Hamas indicates its acceptance of a two-state settlement. Again.

21Jun08

Hamas’ spokesman in the Gaza Strip today voiced optimism about a potential future peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, noting that “[n]othing is impossible”:

‘Unlike some of his Hamas colleagues, Bardawil does not act horrified when hearing the words “peace” and “Israel” put together. “The Arab world has already outstretched its hand for peace with the Israelis in the past,” he says. “The ideas of Ahmed Yassin [Hamas' founder and former leader], who supported a cease-fire for some 15-20 years, focused on peace, not war. Hamas people who insist that there will never be peace with Israel do so because they are skeptical about the intentions of Israel’s leadership. Everyone on your side is saying that the hudna [truce] is an opportunity for Hamas to narrow the military gap, but it’s actually a historic opportunity for Israel and for all the sides involved to live in peace, and to build a future for the next generations.”‘

Bardawil continued:

‘”Today, the relations between Israel and Hamas are those of enemies … But during past negotiations between Hamas and Fatah we agreed on ‘the national reconciliation agreement,’ which declares that the Palestinian state will be established within the 1967 borders. Israel mustn’t pass up such an agreement with Hamas – otherwise an ideology more extreme than Hamas will be the result. Israel has to understand that nowadays, Hamas is a factor that balances the radical and out-of-control voices in both the Arab and the Muslim world.”

However, it’s hard to ignore the more hawkish voices in Hamas, which see the cease-fire as little more than a timeout, allowing the organization to build up its military forces in anticipation of the future – when they envision wiping Israel off the map. But according to Bardawil, the Hamas members who speak in such terms are merely voicing religious ideas. “It’s impossible to change religious beliefs,” he says. “But the conflict between us and Israel is political and not religious.”

So why don’t you recognize Israel?

“We won’t repeat Fatah’s mistakes and get into the whole adventure of recognizing Israel. To this day, the borders of this state remain uncertain. It’s too early to talk about negotiations with Israel. The cease-fire is a kind of de facto recognition of this entity, just as Israel recognizes the existence of Hamas. We cannot deny the reality of its existence.”

This is in accordance with previous statements from Hamas indicating the organisation’s acceptance of a two-state settlement. In a recent interview with a pro-Fatah Palestinian newspaper, for example, Hamas chief and traditional ‘hardliner’ Khaled Mesha’al ’stressed his movement’s consent in principle to a full sovereign Palestinian state on 1967 borders’ and reiterated its acceptance of a national unity government and the 2006 Prisoner’s Document, which would have focused resistance within the West Bank and Gaza and called for “an independent Palestinian state with full sovereignty on all land occupied in 1967.” He explained:

“We have the Palestinian Conciliation Document of 2006, in which all the organizations agreed clearly to a state based on the borders of 1967 including Jerusalem, the right of return and full sovereignty. This is the Palestinian position and it is the Arab Position too with some reservations [on our part]. The Israelis should declare their full and strict commitment to it…

We are committed to the political platform on which we agreed with the other Palestinian forces and in convergence with Arab position. Thus all the international parties should deal with this political fact and judge the political platform to which we agreed. The challenge here is not to search in the minds of peoples but [look at] the offered political platform on the table and the American administration and the international community should work to get Israel to be committed to it … This is the way out. After that, whoever wants to recognize Israel or not, that would a matter of his personal convictions.”

Mesha’al has also declared that Hamas now has “a vision: we accept a state on the 1967 borders”, while the New York Times this week quoted a founding member of Hamas to the effect that,

“[w]e are not seeking all of Palestine, only the ’67 borders … [t]hen there would be a truce for a very long period to pave the way for the next generation to resolve the issues we are paralyzed to resolve.”

There are many other such statements from Hamas, and moreover this ideological shift has been reflected in the movement’s policies: its engagement in the 2006 elections; its 16-month self-imposed unilateral truce with Israel; its support for the 2006 Prisoner’s Document; its agreement to cede to Abbas the authority to negotiate with Israel and its pledge to accept the results of these negotiations if passed by a national referendum.

Undoubtedly one can also find statements from Hamas members espousing a less accomodating line. The goal of U.S./Israeli policy should be to encourage the movement’s shift towards moderation by engaging productively with and thereby strengthening its moderate elements. As top Hamas political strategist Ahmed Yousef recently stated:

“You can actually deal with Hamas and work with them to moderate them…Don’t make them your enemy. We should try these things before blocking the road. Everybody tried to destroy Hamas and didn’t give us a chance. Deal with us.”

Thus far the opposite approach has been pursued, with Israel and the U.S. consistently responding to Hamas’ overtures with flat rejection and extreme violence. Unfortunately this rejectionism looks set to continue:

“This calm is fragile and is liable to be short-lived,” Ehud Olmert, the prime minister of Israel, proclaimed on Wednesday night. “Hamas and the other terrorist organizations have not changed and have not become patrons of peace. These are contemptible and bloodthirsty terrorists”,

which says a lot about the sincerity of Israel’s professed desire for peace.

Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian, News and politics, Quote of the Day   |  5 Comments
Tags: "peace process", ceasefire, Gaza, Hamas, Khaled Mesha'al, two-state settlement