The transformation of the IRA shows why Israel should talk to Hamas

[Violet_Crumble]

Only negotiations with both main Palestinian parties can deliver the peace deal that the two peoples now support

Jonathan Freedland in Jerusalem
Wednesday January 24, 2007
The Guardian

The Israeli novelist Amos Oz once said Israelis and Palestinians were like patients who know exactly what painful surgery they need to undergo and are ready to face it. The trouble is, their surgeons are cowards. That's certainly how it seems now. The two peoples have come, without enthusiasm, to a realisation of what will have to be done, what will have to be sacrificed, to live alongside the other. Polls show large majorities on both sides ready to back a peace deal on the now-traditional lines: two states, one for each nation. A recent survey had 72% of Palestinians wanting their leaders to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Meanwhile, assorted members of Israel's cabinet have been tripping over each other to offer their own peace plans - recognition that there's a hunger among Israelis to escape the status quo.
Yet the two leaders - the surgeons - are frozen. Tonight Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, will address the Herzliya security conference, an occasion that has come to be associated with high political drama ever since Ariel Sharon used it to announce his planned disengagement from Gaza. Yet few among Israel's punditocracy expect any such thunderbolt from Olmert. Ever since his core unilateralism strategy was discredited last summer by what Israelis call the second Lebanon war - which seemed to prove that unilateral pullouts from once-occupied territory only bring trouble - Olmert has been without an agenda, let alone a vision.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is a byword for weakness. With next to no powerbase, even in his own Fatah movement, he has seen a virtual civil war erupt between his men and Hamas, which a year ago won a majority in the Palestinian parliament. More than 60 Palestinians have been killed by Palestinians. Before he can even think about reconciling with Israel, Abbas has to reconcile Fatah and Hamas.

How to navigate around this landscape is the challenge I found Israelis and Palestinians grappling with this week, whether in Jerusalem or Ramallah. Israel's officials speak of presenting Palestinians with a choice. Either they take the path embodied by Abbas, of negotiation and compromise, and reap the rewards - or they stick with the hardliners of Hamas and face the consequences, including economic isolation and a cold shoulder not only from Israel but from the European Union, the US, and beyond. To make that choice easier, Israel will sketch out the "political horizon", explaining what the Palestinians would gain if the Abbas approach prevailed - chiefly a rapid move to statehood on a substantial chunk (but far from all) of the West Bank and Gaza, with resolution of the thorniest issues to come later. That's the choice. As one official put it: "Go with Hamas, and it's isolation, stagnation and a dead end. Go with the moderates and it's international support, an energised process and a clearer horizon than ever before."

It sounds simple enough, but that approach carries multiple problems. The first is credibility. Too many Palestinians will say they've heard Israeli promises before that have come to nothing. They point to the December 23 meeting between Abbas and Olmert where the latter promised prisoner releases and relaxation of checkpoints, none of which materialised. What's more, the Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki told me yesterday, moderates face an uphill task when they argue that diplomacy gets results: "Unilateralism badly damaged that idea. Palestinians say, why should we make concessions when Israel has already given away land without any concessions from us?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1997275,00.html

[pelsar]

1. and israelis argue...

why should we negotiate...when all it gets us are kassams? (gaza: 2nd withdrawl, hamas/fatah promised to stop the kassams)

does one believe what hamas stands for or not?...if one does, then why negotiate, their stand is clear-destroy israel.

if one doesnt....then which parts are to be believed and why?...and who decides?

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. well the IRA position was pretty uncompromising too

The IRA made it clear that they would accept nothing except full withdraw of the British sovereignty of Northern Ireland and that they intended to do it by armed struggle and had no intentions of disarming. But times moderated their positions.

During Hamas' election campaign they refrained from rhetoric about destroying Israel and they did maintain a unilateral cease fire for 14 months prior to the election in spite of being hit with targeted assassinations.

I am no fan or apologist for Hamas. But, I do believe that you have correctly pointed out several times that the Hamas leadership have been much more forthcoming in calling upon the Palestinian population to self-examine and not to blame all their problems on Israel.

And since they were democratically elected fair and square and have put out messages that at least sound conciliatory, I can't see the harm in seeing if a dialog is possible.

Here are some interesting comments from former Israeli Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami:

former Israeli Foreign Minister Schlomo Ben-Ami
link: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

"SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, Hamas. I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.

