Meet the boogeyman
Al Jazeera’s recent interview with Khaled Mesha’al, head of Hamas’ political bureau and a traditional hard-liner within the movement, is well worth a watch.
The money quote: “Now we have a vision: we accept a state on the 1967 borders.”
The key point here is that Hamas is not the ideologically inflexible, politically extremist organisation painted by the mainstream media. There are areas where real progress could be made. It is certainly possible that, if it came down to it, the above would be exposed as mere rhetoric and Hamas would reject the standard two-state settlement. Hamas experts disagree, recognising important ideological shifts within the movement in recent years, but it is impossible to predict for certain what would happen. The way to find out, as Mesha’al said, is to test them.
A U.S. and Israel sincerely interested in peace would have jumped at chances to bolster the moderates within Hamas and to engage in dialogue with the organisation. Instead, opportunities for political progress – Hamas’ unilateral 18-month ceasefire, its 2005 electoral platform, the Prisoners’ Document, the Mecca Agreement, and so on – have been systematically undermined through rejectionism and violence. Israel and the U.S. saw signs of moderation by Hamas not as opportunities to be welcomed but as developments to be feared. For Israel, the threat posed by Hamas is primarily political, not military. Faced with the prospect of a credible Palestinian organisation that might well agree to a genuine two-state settlement, insisting on terms (such as a full Israeli withdrawal and a dismantling of Israeli settlements) unacceptable to Israel, the U.S. and Israel moved to crush this threatened Palestinian ‘peace offensive’ through economic strangulation and military force. It is undoubtedly the case that there exist within Hamas more extreme elements that would reject most of the above. For a while, the moderates within the movement appeared to have the upper hand – Hamas increasingly shifted its focus from the military to the political sphere, and adopted a platform far closer to Fatah’s than it was to the movement’s 1988 Charter. Sadly, U.S./Israeli policy has served, consciously, to undermine them at the expense of the radicals. However, opportunities still clearly exist for constructive engagement with Hamas, and we must ensure that the U.S. and Israel take them before it is too late.
Filed under: Interviews, Israeli / Palestinian, News and politics, Videos | 13 Comments
Tags: Gaza, Hamas, interview, Khaled Mesha'al, occupation
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
Settlement construction continues.
Ha’aretz:
Ynet:
so, the jew/dane eating rabbit was some peace gesture?
“It is consistent with our long-standing position that building within the large settlement blocs, which will stay a part of Israel in any final status agreement, will continue,” Regev said. “Construction outside the settlement blocs has been frozen.”
Whats so bad about this?^
Oh, the fact that it’s an openly rejectionist stance. It may be Israel’s “long-standing position” that its illegal colonies are permanent, but it’s not the position of the Palestinians, it’s not the position of the UN, it’s not the position of the International Court of Justice, it’s not the position of international law and, in fact, it’s not the position of anyone other than the U.S. and Israeli governments.
All the settlement are illegal, and Israel has no more right to prejudice negotiations on a final settlement through unilateral actions like settlement expansion than do the Palestinians.
Newsweek: Israelis want to talk to Hamas
Congrats on ousting the military!
Given the fact that evidence is surfacing that the latest yeshiva terror attack was organized by Hamas from Damascus, it seems hard to credit anything Khaled Meshal says that has a moderate tone. I wish it were otherwise.
ansel: yep, a majority of Israelis want a ceasefire with Hamas (according to a recent poll).
There were actually reports of a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, but they are apparently unfounded. Still, it would not be totally surprising if one were worked out – perhaps Israel has exhausted the military option against Hamas. I doubt it, though.
There is an informal agreement currently operating, however. See Ha’aretz:
(Incidentally, in case it wasn’t clear, I was not involved in ousting the military from the UCLU. I just posted about it.)
Richard: Well, firstly, according to the Ha’aretz article cited above, “no direct link between Hamas and the massacre of the yeshiva students” has been found. But if one were found, then while the murders were undoubtedly deplorable, I don’t see why it would change anything Mesha’al says above. Hamas has been calling for a ceasefire with Israel for months now, to no avail. It is trying to establish a mutual deterrence with Israel, a la Hizbullah in the north:
If Hamas carried out the massacre in Jerusalem, it was presumably part of this strategy, as a response to Israel’s killing of some 120 Palestinians in the course of four days, at least half of whom were civilians and a quarter were children. It would be part of the same strategy of trying to establish a deterrence with Israel and trying to force Israel to agree to a ceasefire.
An interesting and significant interview, and an accurate analysis.
You are right to highlight that quote. It seems to me this is the most clear statement Hamas has ever made that it is willing to accept a two state solution.
Not that it matters to the above, but I find it a bit hard to believe him when he says Iran is not funding Hamas. Especially as I seem to remember that some in the Gaza leadership have contradicted this (money anyway — weapons would seem next to impossible).
On another side note, it’s interesting that al-Jazeera plays down the religious nature of Hamas. They miss the word “Islamic” out of their translation of the full name of Hamas (Movement of the Islamic Resistance) and also they didn’t translate it when Misha’l prefaced his comments with bismillah al-rahman al-rahim — “in the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate” (a common way for religious Muslims to preface their speeches). Al Jazeera Arabic has a reputation of being pro-Hamas, although the English channel is a separate team altogether.
When I say pro-Hamas, I don’t mean it in the way crazy Zionists would use the term, I mean “pro-Hamas to the detriment of Fateh”.
Yes, I’ve heard the Angry Arab make the same point about Al Jazeera (Arabic).
Re. Iranian funding of Hamas, he’s almost certainly lying. Even the Vanity Fair article (which he references) quotes Hamas officials admitting Iranian funding to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Of course it’s a tricky issue for Hamas, politically, since they’re constantly being accused of being Iranian puppets.