Hamas and Dialogue
Published in Asharq Al Awsat
(Saudi Arabia) on 21 September 2010
by Ali Ibrahim (link to original)
This is not the first time Hamas has announced its desire to hold open negotiations with the United States. However, what is new this time is that Hamas has pressed the issue through letters sent to President Obama through an American delegation that recently visited Gaza. These letters invite the American president to open direct negotiations with Hamas and to remove what Hamas considers to be “the American veto” of Palestinian reconciliation. Hamas has taken care to affirm that they are not against establishing a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, which is in alignment with the statements of their rival, the Palestinian Authority.
If Hamas’ position is really as such, then the confusing question remains: What is the basis of the division between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority that caused the coup, the bloodshed, and that led to a severe fissure in the Palestinian movement into two governments? The first government is recognized by the world and based in Ramallah; the second is unrecognized, but entrenched with weapons, tunnels and the status quo in Gaza. The following question is about the content of the dialogue that Hamas wants to open with Washington: Is it related to the participation in direct negotiations, regarding a Palestinian state, that are currently being held? Is it related to arrangements surrounding politics and security? Will the dialogue be limited to only legitimizing the status quo of Gaza? In other words, will it solidify the Palestinian divide?
It is likely that this time, Hamas is scared to miss the train, seeing the insistence of moving the wheel of direct negotiations between President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sponsored by America. It seems that this time around, Washington wants to avoid the mistakes of the past, thus widening the circle of prospects for the peace process to include other parties — for example, Syria and Lebanon. Damascus is expected to respond to this after their experience with indirect negotiations through Turkey. If Damascus responds, then so will Lebanon.
The problem is not in the dialogue itself, but rather in the demands of the dialogue and the willingness of Hamas to respond to them. Hamas needs to change many aspects of their prior stance, including increasing their credibility. From the beginning of Oslo, and during the presidency of Yasser Arafat, Hamas was against negotiating and did anything in their power to cripple the peace process with explosions and suicide bombings. This well-known series of events has come to its end with the state of the current situation. Even with the start of the current direct negotiations in Washington, Hamas’ military wing executed two attacks in the West Bank. It is unknown if the decision for these attacks came down from the leadership or if they were an initiative from the field, as described by one Hamas leader. Generally, the negotiations have not been affected by, and are even immune from such attacks, as past experiences have shown.
If the announcement of more than one leader in Hamas is true, and that the movement is not opposed to establishing a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, then there is no problem based on principle. However, no one will take this seriously if it was merely rhetoric or a sound bite for the press. There needs to be a formal announcement, certified by the leadership, making it part of the official political stance of the movement.
Is it possible that this might happen? Indications are that there is no other way. Hamas will move in this direction if it wants to have a political future in the proposed Palestinian state — if of course, the negotiations reach a conclusion. The restlessness of the people of Gaza is not hidden, as made evident through jokes sent via text message and on websites, regarding how to rule Gaza. If Hamas’ position really has changed, then it will be an easy reconciliation, and Hamas’ participation in negotiations will be made easier by a unified Palestinian government.
If Hamas’ position is really as such, then the confusing question remains: What is the basis of the division between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority that caused the coup, the bloodshed, and that led to a severe fissure in the Palestinian movement into two governments? The first government is recognized by the world and based in Ramallah; the second is unrecognized, but entrenched with weapons, tunnels and the status quo in Gaza. The following question is about the content of the dialogue that Hamas wants to open with Washington: Is it related to the participation in direct negotiations, regarding a Palestinian state, that are currently being held? Is it related to arrangements surrounding politics and security? Will the dialogue be limited to only legitimizing the status quo of Gaza? In other words, will it solidify the Palestinian divide?
It is likely that this time, Hamas is scared to miss the train, seeing the insistence of moving the wheel of direct negotiations between President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sponsored by America. It seems that this time around, Washington wants to avoid the mistakes of the past, thus widening the circle of prospects for the peace process to include other parties — for example, Syria and Lebanon. Damascus is expected to respond to this after their experience with indirect negotiations through Turkey. If Damascus responds, then so will Lebanon.
The problem is not in the dialogue itself, but rather in the demands of the dialogue and the willingness of Hamas to respond to them. Hamas needs to change many aspects of their prior stance, including increasing their credibility. From the beginning of Oslo, and during the presidency of Yasser Arafat, Hamas was against negotiating and did anything in their power to cripple the peace process with explosions and suicide bombings. This well-known series of events has come to its end with the state of the current situation. Even with the start of the current direct negotiations in Washington, Hamas’ military wing executed two attacks in the West Bank. It is unknown if the decision for these attacks came down from the leadership or if they were an initiative from the field, as described by one Hamas leader. Generally, the negotiations have not been affected by, and are even immune from such attacks, as past experiences have shown.
If the announcement of more than one leader in Hamas is true, and that the movement is not opposed to establishing a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, then there is no problem based on principle. However, no one will take this seriously if it was merely rhetoric or a sound bite for the press. There needs to be a formal announcement, certified by the leadership, making it part of the official political stance of the movement.
Is it possible that this might happen? Indications are that there is no other way. Hamas will move in this direction if it wants to have a political future in the proposed Palestinian state — if of course, the negotiations reach a conclusion. The restlessness of the people of Gaza is not hidden, as made evident through jokes sent via text message and on websites, regarding how to rule Gaza. If Hamas’ position really has changed, then it will be an easy reconciliation, and Hamas’ participation in negotiations will be made easier by a unified Palestinian government.
The real issue, as it is slowly emerging out, is Israel. Israel’s founding father had sown the seeds of a serious discord among Jews, by outright rejection of faith in the Jewish God at the founding ceremony. “God,” he is reported as saying somewhat disdainfully, “did too little to deserve the credit of affirmation of faith in His name.” Hamas, if one goes back into the machinations and mischief of Israeli rulers, was an Israeli creation to divide the Palestinians. Israel’s intention from the beginning was to grab the West Bank. Israel is in no way likely to go back to the 1967 boundaries. Its focus in the ongoing negotiations is on settlements to prolong the conflict. The settlers; almost half a million hardliners, are likely tom pose a much bigger problem than Hamas. Israel, therefore, has reached a stage where the patience of the most forbearing God might wear thin and there comes abruptly a bombshell on the Zionists from on the heavens. Jewish history is full of periodical chastisements from the Jewish God. Zionists have on the one side defied God and that too by completely parting ways with Him, and, on the other side to have bitten more than Israel can chew in the West Bank. Forget about the dialogues and the two-state vision. The Jews in the Diasporas are saner and God-conscious. They are full of apprehensions about Israel’s sudden meltdown through an act of God. I have sounded this caveat to President Shimon Peres. Both sides need fresh ideas. Six million Israelis, if seriously endangered might find no one to receive them this time. It is more in their interest to come down on earth and strengthen Obama;s hands in seeking from the Palestinians and their Arab brethren a “Safe Haven” for Jews. Jews had better forget about the holy land, unless God swallows Ben Gurion’s arrogance and insult to Him. Please, correct me if I am wrong. I am a true well-wisher of Jews.