And with these people, I think they are much more pragmatic than is normally perceived. In the 1990s, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. 1990s was the first time that Hamas spoke about a temporary settlement with Israel. In 2003, they declared unilaterally a truce, and the reason they declared the truce is this, that with Arafat, whose the system of government was one of divide and rule, they were discarded from the political system. Mahmoud Abbas has integrated them into the political system, and this is what brought them to the truce. They are interested in politicizing themselves, in becoming a politic entity. And we need to try and see ways where we can work with them.

Now, everybody says they need first to recognize the state of Israel and end terrorism. Believe me, I would like them to do so today, but they are not going to do that. They are eventually going to do that in the future, but only as part of a quid pro quo, just as the P.L.O. did it. The P.L.O., when Rabin came to negotiate with them, also didn't recognize the state of Israel, and they engaged in all kind of nasty practices. And therefore, we need to be much more realistic and abandon worn-out cliches and see whether we can reach something with these people. I believe that a long-term interim agreement between Israel and Hamas, even if it is not directly negotiated between the parties, but through a third party, is feasible and possible."
__________

link:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

.

[barb162]

3. And ike the IRA, Hamas has to moderate to be a peace partner

Yours:"The IRA made it clear that they would accept nothing except full withdraw of the British sovereignty of Northern Ireland and that they intended to do it by armed struggle and had no intentions of disarming. But times moderated their positions."

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. I agree Hamas has to moderate. But the IRA kept up extremist positions

including a commitment to armed struggle until the Northern Ireland peace process was quite advanced. None of this including the renunciation of armed struggle was a precondition for talks which turned out to be surprisingly successful.

[pelsar]

15. we just dont know....

I do believe that you have correctly pointed out several times that the Hamas leadership have been much more forthcoming in calling upon the Palestinian population to self-examine and not to blame all their problems on Israel.

rather then rush ahead on promises...why not just wait and see how the palestinians take advantage of gaza? see if they take the advice of the Hamas spokesman?..so far not so good. Unlike the IRA they have a piece of land, that no longer has israelis in every corner....and yes its not perfect, neither are those kassams...or the NON israeli retailation.

the answer is simple: make gaza work, no excuses.....pressure egypt to open up the border (they're not keeping it limited for israels sake) and do what people who want to get ahead in life do: take what you got and make the best of it.

thats all there is to it, anything else is mere talk and excuses.
(and those same excuses would/will be used again and again no matter what the withdrawl to explain their failures....)

do you really want to expand gazas chaos to the westbank and risk a hamas style take over (taliban, iran?)...scary thought isnt it?
____________

btw, how do your palestinain friends see gaza these days?...I'm would wonder if they would really want israel to withdraw right now, given the risk of a gaza style chaos moving in to the westbank (as bad as the occupation is, there is always worse....)

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. in answer to your question

most of my Palestinian friends and coworkers no longer believe that the Israeli government will ever willingly allow a truly independent Palestinian state or ever intended to.

Most are aware that Gaza has long been the most desperate and dangerous part of Palestine and cannot be compared to the West Bank. To be perfectly honest, West Bankers can be a bit condescending toward Gazans.

But to be fair for the overall situation, they blame not only Israel, but also the Palestinian Authority including Fatah and Hamas, the Arab governments, the United States and themselves.

No survery of Palestinian opinion that I am aware of puts support for an Islamic state higher than under 3%. Most other polls put it around 1%.

here is one recent poll with a extensive breakdown of Palestinian opinion:

Some believe that a two-state formula is the favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine can’t be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solutions do you prefer?

Two-state solution: an Israeli
state and a Palestinian state
52.4%

Bi-national state on all
of historic Palestine
23.6%

No solution
9.4%

One Palestinian state
7.4%

Islamic state
2.9%

Others
2.0%

Don’t know
1.0%

No answer
1.3%

Source: Jerusalem Media & Communication Center
Methodology -- Interviews with 1,197 adults in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, conducted on Jun. 21 and Jun. 22, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent

link to full article:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12493

-------------

______________

Lt. Col Pistolese (of European Union) urges Israel to ease restrictions on Egypt-Gaza crossing

link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815070.html

Sun., January 21, 2007

snip:"Pistolese urges Israel to ease restrictions on Egypt-Gaza crossing
The head of the European mission monitoring operations at the Egypt-Gaza border, Lt. Gen. Pietro Pistolese, urged Israel on Thursday to stop restricting operations there, saying disruptions only promote "extremism and terror."

