Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘khaled-meshal’

Abbas to Head Fatah-Hamas Unity Government Till Planned Elections

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012
meshal abbas meeting

Khaled Meshal and Mahmoud Abbas meet in Qatar

Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Meshal have reached an agreement that would provide for Abbas to head a Palestinian unity caretaker government until elections, which would happen sometime in the coming months.  The deal comes on the heels of the abject failure of four rounds of Jordanian sponsored peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians in which the Israeli side offered a deal for a Palestinian state that essentially followed the contours of the Separation Wall.

Israeli reaction was swift, negative and predictable:

…Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warn[ed] Mr. Abbas that he could have peace with Israel or unity with Hamas, but not both.

Actually, the truth is Abbas could have peace with Israel if he accepted a neutered Palestine and permanent divorce from Gaza, the other half of the Palestinian nation.  What sort of peace would that be?

This Israeli formulation too drives me crazy:

Mr. Netanyahu disagrees that Hamas is changing. He noted in his statement on Monday that until Hamas recognizes Israel, abandons violence and accepts previous agreements with Israel signed by the Palestinian Authority — the three conditions that the United States and the European Union demand of Hamas, which has rejected them — it remains a renegade that must be shunned.

I would suggest a corollary set of Palestinian demands: until Israel recognizes a Palestinian state, abandons violence against Palestinians, and accepts previous peace deals (Oslo, Road Map, etc.) that it signed with the PA–then it remains a renegade that must be shunned.

Congress has boxed the Obama administration into a corner by mandating that any Palestinian government including Hamas within it, must be defunded.  That would remove $450-million of the $1 billion Palestine receives in foreign funding.  But given the expanding role that Qatar is taking in bringing the Palestinians together and possibly becoming the  new home in exile of Hamas, U.S. aid may no longer even be necessary.  Idiots like Gary Ackerman and the rest of the Lobby boys in Congress who devised this brilliant piece of legislation, should think about what it will be like to have the U.S. entirely cut out of having any influence with the Palestinians.  That’s what will happen if we cut the Palestinians loose.

It won’t hurt the Palestinians since they may have alternate sources of Arab funding.  But it will hurt the Israelis because they will continue their own obdurate ways as international pressure mounts against them.  Pretty soon, the only ally Israel will have left is the U.S., which will veto all necessary Security Council resolutions criticizing Israel.  But in the long-term, Israel cannot sustain this status quo.  The future will be grim.

Hamas’ Meshal Affirms Support for Palestinian State Within 1967 Borders and ‘Popular Resistance’

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

abbas Meshal Cairo talks

An image that makes Israeli hardliners cringe and fear: Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Meshal making nice during Cairo unity talks

Following on a post I published here about a Wahington Post story on the “new pragmatism” of Hamas, Khaled Meshal expanded on these themes in an AP interview in which he affirmed Hamas support for a Palestinian state established through Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders. Though the Islamist movement’s chief leader refused to renounce violence as a tool in the fight for Palestinian rights, he made clear that violence was a tactical, and not a strategic choice; and that his first choice would be the types of “popular resistance” exhibited during the Arab Spring uprisings and the first Palestinian Intifada in 1987:

Popular protests have “the power of a tsunami,” Mashaal said, pointing to the recent waves of demonstrations across the Arab world.

“Now we have a common ground that we can work on — the popular resistance, which presents the power of people,” he said. The idea for the protests originated with the Palestinians themselves and the uprising they launched against Israel in 1987, he said, typified by crowds of rock-throwing Palestinian youths confronting heavily armed Israeli soldiers.

Mashaal also gave rare Hamas public support to the idea of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.

Pointedly, Meshal, in reaffirming Hamas support for a Palestinian state, did not mention the traditional Hamas fudging tactic, offering a hudna in its struggle against Israel:

We have political differences, but the common ground is the state on the ’67 borders. Why don’t we work in this common area,” he said.

There is no magic bullet as far as Hamas is concerned. It won’t all of a sudden become a liberal social democratic movement that is to the taste of Israel, the U.S. and the western world. Nor should that be necessary to take it seriously as one of two Palestinian interlocutors that must be included in any discussions that would resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In a related matter, The NY Times’ Isabel Kershner continues to lie about Hamas’ views about Israel. This recent passage is exemplary of her sweeping distortions of the group’s position:

…Hamas, the Islamic militant group that…is sworn to Israel’s destruction.

