What to speak with Hamas about
By Shlomo Avineri
Recently, more and more voices have been heard saying that the only way to reach an Israeli-Palestinian accord is by talking to Hamas. These voices are not only in Europe but also in the United States. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, for example, and Brent Sowcroft, who was national security adviser to the first president Bush, have said that without a dialogue with Hamas there will be no peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And if Israel refuses to do so, the Europeans or the Americans should begin a dialogue with Hamas.
Similar statements can also be heard in the margins of Israeli politics.
I believe they are right, but not for the reasons they cite. The question is what to talk to Hamas about. It is clear we have to talk with them - and Israel indeed does speak with them indirectly - about freeing kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit and achieving calm.
I believe we must talk to Hamas about other things too, like about what is written in their founding covenant. Most Israelis, as well as the Europeans and Americans, know that Hamas espouses the destruction of Israel. What most of them do not know is that Hamas' founding document includes a much more comprehensive attitude, not merely to Israel and Zionism, but to the Jews.
The prologue to the covenant states that Hamas' aim is a war - not against Israel or Zionism but against the Jewish people at large, since the Jews, and not merely Israel and Zionism, are the enemies of Islam.
And in order to remove any doubt, the entire chapter 22 is devoted to detailing the iniquities of the Jews.
According to Hamas, the Jews are responsible for all the ills of modern society - the French Revolution; the Communist revolution; the establishment of secret associations (Freemasons, Rotary and Lions clubs, B'nai B'rith) designed to help them gain control of the world by secret means. They control the economy, press and television; they are responsible for the outbreak of World War I, which they initiated in order to destroy the Muslim caliphates (the Ottoman empire), to get the Balfour Declaration and set up the League of Nations with the aim of establishing their state. They also initiated World War II in order to make a fortune from selling war materials; they use both capitalism and communism as their agents.
Sound familiar? Yes, some of it is taken directly from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and some, particularly the parts dealing with the world wars, is original.
Don't tell me that these are merely words and Hamas must not be judged only on the basis of its covenant. Would anyone dare say that if a similar movement were to arise in Europe or America and, in addition to statements like these, was busy killing Jews?
Compared with what is written in the Hamas covenant, Austria's Joerg Haider and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France are moderates.
It is clear that if a movement like this were to come out of Europe, no one would even imagine proposing that negotiations be held with it, or that it be asked to join a government. It would not merely be declared illegal but denounced by humankind. An abomination like that has no place in any political discourse.
But perhaps it is nevertheless worthwhile talking to Hamas - not about its contribution to peace but rather about what is stated in its covenant. Perhaps those who espouse the view that we must talk with Hamas will first talk with it about these subjects? Who knows, perhaps it will change its principles? I do not expect this to happen exactly, but I am certainly curious to know what those who think Hamas is the key to peace in the Middle East will say about these things.
And perhaps they are actually correct, perhaps Hamas is the key. If that's the case, it's difficult to expect that peace can be established in our region.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Hamas and the Jews
I totally agree with the following op-ed by Shlomo Avineri (Hebrew, English):
Labels:
Antisemitism,
Haaretz,
Hamas,
Israel,
Middle East,
Palestinians,
Peace,
War
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Same old, same old, Emm.
ReplyDeleteNot talking to them will not change them. We already missed a trick when we first refused to do this, now Avineri is advocating more of the same.
I think you're being naive: what this man is proposing is no less than putting up another obstacle to peace. Hamas isn't going anywhere and has not been destroyed in operation Lead Balloon either. To try and delay talking to them is to try and delay peace. Just like continuing settlement expansion does. I see a pattern, do you?
The British Government refused to talk to the IRA for decades ('we don't talk to terrorists' - yawn). Their bombing campaigns were far, far more intense than those of Hamas (including those during Intifada II) and their position on a reunited 'British-free' Ireland as intransigent as Hamas' charter. Yet first through backchannels, later through much publicised talks, truces and agreements we arrived at a compromise.
Talking to Hamas will of course happen: digging your heels in will not change that.
In a sense your position is Neocon-esque.