Pistolese said Thursday that no weapons have been smuggled through the crossing since it was opened, and that all weapons that were discovered were destroyed.

Since the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June, Pistolese said, the crossing has been open only 39 days. During that time 80,000 people have passed through it, he said, though 550,000 could have used it if it had been open the entire period.

Israel, citing security alerts, has kept the Rafah terminal - Gaza's main gateway to the outside world - closed for about 80 percent of the time since Shalit's capture.

The European monitors at Rafah were deployed as part of a U.S.-brokered agreement of November 2005 that was to ease movement in and out of Gaza. The agreement was reached two months after Israel withdrew from the coastal strip."

link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815070.html

[breakaleg]

4. it seems to me that is a very well worn excuse because Israel doesn't want

to negotiate.

kassams that hit dirt? threats they can't back up? these are the reasons the mighty Israeli army is afraid of a few militants? give me a break.

Israel wants what it has right now - control of all of the West Bank and it wants large chunks of that land to become part of Israel. It's impossible to believe any different when they still are stealing more land at this very second with their settlement expansion.

Why doesn't Israel halt that, and they we'll see if they want peace.

[barb162]

6. Kassams don't hit people or houses? Puhleez, let's get real

If you have no problem with hundreds of kassams being fired over the last year, then surely you have no problem with a few houses with snipers and/ or with with terrorist tunnels underneath being destroyed. It's just a few houses with a "few militants."

[breakaleg]

8. the number of casualties as a result of Kassams is very small compared to

the damage going in the other direction.

but I guess if your goal is to kill 20 for every one of yours it could be considered even.

[barb162]

9. Casualties are maybe the result of sniping and tunneling

Ya' think? What's the goal of sniping? To kill or injure, right? So if a few houses get bulldozed because a "few militants" are using them, well then maybe the Palestinian government and police should jail those militants, unless of course their goal is to kill Israelis and not have the peace process move forward.

As to your silly comment:"but I guess if your goal is to kill 20 for every one of yours it could be considered even" am I to presume you espouse killing anyone is okay?

[breakaleg]

11. of course not.

I'm using the numbers to point out that the threat from the kassams is not a grave as Israel makes it out. Are the kassams really so powerful that Hamas is going to take over Israel any day? That's the kind of nonsense Israel would have us believe. Please.

[oberliner]

23. with respect

I don't think anyone is claiming that Hamas is going to "take over Israel any day".

I think the issue is that Hamas will continue to launch attacks on Israel by whatever possible means (Qassam rockets, attempted suicide bombers, etc.) until their objectives are achieved.

And I think the concern (and certainly anyone is free to dispute this) is that even if Israel were to withdraw completely from all of the West Bank that the attempted attacks would not stop and rather would be made easier to carry out and potentially more damaging.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. I disagree...

I think that's what certain people are claiming, and what's more they also make that claim about Fatah which is a completely ridiculous line of thinking...

[breakaleg]

27. What I'd like to see is the threat from these kassams put into perspective.

And I'd like to see the damage they cause, the civilian casualties they cause compared to the damage and civilian casualties of the occupation. The reason this interests me is that the kassams are often put out there as justification for the continued occupation in terms of the intent of Hamas. And I wonder are they giving a little too much weight to intent when they have no real means to carry it out? What is the threat really?

[oberliner]

28. in response

I see where you are coming from, but here is how I would respond.

The Qassam rocket attacks have caused Israeli civilian deaths and injuries as well as psychological damage and physical damage to property.

Wikipedia has a list of Qassam rocket attacks (I cannot attest to its accuracy, but I would assume that any erroneous information would be quickly corrected as anything to do with this conflict is pretty closely monitored on Wikipedia)

That can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks

Now looking at that information, one could certainly assert that relative to the death and destruction on the Palestinian side these attacks have caused significantly less harm on the Israel side.

The concern, however, by some, is that Hamas and Islamic Jihad and other similar groups are actively attempting to acquire weaponry that will be able to inflict more damage on Israelis. That the reason the Qassam rocket attacks have caused the limited amount of harm that they have caused is not from lack of trying but simply from lack of resources. With a more potent arsenal more serious damage could be inflicted.