While there is certainly no love lost between Israel and Hamas, no senior Hamas official that I know of has in the recent past (the past few years) made any such statement. And the group would certainly, from their point of view have reason to do so after Operation Cast Lead, the Mavi Marmara killings, and years of punishing siege. Though I don’t find Hamas an exemplar of democracy (nor Fatah or Israel for that matter), statements like Kershner’s and Bronner’s do a disservice to a full understanding of the nuance of the conflict.

Hamas Leader, Meshaal, Praises Abbas’ UN Bid for Statehood

Sunday, October 2nd, 2011
khaled meshaal

Khaled Meshaal, Hamas senior leader, endorses Palestinian UN statehood bid in face of opposition from Iran's Ayatollah Khameini

Hamas’s chief leader, Khaled Meshaal delivered a major address (Farsi) at a Palestine conference in Iran yesterday which shocked many by directly contradicting the view advanced by Ayatollah Khameini, who attacked the two state solution, the PLO’s support for it, and its UN bid.  Meshaal, in contrast, praised Mahmoud Abbas for his campaign for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.  Keep in mind that Meshaal said this in front of the highest leaders of Iran including Khamieni and Ahmedinejad, all of whom lined up in vehement opposition.  It took guts.

Because this is such an important statement and because it has not been reported at all in any English language site, I’m going to quote the article from the Iran’s Radio Farda (funded partially by the U.S. State Department, but whose reporting is considered reliable by Iranians I’ve consulted) in its entirety.  I thank Muhammad Sahimi for his translation from the Farsi and Golnaz Esfandiari for leading me to this source:

Khaled Meshal, head of the political office of Hamas in Syria said that the request of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, for recognition of an independent Palestinian state and full membership in the United Nations is a courageous act that must be appreciated and supported. Meshal, who was speaking in the 5th international conference in support of Palestinian Intifada in Tehran, said regarding Abbas’ request, “We cannot deny that this action has had symbolic and moral achievements.”

Meshal expressed his position while Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected, at the same conference, Abbas’ suggestion for an independent Palestine, which recognizes partitioning of the historical Palestine. Last week, Abbas asked the UN to recognize an independent Palestine based on the pre-1967 war borders that will consist of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. An independent Palestine within this area has been agreed on internationally, but so far Israel and Palestinians have not been able to reach any agreement in their peace negotiations. The main reason for the disagreement is Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the problem of Palestinian refugees.

Regarding Mahmoud Abbas’ action at the UN, Ayatollah Khamenei said in his speech at the conference, “Our aim is freedom for [all of] Palestine, not part of it. Any plan that aims to partition Palestine must be completely rejected. The idea of two states that has been covered up with membership of the Palestinian government in the UN is nothing but acceding to the Zionists demands, meaning accepting a Zionist government in the Palestinian land.”

But, describing Abbas’ action, Khaled Meshal said that it has “isolated the Zionist regime and the United States, there is a good international consensus that has revealed the [true] ugly face of the U.S.policy and Israel’s position.” At the same time, Meshal said that the action has its limitation and should not be considered as an end by itself. He demanded to “first liberate Palestinian lands and then ask the United Nations Security Coucil for UN membership.” He also warned against some of the consequences of Abbas’ action.

The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic implicitly accused the officials of Palestine Liberation Organization of treason, but Meshal praised them. Ayatollah Khamenei said [about the officials], “Lack of religious beliefs and separation from the people gradually neutralized them [the officials] and made them ineffectual. Of course, there are also decent, motivated and brave people in the Organization but, collectively, the Organization has gone a different way [than what it should have].”

“Their deviation [from the path of resistance] hurt the cause of Palestine and it is still doing so. They, similar to some treacherous Arab governments, turned their backs to the ideals of resistance which were, and still are, the only way for Palestine salvation, and hurt not only Palestine but also themselves.”

On the other hand, Khaled Meshal praised Mahmoud Abbas for asking the UN for recognition of an independent Palestine state and membership in the UN, despite the opposition by the United States, but added, “Now what?  Will we limit ourselves to this step? Yes, brother Abu Mazen [Abbas] did not give in to the U.S. pressure and persisted in his action. His courage is praise-worthy and we appreciate and support it.”

