Today, I was able to have a fascinating short talk with Dr. Azzam Tamimi, a Palestinian-British thinker and media mogul who was the author, most recently, of Hamas: A history from within.
One of my continuing research interests is the story of how and why Hamas made the decision to enter the elections for the PA legislature in 2006 after they had refused to participate in the rounds of elections held under the PA’s framework prior to that… Does this mean that Hamas supports the PA project? … If so, why did its views on the project change? … How deep is its current loyalty to the project?
So this morning I put some of those questions to Tamimi.
His reply was:
- It’s not that they support the PA project. But they realized they needed to deal with the status quo. They needed space to operate in.
What allowed them to participate in the 2006 election was Sharon’s implementation of theunilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Until Sharon did that, the PA was completely a product of Oslo. But Sharon killed Oslo, and then the PA had an opportunity to become something a little different. The thinking of the Hamas people was, “We’ve liberated Gaza, and now we’re about to liberate the West Bank.”
Also, in one sense, Hamas had no choice but to participate, because if they hadn’t, the PA would have stayed in the hands of those very corrupt people who were controlling it.
He said there had been long discussions inside Hamas before they reached the 2005 decision to run in the elections. “There always are long discussions! It means that Hamas does sometimes miss opportunities… ”
He said that Hamas political bureau head Khaled Meshaal, whom he has known since both were youngsters in Kuwait together, is a strong supporter of Hamas’s consensual style of decisionmaking: “He’s a very careful person, not a gambler.”
Tamimi was pretty strongly convinced that nothing would come out of the Fateh-Hamas reconciliation talks that are intermittently being conducted in Cairo. He said he thought the Egyptians were the main ones blocking agreement, describing the generally very polite contest of wills between Hamas and Egypt as “a game of finger-biting.” (Maybe, this is like a game of chicken?)
“The Egyptians want to force Hamas to compromise, but Hamas will never compromise,” he said.
He judged there were two main reasons for the Mubarak regime’s intransigence: firstly, their concern that bringing Hamas openly into the regional diplomatic/political game would strengthen the Egyptian Muslim Brothers; and second, because they see supporting Mahmoud Abbas as a project of great importance. This, despite (or because of?) Abbas’s currently extreme political weakness.
We talked a little about Mubarak’s boosting, and manipulation, since January of a new form of “Egypt first” (al-Misr Awalan) nationalism that is tinged with a strong streak of anti-Palestinianism.
Tamimi said that this sentiment, which he called “illusionary nationalism” had affected even some of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers to some degree.
I asked his view of– and expectations from– Obama.
He said he liked and admired him as a person:
- But he is not just a person, now. He’s the president, with all the compliactions that institution involves.
If he pursues the Clinton way once again, once again it won’t work out. That would be, if he continued to always put Israel’s interests first and just throw a little something to the Palestinians, but still strictly within the specifications laid down by israel.
Obama needs to recognize the strong shift in Palestinian society. Hamas now represents Palestinian society, not Fateh, and not the PLO.
Hamas wants peace– but a peace based on a truce, not on recognition.
I asked him whether he did not see a point of possible convergence between Hamas’s longstanding project of entering into a “truce” (hudna) arrangement with Israel and the “two-state” outcome now being pursued by the US and most of the international community.
He argued that he saw a clear difference, that centered around the recognition of Israel that would have to be involved, for the Palestinians, if they agreed to the two-state project as it is currently being proposed.
So for him, the question of recognizing Israel— or rather, refusing to recognize Israel– is key.
He said,
- The world needs to think about what the demand for us to recognize Israel really means. For me as a Palestinian, if I say I recognize Israel, then I’m saying that what happened to my people in 1948 was legitimate, and this I will never say.
We can proceed by having a de-facto relation between us. In that way, we could have a longterm peace, even without any recognition of Israel.
Hamas says it would need a total withdrawal to the lines of 4th June 1967 for that truce to go into effect. Israel might say they would need security guarantees. We’re open to discussing that. But honestly, the best security guarantee they could have would be Hamas’s signature on a truce document, because once they have that it becomes a religious obligation for all Palestinians to respect the truce.
I observed that this did still sound a lot like a version of the two-state solution.
He replied,
- No, I don’t like to speak about a two-state solution, because that implies it’s the end of the story. I talk about a de-facto two-state situation, which might last 10 years, or 5 years, or 20 years. But it is still not the end of the story.
He said he thought Pres. Obama had introduced some policy changes on some issues, like Iran.
- But on Palestine, Obama has just still been promising the same things that George W. Bush promised.
George Mitchell is a good person, too. But now he’s made how many trips to the region– ? And he still hasn’t met anyone from Hamas.
He has to meet them! He has to sit and listen to the way they see things. Wasn’t that how he won his success in Northern Ireland– by reaching out and including the IRA and Sinn Fein?
Anyway, it was an interesting conversation… More later, I hope.
Dear Helena,
I do understand better now, after reading your latest post, why you called Hamas leaders peaceniks.
Even though I certainly do not subscribe to some important aspects of their views, I recognize they are not the ones who most hinder peace.
Thank you.
“I talk about a de-facto two-state situation, which might last 10 years, or 5 years, or 20 years. But it is still not the end of the story.”
This is precisely the problem the pro Israel crowd has with Hamas. This “still not the end of the story” gives them hives. What would Hamas want beyond that? Right of Return? Annihilation of Israel? The next time you interview such a person I hope you’ll ask what they’re looking for at the END of the hudna. Because this will be critical for Israeli acquiescence in a peace agreement.
