At yesterday’s Capitol Hill panel discussion on “Re-calculating Annapolis” I tried to present the best arguments I could for the US to end its profoundly anti-democratic current practice of working with Israel and others to exclude and crush the organization that won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas.
The US, I concluded, should do whatever it can to promote these short- and medium-term goals:
- 1. A prisoner exchange between Israel and Hamas;
2. A working ceasefire between Israel and Hamas;
3. Gaza’s economic disengagement from Israel and its connection to the world economy either through Egypt or directly; and
4. A reconciliation between Fateh and Hamas.
Attentive readers of JWN will be familiar with most of the arguments I made along the way, which I have made here on the blog and in this November 2007 article in The Nation. I also noted that the dedication with which the Bushists have pursued their anti-Hamas agenda since the 2006 elections has very seriously undermined the claims the administration has made that it is somehow (counter to the evidence on the ground) committed to spreading the ideals and practice of democracy around the world, and has made the administration look very hypocritical and opportunistic indeed.
I may or may not have noted in my presentation that the campaign to exclude and crush Hamas– which has included giving full support to all of Israel’s policies of besieging Gaza and undertaking large numbers of extra-judicial executions there and in the West Bank– has actually had the opposite of the desired effect. Hamas has thus far emerged stronger politically than it was back in January 2006. (And meanwhile, the cost that these policies have imposed on the Palestinian people, and also to the Israelis who reside in the south of their country, has been high. In the case of the 1.4 million Gazans, quite horrendous.)
I should have quoted Uri Avnery’s great recent quote that the Olmert government’s actions against Gaza have been “worse than a war crime, they have been a blunder.” But I didn’t have time to. At the very last minute my position on the event’s roster was changed from #5 to #2, so I had to do some very rapid last-minute editing/revising of my comments.
We spoke in this order:
- 1. Andrew Whitley, who runs UNRWA’s representative office in New York;
2. me;
3. Ghaith al-Omari, Advocacy Director for the American Task Force on Palestine, and a former foreign policy advisor to PA President Mahmoud Abbas;
4. Rob Malley of the International Crisis Group;
5. Daniel Levy of the Century Fund and the New America Foundation.
Two of the other panelists, Malley and Levy, presented broadly the same arguments I was making. Whitley is precluded by the nature of his job as a UN employee from expressing political judgments; but the picture he painted of a besieged Gaza facing “a social explosion and an economic implosion”, and being poised “on the verge of a health pandemic”, was grim indeed.
As for our fifth fellow-panelist, Ghaith al-Omari, he was advocating a path very different from that urged by the rest of us. He spoke right after me, and almost his first words were that, “Elections are highly over-rated.” He argued that trying to deal with Hamas, “is neither doable nor desirable.” He acknowledged that Hamas, “represents a real force in Palestinian society and needs to be taken into account.” But, he said, the question was “On what terms should Mahmoud Abbas be expected to reconcile with it?” His answer was that Hamas needed to be further weakened before Abbas could deal with it.
That seemed to me like a clear invitation to the forces currently seeking to punish and crush Hamas to step up their efforts. And this from someone who, though he is not a Palestinian, works for an organization that claims to speak in some way for the Palestinians…
In Rob Malley’s presentation, which came next, he directly challenged the assumption underlying that last argument of Omari’s. “Hamas is getting stronger and Abbas is getting weaker,” Malley warned. “We should not assume that time is our friend.” He also warned that the very difficult situation in Gaza could well be “the crucible of the next Arab-Israeli war.”
He noted that the attempt to isolate Hamas had been aimed at pushing forward the “peace process.” But he noted that had not happened. (A little later, Levy argued that the Annapolis formula “was the best that Condi Rice could win support for from the White House; but it wasn’t actually a recipe for success.”)