We heard in the Israeli media and from other sources before Abbas spoke at the UN, that Hamas officials inside Gaza denounced Abbas’s approach to the UN and instead endorsed a one-state solution.  But either this reporting was wrong, or it has been superseded, and in a major way, by a more authoritative source who not only supports the independence bid, but does so strongly and firmly.  In truth, Meshaal may differ with Abbas tactically in how or when he would have made the approach to the UN.  But this statement and the fact that it was made in Iran, in the anti-Zionist heartland, is very significant.

Not to mention that it might strengthen Abbas’ statehood bid since he will have drawn Hamas, his major rival into support for the proposal.  If the Security Council truly does want to support peace and two previously warring Palestinian political groups can endorse the same proposal, there can be no doubt that a Yes vote for statehood would advance Palestinian unity and an eventual peace agreement.

Despite the fact that Radio Farda is a U.S. sponsored media outlet, there can be little doubt that this story does not advance U.S. policy which rejects the UN statehood bid.  This makes the story all the more credible.

I doubt Meshal’s words will resonate at all in the halls of power in Tel Aviv, Washington DC, and Brussels where it should (and this fact will attest to the bankruptcy of their approach to the conflict and resolving it), but let us circulate this statement as widely as possible for the sake of those in the world who are pragmatic and believe that the Palestinians, ALL of them, can eventually come to terms with an Israeli state within 1967 borders, which in turn recognizes a Palestinian state.

Keep in mind that Israel’s far right government and its water-carriers in this country talk about “Hamastan” and the fact that Iran supplies virtually all Hamas’ missiles and weapons (without offering any proof of the claim).  Now, either Meshaal is being a fool in brooking a major patron, or Iran doesn’t provide nearly the support that is claimed, or Meshaal is one brave dude.  When you add to this that Meshaal also refused to provide Bashar Al Assad with the full-throated statement of support the latter demanded to shore up his tottering regime, you have to give the Hamas leader credit for having a backbone.  Now, if only the president of a certain western nation could copy his example.

Palestinian Entrepreneur Key to Hamas-Fatah Unity Deal, Talks Tough in Maariv Interview

Sunday, June 12th, 2011
munib al masri

Munib al-Masri, Palestinian entrepreneur instrumental in orchestrating Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, stands before his Venetian-style villa on Mt. Gerizim (Reuven Castro)

Robert Fisk has penned a major story about billionaire businessman Munib al-Masri, the wealthiest Palestinian perhaps in the Middle East, who played a key role in bringing together Hamas and Fatah for the unity deal which they signed last month in Egypt.  What’s especially interesting about this is that al-Masri provides his gloss on the meaning of the agreement for Israeli-Palestinian relations, and he reveals just how many separate power centers, nations and political-intelligence operatives were consulted to make the deal happen.

When you finish reading this (most of you anyway) will want to tip your hat to a man who pulled off one of the greatest deals of the past decade, at least, in Palestinian politics.  He did all this from a base he himself created called the Palestine Forum, a group of distinguished Palestinian independents interested in bridging the gaps between the two warring parties.  The Forum worked intensively and diligently for four years to bring this about.  Partially through its own creativity and perseverance, partially through the parties coming to realize that an agreement lay in their own interest, and perhaps most important of all due to the propitious events of the Arab Spring which worked in their favor–they created a Palestinian political miracle.

The following is part of the conversation with Khaled Meshal that preceded the final acceptance of the agreement:

We told him the government has to be of national unity — on the agreement that we would be able to carry out elections and lift the embargo on Gaza and reconstruct Gaza, that we have to abide by international law, by the UN Charter and UN resolutions…He agreed that resistance must only be ‘in the national interest of the country’ – it would have to be ‘aqlaqi’ – ethical. There would be no more rocket attacks on civilians. In other words, no more rocket attacks from Gaza.”…Hamas agreed on the 1967 border, effectively acknowledging Israel’s existence, and to the reference to the ‘resistance.’