Hamas has been on a roll for three years now:
“What allowed them to participate in the 2006 election was Sharon’s implementation of theunilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Until Sharon did that, the PA was completely a product of Oslo. But Sharon killed Oslo, and then the PA had an opportunity to become something a little different. The thinking of the Hamas people was, “We’ve liberated Gaza, and now we’re about to liberate the West Bank.”
Allah-ordained. Suicide bombings work. A lesson for that that musty, old, secular, Israel-recognising PLO that:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)…”
Then, as if Israel pulling the jews out of Gaza was not omen enough, Israel’s chief ally, the US, then insists Hamas participate in the PA elections without having to commit to Oslo! In a twinkling of an eye, Hamas wins and in a further twinkle turfs the PA out of Gaza in a military coup. How soon before the PLO in West Bank sees the light?
Verily it has been said somewhere – the Hamas Covenant actually, that ..
” The day The Palestinian Liberation Organization adopts Islam as its way of life, we will become its soldiers, and fuel for its fire that will burn the enemies.”
I have always admired Hamas’ hutzpah and am greatly looking forward to see how President Obama copes with them.
If they can pull off this 10 year truce scam with Obama, I will seriously have to question my agnosticism and seek the veil.
bb never mind the veil, seek out a life.
I agree with Richard’s suggestion: Next time, you should ask what lies at the end of the hudna. At this time, I think that Hamas is insisting on complete withdrawal from the territories and the Right of Return.
I have always admired Hamas’ hutzpah and am greatly looking forward to see how President Obama copes with them.
BB, we have a saying in Hebrew, which is to “jump above one’s belly button”, meaning to overconfidently do or demand something that one is not really capable of achieving. I think that, ultimately, Hamas with “jump over their belly buttons”.
Helen, I believe that you used the term “media mogul” in a slightly misleading way. When referring to the media, it usually means owner (as in Rupert Murdoch and a lot of Jews). In reference to Tamimi, however, I think that the proper term would have been “media personality”.
“This is precisely the problem the pro Israel crowd has with Hamas. This “still not the end of the story” gives them hives.”
No, what REALLY gives them hives is the prospect of relinquishing their territorial dreams, and their extremely privileged status with respect to all kinds of things, including, but hardly limited to water. It’s very difficult even for nice, liberal people to give up a position of power and privilege for any reason.
Silverstein,
Hudna is not the problem, the Zionists constant demand for recognizing their state is the PROBLEM.
The late Arafat recognized their state on the lines of 67, he was called a terrorist, alienated and dehumanized by your likes.
The problem that peace is not achieved on the ground is due to a colossal lie “a land without people, for a people without land”
When you realize that you cannot and will not annihilate a people and their history, namely the Palestinians, you will live in peace as two equal people.
Only then will the world recognize your legitimate existence.
Democracy is not a supremacy, it is not occupation and it is not colonization of Arab land and its people.
Comprehendo!!
Well said, world peace !
JES, “Next time, you should ask what lies at the end of the hudna.” I will remind you what is going to happen in less than 40 years, whether there is a hudna or not : Arab Israelis will outnumber their Jewish fellow citizens. That is the key. Before the change game, some Israelis will prefer a Jewish State to a democratic State.
Peace shall arise from justice.
Now, now Bevin … there are laws today against smearing women who take the veil or the burka as not having “lives”. Watch your words.
G-D ordained killing little kids does work. A lesson from the Torah for these sick psychos:
“How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.”
Its supposed to be allegorical you effin cretins.
Yann, I’d be interested in exactly how you came to that conclusion. Based on the following figures, I don’t come to anything near “Arab Israelis… outnumbe[ring] their Jewish fellow citizens” in 40 years:
Jewish Population: ~5.4 million
Arab Population: ~1.4 million
Jewish Population Growth Rate (compounded annually): 1.7%
Arab Population Growth Rate (compounded annually): 2.5%
Jewish Population in 2049: ~11 million
Arab Population in 2049: ~ 3.7 million
That’s why it’s so important for anti-Zionists to frame the discussion in terms of Israel-Palestine (I/P), the Right of Return and to speak about one big binational state. Because, without these, they realize that there’s no way, in the foreseeable future that Jews won’t enjoy a sizeable majority within Israel proper.
You’re right, JES.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1084014.html
“Whatever the situation in the territories, within sovereign Israel, the message is fairly straightforward: Jewish and Arab birthrates are converging. What politicians and the public should concern themselves with is not how large a minority the Arab population will be – on the basis of recent trends and projections, it is unlikely to grow much beyond its current 20 percent – but rather what kind of minority it will be. Will it be an integrated part of society, upwardly mobile, both socially and economically, enjoying and contributing to the fruits of Israeli society, a potential bridge to the region and an advertisement for Israel’s inclusiveness and tolerance? Or will it become marginalized, alienated and increasingly hostile? That depends very much on the Jewish majority’s attitudes and the government’s policies. It also depends on a pragmatic and realistic Arab leadership looking out for the interests of its constituency and basing its strategy on a sober understanding of its own demographic prospects.
For a favorable outcome, it would be prudent to concentrate on defusing not the “demographic time bomb,” but the time bomb of ill-informed and misleading demographic scare-mongering.”
bb, you really are cute when you try to appear sophisticated and knowledgeable. “Taking the veil” actually means becoming a nun, though I am quite sure that is not how you meant it.
For your information, “taking the veil” (sic) by no means prevents a woman from having a very full, active, and productive life. In fact, women who wear hijab often have more of a life than women who do not since whether one has a life or not does not depend a bit on what one wears, but on what one does with one’s life.
Er … when I referred to taking the veil, I mean’t just that, Shirin. I was not referring to the hijab.
And it was Bevin who suggested women who take the veil do not have a life, not I. Your comments should be directed to him.