For those optimists who continue to believe peace with the Palestinians is possible, the focus in the Middle East continues to be on Israel. The fact that even the supposedly hard-line government of Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to a two-state solution and proposed peace talks without preconditions is ignored. Instead, the world focuses on the wayward behavior of a single Israeli officer who assaulted protesters in the country to demand its destruction. That officer’s actions were wrong, but they were not, as the New Republic’s Leon Wieseltier incorrectly claimed, a reflection of Netanyahu’s “contempt” for world opinion. Rather, they were an individual’s response, albeit wrong-headed, to the contempt that those who hate Israel have for it. However, today brings a reminder that those who view Middle East peace as something that only is about Israeli decision-making are looking at the situation through the wrong end of the telescope.
The Forward’s Larry Cohler-Esses snagged an interview with Mussa Abu Marzook, the second-highest ranking official in Hamas, and what he found out was something that caused him, as the journalist later told Haaretz, to view the situation with less optimism. Though apologists for Hamas claim the group is moving toward peace with Israel, Abu Marzook made it plain that the best that could be hoped for is “hudna,” or truce, rather than a peace that would end the conflict. He also defended Hamas’s right to continue attacks on Jewish civilians.
Pressed by Cohler-Esses to define what even a hudna, rather than peace would mean, Abu Marzook said it would be similar to Israel’s relationship with Syria and Lebanon. Both countries remain in a state of war with Israel.
Some optimists will claim the mere fact that the interview took place at all and that a man like Abu Marzook is talking about a truce is positive and a sign the Fatah-Hamas unity agreement is moving the Palestinians toward peace. But it is far more likely that what this shows is how Hamas will use its new influence over the Palestinian Authority to render any hopes for peace ephemeral.
In particular, Abu Marzook took issue with the idea that Hamas is dropping its legacy of violence to take up Gandhi-like non-violence. The Hamas leader stands by his group’s charter that, as Cohler-Esses points out, contains blatantly anti-Semitic material including “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and passages of the Koran that call for the death of the Jews.
Whatever changes may be happening inside Hamas, as Abu Marzook jockeys with his rivals for the leadership of the group, it remains an Islamist terrorist group committed to Israel’s destruction. If the Fatah-Hamas agreement is finalized and men like Abu Marzook assume power in the West Bank while continuing their tyrannical rule over Gaza, it will mean the end of any hopes for a Western-style Palestinian government dedicated to cooperation with Israel and economic development. With the Muslim Brotherhood–the group that inspired the creation of Hamas–on the brink of assuming power in Egypt, the “new” Hamas may sound a bit more presentable to Western audiences but, as a close reading of Abu Marzook’s interview with the Forward shows, its substance is unchanged.
Mr. Tobin – With regard to the army officer who hit the Danish 'activist' with his rifle, what the LSM does not show is what happened before, and what happened before is interesting: somone thrrough a bicycle at the officer. But showing that would reduce the impact of the anti-Israel photo.
"Israeli officer who ASSAULTED protesters in the country to demand its destruction. That officer’s actions were WRONG…" (my caps). The author does not know this and is irresponsible to so state the situation. Wait until a full inquiry is completed and results published. If the inquiry is any wheres near fair, it will call for an apology from all Israel's leaders who condemned the soldier and for an inquiry into why Israel is so lenient with an enemy that supports the murderers of their children, civilian women, and civilian men.
There will never be any moves towards a peace while the duplicitous PA is around. If there is one (and only one) positive thing you can say for Hamas – they do hide their intentions and do not practice taqqiya (sp?) when it comes to their strategic thinking. When/if they come to power, there will no longer be any speaking one thing in Farsi and another in English. The mask will be pretty much removed for all but the most hardened in their positions to see. This will lead to a a removal of the proverbial world leach and will allow Israel to finally either impose their will on their enemies.
There can't be peace without Hamas. Hamas won't agree to a peace but a truce. The price they demand for the truce–the maximum concessions an Israel government would agree to for a lasting peace or more (right of return)–is too high for any Israeli government; and their wiggle room as to how much violence that "truce" would permit–too wide. So, there are two gaps. Still, though their hudna is a tactical nod to strategic cleansing the map of Jewish presence, as the impulse to take a break from "resistance" motivating this talk in the first place leads to (if it leads to) the conditions under which Hamas's truce proposal is less of a half-thought-out caprice, then folks can seriously address how one could bridge gaps to get a truce extended longitudinally in territory and time. Right now, now, there is a truce between Israel and Hamas in any event but one that oscillates into violence. No, there isn't a permanent settlement in sight if the goal is viewed as this thing, this permanent settlement. That doesn't mean a deeper truce than the one now in place can't take hold.
You don't give up anything permanent for a temporary thing like a truce. If Hamas wants a truce, they merely have to stop attacking Israel.
They have. Hamas is not attacking Israel. The question is whether local arrangements can be broadened to solidify the truce that already exists without any party giving up anything they consider: a) permanent and b) given up. imo this is the only way peace will ever come and is the only way peace has come. Yes, blood may once again flow in buckets, yes, over all those "permanent" things (and there are so many of them aren't there) that can't be given up/surrendered etc. But partition needs to be re-conceptualized as a multi-dimensional fractal engagement along local seams of conflict. You then get quid pro quo's across hostile borders and not large scale abandonment or even exchange of permanent stuff. Everybody stops losing when everybody starts winning. Where they are. n nBut, for now, Hamas has stopped attacking Israel.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.
If I was paraphrasing Al Gore, I'd say Fatah/Hamas irredentist rejectionism is an inconvenient truth.
For Hamas, "virtue" takes precedence over independence, prosperity, and other such worldly trivia. What is "virtue"? It is dying in a jihad while killing Jews.