Then al-Masri summarizes his own understanding of the agreement, and the reason why it finessed the question of Hamas participation in a government by appointing a transitional one that would not include Fatah or Hamas affiliated members:

If Hamas was in the government, it would have to recognise the State of Israel. But if they were not, they would not recognise anything. “It’s not fair to say ‘Hamas must do the following’, Masri says…”As long as they are not in the Palestinian government, Hamas are just a political party and can say anything they want. So America should be prepared to see Hamas agreeing on the formation of the government. That government will abide by UN resolutions – and international law. It’s got to be mutual. Both sides realised they might miss the boat of the Arab spring. It wasn’t me who did this – it was a compilation of many efforts. If it was not for Egypt and the willingness of the two Palestinian groups, this would not have happened.” In the aftermath of the agreement, Hamas and Abbas’ loyalists agreed to stop arresting members of each side.

1967 borders means that Hamas is accepting Israel and the ‘resistance’ initiative means an end to Gaza rockets on Israel. International law and UN resolutions mean peace can be completed and a Palestinian state brought into being.

Ben Caspit has written his own Hebrew version of this article, which includes a searing interview with the Palestine businessman and supporter of the Palestinian national movement.  I find this  interesting, because Caspit is a generally a supporter of Israel’s far right.  It’s hard for me to understand Caspit’s interest in profiling the Fatah-Hamas unity deal in a positive light given the Israeli government’s absolutely allergic reaction to it.  But hey, perhaps Caspit’s changing his tune politically or his intelligence sources are finding more to like in the deal than we realize.  Whatever the reason, it is a positive development that Caspit is conveying to his readers the thoughts of a major Palestinian figure who explains that Hamas, while not necessarily Israel’s friend, is not the demon it’s made out to be by Bibi & Co.  This is an important message for Israelis to here.

But al-Masri was not kind or diplomatic in his words.  When Caspi asked why Israelis should believe there can be peace with Palestinians when they had just entered into an agreement with a movement sworn to destroy Israel, al-Masri replied:

This is foolishness.  You disappoint me every time anew.  You’re simply unwilling to listen to the other side, only to yourselves.  You go to Washington and persuade members of Congress, make a big show of it, instead of quieting down and listening.  If you really listened to Khaled Meshal’s speech at the reconciliation ceremony in Egypt you would’ve heard three fundamental principles. These are the three principles which we worked on with Hamas and for which we achieved recognition.

Hamas agreed to the 67 lines as a basis for a settlement.  It gave Abu Mazen the credit [if he succeeds] and opportunity to continue the peace process.  And Hamas agreed that resistance could only happen in a national context [as part of a process worked out among the parties].  No longer would every armed group carry out its own military attacks.

These are three enormous achievements.  Similarly, they agreed to stop rocket fire from Gaza.  So tell me, what’s so bad about this for starters?  Why do you have to respond in a panic as you have done?

Hasn’t the time come for you to understand what Palestinians want?  They want something simple.  The 22% of the territory of Palestine about which we’ve agreed to compromise [67 borders].  What was agreed in Oslo.  Our share of Jerusalem [East Jerusalem].  The creation of two states in harmony and friendship.  Palestinians want to end the Occupation.  Believe me that I’m realistic and know what I’m talking about.  This isn’t propaganda.  These are facts.

You talk about peace.  But you don’t really want peace.  Look, almost every one of your senior intelligence officials when the leave their positions all of a sudden become men of peace.  I ask myself: why doesn’t this happen when they’re still serving?  And what happens to them when they come into government [that they oppose peace]?

Caspit continues with a bit of sophistry in questioning al-Masri, claiming that Israelis have learned to believe Arabs when they say the “unpleasant things” they do against Israel,  and that these words are not a basis of negotiation but of continuing war.  To which the Palestinian replies:

Not true.  You see what’s convenient for you to see.  You tell me what’s wrong with the Palestinian people uniting in one leadership?  It’s good for us and good for you and good for the peace process.  How can it be since the split between Hamas and Fatah, that you can claim it’s impossible to negotiate with Palestinians since you don’t know who you should be talking with, and suddenly when we do unite you say [to Fatah]: “It’s either them or us.”

You have a lot of nerve.  We united in order to show that there was a real Palestinian partner, that there is a real chance for peace.  And after we achieve such monumental things, you respond by disseminating such twisted facts.

…You simply cannot create a Palestinian state without such a unity deal.  So we united.  And what do you do?  Shut the door instead of pouncing on the opportunity.

