1. Diplomacy is not mainly about talking to people you agree with, but to people you disagree with.
2. They won a free and fair parliamentary election in 2006. Fateh’s Mahmoud Abbas won a free and fair presidential election in 2005. Outsiders have no credibility when they seek to include one of these parties while excluding and indeed also attacking the other.
3. For 18 months or more in 2005-6 Hamas participated in good faith in a ceasefire against Israel even though the ceasefire was not reciprocated by Israel either formally or informally.
4. When the British government finally realized it could not “defeat” the IRA by force but needed to explore reaching a political agreement with the IRA / Sinn Fein, they set as the only two preconditions for any party entering peace talks that it should (a) engage in good faith in a ceasefire and (b) demonstrate that it had at least some significant mandate from the electorate. The peace negotiations thereby started met with eventual success.
5. When the (White) South African government finally realized it could not “defeat” the ANC by force but needed to explore reaching a political agreement with the ANC and other anti-apartheid parties, they set as the only two preconditions for any party entering peace talks that it should (a) engage in good faith in a ceasefire and (b) be prepared to participate in good faith in an election. The peace process thereby started met with fairly rapid and amazingly far-reaching success.
6. In both those peace processes, and countless other successful peacemaking ventures around the world, the idea that one party– and one party only– should have to completely demobilize and disarm, and make significant concessions on its core political doctrine, before it could be admitted to any peace talks had already been proven to be a non-starter for many years before the more flexible, limited– and successful– view of the pre-requisites of peacemaking was adopted.
7. Everyone around the world should be opposed to acts that constitute terrorism, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other serious laws-of-war violations. As part of a reasonable ceasefire process, all parties should indeed be asked to foreswear the use of such vile, anti-humane tactics. (Though this would be strictly entailed in any meaningful ceasefire commitment, anyway.) However, the tactic of labeling one party to a contest as “terrorist” and arguing that that disqualifies it from inclusion in any peace diplomacy, while completely ignoring the very serious laws-of-war violations committed by other parties (a) is intrinsically inequitable and erodes respect for the integrity of the principles underlying the whole process, and (b) was shown to be completely unsuccessful in South Africa, Mozambique, and elsewhere. Getting stuck in the discourse of counter-“terrorism” blinded Maggie Thatcher and others to the reality of the situation in South Africa. In the Arab-Israeli arena, recourse to this same tactic has paralyzed the ability of the main western powers to play any constructive role in the diplomacy.
8. Hamas is very different from Al-Qaeda. Westerners need to to pursue intelligent policies that differentiate between, on the one hand, Islamist political movements that are rooted within and answerable to an identifiable national or sub-national community, and are willing to prove their links to this community by participating in good faith in free and fair elections (see #2 above), and on the other, Islamist movements that have no such community anchor or answerability but instead roam nihilistically across the world stage sowing destruction and tension wherever they go. If we and our leaders can’t engage in this kind of intelligent differentiation, then we’ll end up merely pushing additional tens or hundreds of millions of Muslim men and women into the ideological embrace of the nihilists.
9. Western governments already engage in intention-probing diplomacy with many international actors whose actions are far more damaging than those of Hamas. (Such as North Korea.) I understand the concern many people have with those parts of Hamas’s core ideology that threaten Israel’s existence; and indeed I share a good part of that concern. But Hamas leaders have talked about their readiness to enter into even a very lengthy, politically endorsed ceasefire with Israel (the tahdi’eh, which is a more serious undertaking than the merely operational hudna that they already engaged in for a long time, though it did not bring them any reciprocation.) Why should that Hamas proposal not be diplomatically probed?
10. The Palestinian issue cannot be resolved if the policy of excluding and attacking this significant component of the Palestinian body politic is maintained. Hundreds of millions of people around the world (Arabs, Muslims, and others) continue to consider this issue one of major significance in the encounter between the Western countries and the rest of the world. Realism, including the realism of compassionate and principles-based conflict termination, dictates that Hamas should be urgently included in the peace-seeking diplomacy.
(JWN readers who haven’t yet read the article I published about Hamas in Boston Review last summer might want to do so. It used much material from the reporting trip I had made to Gaza and Israel in February/March 2006. Several aspects of the situation have changed since then, of course. Principally, Hamas showed itself able to withstand the tight siege imposed around its strongholds in Gaza, and Fateh’s main leadership showed itself more willing than I had judged possible to accept the role of Inkatha/Contras that was being offered to it. Still, the broad political facts of the unconquerability of Hamas and the need to include it in any peacemaking effort that is serious both still remain. This, notwithstanding the hoopla in some of the western media over the current diplomacy, that involves a very small number of not terrifically representative Middle Eastern leaders.)
