اجعلنا صفحة البداية RSS خدمة Add to favorite Facebook Twitter

Advanced

Hamas: International troops in Palestine would be same as 'occupation'
Published Saturday 15/02/2014 (updated) 16/02/2014 16:21
Font- Font+
(MaanImages/File)
GAZA CITY (Ma'an) -- A spokesman for Hamas said Friday that the faction would regard any international military presence within a future Palestinian state as "occupation" forces.

During a rally in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip late Friday, Sami Abu Zuhri said that any international forces stationed in Palestine as a result of a peace agreement with Israel would be treated the same as the Israeli occupation.

Abu Zuhri called on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw from negotiations with the US and Israel, saying the talks only served to "terminate the question of Palestine and what is left of Palestinian rights and principles."

"Nobody has authorized you (Abbas) to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people, or on behalf of Hamas or any other faction," he said.

"Why don't you tell the truth about what is going on in the secret negotiations? If you are honest, go out to your people and tell the truth and give them details."

Abu Zuhri urged all Palestinian factions to oppose the ongoing peace talks and any emerging agreement, saying that after decades of on-and-off talks, negotiations have proved a "mirage."

Abbas said in a Feb. 2 interview with the New York Times that he would welcome US-led NATO troops to be positioned at all border crossings in a future Palestinian state as an alternative to Israeli forces.

Israel has insisted on retaining an extended Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley, rejecting the idea of an international force.

The division between Fatah and Hamas began in 2006, when Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections.

In the following year, violent clashes erupted between Fatah and Hamas, leaving Hamas in control of the Strip and Fatah in control of parts of the occupied West Bank.

The groups have made failed attempts at national reconciliation for years, most recently in 2012, when they signed two agreements -- one in Cairo and a subsequent one in Doha -- which have as of yet been entirely unimplemented.
Print
1 ) Mitri I. Musleh / Canada
15/02/2014 17:15
An international military presence within a future Palestinian state IS NOT an occupation or similar in nature to Israeli presence. Some Palestinian minority groups might find haven in such a presence to protect them from extreme elements on both sides of the scale.

2 ) Mel / USA
15/02/2014 17:50
Abbas must be deluded in thinking NATO is a neutral,fair,force?The world remembers how NATO was born by the,"to the victor the spoils' allies,post WW2,& very much a tool of USG/military(new imperial power)&Euro lackies. NATO is still controlled/manipulated by USG for its expansionist interests,not to mention being a vehicle for corrupt capitalism(not fair capitalism).Asking NATO to be a neutral force is ludicrous.Like Poland asking Italy to protect it from Nazism,late 1930's.END THE OCCUPATION!!

3 ) Outlier / USA
15/02/2014 18:09
Hamas needs a reality check. Which will ordinary Palestinians prefer, the current situation or a state with international troops as temporary peacekeepers? The answer is obvious. These comments shows Hamas' extreme distance from mainstream Palestinians.

4 ) Collette / Colombia
15/02/2014 19:59
Let's just stay with the IDF, to protect Israeli citizens. And the Arabs of the West Bank of the Jordan, which has been under Israeli control following a defensive war in 1967, though much of it is now internally governed by the Palestinian Authority. Gaza that's their choice it's time to democratically vote Hamas out.

5 ) Brian Cohen / Israel
15/02/2014 20:00
Of course Hamas is opposed to this, because Hamas is oppsed to any peace treaty with Israel. Hamas supports war and wants more martyrs. It does not want peace. And, of course, far too many foreign Maan readers willingly support Hamas and are willing to fight to the last Palestinian in order to destroy Israel and the dreaded zionists.

6 ) Julie / USA
15/02/2014 20:29
any non-Palestinian forces would indeed be an 'occupation' of Palestinian lands, whether it be NATO, another foreign country or izrael. occupation is occupation. Palestinians have the right to their own sovereignty to secure their own borders, and also to have their own military. this is the right of every sovereign nation. asking/demanding that Palestine to be any different, regardless of any reason, is discrimination, oppression and a serious violation of their rights.

7 ) Palestinian Brit / Palestine
15/02/2014 23:24
Hard to believe anyone really wants peace around here!