Among the other interesting things revealed in Caspit’s story is that al-Masri’s grandson, who was named after him, was severely wounded by an IDF bullet in the Nakba Day protests along the border with Southern Lebanon.    He dropped everything and flew to Beirut to sit by his bedside.  Though he’d lost many friends to the Intifada and other military operations, the injury to his grandson was especially hard because the latter represented to him the future.  The boy had been 15-20 meters inside Lebanese territory when he took a sniper’s bullet in the back.  He lost a kidney and his spleen, his spinal cord is severed.  He lost a great deal of blood.  He took a dum-dum bullet which caused grave damage.

Caspit is so tone-deaf that he asks al-Masri why a boy who has everything in life including great wealth would take part in an assault on the Israeli fence.  To which the long-time supporter of the Palestinian national resistance replies:

Because he is a member of a generation which does not forget.  Golda and Ben Gurion, your leaders, said that the old would die and the young forget and so the problem of the refugees would be solved.  But the young haven’t forgotten.  He’s already the third generation.  And he still wants to return to his homeland.  He still dreams about it.  You don’t understand this.  You think that if you refuse to acknowledge it, it will go away.  But it won’t.  It’s a problem that must be solved.

Caspit asks, again cluelessly, whether the boy regrets what he did.  To which the grandfather says:

No, he plans to return along with his friends.  They will not give up.

…You cannot force people to give up their aspirations to return to their homes.  It’s a natural wish.  You also cannot dodge the moral and human problem resulting from the creation of the State of Israel and its decision to come [to this region].  The only way to solve this is the sit down and talk.  The 2002 Arab peace initiative is a good basis to start.  But to my sadness, you Israelis are boors.  You don’t want to hear about such things.  You only want to think your distorted thoughts which aren’t based on real recognition of us, but rather on narrow-mindedness, boorishness and prejudice.

What are you afraid of?  The Arab Initiative says the refugee problem has to be resolved in a way that is just and mutually agreed.  That means that you will have to agree to the solution as well [or it won't work].  But Bibi first must recognize that there is a problem.  And he must say to himself: it was caused because of our actions.  And we have a moral and national obligation [to solve it].  First admit that you have a problem, and then we can talk about solving it with the help of all the nations, even the Arab world, all of us together…

I am sure that we can come up with a solution acceptable to the refugess and to you.  But it’s necessary to be creative and flexible.  It is possible.  Why not try?

Caspit, again naïvely, asks why then the Palestinians won’t return to the negotiating table when Bibi has called upon them to do so many times.  Al-Masri responds:

Bibi first tells us “No.” Count the number of rejections in his Washington speech: No to 67 borders, no to Jerusalem, no to refugees.  No, no, no.  You want to talk and in the meantime you continue to build.  Since Rabin’s murder do you know how many houses you built in the Territories and in Jerusalem?  And you want us to sit back and clap our hands?  It’s not fair.  You are pigs.  You want to swallow everything, eat the entire cake, and then you want peace as well.  You have quite a healthy appetite.  You on the one hand want peace and on the other want to continue what you’ve been doing.

…If you don’t stop, you’ll turn into South Africa.  It will go in the direction of a single state.  You’ll regret you didn’t accept Nelson Mandela.  You’ll long for a two state solution.  Why don’t you see this?

When the Maariv reporter asks whether al-Masri doesn’t think Israel has a right to fear the consequences of paying the price for peace given its history, the Palestinian says:

No, you have a Shoah mentality.  Leave the ghetto.  God Almighty, enough already.  You talk about the price of peace?  What about us?  We’ve lost the right to 78% of our lands.  Most of our people live as refugees in other lands.  And you want to talk about the price YOU pay?

The entire interview is worth reading.  I’ve translated most of it, but the man is so smart, so sensible and Caspit is so damn, well you heard the man, boorish.  It’s a perfect exemplar of the mess we face.  But at least you’ll read the ideas of a Palestinian who see clearly and is far-sighted.  Would that there was an Israeli leader who saw as clearly.

Caspit also notes that al-Masri may be a candidate for a major position in the transitional government since he is not affiliated with either side directly and so would be eligible for participation.  At the age of 75, he may be willing to answer the call of his people to broker and ensure the success of this unity deal.

Hamas, No Leopard, Seems to Be Changing Its Spots

Friday, May 13th, 2011

The Bible asks rhetorically whether a leopard can change its spots.  Maybe not.  But people and political movements can.  Witness Hamas, which the current Israeli government views as the devil incarnate for its terror and rocket attacks against its citizens.