60 thoughts on “Ten reasons to talk to Hamas”
Comments are closed.
1. Yes. This is true, but there are all sorts of levels of “disagreement”.
2. Winning an election does not, in and of itself, qualify a party as a partner in good faith in negotiations. If, for example, Avigdor Lieberman’s “Yisrael Beteinu” party were to somehow win enough mandates to form a government, would you consider that government a good faith negotiating partner? At any rate, no one has argued either that Hamas did not achieve a plurality in the elections or challenged the Palestininans’ right to elect whomever they want.
I would also ask here which “outsiders” should be concerned with credibility? To define one party as an “outsider” is certainly not a good way to begin good faith negotiations (particularly when the recommendation comes from a definite “outsider” to the situation).
3. This point is highly questionable. It can neither be proven nor refuted that Hamas actually upheld such a ceasefire, as there was still “fire” during this period, and the elected government did little or nothing to stop it. I think that it is questionable – on its face – whether or not the “elected” government even has the practical authority or ability to actually enter into a ceasefire.
4. Israel and the Palestinians are not Britain and the IRA. For one, the IRA never saw as its aim the destruction of Britain.
I think that in this case, you conveniently leave out that Britain – through a sustained policy of administrative detentions, torture, targeted assassinations, partitioning of neighborhoods, and marshal law (if not outright occupation) – had managed over a period of some thirty years to break the IRA to the point where they were willing to negotiate based on greatly reduced initial demands. Following the peace agreement, the northern counties of Ireland are still part of the UK and the Sinn Fein has simply been guaranteed a slightly greater share of the power.
5. Israel is not apartheid South Africa. Apart from this, it is Hamas that has presented the preconditions of a “truce” (which may or may not be enforceable) in return for a unilateral return to the June 4, 1967 borders and acquiescence to the right of return of the refugees. Just yesterday, Ismail Haniyeh reiterated his party’s position that there is not room for negotiations, and that the only solution is armed struggle.
More to the point, Hamas has continually stated that there is nothing to talk about beyond this “truce” until Israel ceases to exist and what ever Jews remain have agreed to live under its repressive, reactionary religious conditions.
6. I would say that Hamas’ preconditions constitute a demand for such a one-sided approach.
I do have a suggestion, however. Perhaps Israel could also be allowed to enter negotiations with the maximalist demands of its radical rightwing parties – i.e. eternal right of the Jewish people to all the land from the river to the sea and expulsion of all Arabs from those lands. Wouldn’t this be more fair for both sides?
7. This is simply rhetorical. I could counter that inapt comparisons and labeling (“Apartheid Wall”, “IOF”, “The Lobby”, etc.) are pretty much the same as the improper or unequal use of the term “terrorism”.
8. I’m glad that you are able to see that Hamas is different from al-Qaida. I would also hope that you could see above that Israel is neither Britain nor apartheid South Africa, and that Hamas is neither the IRA nor is it the ANC. I don’t think that anyone has claimed that Israel should not negotiate with Hamas because it is the same as al-Qaida. In other words, this is an argument against a non-issue.
9. Again with the inapt comparisons. That aside, who says that these aren’t being probed. Hamas (or at least that portion of Hamas that currently appears publicly as being in control of Gaza) would do well to assist in this probing by demonstrating their ability to actually enforce a truce or ceasefire. Stopping the Qassams might be a good start, as would attaining the release of Gilad Shalit or even of Alan Johnston. The fact that they have claimed for over a year and a half now that they are unable or unwilling to do any of these things (while demonstrating an amazing capacity to successfully carry out a coup in short order) seems, to me at least, to indicate that “probing” this party any more is not worth it. To put it bluntly: Hamas apparently cannot deliver the goods.
10. Very nice statement. How about a little “compassionate and principles-based conflict termination” from Hamas?
Hamas needs time to digest the fruits of its latest military success and prepare for the next phase of its war against the PLO in the West Bank. So it will be up for negotiations. However whether this fits Helena’s criteria (a) a ceasefire “in good faith” is open to question.
Hamas has already demonstrated its willingness and ability to sustain a ceasefire in good faith – in this case a unilateral ceasefire.
“5. Israel is not apartheid South Africa. Apart from this…”
More blustering babble from the Shofar-blowing blowhard.