8 ) Mel / USA
16/02/2014 00:13
And besides that, to have NATO peace-keeping forces officially there,is to ACKNOWLEDGE Israel's TOTALLY ILLEGAL occupation of Palestine &collective punishment blockade(war crimes)on Gaza & expulsion of millions of Palestinians.NATO can't legally endorse(by its presence)an illegal theo-sectarian Israeli occupation by annexing itself TO IT! That's against the Geneva Conventions. JUST END THE OCCUPATION BY Israel,&NATO can escort Israel back to pre-67 lines,with its WALL!

9 ) I / Agree
16/02/2014 00:58
#4 Collette - very intelligent and thoughtful post. I agree 110% with you.

10 ) Patrick O'Shaughnessy / Ireland
16/02/2014 01:00
An interesting mix of comments, with the usual over dramatisation from Brian Cohen. My understanding is that President Abbas agreed to a potential demilitarised state, although why, one cannot imagine. However, if that is the case, yes, Palestine's borders would need to be protected. If a Palestinian force is ruled out, then it would need to be some kind of international forces. Hamas does have a point to make here, particularly as it has been excluded from the 'secret' negotiations.

11 ) EE / UK
16/02/2014 01:07
Julie #6 - you, as usually, absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as "Palestinian land", never was and would not be unless Palestinians agree to compromise and negotiate conflict settlement with Israel. And because it is no Palestinian land, such non-existent land can not be occupied by anyone: it was not occupied by Romans -it was Roman Empire; it was not occupied by Turks-it was Ottoman Empire; it was not occupied by Jordanians - it was Jordan; and it's not occupied by Israel - it is Israel

12 ) Colin Wright / USA
16/02/2014 02:49
'A spokesman for Hamas said Friday that the faction would regard any international military presence within a future Palestinian state as "occupation" forces.' Assuming Hamas is actually willing to put the Palestinian cause above partisan sparring, this is a foolish position. Israel won't assent to it, so support it, and force Israel to implicitly admit her real agenda.

13 ) Colin Wright / USA
16/02/2014 02:51
To Brain Cohen #5: 'Of course Hamas is opposed to this, because Hamas is oppsed to any peace treaty with Israel. Hamas supports war and wants more martyrs. It does not want peace. ' Can you explain why they should want 'peace' as you would define it -- that is to say, Israel gets 90% of the land and the Palestinians are confined to walled ghettos?

14 ) Brian Cohen / Israel
16/02/2014 12:34
Colin - why did you get 100% of American and the Sioux and Cherokee and the rest got nothing? Don't give us the cheap excuse that you gave them them citizenship and the vote - it's a non-starter because you first killed off most of the natives in merciless genocides, then shoved them onto reservations as you stole the rest of their lands, then hundreds of years later you made them "equals" - which everybody knows they are still 2nd class citizens.

15 ) Simple / Advise
16/02/2014 17:36
#14 Brian - sorry, but you are fool and misinformed. Think first, post your comment after.

16 ) Colin Wright / USA
16/02/2014 22:06
To Brian #14: 'Colin - why did you get 100% of American and the Sioux and Cherokee and the rest got nothing? Don't give us the cheap excuse that you gave them them citizenship and the vote' Ah -- so THIS is why your crimes are okay -- because someone else somewhere else also did something bad a hundred and fifty years ago. Hey -- you guys are clear to rerun the Holocaust if you like!

17 ) Colin Wright / USA
16/02/2014 22:12
To EE #11: 'it was not occupied by Romans -it was Roman Empire; it was not occupied by Turks-it was Ottoman Empire; it was not occupied by Jordanians - it was Jordan; and it's not occupied by Israel - it is Israel' There's a major distinction here. The various earlier empires you refer to were entirely willing to let the Palestinians continue living on the land; they merely insisted on ruling. The Israelis insist on ethnic cleansing.

18 ) Antoinette / Germany
17/02/2014 01:33
@15 Do you mean ''simple advice''? Think first, post your comment after.

19 ) Gjg / Qwerty
17/02/2014 05:12
Palestinians,.have legitimacy in this conflict., they have the right to reject the occupier
Name Country
Comment
Characters
Note: Comments will be reviewed for appropriate content. Click here for more details.

Share/Bookmark

Injuries reported after explosion in Khan Younis
Israel PM blames Palestinian leaders after Hebron killing
Israeli forces clash with worshipers in Aqsa compound, dozens hurt

Close Next Previous
All Rights Reserved © Ma'an News Agency 2005 - 2014