The next time you read Ethan Bronner and he mentions the world “Hamas” with the required accompaniment, “which seeks the destruction of Israel” or some such nonsense, remember this report from Haaretz:
The Hamas militant group announced Monday that it had previously told the United States it would accept the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, according to Israel Radio.
Citing the organization’s semi-annual report, Israel Radio said that Hamas had also asked the U.S. administration to open dialogue. The militant group said in its report that it had passed that message along via American academics and politicians visiting the Gaza Strip.
Hamas also said that it had asked Washington to lift the veto it had imposed on reconciliation efforts between the militant group and its rival, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah faction.
What is especially interesting about this is that Hamas is putting the onus on the U.S. claiming that it is the one preventing Fatah from entering into talks on political reconciliation. If so, this once again shows the bankruptcy of Obama administration policy concerning Hamas. By going “all in” on Abbas and Fayyad, the U.S. has refused to recognize a player who cannot be ignored: Hamas.
I am not arguing that Hamas should be given veto power in any negotiation. I am arguing that Hamas much be dealt with in a deft way which Obama has shown no capacity or inclination to do.
An Arab newspaper (via Google Translation) quoted this passage from the report which contains a very interesting new opening by Hamas:
There is no opposition to the idea of a Palestinian state in 1967 borders and Jerusalem as its capital in order to achieve security for the Palestinian people and the return of refugees and compensation for their suffering and the release of all prisoners within the prisons…
While I don’t pretend to be an expert on Hamas, the italicized clause seems to be a new development in Hamas’ thinking about the Right of Return. This formulation is quite close to that of the Geneva Initiative, which calls for the Right of Return to be realized through a hybrid implementation: the physical return of a pre-agreed number of refugees to Israel proper and compensation paid to those who choose not to return.
Now, as for the Habarists who dredge up the Hamas covenant in order to rebut any glimmer of pragmatism within Hamas, I’ll take a semi-annual report written in 2010 over a document written by an anonymous scribe in 1988 in terms of telling me the current thinking of this movement. By the way, this isn’t the first time senior Hamas officials have said this as you can see from the results of this Google search.
Accepting Palestine at 67 borders, is NOT the same as accepting Israel at 67 borders.
Charlie Rose asked the same question of Meshal. “Does this mean that you accept Israel at 67 borders?”
“No, it doesn’t mean that”
As long as Hamas accepts limitations on the concept of Palestine to 1967 borders, I don’t care whether it recognizes Israel itself. After all, Hamas will not determine what happens in this negotiation. It has already agreed to allow the PLO conduct these negotiations & to abide by the result after a national referendum. What more need we get fr. them? A chorus of Hatikvah in 4 part harmony??
A chorus would be nice.
Seriously, the idea is to end the conflict. Is it Hamas’ true purpose or perhaps a stepping stone in a larger plan to destroy Israel?
“I am not arguing that Hamas should be given veto power in any negotiation. I am arguing that Hamas much be dealt with in a deft way which Obama has shown no capacity or inclination to do.”
Why shouldn’t they have veto power, Richard? They represent the Palestinian people.
Hamas does not have a hidden agenda, but Israel always does. Hamas is not capable of destroying Israel, and to propose such a thing is ludicrous.
Who said “they represent the Palestinian people”? True, there was an election that gave them a majority in their parliament, but they got less than 50% of the vote. So if the Palestinians public is divided 50/50 who is their “authentic” leader. Recall in the 1970’s it was the PLO that was recognized as “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” by the Arab League.
I always find it amusing when so many “progressives” here say that FATAH and PA are sell-outs. Why are they sell-outs? Because they get money from the US and EU? Well, HAMAS gets money from Iran…a non-Arab Shi’ite state with their own agenda. Maybe they are sell-outs too?
So, Richard, you think HAMAS should join the party. What is that going to accomplish? Is that going to bring peace any closer? It will mean yet another party presenting Israel with more non-negotiable demands, just as Abbas is doing. Israel is only going to give up tangible assets like territory and its holy places if the people think they are going to get peace in return. HAMAS isn’t promising that, they are talking about a temporary cease-fire. Do you think Israel will give in to that?
Does the Obama administration “represent the American people” or the Camerion gov’t in Britain “represent the British people.” Of course they do. Hamas is not the sole legitimate representative of anyone. It is a political movement. If there is another election & they do more poorly then another party will be the Palestinian governing party.
I frankly could care less whether they are sell-outs. But the fact is that they were not democratically elected & represent no one but themselves. The rest of the world is placing all their bets on them which is not wise.
