Haniyeh writes in the WaPo

PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, whose people continue to bear the brunt of Israel’s legnthy assault on their communities, has now spoken clearly and directly to the US public and the US policy elite in an op-ed in today’s WaPo.
He writes:

    We thought our pride in conducting the fairest elections in the Arab world might resonate with the United States and its citizens. Instead, our new government was met from the very beginning by acts of explicit, declared sabotage by the White House. Now this aggression continues against 3.9 million civilians living in the world’s largest prison camps…

But here is the crucial political hub of his message:

    there is a remedy, and while it is not easy it is consistent with our long-held beliefs. Palestinian priorities include recognition of the core dispute over the land of historical Palestine and the rights of all its people; resolution of the refugee issue from 1948; reclaiming all lands occupied in 1967; and stopping Israeli attacks, assassinations and military expansion. Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media, the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank; it is a wider national conflict that can be resolved only by addressing the full dimensions of Palestinian national rights in an integrated manner. This means statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law. Meaningful negotiations with a non-expansionist, law-abiding Israel can proceed only after this tremendous labor has begun.

This statement tells us a lot about where Hamas’s traditionally unified and disciplined leadership currently is regarding the big political-diplomatic questions of the day.
I note the following:

    (1) The statement is very similar to, but a bit more explicit than, what Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar told me back in March.
    (2) Haniyeh, in particular, spells out that the PA government leaders are ready to negotiate with “a non-expansionist, law-abiding Israel”– and once the process of winning “statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law” has begun, though not necessarily waiting until after that process is complete.
    (3) Governmental bodies do not typically say they are ready for negotiations with governments of other states that they are committed to destroying. Haniyeh’s expression of readiness to negotiate with Israel should certainly be welcomed.
    (4) He does seem clearly to be favoring a two-state outcome rather than a single binational state.
    (5) The formula he uses for how he sees the 1948 refugee problem being solved is interesting and should be probed further. What precisely does he mean by “fairly” and “on the basis of international legitimacy and established law”? How might the fears of many Jewish Israelis about being demographically swamped by returning Palestinian refugees even within 1948 Israel, be allayed?

Anyway, in a sense, Haniyeh is quite right to say clearly that what is needed in order to win the definitive end to the Israel-Palestine conflict is to address the legacies of the 1948 war and its associated ethnic cleansing, as well as the 1967 war and its subsequent lengthy military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The 1948 dimensions– especially the refugee issue– were always given short shrift in the US-brokered peace “process” that followed from the 1993 Oslo Accord. Most members of the US policy elite always hated being reminded that the five million or so Palestinian refugees from 1948 had any remaining claim on Israel and just wanted them either to get resettled elsewhere, quickly, or otherwise simply to “disappear.”
Some 80 percent of Gaza’s people are refugees, as are some 30 percent of the Palestinian West Bankers. In addition, all residents of the occupied territories have large numbers of members of their own immediate families who are forced by the restrictions sustained by Israel over the past 39 years to live in exile outside their homeland. The dream of previous US policymakers that somehow the publics of the West Bank and Gaza could simply be persuaded to forget about the refugee issue was never more than a dream.
Now, the people of Gaza and the West Bank are taking a terrible battering from the Israeli military. But they are doing this in the name of national goals that they deeply, deeply believe in– and like the defenders of Stalingrad 65 years ago or of West Beirut in June 1982, at this point they show no signs of bowing to their assailants’ demands.
In August 1982, in Beirut, after ten weeks of extremely fierce air, sea, and land assaults, Yasser Arafat’s PLO did finally agree to undertake a negotiated exit from the city. (That decision was made in large part because they understood all along that it was not their city… so once the people of West Beirut asked them to leave, they did so.)
Gaza is different. Gaza is Palestinian. Where would the Palestinian defenders of Gaza go?
Also, Israel’s (relative, but by no means total) defeat of the PLO forces in Beirut in 1982 ushered in a new period of intensive self-organizing among the Palerstinians inside the occupied territories… which led to the outbreak of the first intifada– and also– to the birth of Hamas– just five years later.
If Hamas is defeated in Gaza today, what more radical force will be incubating among the defeated Palestinians over the five years to come?
It is high time the U.N. Security Council definitively took up the challenge of brokering a final Palestinian-Israel peace. The US’s long jealously guarded domination of the diplomacy has had disastrous consequences. Haniyeh’s statement offers a position that should be quite acceptable as a Palestinian opening position.
These definitive, final-status talks should be opened without delay, before more people get killed and before the situation in Palestine, Israel, and the whole region becomes geometrically worse.