Please sign up for my next show, JES. Honey and Lenny Bruce are going to be there with the Mouth.
I’ve just heard for the second time that Blair who has just left his tasks as prime minister says he is ready to become the chief negotiator of the Quartet in ME ????!! Abbas says that he would be happy to negotiate with him, unbelievable.. A man who was the only EU member to participate in he Iraq invasion with Bush.. This is an insult to common sense. He can’t be a mediator of peace, since he is too much involved in all the ME conflicts.
Plus he deserve to be tried in the Hague for war crimes (aka invasion of Iraq).
Christiane, did you know that a couple of years ago Bush and Blair were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? I didn’t make that up – some idiot thought they should have the most prominent award for promoting peace.
“unilateral” ceasefires are just that – a decision by one side to stop military attacks in the hope the other side will feel similarly constrained. Meaningless.
“Good faith” ceasefires are when both sides agree to stop military attacks, genuinely mean it and enter into good faith negotations as the ANC/Afrikaaners did and as the Northern Ireland and Btish combattants did.
So, what you are saying, bb, is that it is meaningless that Hamas was able to manage the very difficult job of disciplining itself and all its members to maintain a ceasefire on its side while Israel continued to attack it? That, to you is meaningless? How very interesting, given that a unilateral cease fire is far, far, far more difficult to sustain than a mutual one.
““Good faith” ceasefires are when both sides agree to stop military attacks, genuinely mean it and enter into good faith negotations”
Whose definition is that? I have not heard this one. Would you care to provide a source for this definition?
(By the way, I have posted a response to you on the Condi Rice thread. I am letting you know in case you are interested in providing the information I requested there.)
Shirin,
If Hamas, the elected ruling party who, for most of the past year and a half, was the government has been unable or unwilling to actually enforce a ceasefire, then I would question their ability to deliver anything in negotiations (that they have already said that they don’t want to participate in anyway).
To assert essentially that Ismail Haniya and Khalid Meshal or their immediate followers have not fired Qassam rockets but that a variety of other parties and groups under Haniyah’s jurisdiction have done so repeatedly – hundreds of times – is not proof of Hamas’ ability to do anything. This is particularly true considering that Hamas created its own, extensive security aparatus under the Ministry of Interior and succeeded in heavily arming its men over the period that it was in power. So, what you have is a well-armed group who were capable of carrying our a successful coup in less than a week, but who have been unable to stop the firing of rockets in violation of their “ceasefire”. One can only conclude that they are either impotent and inept or have been turning a blind eye and talking out of both sides of their mouths in relation to a “ceasefire”.
To paraphrase a comment I read today in the WSJ about Hamastan:
“Nothing will so completely sour the world on the idea of a Palestinian state as the experience of it.”
JES, since the GOI, the duly and freely democratically elected government of the free and independent State of Israel (i.e. not under a 40 year oppressive, repressive and very brutal occupation) was unwilling to even entertain the idea of honouring Hamas’ ceasefire, then there is no doubt as to its inability – or rather, its unwillingness – to deliver anything in negotiations, or even to enter into real negotiations of any kind.
Considering the conditions that have been imposed upon the Palestinian people and their government as punishment since they last exercised their democratic choices, it is a bloody miracle that they did not all, each and every one, don an explosives vest and march en masse on whatever Israeli targets they could manage to get to. The restraint showed by the Palestinian people, and by Hamas, is beyond amazing. That you do not recognize, let alone appreciate it is not even a little bit surprising.
Shirin,
Your comments about Israel’s unwillingness to even entertain the idea of the Hamas (unilateral) ceasefire just proves my point about the meaningless of unilateral ceasefires, where the other side invariably suspects nefarious motives or considers the unilateral offer as an expression of weakness.
That’s why good faith ceasefires of the kind Helena is talking about (I assume) can only occur when both sides are genuinely interested in ceasing hostitilies and beginning political negotiations. And they usually require much back room talking with mediators first before they are announced.
Thank you for drawing my attention to your post on the Condi thread. Have replied to you there.
bb, maybe you and I do not agree on what is meaningful.
And by the way, your explanation of Israel’s refusal to reciprocate in Hamas’ cease fire as being based on a suspicion of “nefarious motives” on Hamas’ part is very interesting indeed. Common sense would suggest that it is less indicative of a true knowledge of what motivated Israel than a desperate attempt to make Israel’s refusal to stop attacking Palestinians look positive, and to make Hamas somehow look like the bad guy for showing restraint in the face of Israel’s continued attacks. That is a spectacularly bizarre mangling of reason even for the most ardent Israel worshiper.
