AG refuses to okay use of Hamas officials as 'bargaining chips'

[Poll_Blind]

From Ha'Aretz (et al.), emphasis and footnoting (*) mine:

AG refuses to okay use of Hamas officials as 'bargaining chips'

Attorney General Menachem Mazuz refused a request by the Shin Bet security service and the government to place dozens of senior Hamas officials under administrative detention or hold them as "bargaining chips" under the Unlawful Combatants Law.

Mazuz insisted that the arrests be carried out under ordinary criminal warrants that would require legal proceedings against the Hamas officials under the Prevention of Terror Ordinance. They will probably be charged with membership in or leadership of a terrorist organization.

--snip--

"The detention of elected members of the Palestinian government and legislature raises particular concerns," said a joint statement by the G8, which also called on Israel to exercise "utmost restraint."

"... is a pre-planned * plot to destroy the Authority, the government and the parliament and to bring the Palestinian people to their knees,"** Hamas lawmaker Mushir al-Masri said Thursday.

--snip--

*From the same story:

--snip--The detention of Hamas parliamentarians in the early hours of Thursday morning had been planned several weeks ago and received approval from Mazuz on Wednesday.--snip--

**From the same link, different story (titled "Warning to Haniyeh"):

--snip--
Israel Radio quoted Shin Bet security chief Yuval Diskin as having told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the day of the kidnapping: "If the soldier is not returned in 24 hours, Israel will not allow the Palestinian government to survive."

--snip--

NOTE:The link brings you to a page of 5-6 individual stories which have been collated from "Amos Harel, Avi Issacharoff, and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents and The Associated Press". To read the entire article, merely search for the title or any of the quoted text and you will be brought to the appropriate place. Unfortunately the page does not use HTML "anchors" so I have no way of making a more direct link.

PB

[DELUSIONAL]

1. As has been suspected -- this was planned -- waiting for an excuse

to attack.

Really sad .. . .

It is doubtful that the current leaders desire peace -- war is power -- anyway this is also how bush views war -- he wanted to be a war president BEFORE he was appointed by the Supreme Court. Apparently for some psychopaths being at war means unlimited and unchecked power.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Notice they say they've been planning this for WEEKS when Shalit...

...was captured LESS THAN A WEEK AGO. Does that strike anyone else as, you know, a bit odd?

  I think Hamas' willingness to recognize Israel was the last straw. Olmert's conservative Israeli government had to do something so they could continue the canard of having no partner for peace.

PB

[sabbat hunter]

3. wrong poll blind

hamas was NOT willing to recognize israel. go back and re-read the language they used in supporting the referendum, plus comments afterwards. they want nothing do to with a country of israel except its destruction.

[Poll_Blind]

5. Fatah: PA to formulate unity government within two weeks

From Ha'aretz (6/28/06), emphasis mine:

Fatah will join the ruling Hamas group in a Palestinian Authority unity government within two weeks, a faction official said Tuesday after completing an agreement with Hamas over a plan that implicitly recognizes Israel.

The deal ends weeks of acrimonious negotiations, a top official said.

"We have an agreement over the document," said Ibrahim Abu Najah, coordinator of the "national dialogue" over the proposal.
--snip--

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=implicit">Merriam-Webseter Dictionary definition of Implicit

2 : being without doubt or reserve : UNQUESTIONING

  Please provide a link to this document (referenced above) and those portions of the document which support your assertion. I believe you're confused about which document is being referred to and that you're referencing the released-draft of the "Prisoner's document". The document referred to above is separate and completed only two to three days ago.

  I am willing to listen to what you have to say- I want to make that clear. I believe both sides are capable of great deception. When you make the statement "they want nothing do to with a country of israel except its destruction." it does not strike me as being equally open-minded but, as I said, I am willing to entertain your argument as long as it is about the above-refrenced document and not something else.

PB

[cali]

7. I've been reading contradictory

materials regarding this agreement all week. The latest seems to be that Hamas has not agreed to implicitly recognize Israel. This is from the BBC Middle East.

I do agree that regardless, Israel planned this operation prior to the capture of the Israeli soldier, and decided to use said capture to overthrow Hamas.

Hamas resists Israel recognition


Hamas says all of Israel is built on occupied Palestinian land

Rival Palestinian political factions Fatah and Hamas have reached agreement on a common political strategy to try to end a damaging power struggle.

However, Hamas negotiators have denied earlier reports that the deal meant the militants would implicitly recognise Israel - a major policy shift.

The full text of the accord has not yet been released. A Hamas minister said it did not have "one word" on the issue.

<snip>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5122822.stm

[pelsar]

4. whats odd about planning?

any responsable govt has contigency plans...for israel its plans that involved attacking and being attacked by syria, egypt, jordan, iran, the palestenians..

in fact it would be incredibly irresponsable of the IDF and israeli govt not to have planned for such a contigency....

[Poll_Blind]

6. As the Shin-Bet representative said, this plan was in the works BEFORE...

...Shalit was captured. You indicated that any responsible government has contingency plans and with that broad statement I agree. In fact, based on Shin Bet's own statements in my original post, it appears that they have had a plan to destabilize or destroy entirely the Palestinian government and expel members of the Kenesset who are affiliated with Hamas.

  But Israel knew that these were members of Hamas before they were even elected. For them or a supporter to disingenously claim that all-of-a-sudden they realized that these members were affiliated with Hamas is taxing the truth in the extreme.

PB

[sabbat hunter]

8. here is the article

Rival Palestinian political factions Fatah and Hamas have reached agreement on a common political strategy to try to end a damaging power struggle.

However, Hamas negotiators have denied earlier reports that the deal meant the militants would implicitly recognise Israel - a major policy shift.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5122822.stm

and another

Your editorial claimed that the document endorsed by Hamas "implicitly recognizes Israel." Unfortunately, Hamas's leaders and spokesmen have repeatedly made clear that the group still refuses to recognize Israel's legitimacy.

Salah al-Bardawil, a Hamas lawmaker, is quoted in your June 28 issue as explaining that "we did not say we accept two states."

Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, pointed out that "we agreed to all the articles of the document without having to recognize Israel." Others have repeated this unambiguous message.


http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1140