But the best way to characterize both what is happening within Hamas since the announcement of its unity government with Fatah, and Israel’s querulous response to it, is the old Bob Dylan lyric:

Something’s happening and you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mr. Jones?

Hamas seems to be thawing like those giant Arctic ice sheets which are heaving and dropping into the ocean with huge bursts of sound and fury.  Witness this AP story:

Hamas officials speak of reconciliation with the West and a halt in armed hostilities with Israel, and even hint at some sort of political accommodation with the Jewish state. While Israel is not convinced, there are hopes in some Palestinian circles that the Iran-backed group could become a more accepted part of the Mideast diplomatic equation.

“The world should realize that we have made many changes,” said Ghazi Hamad, the deputy foreign minister of the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip. “The international community should not run away from these changes.”

…Israelis…could hardly be more skeptical.  But the world community has mostly ignored Israel’s calls to isolate the new government, suggesting a willingness to let Hamas prove it has changed.

Both Hamas officials and outside analysts say the group has learned some bitter lessons during its four years in power in Gaza. The impression is that Israel’s blockade, which caused widespread hardship in the crowded territory, a blistering Israeli military offensive two years ago and the uprisings throughout the Arab world have all factored into its thinking.

Hani Masri, a Palestinian commentator who sometimes mediates between Hamas and its secular rival, Fatah, said Hamas realized that to lead the Palestinians, it needs “acceptance by the international community, particularly the West.”

Hamas has sent a series of signals recently aimed at showing that it will not be the reason for any new breakdown. While refusing to disarm or give up its “right to resist,” leaders – including Gaza Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in a speech last week – say they are committed to preserving “calm” with Israel.

The group says it will carry out attacks on Israel only as part of a Palestinian “consensus,” in effect giving President Abbas, an outspoken critic of violence, veto power over terror and rocket attacks.

And critically, its leadership, including its exiled supreme leader Khaled Mashaal, have signaled they will not stand in the way of any agreement Abbas might reach with Israel.

At a signing ceremony last week in Cairo, Mashaal referred to an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and made no references to Israel’s destruction.

…Fawaz Gerges, a Mideast analyst who has closely studied the evolution of Hamas and frequently talks to members of the group, said he is convinced it has changed.

The London School of Economics professor said support among the Palestinian public for an accommodation with Israel – and the revolution in Egypt, whose new leadership brokered the reconciliation – have deeply affected the group.

“They have come to the conclusion that settlement (with Israel) is the only way to go,” he said.

Bibi of course chooses in his florid, hyperbolic style to argue that neither leopards nor Palestinian militant groups can change their spots.  He ignores, of course, decades of pre-state and post-state political developments in which many former Jewish terrorists did precisely that, transforming themselves from militants to statesmen in a matter of years: Ben Tzvi, Begin, and Shamir are but a few examples.

So of course Hamas, like the Irgun and other Jewish militant groups can certainly change their spots.  Whether Hamas is truly in the midst of doing so or this will prove to be yet another false start for a peace initiative remains to be seen.  But Fawaz Gerges is someone I trust and when he says it’s true, I tend to believe that there is something happening here and we’d better find out what it is.

Hamas’ Meshal Offers New Pragmatism, Renounces Violence (For Now)

Saturday, May 7th, 2011

khaled meshal

Khaled Meshal discusses Palestinian unity agreement and Hamas approach toward resisting Occupation (David Degner/WSJ)

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Hamas’ Khaled Meshal offered a newly pragmatic, consensus-driven Hamas approach to its Fatah collaborators and to Israel.  Of course, the proof is in the pudding in these situations and we’ve seen Hamas’ pragmatism wax and wane with the political winds.  But given the overall mood-music in the Arab world and the upcoming campaign for Palestinian statehood at the General Assembly in September, Hamas’ initiative appears promising to say the least.  As others have noted, I’m guessing that Hamas’ increasingly unstable home in Damascus is also forcing it to look outward for friends and allies in places (Ramallah, Washington, Cairo, Brussels) it hadn’t considered.

Here are some of the chief excerpts from Meshal’s remarks:

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said his movement will make decisions about how to wage its struggle with Israel, including if and when to use violence, in consensus with more moderate Palestinian factions.