Yesterday's revolutionaries are today's politicians.
As regards their charter, it's quite despicable but they have at times contradicted it quite clearly.
ReplyDeleteFrom Amira Hass - Ha'aretz:
"The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.
The Hamas leader spoke at a meeting with 11 European parliamentarians who sailed from Cyprus to the Gaza Strip to protest Israel's naval blockade of the territory. Haniyeh told his guests Israel rejected his initiative.
Clare Short, who served in the cabinet of former British prime minister Tony Blair, asked Haniyeh to repeat his offer. He said the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights."
and:
"Ahmed asked Haniyeh about Hamas' relations with Iran and requested his response to the claims of "our Zionist friends" that Hamas, like Iran, seeks to destroy the State of Israel and throw the Jews into the sea.
"Our ties with Iran are like those with other Muslim states. Does a besieged people that is waiting breathlessly for a ship to come from the sea want to throw the Jews into the ocean? Our conflict is not with the Jews, our problem is with the occupation," Haniyeh said."
Hamas on the Holocaust:
"The Israeli media and pro-Israel western press are full of views that deny or seek to excuse well-established facts of history including the Nakba of 1948 and the massacres perpetrated then by the Haganah, the Irgun and LEHI with the objective of forcing a mass dispossession of the Palestinians.
But it should be made clear that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian government in Gaza denies the Nazi Holocaust. The Holocaust was not only a crime against humanity but one of the most abhorrent crimes in modern history. We condemn it as we condemn every abuse of humanity and all forms of discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender or nationality.
And at the same time as we unreservedly condemn the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis against the Jews of Europe, we categorically reject the exploitation of the Holocaust by the Zionists to justify their crimes and harness international acceptance of the campaign of ethnic cleansing and subjection they have been waging against us - to the point where in February the Israeli deputy defence minister Matan Vilnai threatened the people of Gaza with a “holocaust”."
Khalid Meshal talking to Al Jazeera Skip to 6:15, where he very clearly says to be in favour of a Palestinian state on 1967 borders. It doesn't get much clearer than that... (05/08)
Hamas: Can't destroy them, can't have peace with them either.
ReplyDeleteHamas speaks of a long-term ceasefire in exchange for a two-state solution (including the return of refugees into Israel proper). In other words, even if Israel gives in to all of their demands short of a one-state solution all we'll get in return is a temporary hudna. That just not good enough. The two-state solution needs to be the official end of the conflict.
That isn't possible since this Islamic movement sees Israel as holy Muslim territory. They can't be compared to the IRA because of the theological differences (yes, the IRA were Catholics while their enemies were protestants, but the Catholic religion, or at least their brand of it, didn't require a holy war against the infidel occupiers).
As regards the 'Holy War' thingy, you're falling head long into a Neocon trap. The Neocon stance on Global Terrorism is that the Islamists are purely inspired by the Qu'ran and the desire to create a Global Caliphate, but even the hardest and least rational elements of that 'ideology' have a reactive element in them. See e.g. many of bin Laden's communiqués.
ReplyDeleteHamas and Hezbollah have of course nothing to do with al Qaeda, although Israel and its apologists love nothing better than to paint Israel as the First Bastion against Global Terrorism and their 'fight' with Hamas and Hesbollah a manifestation of that. That despicable (because highly disingenuous) tactic works well for Israel, as many around the world are eager to lap up the analogy between Hamas/Hesbollah because they refuse to see further than their noses are long.
Hamas' rallying cries for 'Holy Jihad' mirrors almost perfectly the sort of rhetoric generated by other resistance/liberation groups around the world, including IRA and their militant detractors LVF, UDF, UVF and various other past Loyalist splinter groups and groupuscules. Hamas adopts the Jihad rhetoric because they are Islamists. IRA and cohorts adopted a similarly 'heroic' and simple narrative.
Let me also assume that your assertion "including the return of refugees into Israel proper" is entirely correct (for argument's sake). Well, that would be a initial bargaining position when they come to the table. It's the task of mediators and negotiators to find middle ground and that inevitably involves both sides watering down their positions. RoR can be honoured in many, many different ways.