The major point at which Malley seemed to diverge from my views is he said he thought Mahmoud Abbas should mediate both the ceasefire asnd the prisoner exchange between Israel and Hamas. Personally I think that’s a recipe for disaster because (a) Abbas is not even on speaking terms with Hamas at this point; (b) There is anyway an existing mediator between Israel and Hamas on these two issues, and that is Egypt; so neither side “needs” Abbas to mediate for them (they could also communicate directly with each other if they wanted; this has happened in some limited ways in the past); (c) from a national-interest point of view, it actually seems very inappropriate for Abbas to “mediate” between Israel and Hamas; and finally (d), the biggest point of all: Abbas is actually increasingly weak and irrelevant.
Levy made a couple of excellent observations. Firstly, that “We now have no fewer than three U.S. generals in the region working on this issue– and none of them is doing anything that would count as de-escalation of the tensions.” Secondly, that what he had been learning from his Israeli compatriots was that Hamas had discernibly been trying to target military installations with its rockets, while it was Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees who had been sending rockets simply into the (populated) general vicinity of the city of Sderot. “Though Hamas,” he added, “has not intervened to stop them from doing that.”
I was encouraged to hear that Levy’s Israeli sources saw clear evidence of an attempt by the Hamas rocketeers to restrict their targeting to military installations. But that guidance certainly needs to be extended to their people undertaking other kinds of violent operations, too. (Hamas credibly claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing that on February 3 killed an elderly woman in Dimona; the two operatives involved reached Israel from the Hebron area, not from Gaza or Egypt.)
It was significant that though the title of our discussion was “Re-calculating Annapolis”, no-one spent much time looking at the actual (and very sad) record of what has been going on in the post-Annapolic negotiations. I made a point, in my presentation, of noting the political impact of the fact that the Syrians— after having taken the bold step of attending Annapolis– had received nothing but a very cold shoulder from the Bushites in return.
But really, none of us spent any time discussing the minutiae of the current formal “peace process.” Partly because so very, very little has been, in fact, going on. And partly because the whole confrontation over– and the recent bustout from– Gaza has completely eclipsed in importance whatever teeny baby steps forward (or backward) the “peace process” negotiations might have taken.
Talking of which, I found it intriguing to note that Salam Fayyad, the man whom Abbas picked as his Prime Minister after the Israelis had conveniently imprisoned a large number of the Hamas parliamentarians, has not been completely acting the role of compliant US/Israeli puppet. Fayyad’s been here in the US, partly doing family things. But he also gave a couple of policy addresses here in Washington, DC. And in one of them he complained openly that the checkpoints that the IOF maintains inside the West Bank– which were supposed to have decreased in number after Annapolis– “have increased, not decreased.”
Oh, and in further related news, on Tuesday Israel’s housing minister, Zeev Boim, announced plans to build more than 1,100 more new apartments in occupied East Jerusalem.
Under these circumstances, is it really any surprise that Abbas is so rapidly becoming weaker?
There’s a typo in this entry. You spelled “IDF” wrong.
You seem to make that error a lot.
I don’t see how Hamas is getting stronger politically. On what evidence? They’re trailing Fatah in approval polls even in Gaza, and have been for a very long time.
From March 2006:
http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2006/p19e.html
” 47% would vote for Hamas and 39% for Fateh if new elections are held today ”
contrast this with the latest from 3 Feb:
Hamas’s popularity increases from 31% to 34% and Fateh’s drops from 49% to 46% in one month between December 2007 and January 2008. In the Gaza Strip, the popularity of Hamas increases from 33% to 39% and the popularity of Fateh decreases from 52% to 46% during the same period… This is the first time since March 2006 in which we witness an increase in Hamas’s popularity.
“Less unpopular than last year” I’d grant, but Hamas has thus far emerged stronger politically than it was back in January 2006 doesn’t seem credible at all.
Vadim,
Obviously, political strength is not only a function of popularity. Hamas is clearly in a stronger position today than several months ago. At this point, the prospects of Fatah’s “negotiations” with Olmert are totally failed, they just organized a break out of prison, which showed that they have the potential to make their own reality in the face of harsh repression, that the entire Palestinian population is tired of watching Israel attack Gaza… and many more things…
——-
As for the event. Again, the 2 most disgusting things about this event were:
1) the total lack of a voice from either the left or the Islamists. I find it totally ridiculous that so many people argue that Israel or the USA should discuss issues with Hamas, yet these panels are ALWAYS void of the point of view of the likes of PFLP or Hamas. The credibility of Mr. Levy or Malley would be much higher if they decided to publicly talk to Hamas themselves.