“How to manage the resistance, what’s the best way to achieve our goals, when to escalate and when to cease fire, now we have to agree on all those decisions as Palestinians,” said Mr. Meshaal in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in Cairo.

…The Hamas leader’s comments…suggested a power-sharing agreement signed Wednesday between his militant party and the more moderate Fatah party could significantly change the Palestinian approach toward the peace process.

Mr. Meshaal said that decisions on “negotiations with Israel, domestic governance, foreign affairs, domestic security and resistance and other field activities” against Israel, would all be reached in consensus between Palestinian factions.

If Mr. Meshaal follows through on his pledge, it would mean that Hamas would no longer attack Israel without the agreement of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah leader, who has long opposed violence.

Aides to Mr. Abbas said that in closed-door negotiations in Cairo ahead of the signing of the Egypt-brokered reconciliation agreement, Mr. Meshaal said his movement was prepared to adopt a strategy of nonviolent resistance, at least for the time being. “They accept nonviolent resistance. That’s what Meshaal said in closed meetings,” said Nabil Shath, a senior aide to Mr. Abbas who was present in those meetings. “He said ‘we cannot do violence and you do nonviolence. It does not work out.’ “

It’s important to point out that for Hamas (and unlike Fatah), violent resistance and non-violent resistance are strategies and not ends in themselves.  Meshal is clearly saying that for now, it’s most promising for us to turn away from violence, since that is most likely to secure our goals for Palestinian statehood.  But he’s also clearly saying that if non-violence and this current round of peacemaking and nation-building fails, that the movement could very well turn back to violence.

Of course, this will make Bibi and the pro-Israelists howl.  They’ll wag their fingers saying: “You see.  We told you you can’t trust them.  They’re only turning to non-violence out of cynical motives and they’ll return to violence the first chance they get.”  This of course gets things all wrong.  The point is that if non violence gets them where they want to be, then there will be no need for violence.

What Meshal is really saying is that if Fatah honors its commitments, there are free and fair elections, and the General Assembly approves a Palestinian state, then Hamas will have no reason to turn to violence.  To me, this is a patently self-evident pragmatic approach.  Even former Mossad directors like Ephraim Halevy understand it too.  But not the Bibistas.

Pres. Obama has to decide whether he’s going to be a Bibista or whether he’s going to get on the right side of the Arab Spring.  The U.S. is still insisting that Hamas completely renounce violence as a condition of being considered a partner in peace negotiations.  But that’s simply not going to play in Gaza.  And there is no reason it has to.  What Meshal is telling Washington is: “if you produce for us, we’ll be good boys.  If you don’t, we won’t.”  That is the best Obama’s going to get.  If he demands more, then he will end up being bitterly disappointed and we’ll end up with more misery, more wars, and more terror.

Hamas is currently showing pragmatic realism.  Bibi is showing the same old losing cards.  And Obama’s showing nothing.  Where are you, Mr. President?  Stop basking in the glow of being Osama-killer and get down to brass tacks.  Show some leadership.  If he allows the mid-term elections to dictate the same-old, same-old approach to Hamas for fear of appearing soft on terror and hostile to a Likudist Israeli government, he’ll have lost yet another opportunity to play a leadership role in making peace.

As Hamas, Fatah Sign Unity Pledge, Meshal Calls for Palestinian State in 1967 Borders

Wednesday, May 4th, 2011

The Israeli far-right and its supporters have just suffered another stinging blow in its campaign to smear Hamas as an Al-Qaeda clone (yes, Bibi had the chutzpah to use that no outrageous comparison today).  During the Hamas-Fatah signing ceremony for their unity deal, Hamas’ leader had this to say about his movement’s political goals:

“We will have one authority and one decision,” Mr. Meshal said from the podium. “We need to achieve the common goal: a Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital, no settlers, and we will not give up the right of return.”

What happened to the blood-curdling calls for the elimination of Israel?  For drinking Jewish blood?  Killing Jewish babies?  Nowhere to be seen.

Even Ethan Bronner, who wrote this story, couldn’t bear losing an opportunity to quote his usual narischkeit about Hamas’ avowed goal of eliminating the Jewish state, when he wrote:

Hamas, the Islamist group that rejects Israel’s existence…

Bronner usually subtly changes the phrasing depending on context.  Note, he couldn’t very well claim as he usually does, that Hamas wishes to destroy the Jewish state, when its chief leader has just essentially said he would accept a Palestinian state in ’67 borders.  So instead, he merely claims that Hamas “rejects Israel’s existence.”  Since Meshal made no statement about Israel, Bronner’s on solid ground, at least in his view.  But the truth is that Hamas doesn’t follow the narrative Bronner and other Israelis have constructed for it.