PS Your failure to provide any source at all for your rather odd definition of a good faith cease fire leads one to the conclusion that it is something you made up yourself for the occasion. Not surprising, since on its face it looks made up, and a reasonably diligent search did not turn up a thing to confirm that your definition had any validity.
Again, using logic and common sense, a cease fire is a cease fire, and negotiations are negotiations. The two need not, and often do not coincide, and negotiations are not necessary in order for a cease fire, whether unilateral or mutual, to be in good faith.
Shirin,
I think you missed the point here concerning the unilateral “ceasefire”. Israel was not a party to this, tactical, ceasefire. Further, there were numerous attacks, and attempted suicide bombings, by a variety of groups (some of which may or may not have been affiliated with Hamas) to which Israel responded. The Hamas government does not appear to have made any serious efforts to prevent or stop these attacks as part of its own, unilateral ceasfire declaration, which means that they either did not have the means (which is hard to believe in light of the considerable military strength they exhibited over the past several months) or the inclination to do so.
Again, Hamas has explicitly that they have no interest in entering negotiations unless Israel agree to their preconditions, and that these negotiations must presuppose Hamas’ maximalist demands.
Shirin,
Look I might be too cynical. Maybe Helena can provide examples of where one side declaring a unilateral ceasefire and holding to it has led to a “good faith” ceasefire from the other side and eventual resolution of the conflict?
To Expand on JES’ comments regarding Hamas’ “cease-fire” – besides the fact that attacks by actors affiliated with Hamas continued throughout that period (see for example the kidnap/murder of Sasson Nuriel) – albeit at a lesser rate – Hamas reserved the right to act following Israeli attack prompted by actions of organizations hich weren’t party to the cease-fire. In other words, essentially what the cease-fire said was:
1) Hamas will not attack Israel (as noted above, this wasn’t actually accomplished, but let’s ignore that for now)
2) Other Palestinian organizations are not bound by this cease-fire, and Hamas will do nothing to hinder them.
3) OTOH, if Israel attacks or retaliates against those other organizations, it is an attack on Palestinians, and thus Hamas has the right to respond.
Can you see why this may not be acceptable to Israel?
Helena can provide examples of where one side declaring a unilateral ceasefire and holding to it has led to a “good faith” ceasefire from the other side and eventual resolution of the conflict?
Gandhi springs to mind…
But of course a reciprocated and therefore by definition negotiated ceasefire would be much, much better. (Look at the history of the ceasefire negotiated in Lebanon at the end of Peres’s largescale escalation there in 1996.)
Re the ability or non-ability of Hamas (and at that time, also the Fateh leaders, who were an integral part of the process) to enforce the ceasefire totally in Gaza… I would note that Israel, which till today maintains very strong forces dominating everything in the West Bank, has been unable to stop attacks there. So why should it imagine that the Palestinians– with considerably fewer technical capabilities, especially as they have been systematically denied these by the Israelis– would have been able to do any better in Gaza in that period?
I note that, regarding the 1996 ceasefire agreement over Lebanon, the negotiations were not direct between Hizbullah and Israel, but were mediated through the governments of Lebanon, Syria, France, and the US, all of which were parties to the agreement that was concluded and were represented on the committee that monitored observance of the ceasefire.
That one did not lead to a final peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, for reasons we can explore elsewhere. But it was generally fairly successful at calming the situation and paved the way for Israel’s subsequent (2000) withdrawal of forces from nearly all of Lebanon (or, all except the contested bit of Shebaa Farms.)
Since Peres’s short-lived days as PM, however, the Israeli political elite seems to have swung much more strongly behind an ideology of “unilateralism”. We can see what a debacle that brought about in Lebanon in 2006 and what a debacle it has– thus far– led the Israeli-Palestinian “peace” process to.
Of course, militarist unilateralism has also been the hallmark of the Bushites… But the US public is now re-learning the lessons of the limitations– indeed, the dysfunctionality– of this approach. And our movement for the US’s realistic re-engagement with the world has even pushed the Bushites to start talking with Iran! Perhaps the Israeli public will not be too far behind on the learning curve? We can hope…
“Israel was not a party to this, tactical, ceasefire.”
That is, I believe, what made it unilateral. It is also why sustaining it for a year and a half or more in the fact of Israel’s refusal to stop its attacks is so impressive.
