Reports out of the Middle East are saying that Hamas is joining into the Palestine Liberation Organization. According to Haaretz (reporting on an AP story):
Hamas' leader Khaled Meshal on Thursday joined a committee that will prepare for elections to the PLO leadership, according to AP.
Those elections are likely years away but Meshal's move means he will work with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, head of the rival Fatah party.
The PLO is the umbrella group of the Palestinian independence movement. Should Hamas join the PLO, it would have to accept all of the PLO’s commitments, including those toward Israel.
Maan News is also discussing this:
The report comes as President Mahmoud Abbas met Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Cairo to put "final touches" on an agreement to reconcile the leaders' rival factions.
Fatah leader in Gaza Yahiya Rabbah said the meeting was intended to agree on a final arrangement before the outcome was announced officially later Thursday.
Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said Wednesday that Palestinian factions have reached agreement on several steps to be taken as part of ongoing reconciliation talks.
A committee composed of nine members has been formed to take charge of elections. The names will be reviewed by Abbas, who will issue a decree to form a new elections committee.
Now of course with Hamas' inclusion into the PLO, how will the Palestinian Polity regard any steps towards peace. The P.L.O. recognized Israel when Yasser Arafat renounced the original charter in 1993, however, while Hamas has hinted at recognition in the past as part of a thinly disguised publicity ploy to convince Westerners it has since pulled even that hint back stating just recently (on 12/15/11):
Resistance is the way and it is the strategic choice to liberate Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea and to remove the invaders from the blessed land of Palestine," Haniyeh told the crowd, which chanted: "We will never recognize Israel."
"Hamas, together with other stubborn resistance factions, will lead the people towards uprising after uprising until all of Palestine is liberated," Haniyeh said, referring to territory that includes the occupied West Bank and what is now Israel.
Of course, Israel has rejected all peace talks with the Palestinians as long as Hamas is part of the Palestinian Government.
In their statements of December 15th Hamas of course seems to be tracking back to the Charter which calls for the elimination of the Jewish people in Article 7:
"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."
and trades in anti-Semitic tropes and memes including asserting that the anti-Semitic forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are actually true in Article 32:
"Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
So, how will the two sides reconcile this? Here is my take:
The PLO will see no inconsistency in allowing Hamas to continue their rejectionist ways, citing that though they recognize Israel they also call for complete and total Right of Return as defined by the U.N. which will cause a demographic shift in the populace and end up creating One Palestinian State from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. This will then allow Hamas to maintain it's credibility as a rejectionist party that did not compromise on it's ideals at the same time it will give them diplomatic cover for gullible activists and Western nations questioning their Middle Eastern support of Israel.
One thing this will also do is lock down support for a nationalist foreign policy. I cannot see Israel compromising in the face of a PLO that is hand in hand with Hamas and until Hamas rejects it's charter, I can't see why they should. Does that mean I support the continuance of the Occupation? Absolutely not. I think it makes ending the Occupation even more imperitive. I think it just means that the Israelis end it on their terms, and their terms alone.
The Palestinians by bringing in an unrepentant Hamas as an equal partner in their government, a Hamas who as late as last week vowed non-recognition of Israel AND who promised "total liberation" of the land between the Jordan and Med. have made their position clear as a bell. That they will currently not recognize Israel as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People, and that in doing so are not partners for peace.
One note... I think the timing here is interesting as well. Currently with the Assad regime facing revolution and the possibility of a fall, Hamas is losing a major patronm, even now Khalid Meshaal and the Syrian Regime are arguing with each other. Hamas might look to Egypt under the leadership of the Brotherhood and the Salafists (although they are not that kindly disposed to Hamas) as more of a patron. By folding into the PLO they could make up for the fall off in support from Damascus with support from a new regime in Cairo.
Now some may say that by folding into the PLO that will moderate their stance. My feeling is that this is simply wishful thinking. One thing about Hamas is that they don't like compromise. They see it as weakness. At the same time Hamas has talked with Israel before and the two governments have had unofficial meetings. To take a nuanced view one could and rightly argue that Hamas could be dealt with on a short term basis. Israeli deals with Hamas have shown that to be true. At the same time, I think those agreements are only short term and in the long run Hamas has done nothing to show anything that would lead one to believe they would agree to or support a permanent agreement.
Please discuss.
To my mind this means that Israel should still reject negotiations with Hamas while its charter still calls for Israel's destruction.
ReplyDeleteIs it time for unilateral disengagement from the West Bank? I don't know - when Israel disengaged from Gaza it didn't really work out. What to do?
I don't really see any other way fiz. With Hamas' inclusion the PLO is making it pretty clear that they have no interest in a long term Peace.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, with a divided polity there can be no movement in that direction either. They have to unify to even begin to think on it first. If Hamas would actually renounce their charter in Arabic, I would say Israel needs to talk to them. Until that time, why? There is no long term agreement there. Sure, there could be short term things. But....
Taqiyya, pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteThe word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation."
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html
One can also see:
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war
In my opinion, this is just a strategy to obtain the objective by increments.
But Westerners and others sure fall for it, understandably reaching for anything that hints at peace, but Hamas and even the PA will not be deterred, and this too many cannot yet comprehend, so the pressure only on Israel to make concessions continues apace.