[breakaleg]

29. Ok.

I agree that their failure has been because of lack of resources rather than lack of effort. And it seems to me that Israel is in a good position and has done a good job of severely limiting the weapons they can get hold of. Although they would obviously prefer it if they could halt it completely.

Given their limited resources, how valid is the threat they pose? It's like Canada claiming they would like to invade the US. Would the US be truly afraid of such a threat? They may be able to cross the border, but they certainly aren't going to get very far in wiping out the US.

So, it bothers me to see so much emphasis put on these kassams when they can't actually do the type of damage Hamas would like them to and I don't think they have near the impact on Israel as they claim.

[pelsar]

34. kassams can now reach ashkelon....

and their port..where chemical tanks are stored...... a direct hit, releasing the chemicals and their gas may kill thousands.....

not to mention the apt complexs, schools and hospitals now within their reach....

the israeli concern, reguardless of what others think, is to prevent that from happening, we really dont need a "i told you so".

we did that in Lebanon, warning that hizballa will one day send over their missiles by the thousands....either no one believed it, or the believed, that it wasnt relevant...they did, and the reaction?

somehow it became israels fault as so many have said...so too will kassam on a chemical tank.....

[Englander]

32. Really?

I don't think anyone is claiming that Hamas is going to "take over Israel any day".

True, nobody's claiming that, but here is what is being claimed;

The IRA and Hamas situations are very different. The IRA wasn't telling the English people to leave England; it wasn't threatening England's existence as a sovereign nation. Hamas is telling Israelis to leave Israel or it will destroyed; Israeli's very right to exist as a sovereign nation is not recognized by Hamas and other Palestinian groups. Almost daily rocket and other attacks on Israel is a demonstration of this philosophy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=164189&mesg_id=164198

No one should expect Israel to negotiate

when their (Hamas and Fatah) stand is clear and their stand is to destroy Israel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=164189&mesg_id=164200

[Amused Musings]

26. Hardly a consolation to the civilians that do get hit

Mind you, kassams are missing civilians targets not because whoever is shooting them is intentionally doing so

[barb162]

7. That's right, Pelsar. No one should expect Israel to negotiate

when their (Hamas and Fatah) stand is clear and their stand is to destroy Israel. ("hamas/fatah promised to stop the kassams)")
If they want to moderate/ change their position and stop the various attacks on Israel, I am sure Israel will be more than delighted to negotiate.

[barb162]

5. This writer is applying an inept and incorrect analogy

which is typical of the anti-Israel stance of the "Guardian."

The IRA and Hamas situations are very different. The IRA wasn't telling the English people to leave England; it wasn't threatening England's existence as a sovereign nation. Hamas is telling Israelis to leave Israel or it will destroyed; Israeli's very right to exist as a sovereign nation is not recognized by Hamas and other Palestinian groups. Almost daily rocket and other attacks on Israel is a demonstration of this philosophy.


From the Hamas Charter, this and so many other gems
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)."
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."


(Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas leader and candidate to the Palestinian legislative council, Palestinian TV, January 17, 2006, Newsday)http://www.adl.org/main_Israel/hamas_own_words.htm

"We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay (on the land), nor his ownership of any inch of land. . . . We are interested in restoring our full rights to return all the people of Palestine to the land of Palestine. Our principles are clear: Palestine is a land of Waqf (Islamic trust), which can not be given up."

[Violet_Crumble]

33. I think you should have done more than read the title of the article...

And with the removal of the blocking system, I can now reply to yr post and explain why it's pretty clear that you didn't read the article itself...

The Guardian is 'anti-Israel'? What a load of crap. I'm terribly sorry that I couldn't find an anti-Palestinian source for you ;)

There was no analogy being applied. Jonathan Freedland mentioned the Good Friday talks as an example of an organisation that was an enemy of the British changing by being negotiated with while it was still vowing to carry out terrorist attacks. It's the act of talking to the IRA that brought about change. The last paragraph of the article talks about this:

In the end, it comes down to how you view peace processes. Do you believe that the enemy is only fit to take part in a negotiation once it has changed, or that the very act of taking part can change the enemy? The Israeli government believes the former. After the transformation of the IRA in the decade or more of Good Friday talks - from swearing it would never decommission a bullet to standing down its forces - I believe the latter. If Tony Blair wants to put his final months to good use, perhaps he can press this point on all those who need to hear it. Otherwise, the patients will remain stuck in that operating theatre, only getting sicker.

