That's not a fair reading of the article, which really says Hamas is not willing to negotiate peace. It says the group's official position has not changed, that its goal continues to be destroying Israel and replacing it with an Islamic state, and that negotiations would be a means to this end. The article points out that Hamas could change its official charter but had not, and it has not done so in the three years since, nor has there ever been a movement within the group to do so. The article is based on one vague statement by one Hamas official. The fact that you can't find a clearer or more recent statement that Hamas will accept anything less than the total eradication of Israel is pretty good evidence that their position is the position they've stated clearly and repeatedly: the destruction of Israel is not negotiable.
The sound of one hand clapping.
The talks have mostly been about prisoner exchanges and a temporary truce. It's not bad for the sides to talk, but Hamas has said it will not negotiate about letting Israel exist.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Everyone here needs to stop playing political games and hiding behind gesture politics and just sort it out.
Actually, there seems to be a lot of agreement in this thread. Pretty much everyone, including the rabid people, agree that Hamas has to change its position before there can be peace. The main disagreement is how to get Hamas to change its position. Some people seem to be saying that changing Israel's behavior and cutting off US aid to Israel will get Hamas to change its position. The problem is Hamas has never made its position contingent on US aid, Israeli actions or anything else.
I'm saying, if Hamas has to change its position before peace can happen, focus on Hamas and get it to change its position. At least get them to set some conditions. Are they such savages that Europe can't talk to them and convince them to consider peace? Are they such bloodthirsty religious fanatics that the world can't bribe them to consider peace? Can we cut off Hamas' source of weapons and funding to prevent them from disrupting a peace agreement made by others? There can't be peace if a heavily armed, violent group says it will never agree to peace.