You also make it sound like a long term truce would be a bad thing! Olmert and co claim they wanted nothing more than 'quiet in the South'. (Hell, they went to war for it!) What, other than non-violent quiet, would such a long term truce be?? And an excellent basis for negotiations...
You're rejection of the analogy with the IRA and other resistance movements around the world is typical of an Israel-apologist. Those always claim that the I/P conflict stands completely on its own and cannot possibly be compared to any other conflict situation in the world. That is ahistorical nonsense.
I detect a hardening of your position. You want to have your cake and eat it too...
Those who are against talking to Hamas are playing into the hands of Netanyahu and Lieberman. Bibi and Avi thank you"
ReplyDelete"Hamas and Hezbollah have of course nothing to do with al Qaeda, although Israel and its apologists love nothing better than to paint Israel as the First Bastion against Global Terrorism and their 'fight' with Hamas and Hesbollah a manifestation of that.
ReplyDelete[...]
You're rejection of the analogy with the IRA and other resistance movements around the world is typical of an Israel-apologist. Those always claim that the I/P conflict stands completely on its own and cannot possibly be compared to any other conflict situation in the world. That is ahistorical nonsense.
Don't those two statements contradict each other? Am I claiming the I-P conflict is part of a global Jihad or am I claiming it's a unique situation?
Anyway, I'm not claiming either that Hamas has anything to do with Al Qaeda (it doesn't) or that it is unique. The conflict between Israel and secular Palestinians like Fatah is very similar to the IRA and other places. Also the religious element when it comes to Hamas and Islamic Jihad certainly exists elsewhere as well.
"You also make it sound like a long term truce would be a bad thing![...] And an excellent basis for negotiations..."
A long term truce is a good thing, I'm all for it. The price they demand for it is what's bad. What we'd be willing to give for peace they want for just a truce. Let's say we come to an agreement where there are two states and compensation for refugees and we get a truce for that instead of peace. What will they demand either for permanent peace or, once the truce's time is up, for the extension of the truce?
"I detect a hardening of your position. You want to have your cake and eat it too..."
My position hasn't hardened a bit. I never thought there is a real chance of reaching the two-state solution with Hamas, only with Fatah.
"Those who are against talking to Hamas are playing into the hands of Netanyahu and Lieberman. Bibi and Avi thank you"
Now that's you being a populist. Those who think that it would be useless or even harmful to talk to Hamas about anything but a short-term truce and the release of Gilad Shalit aren't just right wingers. There are plenty of peaceniks like me that think that Hamas is simply anti-peace so it is counter-productive to talk to them. It would only legitimize and empower them and weaken the Palestinians who actually want peace.
"Now that's you being a populist."
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but it's hard to deny that supporting not talking to Hamas plays into the hands of those who want to delay any serious resolution indefinitely, a la Bibi's 'economic peace'.
Your position is one of gridlock: you agree they can't be defeated (well, not really or completely) but exclude any other option too.
The Hamas freeze has brought us nothing at all: it's not really diminished Hamas' capability (that was always quite small to begin with), no softening of Hamas' own stance, a war that was futile and over the top (IMHO), no softening of Palestinian positions in general.
Now Avineri is essentially advocating doing more of the same. Well, call me childlike but when a policy has been proved not to work, try something that in similar situations has proved to work (with no actual guarantees, of course).
I hate to say it but I'm guessing history will prove me right and that negotiations with Hamas will start, sooner rather than later if they haven't already). On the outcome, all bets remain off for the time being.
"What will they demand either for permanent peace or, once the truce's time is up, for the extension of the truce?"
You'd find out by talking. Perhaps you prefer not to know? A truce buys much needed time. That too was the purpose of myriad of truces in The Troubles.
In my opinion, the best solution (or rather, the lesser of all evils) would be a Palestinian unity government (well, a Fatah-only gov't in the entire Palestinian territories would be best, but that's not going to happen). Have peace talks with Fatah members of the government but not with Hamas members. Once we reach an agreement for peace (and not just a Hudna), we'll see what Hamas does. If they agree to a peace treaty that recognizes Israel and ends the conflict and all further Palestinian claims then they'll become a legitimate political party.