Yr anti-Palestinian friends pt out practically every day that Hamas are supposedly puppets of Iran. So the sell-out meme is quite active regarding Hamas as well.
The following will bring peace closer: talking directly to Hamas to negotiate the release of Shalit; allowing Fatah & Hamas to reconcile & create a Palestinian unity gov’t that can negotiate w. strength & purpose w Israel; holding Palestinian elections to determine which party has a democractic majority & should govern. All these things will indeed bring peace closer. As for Hamas being yet another party–when Israel aided Hamas a few decades ago & exploited it as a buffer against Fatah, perhaps it should’ve thought of the fact that Hamas might one day become a force to be reckoned with. The same thing happened with the U.S. & the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Be careful what you wish for…you might get it. Then what will you do??
Temporary as in a 50 or 70 year ceasefire?? As far as I’m concerned anything over 30 yrs is permanent as I’ll be long gone by then, as will most Israeli leaders who negotiate such an agreement. If there is peace over the course of a 50 yr ceasefire there would be no need for violence at its end. You can set up all sorts of straw men & conditions proving to yrself why this won’t work. But this will only fool you, not most other reasonable people including btw most Israelis who favor talks with Hamas acc. to a poll I covered here.
Who represents the Palestinian diaspora? Anybody?
Hamas won the election and therefore represents the Palestinian people. You’re nitpicking. As it is, most Palestinians do not accept Abbas as their leader, nor do they believe he has the right to negotiate on their behalf. As for the Arab League, they don’t have a lot of credibility among the Palestinians.
Fatah and the PA are sellouts because they have abandoned resistance to the occupation. If you were a Palestinian, you would understand the importance of this.. Obviously, your interest in Israel precludes you from seeing the other side of the coin.
It is very difficult to believe that Hamas gets anything from Iran; a Sunni organization which is an offshoot from the Muslim Brotherhood is not likely to form any kind of alliance with a fundamentalist Shia government. Iran likes this rumor and nurtures it, for obvious reasons. But it is more likely that Hamas gets assistance through the back doors of the Arab governments.
There are many Palestinian “demands” that are, and should be, non-negotiable. Problem is, Abbas isn’t presenting enough of them.
When you get Bibi & his cabinet to join together in a hearty rendition of a Palestinian song of steadfastness then I’ll work on Hamas singing Ha-Tikvah. Deal?
Israel is a world super power. It has the complete backing of the U.S. Israel has every high tech weapon available. Israel has hundreds of undeclared nuclear bombs ready to go. There is absolutely no proof Iran, which has signed the Nuclear Non Poliferation Treaty (unlike Israel) is making nuclear bombs. Someone please explain how Hamas is able to destroy Israel or any other country?
Here is the latest interview with Khaled Meshaal by Sharmine Narwani just before the ‘peace talks’ started in Washington.
His explanation on why Hamas is recognizing a Palestinian state on the ’67-borders, and why they don’t recognize the two state-solution, and what the difference is, according to Meshaal, in under the photo.
I think his argument is very valid. Even Fatah has recognized a Palestinian state on the ’67-borders, but not recognized the LEGITIMACY of Israel in 78% of historical Palestine. Recognizinfg the ‘existence’ and recognizing the ‘legitimacy’ is a huge difference.
And what’s going to come next from Israel in order NOT to withdraw to the ’67-borders ? “The Palestinians recognize the existence and the legitimacy of Israel but they neither don’t really love nor admire us !”
It’s none of Israel’s business whether the Hamas recognizes Israel or not. Who’s not recognizing who in this story ?? Zionist chutzpah !
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharmine-narwani/hamas-chief-interview_b_700324.html
there were no borders prior to 67, there was an armistice line
the borders were meant to be negotiated
this does not allow for negotiation…and you know it
The term “1967 borders” is a commonly accepted term. If you have a problem w. it take it up with the rest of the world which uses it regularly.
And btw how many usages of the term “1967 armistice line” can you find compared to ‘1967 borders?’
Yes, there were borders. The UN Partition Plan (a Resolution by the Security Council legally binding all UN member states) gave the Zionists 55% of the land. After the Palestinians were defeated in their rebellion against the plan, the Zionists controlled 75% of the land. According to the Hague Regulations of 1907, and the UN Charter of 1945, – which Israel signed and ratified – the land in excess of the alloted 55% is illegally occupied. Plain and simple. Israel still occupies that land.
It doesn’t need to come, it’s been long out there: the demand to recognise “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state”.