2) AGAIN, the American Task Force for Palestine is the most anti-Palestinian organization in the USA today. They do more to undermine the Palestinian cause than any other organization. By claiming to be pro-Palestinian, but acting entirely Zionist, they discredit the strength of Palestinian issues. They have already revoked the right of return, and they are willing to starve and kill any Palestinian in Gaza, and they have no desire for an independent or sovereign Palestinian state. Basically, they are Zionist. I am so tired of Ziad Asali and Gaith Al-Omari that it makes me sick. They are crooked and power hungry, and they will kiss any Zionist ass just to keep themselves in the spotlight. Get rid of them, their views play no role in Palestinian society, and they should never be invited to a panel again. They are useless.
The Rafah wall’s blow was surely an event that gave Hamas a relief, in political terms and especially on the social level. I don’t thrust at all Palestinian official polls. I didn’t in 2006, when I followed the political elections. I don’t now. From my viewpoint in Jerusalem, there are two contradictory facts going on in Palestine. The first: the gap between WB and Gaza is thinner than before, because Gaza darkness reached consolidate the (now) imaginary link between Gazans and West-Bankers, allowing them to feel once again (I don’t know for how long) Palestinians. The second: the feeling, inside Gaza, is that time is letting Hamas going nowhere. It’s a sort of limbo, in which Hamas is administering the day-by-day social and communal life, but the vision is less consistent than before. I read for the second time, yesterday, Ghazi Hamad letter from October, 2007. He pointed out the most important weaknesses.
Helen,
I think we can get a measure of Ghaith al-Omri from the company he keeps. Here is an excerpt from a speech he gave at the Brookings Institute in 2005:
“I would say we have a two-tier approach for the coming year, one
regarding domestic politics. Ziad talked a lot about it. I would just want to stress two
points. The first is the point of democratization. I mean, we’re serious about this. This
year is definitely going to be the year of Palestinian actions. We’ve already had the
presidential elections, we’re in the process of doing the staggered municipal elections, we’re
having parliamentary, we’re having the Fatah elections. And not only that. Also we’re
going to be pushing for more elections, we’re going to have elections in the various
political parties and several institutions.
Basically, you want to rejuvenate the political system. You want to
create a situation where everyone feels that they have some kind of stake in the process.”
Democracy is only good when it gives you the desired result I suppose!!
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20050201.pdf
I think we can judge the Brookings Institute from the company it keeps.
has not been completely acting the role of compliant US/Israeli puppet.
Very shortsighted judgment.
So now Ahmad Galabi visited Iran he is no longer US Puppet!!
What laughable talk about those who serving US in ME.
Helena and others trying to sale them as NATIONLIST to us.
BTW Helena,
Did you asked Salam Fayyad why the Fatah (PM and his group) riding Mercedes Benz cars with nice ties and dress when all Palestinians have no money , suffering severally from poverty no jobs, I wonder how many these car will help to built school or get medications , of food to those needy Palestinians?
Helena, did you forgot or your short memory made you forget Fatah’s corruptions with all money and donations used by those “Nationalist” thier families sent to US France and UK.
Um, Salah, I honestly think I haven’t been trying to cover up the role of Chalabi, or Fayyad, or their respective cronies…
Helena,
Ah..If your attention not covering up, reading your words by judging people from some sentences made, rushing to telling us he is not in “full compliance with Israel/US” it’s very premature judgment and lack of experiences in judging people meeting them for the first or second time by words comes form their mouth,.
Its rather to build the case of their believes, behaviours and background that support their mouthpieces they may trying using these words for public propaganda, is’t that the way we can say this man he is in “full compliance”?.
Helena can you please present some arguments as to why you and the other panelists did not include in your proposals that Hamas reverse its committment to the complete destruction of the other side in this conflict?