“Further, there were numerous attacks, and attempted suicide bombings, by a variety of groups (some of which may or may not have been affiliated with Hamas)”
So what? Hamas cannot reasonably be expected to control every single action on the part of every single Palestinian individual or group, even under the most perfect and ideal conditions. Under the terrible circumstances Israel and its allies have imposed on the OPT, the degree of restraint Hamas DID accomplish in the face of Israel’s refusal to halt its attacks is nothing short of amazing.
“to which Israel responded.”
In other words, Israel had no interest in a ceasefire, and continued its attacks. One might even conclude that Israel was hoping to provoke Hamas into breaking its own ceasefire. It would not be the first time that Israel used this tactic.
See Helena’s comments above mine.
Re the ability or non-ability of Hamas (and at that time, also the Fateh leaders, who were an integral part of the process) to enforce the ceasefire totally in Gaza… I would note that Israel, which till today maintains very strong forces dominating everything in the West Bank, has been unable to stop attacks there. So why should it imagine that the Palestinians– with considerably fewer technical capabilities, especially as they have been systematically denied these by the Israelis– would have been able to do any better in Gaza in that period?
Quite not to the point, I’m afraid.
No one has asked Hamas (or Fatah, for that matter) to stop all attacks. Hamas did not even show a token effort to stop some attacks. I will remind you that, prior to 2000, the Palestinian security services were quite aggressive in stopping attacks – particularly when they felt it in their interest to do so. They acted quite vigourously against Hamas suicide bombers during the run-up to the 1996 Israeli elections, and they were actually quite successful. Again, during during the years that followed, the PA security services regularly raided and destroyed explosive factories, both on the West Bank and in the Gaza strip.
Over the past year and a half, Hamas could have made an effort to enforce their unilateral “ceasefire” within the Gaza strip, but they made no such effort.
How can we expect Hamas to be more successful than the IDF in preventing terror attacks. Well, make no mistake about it, for those of us who do not have the unfortunate habit of conflating history, Israel has been quite successful in doing so on the West Bank. But, that aside, I would ask why should Israel have to be the one to prevent such attacks on its innocent civilians within Israel?
As I said before, either Hamas is incapable or unwilling to prevent such attacks. If the former is the case, then I see no reason why Israel should even consider negotiating with them, because they have nothing to deliver in return. I that case, Israel would probably be better off negotiating with the American Friends Committee. If the latter is the case, then why should Israel accede to Hamas preconditions to negotiations?
the Israeli political elite seems to have swung much more strongly behind an ideology of “unilateralism”. We can see what a debacle that brought about in Lebanon in 2006 and what a debacle it has– thus far– led the Israeli-Palestinian “peace” process to.
Really. What “unilateralism”? Don’t you think that your Hizballah had an itsy-bitsy-teeny part to play in the events of last year? Hasn’t Hamas contributed to the current situation in Gaza?
Shirin,
You really have to watch the obfuscation. Somebody might think you’ve studied the dreaded Hasbara Handbook!
See Eyal’s comments above.
I would add that the great Hamas “discipline” that you constantly remind us of would considerably make up for the lack of any technical means to stopping Qassam and other attacks on Israel from Gaza.
Why, JES, how very like you to make an accusation without being able to offer a single example to back it up!
bb, I am still waiting for you to provide a source for your definition of “good faith cease fire”. Since common sense does not really seem to support that definition, and since my research turned up nothing to indicate its origin, and use, I depend on you to educate me.
bb, I have responded to you on the Condi Rice thread if you care to have a look. It’s up to you, of course.
I will have more to say on the topic later.
Shirin,
Helena’s definition of good faith ceasefires seems right to me. Mention of Ghandi was interesting in that right through the 90s I was dwelling on the Palestinians adopting non violence and peaceful resistence when Israel kept expanding the settlements but I guess whatever possibility of them doing do so was prevented by Hamas “unilateral” insistence on suicide bombing as the chief means of resistance?
Mention of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was also useful as a spectacular example of the meaninglessness of “unilateralism”, at least in the ME context.
Re Chandrasekarian: am at a loss as to why you can’t find the passage where he details at length the drawing up of the interim constitution by the IGC and the US taking a back seat? Surely there wouldn’t have been a special edition for Australia. I have the hard copy edition open in front of me now and it runs from pages 268 to 272 inclusive. It is in the chapter “Missed Opportunites”, thumb back 5 pages from the end of that chapter? Also, the Mark Danner NYBR review can be downloaded for just $US3 and is worth every cent.
bb,
the 90s I was dwelling on the Palestinians adopting non violence and peaceful resistence when Israel kept expanding the settlements
So you knew better the case now, while Israelis kept expanding the settlements which is not peaceful actions in many case as Israeli forces seized the land destroyed the Olives and forced the Palestinians to leave their homes and lands and you asking them to be charm and peaceful resistence with you?