ReplyDelete"You'd find out by talking. Perhaps you prefer not to know? A truce buys much needed time. That too was the purpose of myriad of truces in The Troubles."
That's true for short-term truces with Hamas, which I support. It isn't true for a long-term truce and what Hamas demands in exchange for it. Anyway, since demands are too high, a long-term truce with Hamas isn't the way to go. Only a short-term truce during which we talk to a unity government like I said above can produce a peace treaty.
"If they agree to a peace treaty that recognizes Israel and ends the conflict and all further Palestinian claims then they'll become a legitimate political party."
ReplyDeleteDepends what you understand by legitimate, of course. There is no law that binds any political party in the entire world to recognise Israel. Entire Arab states don't do it and it doesn't delegitimise them either (nor does their non-recognition delegitimise Israel).
Lieberman and his party advocate things (the 'loyalty test') to which most people in the world and most political parties in the world deeply object to. You yourself has called him a fascist. But does that make Ysrael Beiteinu an illegitimate party? Of course not, they were legally formed and elected. We cannot go around telling people who and what they can vote for, at least not in the legal sense of the word.
In all likelihood Hamas' stance will be to de facto (but not de jure) recognise Israel. Israel wants to insist on the recognition issue on the grounds that it's linked to Hamas' hostile and violent behaviour. Yet the majority of states that do not de jure recognise Israel aren't at war with her either. Mutual recognition between states has never prevented war from breaking out between them either. Both WWs were conflicts between states that all recognised each other.
By and large, the "recognition issue" is a non-issue. Insisting on it will only make the other side say: 'you don't recognise Palestinian national rights either'.
"By and large, the "recognition issue" is a non-issue. Insisting on it will only make the other side say: 'you don't recognise Palestinian national rights either'."
ReplyDeleteWhat's the two-state solution if not mutual recognition of each other? Hamas has to officially recognize Israel's existence and declare that they will not fight it anymore in exchange for a Palestinian state.
Sure, even with a peace deal that declares the end of the conflict and all major Palestinian factions agree to it, there is a chance of violence resuming. But it would be foolish to have an official opening for more violence by not demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel (not even its right to exist, just that it does exist) de jure and that this will be the end of the conflict. Are we supposed to be dumb enough to hope that they actually mean something they aren't willing to say?
By the way, I'd like to see Yisrael Beitenu outlawed. It's one of those seemingly undemocratic things a country has to do to protect its democracy.
"[...] (not even its right to exist, just that it does exist) [...]"
ReplyDeleteThe latter is de facto recognition. That should be enough. Israeli interlocutors should have the sensitivity to understand that a people that has lost so much by the creation of Israel are naturally reluctant to recognise its legal right to exist. The subtleties are important because they allow compromise without loss of face for both sides.
"By the way, I'd like to see Yisrael Beitenu outlawed. It's one of those seemingly undemocratic things a country has to do to protect its democracy."
Well, good luck with that! The 'best' you can hope for in a coalition system is to draw a Cordon Sanitaire, Belgian style, around Yisrael Beiteinu. If other parties refuse to include the party in coalition governments, then that party is politically dead in the water (unless they obtain an absolute majority on their own, of course).
I can't see that happen in Israel because it has no legacy of fascism, only the beginning stirrings along Lieberman's lines. In contrast, the Belgian Cordon Sanitaire is a reaction to past Flemish fascism (always a minority but present during WW II, nonetheless). That's much easier to rally against.
Maybe I'm confusing my legal terms. What I meant by de jure recognition was recognition in writing in a legally binding document and a commitment to stop working towards the end of Israel's existence.
ReplyDeleteAbout Lieberman: There have been radical right wing parties that have been barred from running or even existing, such as Kach. Still, you're right that Yisrael Beitenu isn't going to be outlawed anytime soon. I don't see a Cordon Sanitaire being formed around them anytime soon, either. These last elections, other then the Arab parties only Meretz declared it would not join a coalition with Lieberman (which is the main reason I voted for Meretz).