Surely it is not because you and the others tacitly support the Hamas covenant and its continual public committment to this goal? Or do you?
If the former, have you any evidence of “working ceasefires” holding or advancing a peace process in previous conflicts where either or both parties intransigently maintain their committment to destroy the other on religious grounds?
the Palestinian went last, of course
It really doesn’t add anything to intelligent discussion, bb, when you employ such formulations as “the complete destruction of the other side” in an obvious attempt to equate Hamas’s, laudable, desire to change the nature of the state power in Palestine with a genocidal project. Genocide does happen, let us not confuse opposition to a uniquely self defined state with mass murder.
BB, if ANY party is committed to the “complete destruction of the other side”, not to mention capable of (and by all indications, in the process of working on) achieving it, it is not Hamas.
The siege of Gaza fits most of the criteria to qualify as genocide, incidentally.
PS Hamas’ opposition to the State of Israel is not based on religious grounds.
Bevin: the Hamas covenant is not equivical. Hamas public spokespeople do not obfuscate about it. Why would they? They are impelled by fundamental religious belief. They don’t obfuscate either about their intention that all of Palestine should be a fundamental religious Islamic state.
The question is whether western peacemakers like Helena and her co-panellists actually support the Hamas position regarding Israel or Palestine, or not? And if they don’t, why don’t they make this clear in their peace proposals by urging Hamas to recognise the two state solution?
Shirin: “Hamas’ opposition to the State of Israel is not based on religious grounds.”
From Article Eleven of the Hamas Covenant:
“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that.
Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.”
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law)
Is it the same for the biblical law governing same land as a “Promised land”?
What’s the difference can you tell us bb?
The Jews in Moses’ time chose the barren desert over the Holy Land. Jews today are faced with the same fateful decision.
Rabbi Pinchas Winston
The consecration of lands to religious, communal, purposes is far from being sinister. The notion of private property in land is relatively novel and regarded as dangerous by almost all traditions, not least native American cultures.
The idea of entrusting land ownership to religious communities, burdened in turn with charitable works is not unique to muslim countries. The role of monasteries and convents in medieaval Europe is an obvious parallel.
So far as the “Judgement Day” aspect is concerned that, too, is threatening only to land speculators- most of the territory in question had been endowed in acts of piety, naturally it was hoped by the donors that it would not be put in the market.
So far as muslim rule is concerned who could deny that, under muslim rule, for centuries Palestine was remarkably free from the religious intolerance that was discovered in Christian lands? Under muslim rule communities of Christians, Jews and other minority faiths lived and often thrived, in Palestine, for more than a millenium.
The sad truth is that the only major exception to the general tolerance muslims show towards other faiths is, and has been since the eighteenth century, that exhibited by the followers of the scholar wahab who would long since have dwindled into Plymouth Brethren like obscurity, were it not for the sponsorship of anti-communist regimes in the west.
In short, I can think of nothing more likely to bring peace and community to Palestine than a government in which Hamas plays a major role.
They don’t call it the American Task Force for Continuing the Occupation of Palestine for nothing!
A government of Palestine where Hamas plays an elected role. But not a government of Israel, which I suspect is what bevin means when he says “Palestine”.
The sad truth is that the only major exception to the general tolerance muslims show towards other faiths>/i>
This very misleading statement and provoking for all Muslims.
The fact is Muslims have demonstrating very well that they living with other faiths well, although there were down time as it was happened in any place around the world of empires if you assume that Islamic empire had achieved.
I think the more telling example of Muslims tolerance very obvious in Indian ocean, where Muslims heavily relations with Indians with Hindus Sikh faiths also southeast Asia Jawa and Sumatra how they made communities and crossmarriages and established very successful example of tolerances can not be deniable unless some have hidden agenda in their mind.