16 thoughts on “Haniyeh writes in the WaPo”

  1. The problem is that Haniyah may speak with a soothing voice out of Gaza, but the shots are called in Damascus by the real leader of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal.

  2. Truesdell, that’s precisely why I referred to the traditionally unified voice of Hamas. On what basis do you claim that Meshaal’s position is currently substantially different? You provide zero evidence and bring forth zero credentials for making your argument. I think readers would be interested to see both. Then we can all judge. As of now, all we have is the bald assertion of an unknown voice (yours).

  3. Pro-Israel hardliners are going to pounce on the quote, “Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media, the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank; it is a wider national conflict that can be resolved only by addressing the full dimensions of Palestinian national rights in an integrated manner.” They’re going to take the “not only” part and say that implies he’s thinking of the whole mandate as the State of Palestine. Maybe Haniyeh thinks he can’t start by saying the State equals WB+Gaza+EJ at the start ( He says that instead in a somewhat buried manner in the next sentence. ) because he thinks his supporters will turn on him.
    Also, the hardliners will argue that Haniyeh would never have taken this stand if Israel had not carried out this Gaza incursion. We need to stress that the destruction of the power station and the endangerment of so many civilians was not worth making Hamas say “Uncle”.

  4. Hamas has to be just a little appreciative of this recent incursion into Gaza by the IDF. The realities of being legitimate players on the world political stage were already proving to be too much for their extreme stance. The recent violence provides a much needed distraction and rallying point for this group that couldn’t pay salaries, etc. for months.
    I find it difficult to believe that the “political wing” of Hamas will be able to about face on their most fundamental core assertion, that of the crime of Israeli existence, without facing the wrath of the “militant wing”. Even if they truly wanted to work with Israel, they don’t have enough power within Hamas to pull it off without destroying themselves.
    Thanks to Helena for the great site.

  6. On what basis do you claim that Meshaal’s position is currently substantially different?
    Surely part of the problemn is that there’s no certain way to know what Meshaal’s position is, or whether Haniyeh has the authority to speak for him. It’s true that Hamas is traditionally a disciplined organization, but that seems to have broken down somewhat in recent months, as often happens when revolutionary groups come to power. If nothing else, the timing of the attack in which Gilad Shalit was captured – which appears to have been carried out by elements of the Hamas military wing behind Haniyeh’s back – suggests a split of authority.
    This is a very promising statement by Haniyeh, though, and goes much further than the prisoners’ document in defining national goals. If the PNA forms a unity government around Haniyeh’s statement, and if the Hamas military wing acquiesces, then Israel should grab the opportunity with both hands.

  8. Speaking of Haniyeh and the WaPo, this is what he had to say to the paper after the 2002 Hamas Suicide bombing of a Passover seder in Natanya;
    Blast Devastates Passover Feast At Israeli Hotel
    Suicide Bomber Kills at Least 19
    JERUSALEM, March 27 — A Palestinian suicide bomber slipped through a massive security cordon and set off a powerful explosion at a hotel in central Israel tonight, killing at least 19 people and injuring more than 100 as they sat down to a Seder dinner at the start of the Jewish holiday of Passover.
    The thunderous blast, in the coastal resort of Netanya, crumpled cars in the street, shredded the Park Hotel lobby ceiling and tore apart chairs, tables and people. As medics arranged corpses in rows on the sidewalk afterward, blood-smeared victims wandered dazed in the rain, many of them having come just minutes earlier from holiday prayers at synagogues. The bomber, carrying a device packed with shrapnel, triggered the explosion in the dining room just as scores of families were about to begin the annual feast around 7:30 p.m.
    […]
    In recent weeks, as militants have carried out attack after attack on Israeli soldiers and civilians, some Palestinian groups have grown publicly more confident, certain that their ability to inflict pain on Israel — and withstand it themselves — means eventual victory.
    “Anyone reading an Israeli newspaper can see their suffering,” said Ismail Haniya, a senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip. Jews, he said, “love life more than any other people, and they prefer not to die.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28431-2002Mar27&notFound=true
    What a nice guy.