You said: Israeli's very right to exist as a sovereign nation is not recognized by Hamas and other Palestinian groups.

You've also falsely claimed in the past that the PA never recognised Israel's right to exist. In this thread yr claiming that Fatah has vowed to destroy Israel. The fact is that Hamas keeps swinging from recognising Israel's existance to not recognising it. If Israel tries talking to Hamas, that recognition that seems so vitally important for Israel and its 'supporters' may come. Or it may not, but what harm would have been done in trying it and seeing if it worked?

You should read the article, because it's a very good one, and shooting the messenger rather than discussing the content of the article isn't a very successful debate tactic, imo...

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

12. which thread is that? talk about trying to stifle debate!!!

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

14. I'm looking at this post right now.

I don't respond to your posts out of choice. I still see them.

And the list of posters on that list are pretty knowledgeable in this forum. That's telling.

[pelsar]

16. it sure is...

given that they dont even live in israel, speak hebrew/arabic, i believe only one has even visited the westbank for a short period (not gaza)......(do they even know what the place looks like?)

yes that list is very telling......

[breakaleg]

17. so, in order to have a valid opinion about this situation you have to have

lived in Israel or the West bank or have to have visited them?

I would say that not having a stake in the outcome makes people more impartial and open to both sides. I don't think people who do have a stake in this conflict are necessarily unbiased, and their views have to be taken with a grain of salt.

[pelsar]

18. i would say the more knowledge one has, the better

I don't think people who do have a stake in this conflict are necessarily unbiased, and their views have to be taken with a grain of salt.

interesting statement..my experience here has been that most have actually very very little knowledge of the conflict its history, the geography, the cultures ...and express biased views based on lack of knowledge.

furthermore, the lack of interest in the israeli pov is quite astounding...which show just how biased those "impartial" people are.

[breakaleg]

19. hmm...

There is no lack of interest in the Israeli pov, we've heard nothing BUT that for 40 years. It's all we hear. Palestinians voices are rarely heard. So, what you seem to interpret as bias is likely an opinion and because it doesn't always support Israel, you assume it's based on not enough knowledge.

Isn't it possible that a person can be well informed and still not support some of the egregious actions of Israel?

[pelsar]

22. of course..

there are many well informed people that disagree with me (i assume that sooner or later the will realize i am right....)

when i mean the israeli pov, i'm talking about a cultural aspect of what is important to israelis...and no in the time i've been here there has never been a serious discussion on what is important to the israelis that hasnt gone more than a few posts.

they usually end with the very same questions that israelis discuss constantly but here...except for one or two posts by a single poster, never get taken beyond that....

there is also a tremendous lack of knowledge of the israel culture that a 2day trip would dispell...but thats what happens when one see things with their own eyes.

I dont mean the "talking points"...i mean whats beyond them, what makes them....

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Pelsar...

I couldn't give a flying fuck that you don't think I'm knowledgeable, coz I know that particular standard you apply is only applied to posters who aren't sufficiently slobbering over Israel. People can be and are knowledgeable about the conflict without having to live in Israel etc. On the other hand, some people who live there, etc, are completely lacking in knowledge...

I'll spell out very clearly the reason why that list was very telling, but unfortunately my post would be deleted, so I won't...

[pelsar]

21. i didnt say you werent knowledgeable...

quite the contrary you have quite a good grasp of the history....i disagree with much of your interpretations but that to me is very legit. Each of us puts different "weights" on different aspects.

but there a tremendous difference of knowledge when one sees with ones own eyes whats going on...its very different from the filtered info that one gets from books, etc.....ask anyone who has been out there, whichever side of the line their on.

and its simply wrong to not only discount those who have been, but asssume their additional knowledge doesnt add information to those who have never been. It could be an experience thing.... i know only a small percentage of whats going on because when i am out there in the west bank/gaza i'm always surprised at what is see....its always changing

[Violet_Crumble]

24. I agree that they're different sorts of knowledge...

And one doesn't necessarily outweight the other, of course. They're just different ways of gaining knowledge...

Anyway, hopefully everyone in this thread should now be able to go back to discussing the OP itself and not the blocking system :)

[Englander]

35. Talking of being knowledgeable....

Here's a perfect eg of the benefits of having "local knowledge", from a memorable thread in the
archives;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=90086#90424

:)