Financial Times: No Interest in Principle
May 4, 2011 13:07 by Pesach Benson
Israel’s three conditions for engaging Hamas are a matter of principle.
- You don’t negotiate with people who want to kill you.
- You don’t negotiate with people who don’t recognize your existence.
- And you don’t negotiate with people who don’t intend to honor previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
If you do, you reward — and legitimize – a terror group for sticking to its murderous principles.
But the Financial Times shows no interest in principle. This staff-ed (click through Google News) says forget about it. There’s a lot more to say about this editorial; I’m just singling out one of the FT’s points:
The preconditions set for Hamas were designed to isolate rather than engage it, a shield against an election result the US and Europe could not stomach. Recognition of Israel should come once its borders are defined at the conclusion of a treaty establishing a Palestinian state, not while Israel is expanding its state on Arab land. And Hamas must abide by whatever Palestinians say in a referendum on a deal – if Israel were ever to agree one.
Hamas has its own set of principles: They include killing Jews, harrassing Christians, and brainwashing children as a means of acquiring power.
Staff-editorials reflect the official view of the newspaper.
And the Financial Times stands by Hamas’s principle interest.
Financial Times: Kein Interesse an Prinzipien « Medien BackSpin
5:10 pm
May 04, 2011
[...] HonestReporting Media BackSpin, 4. Mai 2011 [...]
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
John Bradford
4:10 pm
May 10, 2011
What an excellent article, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I’m especially pleased to note that the FT believes that UN recognition in September of a Palestinian state is likely, we should rejoice at that. It’s also good that the FT reports Hamas as having pledged to enforce a truce with Israel after joining a national unity government.
I don’t agree, though, with the suggestion that there should be land swaps to allow Israel to incorporate some of the settlements around Jerusalem into Israel, I think the border should be on the green line. If Palestine and Israel choose to swap land at a later date, fine, that’s up to them, but it shouldn’t form part of the peace agreement, why should it. Perhaps it depends on what land is swapped – Mount Scopus, perhaps? The Negev?
All that’s required now is for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan, and we’re on the way at last.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0