There are a number of countries that chose some colourful names for themselves – “Islamic Republic”, “Arab Republic”, “Peoples’ Republic”, “United States”, “Union of Socialist Soviet Republics”, etc, but AFAIK none has ever demanded and received diplomatic recognition other than as a State (Israel has demanded, but explicitly not received recognition as a Jewish state, from the US.) All the rest are internal matters.
So, does this open a real window of opportunity for both sides? Or will that window be slammed shut once again when tomorrow’s headlines herald some new calamity?
Is the glass half empty or half full?
The answer to that must remain somewhat academic as long as the glass in question is constantly being bombarded and shattered by events and pressures external to so fragile a container.
Even if this statement by Hamas is only a straw in the wind, it should be welcomed, consolidated and given the opportunity to blossom.
But how to stabilise such an arrangement? How to allow it the time and means to form itself into a more substantial entity before the many vagaries of the Middle East jigsaw reduce it to rubble?
Hope springs eternal. But what a pity that the vessel into which we pour it cannot be made of stronger stuff.
http://yorketowers.blogspot.com
The only problem is that once they don’t accept the 2 state solution, they will have no problem to continue the attacks even after they will get a state.
And when everybody here will act surprise they will say “we told you we don’t recognize Israel right to exist”.
He does have a point that the Hamas is putting presure on Israel, but as long as there is no promise that the presure will end when the palastinian will get their state, most Israeli will see no reason for Israel to take that chance.
I read the interview very carfuly and he never said anything about stoping the “resistance” after a palastinan state along 1967 borders will arise.
It is amazing but he sounds just like Netanyahu or Liberman when they dance around the price Israel is ready to pay
No one with a brain wants a two-state solution. It’s simply too late for it to happen.
“I read the interview very carefully and he never said anything about stopping the resistance after a palestinian state along 1967 borders will arise”
If a Palestinian state existed with israel remaining within its 1967 borders,there would be no need of a resistance. Your statement is simply paranoid. The Palestinians are not bogeyman, nor are they liars. Too bad we can’t say the same for the israelis.
I agree w. you. But I do hope that Hamas can control maximalists who might still want to go for all of historic Palestine even though Israel had already retreated to 67 borders. Of course, there would be Israeli maximalists as well which would need to be controlled by Israel.
What about the Palestinian “right of return”? HAMAS will still demand it even after a complete Israeli withdrawal to the pre-67 lines. A good recipe for never-ending conflict with Israel in a militarily vulnerable position.
Once again, Hamas has already stated it will delegate the PLO to negotiate a peace deal subject to ratification by national referendum. If there is a peace deal & Hamas doesn’t like the provisions related to the Right to Return, it has the right to campaign against the referendum. It will fail. But once the Palestinians have spoken in a referendum, Hamas will have no credibility if it rejects it because it doesn’t like the resolution of RoR.
Since when is Israel in a “militarily vulnerable position?” Besides, after there’s a peace deal there will be 20,000 or so armed international peacekeepers who will prevent any settler or Hamas militant fr. engaging in extracurricular terrroism. So gimme a break about Israel’s military vulnerability.
To call Israeli politicians liars is one thing, and one that I’d find mostly agreeable. But to call all Israelis liars is something I find offensive and stupid. Ditto for your blanket statement about Palestinians.
When you wish to characterize any statement I made pls quote it so I know what you’re talking about. I never said that all Israelis are liars & don’t believe that. Many Israelis are lying to themselves about a lot of political issues concerning the Occupation, but that’s diff. than being a liar.
I was referring to Mary’s comment:
Sorry, my mistake. Clearly, Mary wasn’t talking about ALL Israelis, just Israel’s leaders.
They will indeed have a very big problem if they attempt to do this. There will be a substantial armed international peacekeeping force separating Palestine fr. Israel & preventing just such shenanigans on both sides.
I have a hard time visualizing an international force as something that is capable of maintaining peace. I don’t think UNIFIL are doing a very good job and I can’t see how things will be different (well, I can see them being worse) on a future Israeli-Palestinian border.
But I’m glad to see you concede the idea that it is entirely possible attacks will continue. I personally would love to believe they’d stop, but nothing has thus far convinced me of it.
I know there are bad people on both sides. People who will do their best to undermine an agreement before & after it is made. There need to be strong enough safeguards in place that prevent the loonies on both sides fr. bringing the whole thing down on everyone’s head.
Let’s see if leadership of Hamas turn these empty words in to action.