Now we’ll hear from them that Meshal was slyly concealing his true beliefs in Israel’s demise and telling a world audience what it wanted to hear.

The truth is that Hamas, no matter what we might think of it and how much we dislike its political-theological agenda, is a pragmatic movement.  When it perceives it has something to gain in the long-term, it has shown it can moderate its political agenda.  This happened during the PA election campaign.  And it’s happening now.  Never before has Hamas been treated with respect by the Egyptian government.  Never before has the PA shown real willingness to reconcile and hold new elections.  Never before has the world been closer to declaring a Palestinian state.

This is not to say that Hamas will become a conventional Social Democratic party any time soon.  Nor that we will not read conflicting statements from its leadership on these and other subjects.  But the point is that Hamas, like any political movement, can change when it perceives it has something to gain.  As long as the international community shows Hamas that it does have something to gain, it can expect pragmatism.  But if the General Assembly refuses to recognize Palestine, or Fatah pulls a fast one, or Israel invades Gaza again, we can expect the same old rejectionist Hamas, and we’ll have only ourselves to blame for that.

Dubai Seeks 11 Europeans in Hamas Assassination Plot

Monday, February 15th, 2010
11 dubai assassins

Dubai released the images of 11 suspects in the assassination of a senior Hamas leader there

Fascinating news coming out of Dubai about the assassination of senior Hamas weapons buyer, Mahmoud al Mabhouh, who was assassinated in a well-orchestrated plot in that country two weeks ago. Al Mabouh was Hamas’ chief intermediary with the Iranians and allegedly specialized in securing that nation’s weaponry for the Palestinian group.

Haaretz writes today that “it is widely reported” that the Mossad is a leading suspect in the murder. A Dubai police commander said the killing method was one used by the Mossad and it reminded a journalist friend of mine of the attempted Mossad assassination of Khaled Meshal in Amman in which the killers injected him with a poison that would mimic a heart attack.  After the killers were captured & King Hussein demanded the antidote from then prime mininster, Bibi Netanyahu (surprise!), the agents were released.  And guess which Arab capital hasn’t seen another assassination since?

What is fascinating is that Dubai has released the photos of 11 suspects, all of whom carried European passports. Two Palestinian accomplices are in custody. I’m not an expert in such operations, but I wonder whether, if the Mossad carried this hit out, these were Israelis who were natives of these countries; or whether the Mossad contracted out the killing. I’m not even sure that Mossad does this sort of thing.

Interesting background to this story is provided by the Times of London’s Sheera Frenkel, who wrote an excellent story about an Israeli campaign of assassination directed at Hezbollah and Hamas senior operatives.  This may be part of the same pattern.  An Iranian nuclear scientist was also assassinated in Teheran recently; and though evidence points more in the direction of the Iranian intelligence service than the Mossad, Israel would certainly be motivated to kill leading Iranian nuclear researchers.

I’m beginning to wonder whether this incident could turn into something similar to the CIA rendition-kidnapping in Italy which, due to botched communications among the kidnappers, was easily exposed by the Italian government.  Now, the Italians have the names of all the CIA personnel and have tried them in abstentia giving the CIA a big black eye.  Could the same thing happen to Mossad?  Now that we have pictures, someone’s going to know one of these killers.  An Interpol warrant might scare up some new developments I hope.  From there, could there be an ICC warrant in some Mossad agent’s future?  And if Bibi signed off on it as he did Khaled Meshal’s attempt, could we have an Israeli PM receiving a warrant as well?

It is clear that Hezbollah and now probably Hamas are both desperate to assassinate Israelis in revenge for the Gaza and Lebanon wars and the killing of Imad Mugniyeh in Damascus.  It appears the Mossad has a better killing average so far.  Though my hope is that exposure will cause it enormous grief for this heinous betrayal of international law and moral values.

Not to mention that the next time Israel’s soldiers are captured/kidnapped by Hamas or Hezbollah, I certainly will have very little sympathy considering the depredations by Mossad against their leaders.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE