The Obama "To Make Important Middle East Speech" MEGATHREAD

[grumbler]

Mind you, any progress at all appears unlikely these days, given the recent PA-Hamas amalgamation - with Hamas insisting as a condition that there be no backing down from its 'kill everyone in Israel' policy. 

Interestingly enough, the last two hamas spokesmen (one of them a member of the Hamas governing council, the other their official press spokesman) I have heard over the last coupla days said that Hamas has no problem with Israel's existence inside the pre-'67 borders, but that the "Right of Return" must be recognized or compensated for.

Not that Hamas is known for a consistent policy, but I found this interesting evidence that even Hamas can change (in image if not reality).

Bibi, maybe not so much.

[MadImmortalMan]

Interestingly enough, the last two hamas spokesmen (one of them a member of the Hamas governing council, the other their official press spokesman) I have heard over the last coupla days said that Hamas has no problem with Israel's existence inside the pre-'67 borders, but that the "Right of Return" must be recognized or compensated for.

Not that Hamas is known for a consistent policy, but I found this interesting evidence that even Hamas can change (in image if not reality).

What are the chances any Hamas administration can maintain that policy? Internal politics is bound to force a revision eventually.

[Malthus]

Mind you, any progress at all appears unlikely these days, given the recent PA-Hamas amalgamation - with Hamas insisting as a condition that there be no backing down from its 'kill everyone in Israel' policy. 

Interestingly enough, the last two hamas spokesmen (one of them a member of the Hamas governing council, the other their official press spokesman) I have heard over the last coupla days said that Hamas has no problem with Israel's existence inside the pre-'67 borders, but that the "Right of Return" must be recognized or compensated for.

Not that Hamas is known for a consistent policy, but I found this interesting evidence that even Hamas can change (in image if not reality).

Bibi, maybe not so much.

Heh, the picture being drawn here is not an encouraging one.

http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=32209

Hamas Leaders Clash Over Attitude Toward Israel
Written by David E. Miller
Published Wednesday, May 18, 2011
   
Senior Gaza official say armed resistance, not negotiations, is Hamas' only agenda

Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic movement, is relaying contradictory messages about its attitudes towards peace talks with Israel and its commitment to continued "armed resistance," as it tries to square conflicting demands arising from its national unity agreement with Fatah and popular hostility to the Jewish state.

Fissures within the movement since the agreement with arch-rival Fatah was signed May 4, ending four years of acrimony, have grown so deep that Hamas' policy debates that are usually held behind closed doors have burst into the open. Hamas' divisions have been made even more complicated by the turmoil in Egypt and Syria, two countries that play a big role in Palestinian politics.

Shaul Mishal, a political scientist at Tel Aviv University, said that the role switch between Khaled Mashal and Mahmoud A-Zahar indicated that the two leaders' positions were malleable; expressing an internal power struggle for positions in the new Palestinian government.

"There is an internal battle within Hamas for power sharing in the West Bank," Mishal, author of The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence and Coexistence, told The Media Line. "Hamas' domestic leadership is trying to bargain in order to maintain the maximum number of positions in the government."

Hamas' ability to resolve its internal disputes is critical. The U.S. and Israel are seeing how the new Palestinian Authority (PA) unity government looks before deciding on whether there is room to resume peace talks or continue providing foreign aid and transferring tax money to the PA.

Mashal, the Syria-based head of Hamas' political bureau, told Egyptian youth activists on May 10 that Hamas was willing to give Israel one year to recognize a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders. Following this deadline, Mashal said, "Hamas would add new cards to the resistance," indicating that the armed struggle was not Hamas' only option.

But on Tuesday, A-Zahar, a senior Hamas official in Gaza, told Al-Quds daily that Mashal's conciliatory statements towards Israel "did not represent official Hamas policy."

"We did not give Abu-Mazen [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] the opportunity to negotiate nor did we agree to negotiations," A-Zahar told the newspaper. "On the contrary, we have embarrassed him on the issue of negotiations time and again."

"No change has occurred in Hamas' position, which views [armed] resistance as the sole option," he added.   

A-Zahar's comments seemed to echo those made by Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyya, who on May 15 told a crowd of 10,000 worshipers in a Gaza mosque that Palestinians hoped "to end the Zionist project in Palestine."

Traditionally, Hamas' Gaza leadership is believed to hold more pragmatic views with regards to Israel, as opposed to the tougher stance of Syrian-based officials, represented by Mashal. The recent statements put that presumption into question.

"There is no contradiction between the two statements," Ahmad Yousef, a former senior adviser to PM Haniyya told The Media Line. "Even while negotiating, the struggle must continue. Everyone understands that the conflict can only be resolved through negotiations."

But Mkhaimar Abusada, a political scientist at Al-Azhar University in Gaza, noted that Hamas leadership has even squared off on issues unrelated to their immediate political agenda.