The sad truth is the Christianity during eighteenth century and beyond they have very clear violence and tolerances and the Jews were cough in this sad and disastrous hatful attitude., I am not going to list the empire from Spanish to Dutch and lastly the British empires what they done in all the places with the native people and how the treat those people and tribes all most easily can be considered as genocides and mascaras for many nation across the glob.
that exhibited by the followers of the scholar wahab
This is another sad truth the creation and the support given to desert gangster and power hunger guy like Mohammad Bin Wahab by Britt’s early which made Al-Saud family to crate their kingdom built of scholar wahab to serve their necessities of holding the power and control their people and squash their opposition more than that they never have any attention to control more land that what equipped now, but then oil money serve their dream to be the Islamic Faith leaders which sadly represented by scholar wahab which breeding till now and breaded the devil OBL.
Now same kingdom trying to distance themselves from that line but its hard to making changed for centuries themselves they grow with and milking it with all their nation.
The sad truth is that the only major exception to the general tolerance muslims show towards other faiths>/i>
This very misleading statement and provoking for all Muslims.
The fact is Muslims have demonstrating very well that they living with other faiths well, although there were down time as it was happened in any place around the world of empires if you assume that Islamic empire had achieved.
I think the more telling example of Muslims tolerance very obvious in Indian ocean, where Muslims heavily relations with Indians with Hindus Sikh faiths also southeast Asia Jawa and Sumatra how they made communities and crossmarriages and established very successful example of tolerances can not be deniable unless some have hidden agenda in their mind.
The sad truth is the Christianity during eighteenth century and beyond they have very clear violence and tolerances and the Jews were cough in this sad and disastrous hatful attitude., I am not going to list the empire from Spanish to Dutch and lastly the British empires what they done in all the places with the native people and how the treat those people and tribes all most easily can be considered as genocides and mascaras for many nation across the glob.
that exhibited by the followers of the scholar wahab
This is another sad truth the creation and the support given to desert gangster and power hunger guy like Mohammad Bin Wahab by Britt’s early which made Al-Saud family to crate their kingdom built of scholar wahab to serve their necessities of holding the power and control their people and squash their opposition more than that they never have any attention to control more land that what equipped now, but then oil money serve their dream to be the Islamic Faith leaders which sadly represented by scholar wahab which breeding till now and breaded the devil OBL.
Now same kingdom trying to distance themselves from that line but its hard to making changed for centuries themselves they grow with and milking it with all their nation.
What abbreviation fits the Israeli machinery ?
IOF = Offensive
IDF = Defensive
The latter does not fit the description.
Results: no TYPO in this entry.
Bevin: “The consecration of lands to religious, communal, purposes is far from being sinister.”
Correct. Just as the Hamas Covenant is not “sinister”. On the contrary it is a model of clarity as to Hamas’ beliefs and intentions.
The issue is not the Hamas credo, it is why a panel comprising a number of people with distinguished credentials to advance peace-making proposals did not urge a mutual recognition between Hamas and Israel complementary to the mutual PLO/PLA/Israel recognition in 1994 as a necessary foundation for a future, peaceful, two state solution?
The name of the unit is the “Israel Defense Forces” and it accurately describes their activities. The fact that Helena thinks she can be cute by changing the name just demonstrates how immature she is.
Joshua, the Israeli military has not been used for defense in decades. They are used mainly as an occupation force, and certainly in the OPT it is completely appropriate to call them that.
Wonder if Hamas’ capo Khaled Meshaal feels very safe in his Damascus condo these days?
Wonder if Kadima’ capo Ehud olmert feels safer in his Tel Aviv condo these days???
Everyone will feel safer once Israel stops it illegal assassination saga. I assure you, no need for your wondering!!!!
A world without Meshaal and Olmert?
Ok by me.
There are plenty just like Olmert and worse waiting to take his place, and as long as there are Olmerts there will by necessity be Mash`als.
The solution is not to keep killing off the Olmerts and Mesh`als. The solution is for Israel to give up its ambitions outside the green line, to finally declare its borders (something it has carefully avoided doing until now), which will be an approximation of the Green Line, and to leave the Palestinians in peace.
Oh yes, and declaring the Green Line as its border means returning to Syria and to Lebanon what is Syria’s and Lebanon’s, meaning of course the Golan Heights and Sheb`a Farms. After that it will be shocking how quickly and easily peace will come.