… is here. (Also archived here.)
As you can see, I wrote it in Amman, before I came here to Ramallah. Since I’ve been here I’ve done a lot of fascinating interviews, about which more later. Still, it’s nice to have this out.
10 thoughts on “CSM article about need for Hamas-Fateh reconciliation”
Comments are closed.
All the “big time” pundits have bought into the legitimacy of the PA, but I just don’t see it. The PA have been repudiated by the Palestinian people and have instead been armed, embraced, and funded by the US and the Israelis.
Hamas is no longer in power in the West Bank because of Elliot Abrams and the Neocons. What’s may seem “good” for the PA is definitely not good for the Palestinians.
It is not up to “their friends” outside of Palestine to choose what “is best” for the Palestinian people, and it is certainly not up to their enemies! It is for the Palestinian people to decide and the Palestinian people have chosen Hamas.
We should support them in their choice. When it comes to who is to represent the Palestinian people I see no reason to forsake the choice of the Palestinian people themselves and to embrace the choice of their enemies.
Seconding Mr. Lee, there is an idea that is prominent in the West, though indefensible, that Hamas is just wrong in not accepting a Jewish state. From there is follows that reasonable Palestinians cannot really support its position, and for there comes the need to support the reasonable Palestinians.
While I can argue that Hamas is right in its stance, just as Mandela was right to reject the bantustan arrangement offered to him, it should be unarguable that right or wrong, a the position that a political body that controls more non-Jews than Jews has no mandate to be an eternal “Jewish state” is a reasonable position.
Westerners, even liberals like Cobban cannot wrap their heads around the idea that even if they disagree, it is possible for reasonable Palestinians to reject a two-state solution.
The Palestinian majority chose Hamas, but that doesn’t mean every Palestinian chose Hamas. Fatah has a share of support among the populace. When Helena writes about a reconcilliation, I’m sure she imagines a reconcilliation that accurately reflects the support of both political groups. Yes, John Francis Lee, we should support the Palestinians’ choice, but I think you’re misrepresenting the choice the made in your post.
Hamas’s main concerns in refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist and in rejecting a two-state solution are about the WB settlements and the right to return. No two-state solution can be formulated by rejecting the right to return, and I don’t believe a two state solution has to be conceived that way. Hamas likewise wants to maintain its opposition to the settlements; a two-state “facts on the ground” solution might allow them. But Hamas has indicated openness to a two-solution that addresses these concerns. Steadfastness until Israel closes down the illegal settlements. Hamas is willing to acknowledge Israel’s existence, which does not forfeit the right to return. A unified Hamas led government working on a two state solution with a commitment to a right to return is a possible means to resolve the conflict.
You really can’t resist this impulse to force “two-state” onto the Palestinians, whether they want it or not.
This is a common Western blind spot, even among liberals, that is very counterproductive.
Palestinians can reasonably, on moral and practical grounds, reject the idea of two states. Hard as it may be for you to see that.
Forcing? I’m just resisting the effort to force two-state solutions out of consideration. It’s possible for reasonable Palestinians not to reject a solution as well.
Two-state? One-state? I don’t know.
Let the Palestinian people decide.
And they have elected Hamas.
So we must support Hamas.
It’s for the Palestinians to decide.
I’m just explaining why Westerners, even liberals like Cobban, reflexively support measures to limit the winners of most competitive Palestinian political processes.
You might think a liberal would favor democracy – and would oppose efforts by Mitchell to push Hamas towards Fatah’s stances (which are Israel/the US’s stances) since Mitchell after all is not a Palestinian voter.
This anti-democratic tendency comes from an inability to differentiate between “peace” and “two-state solution”. Not malevolence, just a blind spot. A real inability to see past their own biases.
We must work with elected Hamas, not support it. I don’t want to support the elected Rightist Netanyahu government myself, but we’re stuck working with them along with elected Hamas. And if it’s a one-state solution, it’s up for both Palestinians and Israelis to mutually decide upon that. I don’t see how simply arguing for a two-state solution is antidemocratic. I would oppose Mitchell’s efforts only if they were coercive, such as through blockades and sanctions. I never said that Palestinians couldn’t decide; the notion that liberals are forcing this solution simply by arguing it is putting words in their mouths.
Because the US would never support a blockade or sanction against Hamas in an attempt to pressure it to change its positions away from what Palestinians voted for.
When liberals speak of this process encouragingly, that needs an explanation which I’m providing.
In fact, Hamas’ insistence that Palestinians be restored, even at the expense of the Jewishness of Israel is just as worthy of support, if not more worthy of support than Fatah’s US/Israeli subsidized offer to renounce that goal.
I did not say that the U.S. would never support a blockade; I’ve been opposed to the hostile attitude to the democratically elected Palestinian government that the Bush administration took from the start and the Obama administartion still hasn’t changed.
Arnold, you’re not providing any explanation, you’re just branding the word “forcing” on anyone who talks about a workable two-state solution, and you’re pigeonholing them into your made-up “cynical” and “naive” categories.
And I don’t feel that the right to return has to damage the Jewishness of Israel. Jewishness shouldn’t depend on something as transitory as demographics.