After the killing of Al-Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden by American special forces in Pakistan in early May, Haniyya condemned the killing of "a martyr" in a statement that was given wide media coverage and placed the Islamic movement among the Islamic extremists.

But Mashal's deputy, Mousa Abu-Marzouq, later insisted that this was Haniyya's personal opinion which didn't reflect the movement's policy.

Abusada said that in his interview A-Zahar was speaking to a bellicose Palestinian society whereas Mashal was directing his more moderate words to the international community.

"The political upheavals in Syria have also softened Mashal's stance," Abusada told The Media Line. "Today he is more inclined to cooperate with the new Egyptian government which wants reconciliation." 

Mishal of Tel Aviv University added that differences between the local and foreign leadership of the movement are usually discussed in private, but sometimes they burst out. He said it was wrong to categorize the foreign leadership as more radical; noting that Ahmad Al-Jaabari, head of Hamas' military wing, led the hardest line amongst Hamas leaders, despite belonging to the local leadership in Gaza.

"It's true that the political leadership in Gaza is generally considered less radical, but it really depends on the population that each individual leader sees himself as representing," Mishal said.

Fatah leader Azzam Al-Ahmad told the Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam Wednesday that Fatah and Hamas had reached an agreement on all pending issues between them. He said the two parties exchanged names of candidates for the new government, and now each side would return home and propose the names to its leadership.

Israel has said that it would only negotiate with a Palestinian partner genuinely interested in peace.
"Those who wish to obliterate us are no partners for peace," Netanyahu said in the Knesset on Monday. "A Palestinian government with half its members declaring daily that they plan to annihilate the Jewish state is not a partner for peace."

Hamas, both in its charter and in its public statements, has so far declined to recognize Israel's right to exist. 

Hamas has traditionally offered various sorts of "truces", but always on the understanding that these are strictly a pragmatic necessity - their long-term goal, as stated in their Charter, remains the destriction of Israel.

They are like a fighter who has stated that the duel is to the death, but who is willing to cry "uncle" when pounded to the mat - to get a breather. 

[grumbler]

What are the chances any Hamas administration can maintain that policy? Internal politics is bound to force a revision eventually.

Force a revision to what?  The politics that i see operating against a two-state policy are the politics on each side that need an external enemy to distract from government failures and inefficiencies.

[MadImmortalMan]

What are the chances any Hamas administration can maintain that policy? Internal politics is bound to force a revision eventually.

Force a revision to what?  The politics that i see operating against a two-state policy are the politics on each side that need an external enemy to distract from government failures and inefficiencies.

That's what I mean. A revision back to "push them into the sea" as the official policy.

[Malthus]

What are the chances any Hamas administration can maintain that policy? Internal politics is bound to force a revision eventually.

Force a revision to what?  The politics that i see operating against a two-state policy are the politics on each side that need an external enemy to distract from government failures and inefficiencies.

I don't see the situation as even remotely symmetrical. The Israeli public status quo is not in nearly the same unbearable mess as the Palestinian public status quo.

What has empowered Bibi and his ilk is the preceived failure of various peace initiatives and unilateral pull-outs by Israel. The Israeli public, or at least a goodly enough segment of it, sees the Palestinian second state as Gaza writ large.

They, together with Bibi, simply don't see the status quo as all that bad, in comparison. The job is to convince them otherwise (which, I contend, can only be done by creating or encouraging a Palestinian leadership that is both gifted with power and legitimacy with the Palestinian public *and* with a willingness to make substantive peace in return for concessions).

[Oexmelin]

Hamas has traditionally offered various sorts of "truces", but always on the understanding that these are strictly a pragmatic necessity - their long-term goal, as stated in their Charter, remains the destriction of Israel.

How important is this, really, in the peace process? Apart from the rhetoric, I mean. It is my understanding that the IRA, for instance, never gave up their programme of a united Ireland, yet this did not mean they were unwilling to engage in peace talks, nor to finally agree to their final decommissioning.

As for the cycle of cease-fire-truce-violence, it seems to me to be SOP for these types of situation. At some point, you have to go beyond that to engage in peace talks, with the understanding that they can fail.

[Malthus]

Hamas has traditionally offered various sorts of "truces", but always on the understanding that these are strictly a pragmatic necessity - their long-term goal, as stated in their Charter, remains the destriction of Israel.

How important is this, really, in the peace process? Apart from the rhetoric, I mean. It is my understanding that the IRA, for instance, never gave up their programme of a united Ireland, yet this did not mean they were unwilling to engage in peace talks, nor to finally agree to their final decommissioning.

As for the cycle of cease-fire-truce-violence, it seems to me to be SOP for these types of situation. At some point, you have to go beyond that to engage in peace talks, with the understanding that they can fail.

The importance lies in the fact that, unlike the IRA, Hamas isn't showing any willingness to actually do other than what they say they will do.

