Hamas and Confidence Building

This is my first entry on this blog. Check back. I've got more to say. Comments welcome, of course.

Three years ago today Gilad Shalit was kidnapped from his tank in Gaza and his been held incommunicado ever since. Why was he kidnapped? Because he is an Israeli soldier. Why does this bother me? He was another nearsighted kid barely out of his teens. It could have been my son. (Although my son didn't serve in the Tank Corps.) It also bothers me because in my own personal inner sanctum I breathe a sigh of relief. Because my son is not Gilad Shalit and because I am not Noam Shalit.

Who kidnapped him? Hamas. Where is he being held? Apparently in Gaza.

I'll try not to belabor the obvious. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply here. Shalit has received no visits. Not even the Red Cross has been allowed access.

And yet the President of the United States wants Israel to make peace with Hamas. Apparently so do a lot of well-meaning people around the world. Not the least of them is Helena Cobban who published an article entitled, "My talk with Hamas about peace with Israel" in The Christian Science Monitor on June 24. Here's the entire article : http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0624/p09s01-coop.html

I'll select a few parts that illustrate what's going on here. Don't get me wrong. I'm more certain of how Israel will deal with Hamas than how people like Helena Cobban will deal with Israel.

Hamas has been on the State Department's "terrorism list" since its founding in 1987. It has steadfastly refused to recognize Israel. But it has also won – and kept – considerable popular support among Palestinians.

In 2006 it won parliamentary elections held in the West Bank and Gaza. More recently it survived the military onslaught Israel launched against Gaza last December – and in the wake of that war, Hamas's popularity among Palestinians increased.

Meanwhile, Washington's ongoing campaign to strengthen the rival Fatah party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has backfired badly. Rather than strengthening Fatah, the aid that Washington and its allies have sent to Mr. Abbas has further fueled the nepotism and corruption within Fatah and hastened its internal decline.

One major challenge for today's peacemakers has been Hamas's refusal to meet the three preconditions that Washington and its allies in the international "Quartet" set in 2006, before they would even start talking to it.

Hamas, they said, must renounce violence, recognize Israel, and sign on to all the agreements previously reached by the Palestinian Authority (PA.) (Another challenge has been Washington's refusal, until now, to consider any reframing of those demands.)

Hamas, part of the solution?

I interviewed Hamas head Khaled Meshaal, in Damascus, Syria, on June 4. He restated his opposition to the preconditions, on principle. He noted that Washington did not apply any such preconditions to hard-line members of Israel's government. Also, he pointed out that in Mr. Obama's speech in Cairo, he had called for talks with Iran's government without any preconditions at all.

[I skipped a paragraph.]

Meshaal is a sober, intelligent man who talks in a way that seems much more "political," and politically savvy, than religious. He stressed that Hamas wanted to be "part of the solution, not part of the problem."
He expressed a strong desire for Hamas to heal its present deep rift with Fatah. He also reaffirmed Hamas's support for a 2006 proposal whereby Abbas or other non-Hamas negotiators would conduct the actual peace negotiations with Israel. Any resulting peace agreement would then be submitted to a Palestinian-wide referendum, and Hamas would abide by its results, he said.

If Hamas and Fatah can rebuild enough trust to authorize a unified Palestinian team to start negotiating, this proposal could allow peace talks to proceed without finding a complete prior answer to the West's "dealing with Hamas" problem.

Meshaal also restated Hamas's support for establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel, in the areas that Israel occupied in 1967 – providing that all the occupied land, including East Jerusalem, as well as the right of Palestinian refugees to return to areas they fled in 1948, would also be implemented.

Ms Cobban, I have a few things to say to you. By extension I would also like to say this to the folks on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue (the White House and the Executive Office Building). And to a lot of other well meaning people.

[Please note that my comments appear in italics]:

1. ". . .the military onslaught Israel launched against Gaza last December." According to Ms Cobban apparently there was no reason for Israel to attack Gaza. In case you're wondering, one out of eight Israeli citizens were within range of Hamas missiles last December.
2. There are reasons that Hamas is on the State Department's list of terror organizations: Because it is a terrorist organization.
3. How polite of you to recall that Hamas won "parliamentary elections" in 2006. You subsequently write that they ". . . participated peacefully and successfully in the nationwide vote." Remind me again, how many people did they kill during and in the aftermath of those election? Hint: a lot.
4. Khaled Meshaal is described as "sober," "intelligent" and "politically savvy more than religious."
5. Meshaal wants to be "part of the solution, not part of the problem." Who is stopping him? I'll go out on a limb on this one. 'If only Israel would _____ [fill in the blank] then this process would get going.' Let me be very clear about this point: I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. What I believe is that Hamas, and Fatah before them really agree on one thing. Routing Israel out of the Middle East.
6. "He expressed a strong desire for Hamas to heal its present deep rift with Fatah."
7. "If Hamas and Fatah can rebuild enough trust to authorize a unified Palestinian team to start negotiating." One of the myriad difficulties with our present, past and future is that Palestinian organizations are like Medusa. We thought we were negotiating with Fatah until we almost reached an agreement at Camp David. Now we are going to be expected to negotiate IN GOOD FAITH with Hamas. That is, once Hamas has eliminated enough of the Fatah supporters so that they can turn their efforts to the real enemy.
8. "Meshaal also restated Hamas's support for establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel, in the areas that Israel occupied in 1967 – providing that all the occupied land, including East Jerusalem, as well as the right of Palestinian refugees to return to areas they fled in 1948, would also be implemented." First we give up the store and then we start negotiations. I guess having thousands of years of Jewish history in Israel isn't sufficient.
9. "No Israeli government would accept this plan as it stands. But it represents a notable shift toward pragmatism and away from the positions stated in Hamas's 1988 Charter." This is one point we may agree on even if our agreement comes from different points of view. Cobban describes Hamas as being 'pragmatic.' Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't necessarily view that as a good thing.

The article continues. If you're interested you can read it in its entirety. As with many other interviews of this type I can't help being cynical. Another armchair quarterback. Another well meaning reporter who paints terrorists as "sober" and "intelligent." The missing subtext is that it's Israel who forced these otherwise normal individuals to become terrorists. And as soon as Israel meets their demands the terrorism will stop.

No, it won't. My point should be clear. What Meshaal is saying with phrases like "settling a rift with Fatah" is 'getting rid of Fatah.' What he means by 'returning Palestinians to land they fled in 1948' is wiping the Jewish state off the map. Once and for all.

If he were going to be fair he would stretch out his hand and say that the Palestinians could go back to their villages in Israel -- and that Jews could go back to their homes (or be compensated for their homes and property) in Arab countries and all over Europe.

But of course we all know that's never going to happen. We now live in a very different world.

President Obama made it abundantly clear in his Cairo speech that moral equivalency is in vogue in the center of power these days. In this article, Cobban compares Hamas with Israel's Likud party.

Where are the copyeditors at the CSM? The Likud killed no one in the process of being elected. How can you make comparisons like that?! And unless someone challenges this type of reporting it seems doomed to get worse.

Before this becomes too long to read, I have a suggestion. If Khaled Meshaal is truly both sober and intelligent perhaps he could also demonstrate that he stands for more than killing people -- both Fatah supporters and Jews.

Release Gilad Shalit. Then we can talk.