Can we call that some sort of paranoia bb?
BB, forgive me for being obtuse, but as far as I can see, Helena did not give a definition of a “good faith ceasefire”, and what she did say about it was quite different from your definition, which I am becoming increasingly convinced you made up for the occasion.
I have the hard bound addition of Chandrasakaran’s book as well, and the pages you provided are not even close. In any case, I am sure I will locate the part you are referring to.
For your information, the Palestinians DID make great use of non-violence and peaceful resistance, and they still do. Unfortunately, those types of actions get no attention from the media, and are all too easy for a ruthless occupier to squash unnoticed by the world, and often with great brutality, which Israel did, and continues to do on a regular basis.
As for Israel’s so-called “withdrawal” from Gaza, either you are out of touch with reality, or you think the people here are.
Shirin,
Looking it up, my edition is the UK edition, so perhaps yours is a different country? Have you an Arab edition, perhaps?
Yes, it must be the edition.
As far as I know, the book has not been translated into “Arab”. :o}
Israelis deserve peace and security as much as Palestinians. But “new” and expanded “controversial” Israeli frontiers will not bring peace or security to either.
Sure, 14 of the 24 Hamas ministers have been in Israeli prisons. But what are Palestinians supposed to think when they realize that 15 Israeli generals have been elected to the new Knesset, along with six secret service agents?
Yet even this is not the point. If the Israelis want Hamas to acknowledge the state of Israel, then Hamas should be expected to acknowledge the state of Israel that exists within its legal frontiers – not the illegal borders now being dreamt up by Olmert.
But now the burden of all this post-election theft is to be placed upon Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
This colourless, helpless man, who presided over the Palestinian Authority’s continuing corruption, is supposed to persuade the new Hamas government to accept all of Israel’s land-grabs, to pick up where the Oslo process left off (which still left Jerusalem exclusively in Israeli hands), and to abandon all violence – which means to surrender whenever Israeli troops raid refugee camps or cities in the West Bank.
If the Israelis want Hamas to acknowledge the state of Israel, then Hamas should be expected to acknowledge the state of Israel that exists within its legal frontiers – not the illegal borders now being dreamt up by Olmert.
fair enough…
Hamas: The ball is in your court!
Which Israel Hamas must recognize ? 1948 or 1967 or the zionist dream, from the Nile to the Euphrate ?
and to abandon all violence – which means to surrender whenever Israeli troops raid refugee camps or cities in the West Bank
I wonder if the author ever stopped for a second to contemplate that, perhaps if the Palestinians were to abandon all violence, that Israeli troops wouldn’t have to “raid refugee camps or cities” in the West Bank.
Yes “world peace”, “From the Nile to the Euphrates”. The old “Zionist dream”. We mint it on our coins and emblazen it on our flag. What a load of bs.
Perhaps if the Israelis were to abandon all violence, the Palestinians would not need to fight back.
Shirin has a point. The demand of Hamas to “renounce violence” was absurd from the Palestinians’ perspective, as Israel has been on a war footing with it. Instead, both Israel and Hamas should’ve agreed to a ceasefire. Neither side commits any act of violence on the other, and that ceasefire continues so long as negotiations continue between them.
Inkan, that is, of course, what SHOULD happen, but Israel has proven itself to be consistently unwilling to renounce violence no matter what the Palestinians do. Israel also has a well-documented history going back to the early days of statehood and continuing until today, of taking actions to provoke violence from the other side, and then using that as a pretext for some massively violent actions of its own.
The bottom line is that Palestinian groups can renounce violence, and they can even successfully refrain from violence, but until Israel is prepared to cease its own violence there will be no hope for peace.
I don’t know about the early days. But this is how the Olmert government has been behaving right now. A regime change both in Israel maybe this year and in the U.S. next could fix that policy.
A cease fire agreement should not be limited to the IDF and card carrying members of Hamas…both sides should be held accountable for all provocative attacks emanating from their side of the Gaza/Israel border. No Stern Gangs and no nonHamas jihadists.
OK, Truesdell.