So-- how does Israel disengage from the West Bank on its own? With Hamas officially part of the PLO, that means that any areas not under IDF control become zones in which Hamas can operate freely. Do you expect that the PA police will act against Hamas if it is a part of the PLO?
ReplyDeleteOne pre-2005 suggestion about Gaza was to withdraw the settlers but maintain IDF presence there. In hindsight, that might have been wiser than total withdrawal. But even applying that scenario to the West Bank, to muster the political will in Israel to withdraw more settlers in the absence of a peace agreement-- not only that, but with no anticipation of any possibility of peace for another generation-- would be well-nigh impossible. Israelis would likely ratify a land-for-peace agreement, but very few would support another Gaza; they've seen this movie before and they know the plot. And this time they KNOW that Hamas will have free reign.
Dr. Mike! Nice to see you here.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I am not suggesting a complete withdrawal. I am suggesting that Israel withdraw to lines of it's choosing. If this is how the Palestinians "want to play ball" then they have made it clear about what they think of long-term peace.
Here is the problem if they don't withdraw, you would have the IDF operating in a zone where they would subject to Guerilla action and we would back to the days of Terror in the streets of Israel. And what of the Palestinian people? There are millions there that simply don't want the IDF imposing military rule. Can Israel and it's supporters (of which I am one) continue to afford to have that on it's collective conscience.
THEN, how about Israel's allies, including the U.S.? Pure military occupation is not politically feasible (and I don't believe it would be feasible after a time within the Israeli populace. No country in the world would accept that - not even the U.S. and not even under Republican leadership.
Could Israel annex the West Bank... Sure. Then how about the demographic balance and what to do with Israeli Democracy? Now, if one doesn't care about Democracy then I guess that is an easy answer. HOWEVER, if one does - and one doesn't care about the effects on the Israeli Polity that the Occupation would bring then hey don't worry about that.
I hope that gives you an answer.
I think we have to rename the PLO the PTO now that they are once again housing active terrorist organizations. I wonder how this will play with whether or not the organization is now listed on the State Department's list of designated foreign terrorist organizations because of the Hamas presence.
ReplyDeleteAs for what Israel should do, there are several options. First is a withdrawal behind the security barrier. Second is what Dr. Mike suggested, namely withdraw the settlers from beyond the line of Israel's choosing, but maintain the IDF presence. Third is to withdraw behind the security barrier and turn the land over to Jordan. Fourth is to withdraw behind the security barrier and turn the land over to some non-Arab third party or international coalition. Fifth is to maintain the status quo. The first four all have decent enough arguments to be made for them. The fifth is a no-go.
(livosh1)
ReplyDeleteActions speak louder than words. At this point, it is hard to draw any conclusions at all from this. Obviously, the right-wing pro-I contingent is looking for any excuse not to deal with Abbas at all, and will jump all over this as a reason not to. And the Hamas apologists will use this to perpetuate the falsehood that the poor misunderstood Hamas has always desired peace with Israel along the lines of the '67 borders. Crap going both ways.
At some point Israel needs to signal that it is willing to deal in good faith with anyone willing to live in peace with it, regardless of past affiliations. It will never do that under Bibi's right-wing government. Here's hoping there will be a more rational coalition in the future.
Fully agreed, livosh. The problem is that until Hamas engages in different actions there are no actions, other than the ones they have already engaged in, to judge them upon. Until they prove otherwise, they are a terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction and it must be assumed that any negotiations are not taking place in good faith.
ReplyDeleteReuven:
ReplyDeleteas far as your options:
forget 3 and 4-- Jordan has washed its hands of the West Bank and both Hussein and Abdullah made it clear they want no part of it. Jordan has neither the financial resources nor the military force to take over the West Bank, nor can Abdullah risk being seen by Palestinians (who make up half the population of Jordan) as preventing Palestinian independence. And which international group would act to stop Hamas in the West Bank? The UN-- not a chance. NATO? unlikely to take on another action against Muslims.
So the question really is: what does Israel gain or lose by a unilateral withdrawal under the current circumstances? Without the IDF in place it certainly gets Hamas terrorists with shoulder fired missiles in direct line of sight to the runways at Ben Gurion Airport. And will the political gain from such a withdrawal help Israel? Again, look to Gaza in 2005-- a full withdrawal which yielded nothing in terms of political benefit from the international community.
Unfortunately, I think the argument is similar to Churchill's statement on democracy: the status quo is unacceptable, except when compared to all the other options.
I know that those options are unlikely, however they are theoretical. I was laying out the potential options without consideration for how likely they were. As for what Israel should do? I think they should withdraw the settlers behind set borders, annex those lands and then give any Palestinians living on that land the same choice that Golan Druze and east Jerusalem Arabs have with respect to citizenship. I am, however, intrigued by the idea that an IDF presence could be maintained. Alternatively, there could be a complete pullout, but Israel makes clear that any violations of Israeli sovereignty will be met with a vigorous response, including the potential that the IDF will enter and make its presence more permanent prior to a final peace treaty.
ReplyDelete