  9. So he spoke to Wapo. Big deal. Osama does videos on the Internet for American consumption. So what? Actions indicate that both are mortal enemies, and anybody mesmerized by their talk is either very naive or an agenda hacker like a la Helena.

  10. “This is a very promising statement by Haniyeh”
    Now if we could only hear a similarly promising statement from Olmert.
    “What a nice guy.”
    Have you heard the kinds of statements that have come out of Olmert’s mouth throughout his career? His most recent statements in particular fairly drip compassion.

  11. Jonathan Edelstein
    if the Hamas military wing acquiesces, then Israel should grab the opportunity with both hands.
    Do you surly believe Israel love peace and two state solutions?
    I don’t think so, the scenario on the ground speaks of itself, this is the project of big Israel plan which is no states (Arab/Islamic) should be fronting Israel in the region should be ethnics groups or tribes holds a small lands on over all of them Israel have its superiority.
    Now we seen the birth of it in Palestine
    “Israel said on Sunday it would continue air and ground assaults in the Gaza Strip indefinitely”
    “Gaza assault ‘may be open-ended‘”
    Iraq was the first and the story will be continued in near future for the rest.
    Hope you enjoyed your trip Jonathan Edelstein, and hope give you fresh understanding

  12. Jonathan Edelstein
    if the Hamas military wing acquiesces, then Israel should grab the opportunity with both hands.
    Do you surly believe Israel love peace and two state solutions?
    I don’t think so, the scenario on the ground speaks of itself, this is the project of big Israel plan which is no states (Arab/Islamic) should be fronting Israel in the region should be ethnics groups or tribes holds a small lands on over all of them Israel have its superiority.
    Now we seen the birth of it in Palestine
    “Israel said on Sunday it would continue air and ground assaults in the Gaza Strip indefinitely”
    “Gaza assault ‘may be open-ended‘”
    Iraq was the first and the story will be continued in near future for the rest.
    Hope you enjoyed your trip Jonathan Edelstein, and hope give you fresh understanding

  13. Now if we could only hear a similarly promising statement from Olmert.
    Like this one, for instance? Olmert and Haniyeh have both said provocative things, and they have both said conciliatory things.
    Although talking about Olmert and Haniyeh is now behind the times, given that the latest escalation was initiated by Nasrallah.
    the project of big Israel plan which is no states (Arab/Islamic) should be fronting Israel in the region should be ethnics groups or tribes holds a small lands on over all of them Israel have its superiority
    What is your evidence for such a project? Israel hasn’t threatened or interfered with Egypt or Jordan since the peace treaties, and hasn’t had any direct military confrontation with Syria since the 1980s. That isn’t consistent with a project to destabilize all the neighboring states.
    What Israel wants is precisely the opposite: stable neighbors with strong national governments. It’s no accident that the greatest number of military clashes have taken place along the borders where there isn’t any central authority to prevent armed factions from doing whatever they want. Granted, Israel is partly to blame for that in both cases, but a project of destabilizing the region would be very much contrary to Israeli interests.

  16. Jonathan, I am not even remotely impressed by the “conciliatory” nature of the Olmert speech that you linked to. And in any case, actions, not words, are what counts. Hamas maintained a ceasefire for over a year while Israel continued its murderous, destructive, land-grabbing campaigns against Palestinians. That tells us everything we need to know about the Israeli government’s true intentions.

Comments are closed.