And how do you propose that the Palestinians control every single element in their society, particularly since Israel has systematically destroyed the mechanisms for doing so?
And if you expect the Palestinians, against all odds, to put a stop to every bit of violence against the oppression and brutality – – not to mention the creeping ethnic cleansing – of the Israeli occupation, do you demand also that Israel prevent every bit of Israeli violence against Palestinians, down to the last settler thugs?
yes, Israel bears responsibility for violent acts by settlers…and Hamas likewise should bear responsibility for Islamic Jihad and other freelance jihadist groups.
As for the capability of the Hamas security apparatus to curb attacks by other Jihadist militias, they didn’t need much time to dissolve the large, well armed Fatah forces in Gaza.
Stop whining. If they are fit to govern, then Hamas needs to make at least an effort, which, as I have pointed out here repeatedly, there is no evidence that they have done. If they are going to be declaring ceasefires, then they need to be able to enforce them internally.
As I pointed out before, Fatah made one hell of an effort and were pretty successful in doing so, when it was in their interest to do so.
And yes, Israel must also prevent every bit of violence. Or, we could behave like the “well disciplined” Hamas and say that all units of the IDF must listen to orders, but if the Paratroop Brigade and Nahal should happen to feel squeezing off a few rounds… well, then that’s out of our control.
Stop whining? You know, JES, one of your finer qualities is that you are so empathetic. You really do get what it is like to try to govern after all your civil institutions have been systematically destroyed, your tax revenues withheld, half your government arrested (for the crime of having been elected), and your population collectively punished for exercising their democratic right to elect whom they choose.
It’s truly impressive how well you understand the challenges Palestinians face.
Hear, hear!
And all this happened after what? “Defensive” measures such as suicide bombings on buses, in cafes, malls and resaraunts. Hundreds of rockets launched against civilian targets. The cross border attack and kidnapping of a soldier, who has been held in violation of all relevant conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.
I don’t doubt that the Palestinians have real grievances. I just think that it is disingenous to sit there and argue that Hamas should be credited with observing a ceasfire, when there was plenty of fire going on at the time, and Hamas – the elected government who insisted on creating still another security force of its own under the aegis of the Ministry of Interior – appears to have done nothing.
Judging by the poll results we discussed in an earlier thread, I would say that a good percentage of the Palestinian population would prefer a government that would take responsibility for bettering their lives rather than the personal, ideological or religious goals of its members.
Ah, the “mental wall” syndrome that Maurice described so well on a previous thread:
“There’s the vast, “open air concentration camp” that a whole people – millions of them – have in a sense been shipped off to – which is the effect of that wall, and virtually all of the rest of your country’s policies toward the indigenous people in the Occ. Terr. and Gaza.
But the other side of the coin is the mental wall that you yourself are behind. You can’t seem to see how it looks to the rest of us.”
No opponent ever worthy of negotiating with. Always conditions, excuses, demands…meanwhile the brutal colonization/occupation grinds on…in full view of the world as never before.
Hmmmm. Seems we have negotiated plenty. Also, it seems to me that you (and I think that this thread began with Helena doing so)tend to make excuses for Hamas, who, in turn are the ones setting conditions and with demands.
But of course the “indigenous” people are guiltless innocents, and their violence is fully justified. Give me a break!
the “indigenous” people are guiltless innocents, and their violence is fully justified.
Thus Spoke the Man
There can be no military decision without a parallel political initiative. A demand to have `an eye for eye` is simply a demand for more of the same cycle of bloodshed. The demand to `stop talking and start acting` means simply to stop what we had been doing at all, and go on with what we have doing all the time.
Simply spectacular, isn’t it, JP, just how determinedly opaque, impenetrable and indestructible that mental wall is.
Simply spectacular, isn’t it, JP, just how determinedly opaque, impenetrable and indestructible that mental wall is.
self parodying remark of the week!
Manal, is a Palestinian young woman who witnessed a new Israeli violation to human rights, a violation which is part of the ongoing violations against the Palestinian people. As she was stopped at an Israeli military roadblock, she witnesses several Palestinian women rushing out of closed “search rooms” while crying, and when asked about the reason they said that they were forced to undress to be searched.
Arab member of Knesset, Dr. Jamal Zahalka, head of the National Democratic Assembly, said that his office received a complaint regarding a similar incident, and added that his office requested the Israeli Defense Minister to order an immediate probe into these violations.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:nNcRgq0NEkkJ:www.imemc.org/article/49220+israelis+forcing+palestinian+women+to+be+naked&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=nz
JES: “Seems we have negotiated plenty.”