Also, Hamas goes rather further than the IRA ever went. Hamas is, at base, a religious movement, and it claims religous sanction - not to "unite Palestine", but to massacre all Jews therein.

From the Hamas Charter:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Muslim Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Muslim Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Article Eight:

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

There is no particular reason to suppose that Hamas leaders don't actually believe this, or are likely to ignore it in the future.

It is sort of difficult to imagine a lasting peace with folks who believe they are religiously compelled to kill you. I doubt the IRA Charter said the like.


Other tidbits from the Charter:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

[MadImmortalMan]

They, together with Bibi, simply don't see the status quo as all that bad, in comparison. The job is to convince them otherwise (which, I contend, can only be done by creating or encouraging a Palestinian leadership that is both gifted with power and legitimacy with the Palestinian public *and* with a willingness to make substantive peace in return for concessions).

Isn't the Pali public way more intransigent than the Israeli on the issue? I'm not trying to be an uber-pessimist, but I think that Pali public opinion is the biggest barrier to peace that currently exists there. If I'm wrong, that would be great.

[Malthus]

They, together with Bibi, simply don't see the status quo as all that bad, in comparison. The job is to convince them otherwise (which, I contend, can only be done by creating or encouraging a Palestinian leadership that is both gifted with power and legitimacy with the Palestinian public *and* with a willingness to make substantive peace in return for concessions).

Isn't the Pali public way more intransigent than the Israeli on the issue? I'm not trying to be an uber-pessimist, but I think that Pali public opinion is the biggest barrier to peace that currently exists there. If I'm wrong, that would be great.

I think that the big problem is Pali leadership. As for the Pali public, I don't have a really good grasp on what they want.

[grumbler]

Hamas has traditionally offered various sorts of "truces", but always on the understanding that these are strictly a pragmatic necessity - their long-term goal, as stated in their Charter, remains the destriction of Israel. 

Yes, it is amusing to listen to the attempts by the "moderates" to explain away the charter.

They are like a fighter who has stated that the duel is to the death, but who is willing to cry "uncle" when pounded to the mat - to get a breather.

They are definitely riding the tiger of passions they have fueled.  No easy way to jump off that, even if you want to.

[grumbler]

That's what I mean. A revision back to "push them into the sea" as the official policy.

"All of Palestine is an Islamic State" is still the official (written) position.

[grumbler]

What has empowered Bibi and his ilk is the preceived failure of various peace initiatives and unilateral pull-outs by Israel. The Israeli public, or at least a goodly enough segment of it, sees the Palestinian second state as Gaza writ large. 

Well, Bibi and his ilk have existed since before there was a peace initiative or any unilateral pullouts by Israel, but the unwillingness of anyone to step forward as a partner in the peace process does leave Israel's peaceably-oriented politicians rather lonely.

They, together with Bibi, simply don't see the status quo as all that bad, in comparison. The job is to convince them otherwise (which, I contend, can only be done by creating or encouraging a Palestinian leadership that is both gifted with power and legitimacy with the Palestinian public *and* with a willingness to make substantive peace in return for concessions).

I don't think there is any question about that.  My point is that there are powerful forces on both sides (not symmetrically powerful, but powerful) that see a peace settlement as a bad thing.  They want to avoid any compromise now in hopes of final victory later.

[Oexmelin]

I think that the big problem is Pali leadership. As for the Pali public, I don't have a really good grasp on what they want.

But isn't it part of the problem of perception? From what I gather, what Hamas is doing / saying on the ground is not so closely-aligned with the fanatical charter. Hamas is, like IRA and others, an uneasy coalition, with an ever-growing public-political component. Despite what Hamas has in its charter, I am not sure it is operating under the delusion that Israel will go away / be eradicated any time soon.

The core problem, where the leadership might share more the hopes and aspirations of the Palestinians, seems to be the right of return.

[Malthus]

What has empowered Bibi and his ilk is the preceived failure of various peace initiatives and unilateral pull-outs by Israel. The Israeli public, or at least a goodly enough segment of it, sees the Palestinian second state as Gaza writ large. 

Well, Bibi and his ilk have existed since before there was a peace initiative or any unilateral pullouts by Israel, but the unwillingness of anyone to step forward as a partner in the peace process does leave Israel's peaceably-oriented politicians rather lonely.

They, together with Bibi, simply don't see the status quo as all that bad, in comparison. The job is to convince them otherwise (which, I contend, can only be done by creating or encouraging a Palestinian leadership that is both gifted with power and legitimacy with the Palestinian public *and* with a willingness to make substantive peace in return for concessions).

I don't think there is any question about that.  My point is that there are powerful forces on both sides (not symmetrically powerful, but powerful) that see a peace settlement as a bad thing.  They want to avoid any compromise now in hopes of final victory later.

Yup, agree with this. Though Bibi & Co. don't have to do anything to "win" - they believe just have to do nothing, which they are good at doing, and they will "win" by default.