expensive to occupy because of the war of attrition waged upon Syria/Iran/Hezbollah.

The West Bank was always the prize! For the twisted, demented Nazis of Israeli Right Wing, it was the most desirable prize and that's where the attention is currently focused on--and after that is fully gobbled-up, the Zionazis would surely turn their attention toward other arable lands. It's in the Zionazis' nature to expand! To seek a 'Lebensraum'!

Anyway, don't just SAY-- DO something! Move out of the Occupied Territories. Even the NY Times calls it 'Occupied Territories'--yes, EVEN NY Times! Prove your credentials with deeds and not just with words! Until then... your deceptions are not going to work and you should know that.

Personally, I feel you are one of the saner voices but you just can't see from the other perspective. And hubris and arrogance will be the next downfall of Israel unless some breaks are put on.

 

[925boy]

DO we remember how TUrkish govt was talking tough anti-Israel BS on the media during the war acting like they REALLY supported Palestine? WELL IT WAS FAKE. Here are your receipts:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1397830032941330436

Turkey IS NOT WITH Palestine in any real way ,and TUrkey is still NATO + ISrael's ISIS Manager in the Levant. if ur mad, then i just told u the truth.