Yes, with bullets and bulldozers.
Vadim:
As for your Episcopalian mental wall, there are divestment campaigns you should look into. Participating in one would be good for you, your church, Israel and its patron, the U.S.
Thanks JP, unlike yourself I think economic sanctions are a form of collective punishment.
I can tell you feel guilty that “your tax money” going to support a state that you consider illegitimate. Why don’t you go on a tax strike? Shirin maybe can join you.
JES and Vadim:
“Blaaaaaaaah, blah, blah, blah, blaaaaaaaaah!”
Vadim’s objection to collective punishment noted.
Vadim’s objection to collective punishment noted.
yes, and your enthusiasm for collective punishment is also noted. How’s that tax strike coming along?
Vadim, you seem to have a truly remarkable concept of collective punishment, that stands the standard understanding on its head. You seem to think that boycotts, divestment of say Caterpillar for illegally selling D-9’s to a government that uses them for almost entirely criminal purposes, in furtherance of an insane and criminal enterprise, the settlement and occupation of territory which no one, not even Israel claims is Israel’s is reprehensible collective punishment. The usual understanding is that demolishing houses, purportedly as punishment for terrorism is at the least “collective punishment”, at the worst entirely unprovoked assaults on civilians for the purpose of land theft. Economic sanctions, if you want, could be called collective punishment, but international law sees them as appropriate for states that gravely violate the Geneva Conventions by punishing people en masse for things they did not do – the usual idea of collective punishment. Do you think Israel should be subjected to bombing instead?
Where do you get your ideas on the Arab-Israeli conflict in general? Most people who have bothered to study history and both sides’ arguments come to different conclusions from yours. Many, perhaps most, see Israel as generally speaking, an aggressor that has refused countless offers for a reasonable peace for decades for the sole reason that it mindlessly wishes to gain a few scraps of land and is quite willing to sacrifice its own national security and the lives of its people for this idiotic and empty goal.
Most people who have bothered to study history and both sides’ arguments come to different conclusions from yours.
Just what the hell do you think my conclusions are? I don’t remember sharing them with you. Whatever few conclusions I’ve reached on the topic aren’t especially radical by anyone’s standards, probably even your own.
How’s this instead: Vadim, do you object to collective punishments, even when doled out by Israel and the United States? Answer: Of course I do! And as I’ve said before on this forum I would prefer Israel abandon its settlements entirely, for its own sake as well as the Palestinians. I don’t think any of the other Hasbaristos feel much differently. But my mind-reading skills aren’t as finely tuned as your own.
Anyways, JP was recommending something called a ‘divestment campaign’ that suggests something more ambitious than a Caterpillar boycott. Divestment campaigns -like any other economic sanction- punish innocents & they’re blatantly coercive. Do you favor group punishment and economic coersion? Or only in special cases where the money goes to support the machinery of warfare? In which case, do you support the economic boycott of HAMAS?
Many, perhaps most, see Israel as generally speaking, an aggressor
Many, perhaps most would read this as an admission of impartiality. Generally, neutral observers to a conflict don’t refer to either side as “generally speaking, an aggressor” — much less seek to “tame” this generally aggressive nature with group punishments.
You seem to think that boycotts, divestment of say Caterpillar for illegally selling D-9’s to a government that uses them for almost entirely criminal purposes…
John R. I was really hoping you’d fill me in on these targeted boycotts, since I’m unlikely to buy any bulldozers or attack helicopters any time soon. Who else do I need to look out for? Because judging from the divestment campaigns I’ve researched, they cast a rather wide net. Coca Cola, Estee Lauder, Israeli academics, the Israeli Medical Association, they’re all implicated in the war crimes. (Did you know that Ron Lauder was a committed Zionist? Eep!)
It’s hard for a rube like myself, unschooled in the nuances of the dispute, to grasp which of the many boycotts wouldn’t be considered “group punishment,” and which ones treat the concerns of Israelis seriously, rather than condemning them as an aggressive race of barbarians who deserve a spanking. I’m also interested in all the boycotts of HAMAS and its enablers I should be looking out for, since they too seem committed to treating the Geneva Convention like toilet paper.
Since you’ve bothered to study the history of the conflict and I haven’t I’m relying here on your superior insight and moral clarity.
Thanks so much in advance!
Perhaps John R. is boycotting Intel and Cisco (both of which have significant holdings, R&D and manufacturing in Israel) and staying off the Internet!