Articles in Salon.com, Foreign Policy

So the piece I wrote for Salon on Hamas went up onto their site last night. It’s here. If you don’t have a subscription you just have to sit through a little ad thing that comes on, before you can read it.
This is a new experience for me, writing for an online publication. I was sued to a whirlwind news cycle back when I worked for Reuters in the 1970s. Recently, in my ‘composed’ writings I’ve become used to a much more leisurely pace. (Btw, my piece on international courts is now up on the Foreign Policy website, but there’s a strict pre-registration thing you need to go through there if you want to read it.)
On the other hand, I’ve also been blogging for three years– and that can be just as immediate as you (I) want it to be.
My CSM columns typically have a turnround time of some 2-3 days. Working on the Salon piece felt fairly similar to that.

9 thoughts on “Articles in Salon.com, Foreign Policy”

  1. I think you meant to say that you were used to a whirlwind news cycle, not sued, Helena! 😀

  2. Excellent article imo…reasoned, well composed, very informative…Helen may be one of those reporters who write better under a deadline!

  4. “Hamas was prepared to cease hostilities with Israel if it returned to its 1967 borders.”
    But since this won’t happen, Hamas is essentially saying that hostilities will continue. I’m not sure they will continue, but Hamas is saying so.
    But Hamas says that even if Israel pulls back to the 1967 borders the peace will be temporary. So there isn’t much incentive for the Israelis.
    “Israel’s ever-escalating demands”
    What are these?
    Even if Hamas isn’t attacking Israel, somebody else is. And Israel can’t be sure just who. And these attacks will impact Israeli analysis and action. If the new Hamas-PA can control these “Other” sources of attack, such as Islamic Jihad, there is more reason to expect negotiation and true peace.
    But even the moderate Ramahi rejects this path to peace: “Here, he was adamant. “No. The Qassam Brigades should not be part of the authority’s police forces, because the Qassam Brigades need to continue fighting the occupation. The demand to dismantle the Qassam Brigades is not acceptable. International law gives us the right to fight occupation.”
    I would remind Hamas that the right to fight is also the right to lose, and that the IDF is bigger and tougher than Hamas. How popular would Hamas be if they were responsible for major losses to the IDF? I think Hamas knows very well it can’t fight the IDF. This is why I think hostilities will not continue.
    Hamas clearly has a policy of war, but does not have the means for war. Israel has the means for war, but a policy of stasis. Put together, statis wins.

  5. “Hamas was prepared to cease hostilities with Israel if it returned to its 1967 borders.”
    But since this won’t happen, Hamas is essentially saying that hostilities will continue. I’m not sure they will continue, but Hamas is saying so.
    But Hamas says that even if Israel pulls back to the 1967 borders the peace will be temporary. So there isn’t much incentive for the Israelis.
    “Israel’s ever-escalating demands”
    What are these?
    Even if Hamas isn’t attacking Israel, somebody else is. And Israel can’t be sure just who. And these attacks will impact Israeli analysis and action. If the new Hamas-PA can control these “Other” sources of attack, such as Islamic Jihad, there is more reason to expect negotiation and true peace.
    But even the moderate Ramahi rejects this path to peace: “Here, he was adamant. “No. The Qassam Brigades should not be part of the authority’s police forces, because the Qassam Brigades need to continue fighting the occupation. The demand to dismantle the Qassam Brigades is not acceptable. International law gives us the right to fight occupation.”
    I would remind Hamas that the right to fight is also the right to lose, and that the IDF is bigger and tougher than Hamas. How popular would Hamas be if they were responsible for major losses to the IDF? I think Hamas knows very well it can’t fight the IDF. This is why I think hostilities will not continue.
    Hamas clearly has a policy of war, but does not have the means for war. Israel has the means for war, but a policy of stasis. Put together, statis wins.

  8. March 3, 2006, AP: “MOSCOW: Hamas’ political leader, on a groundbreaking visit to Russia, rejected on Friday any discussion about the militant group’s refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist, dealing a setback to Moscow’s efforts to persuade it to soften its stance.
    “The issue of recognition (of Israel) is a decided issue,” said Hamas’ exiled political leader, Khaled Mashaal, upon arrival in Moscow for talks with Russian officials. “We don’t intend to recognize Israel.””
    Is there really any wonder why Israelis are not exactly greeting the new leaders of the Palestinian people with open arms?

Comments are closed.