Monday, February 08, 2010

The PLOisation of Hamas...

The Oppressors/Occupiers (Israel/US/West) 'we don't talk to terrorists' stance on Hamas, enforced by its collective punishment of, and devastating consequences for the people and infrastructure of Gaza, continues unabated, even though the Islamic Resistance movement has accepted the establishment of a Palestinian State on 1967 borders (including E.J'sem) for about three years now. Khaled Meshal stated that again as publicly as can be in early May in an interview with one of the largest newspapers in the world.

Ismail Haniyeh early February 2010:

Democratically-elected Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh says Israel must recognize the rights of the Palestinian people before asking for recognition.

"They have to recognize us first, the right of the Palestinian people, we are the victims. Hamas supports the establishment of a Palestinian state with the 1967 borders," Haniyeh said on Wednesday.

Palestinians want their future state based on borders before the Israeli occupation of June 1967, as recognized by the international community, with its capital in East Jerusalem (Al-Quds), said the senior Hamas member.

Haniyeh also pointed out that the Islamic Resistance Movement is ready for dialogue with the international community, including the United States and the European Union.

"Hamas is ready for dialogue with the world, international community, the US, the Middle East Quartet and the Europeans," he said.

Haniyeh said he was determined to "establish Palestinian reconciliation and to have fair elections... in all Palestinian homes, including Jerusalem (Al-Quds)."

What more excuses do the Oppressors/Occupiers and their aiders/abettors have to continue the siege of Gaza and to refuse to enter into dialogue with Hamas? Cynics would argue that Israel and her backers are more interested in the status quo: conflict management rather than conflict resolution; peace process rather than actual peace...


At 10:38 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

These Hamas folks sure are inconsistent (either that, or they say different things to different audiences). I hate to repeat myself, but here is a quote I mentioned on one of your posts last month:

"We will never give up on Palestine from the river to the sea", the premier said, referring to the pre-1948 borders of the British Palestine Mandate between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

"It is not enough for Hamas to liberate Gaza, nor to establish an emirate in Gaza, nor a state, nor an independent entity... Hamas strives to liberate all of Palestine," Haniyeh added
(from PressTV).

At 3:00 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Different audiences, different occasions, different people. Hamas isn't a monolith either.

You're the one in favour of a negotiated solution (I don't foster that illusion anymore), either you can wait till hell freezes over and the optimum ('perfect') conditions for negotiations arise, during which pause Gaza will continue to further descend into what you candidly called "a hellhole" and the impasse could continue for years on end, or you put your money where your mouth is and take a chance.

Ain't gonna happen though, the more Israel has 'quiet in the South' the more the whole situation is nothing but a mere thorn in the side of Israel. And even then: Gaza is effectively walled off and in the WB that other wall makes most Palestinians effectively more or less invisible to most Israelis. This occupation isn't costly enough for your side to consider changing the status quo, which involves serious numbers of relocations, as well as a perceived security risk... Why change, you're getting away with it, as always...

No, the status quo will continue but slowly the world wakes up, unless I'm imagining things...

At 6:02 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

"Different audiences, different occasions, different people. Hamas isn't a monolith either."

These aren't different people. You quoted Ismail Haniyeh and so did I. Mashal has also talked about never ending the fighting. Why should we believe the more conciliatroy talk when the same exact people also announce they'll never stop fighting us until we vanish?

At 9:03 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Well, I'll take this as confirmation that you support the slow strangulation of Gaza, in the erroneous belief that Hamas will somehow bow to pressure or will magically disappear. You don't even seem to realise the logical cul-de-sac your position leads to...

For a 'liberal' that's a seriously hawkish/conservative position to take. And I see you skate skillfully past any other points I made.

Efraim Inbar: “Hamas is good for the Jews! As long as they are there it is a gift to us!” (He meant Zionists of course).

At 8:35 AM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

I'm very hawkish when it comes to Hamas. I just don't see any use in talking to them. It's clear to me that there is zero chance Israel and Hamas can ever find common ground for a peace agreement, and talking to them will just give them international legitimacy. I think we need to reach an agreement with the PLO. Hamas will then have to decide whether they accpet it or they want to continue fighting.

I don't support the "strangulation" of Gaza. Political strangulation, yes, but not economic/humanitarian strangulation. More supplies should be let into the Strip.

"This occupation isn't costly enough for your side to consider changing the status quo, which involves serious numbers of relocations, as well as a perceived security risk... Why change, you're getting away with it, as always..."

I think it certainly is costly enough. There's a constant threat of a third intifadah irrupting and more rockets from Gaza. I see it as extremely important to find a solution quickly. It's my government that doesn't seem to be in a hurry - not me. I'm not the government's representative.

When Netanyahu says he supports the two-state solution and then goes and plants trees in the West Bank, you say he isn't serious about peace, and I totally agree with you. So why is it that when Hamas does the same thing - talk about the 1967 borders on the one hand, and do something to show they don't really support peace on the other hand - you believe only the positive things they say?

At 5:09 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Not involving Hamas at all will de facto and inevitably lead to further militancy, what else can be expected from a group that gained its legitimacy from winning uncontested elections but which the world on the most spurious of grounds wants to keep in isolation? THAT [the election] was the point we missed an opportunity to actually engage them politically: that's eventually what we do with any terrorist organisation ('if you can't beat them, let then join you').

Looking at what is being written about Hamas in the pro-Zionist blogosphere I see nothing but ahistorical and anti-empirical twaddle. One really has to believe, according to these sources, that a deeply anti-Semitic group simply poofed into existence from out of a vacuum, intent solely on killing as many 'Jews' as possible. Well, nothing arises out of a vacuum and neither did Hamas. There isn't a shimmer of doubt that Hamas' resorting to violent resistance, as well as their successful electoral campaign, are the result of frustration with PLO/Fatah, who, let's not forget, did renounce violence completely and did recognise Israel. What does that movement have to show for in REAL terms? Very, very little...

The title of my post was chosen carefully and based on the words of Arafat's closest confidant, Bassam Abu Sharif. Hamas is very clearly turning away from a military struggle (which it cannot win) and towards acceptance of a political solution, in the same way the PLO did. All the signs are there: they renounced suicide attacks in mid 2006, they've taken a clear position on a Two State solution along 1967 borders. If we can only punish bad behaviour but not reward improvement we're being total hypocrites.

As regards them blowing hot and cold, sucking and blowing at the same time: that's pot and kettle. Bibi finishes his tea with Mitchell and hops, he's off to plant some trees in some settlements. Both sides are playing somewhat to parts of their home-base, of course, but that's no reason why negotiations can't be held.

Delay, in a sense, even plays into the hands of the Palestinians: Olmert (and most recently also Barak - he's more on the button than I've given him credit for on some issues) realise that. Palestine today (bar Gaza) is de facto one country: the WB is held under military occupation by Israel and considerable parts of it can be considered an integral part of Israel proper. What, if nothing changes on the ground (the most likely outcome medium - long term), would stop the Palestinians from the West Bank from demanding equal rights to their Jewish counterparts? Hell, they live under de facto Israeli rule anyway? And how could even the US refuse such a just demand? Call it the one state solution by stealth...


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home