Leading article: The Middle East starts to feel the Obama effect
The new US President’s overtures are eliciting a promising response
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Sooner or later it had to happen: someone had to start talking to Hamas. Today we report that a back channel already exists. French parliamentarians have met the Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, with Syria as the go-between. MPs from other European countries, including Britain, have met lower-level Hamas representatives since the start of the year. This makes perfect sense. It is the way all pariah groups or states are enticed in from the cold. Negotiations begin unofficially, through third parties and with the necessary element of deniability.
Hamas, it can be argued, should never have found itself in the pariah category. It was encouraged to take part in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, only to be cold-shouldered by the United States, then by Israel and the European Union, when it won. That was a mistake.
There are grounds on which Hamas should have been banned from participating: its refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist. Once it had been admitted to the electoral process, and the voting had been deemed reasonably free and fair, the result had to be respected. This failure is responsible for much that came next, and helped push Hamas back to extremism.
Almost everything about the isolation of Hamas has proved counter-productive. The division of the Palestinians between the Fatah-governed West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza further complicated the already limping Middle East peace process. The Hamas government’s failure to prevent rocket attacks from Gaza precipitated Israel’s invasion. With no tangible return from signing up to democracy, Hamas had no reason to modify its stance on Israel, or anything else.
If a serious European effort is being made to explore a formal opening to Hamas, that is to be encouraged. If, as is possible, such overtures have the blessing of the United States, that is even better. And if, as other signals suggest, a tentative unclenching of fists – to quote Barack Obama – is taking place across the region in response to his extended hand, then more is in flux, in a positive way, than for a very long time.
After an initially chilly dismissal, President Ahmadinejad of Iran expressed a willingness to talk to the United States, on certain conditions. What is more, he did so as publicly as he could, at a rally to mark the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. In recent days, the Syrian President, too, has spoken optimistically about improved relations with the US.
A high-level congressional delegation is due in Damascus this week, and a new US ambassador is expected to be named shortly – the first since Washington downgraded relations in 2005. In hailing a possible improvement in relations, President Assad and senior officials have emphasised that Syria is key to any Middle East peace. Damascus has also made known that General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, would be welcome in Syria to discuss the situation in Iraq – a proposal that President Bush had vetoed.
With so much, it seems, suddenly in play, it is unfortunate that Israel should be tied up in the aftermath of another inconclusive election. What happens next is likely to depend on the complexion of the new Israeli government and its willingness to adapt to the fresh mood. But it need not depend on Israel alone. With the United States, the European Union, Iran, Syria and Hamas all showing an interest in talking, there could be an opportunity here for a fresh beginning. It is an opportunity that should on no account be passed up.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Hamas don't belong in the pariah category?
Have you actually read what hamas writes, and listen to what they say?
And have you seen that they spent years launching successful suicide-bomb terrorist attacks murdering israeli civilians?
Why do so many of you damn antisemites pretend to be peace activists?
Day after day I read these damn anti-israel articles from people who are so damn DISHONEST one HAS to assume that antisemitism is behind it.
Hamas don't belong in the pariah category? Who does, then? What does hamas have to do to belong in your pariah category then?
the refusal of Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist must be condemned. However unless somebody somewhere talks to them I don't think their opinion is likely to change. Furthermore, refusing to talk with them will not make them suddenly go away and Israel's recent campaign doesn't do much to support the idea that they can be forcefully removed.
By "anti-israel" articles presumably you mean articles written by people who show bias towards Hamas. Agreed, there has been quite a bit of that recently but branding these people as anti-semetic is a vulgar conjecture that is quite frankly insulting.
Getting into considerations relating to who does & who does not belong in the pariah category could take us all off-topic very, very quickly. As exec_ ceo has suggested, if Hamas doesn't belong in the pariah category, who does? - George W. Bush's government, perhaps? - Oh!, but he's no longer president, so perhaps we don't have to consider him a candidate for the pariah category? You see? I'm already off-topic!
Hamas has declared itself dedicated to the elimination of Israel & its people. Hamas has declared the Holocaust a myth, invented as a political tool with which to protect Israeli excesses, etc, etc, etc. David Irving has been placed in the pariah category following his libel trial & recently spent time in jail for spouting Hamas-like sentiments in the past, & presumably Hamas wield a lot more political clout than a deluded eccentric like Irving, so - what are we talking?
In my opinion the Indie. should be a little more discerning with the outright sickening and undisguised anti-Semitism they print. But that is not my decision - is it?
Now before this blog degenerates into the usual anti-Jewish, anti-Israel blog, read the following:
Welcome to the website of The Parliamentary Committee against Antisemitism.
The rising tide of antisemitism in the UK is something that deeply concerns us all. As a group of parliamentarians we recognise our responsibility to take a lead in the fight against this latest incarnation of what is surely the oldest form of hatred.
The address is http://www.thepcaa.org/
So come you all, with your bad spelling and poor grammar. For starters, its Israel, not Isreal.
Edwin Samuel Montagu was Secretary of State for India and an influential anti-Zionist Jew. He was strongly opposed to the Zionist enterprise and condemned the Balfour Declaration as anti-Semitic. He saw in 1917 what would happen if a nation was founded on ethnicity and sadly his insights have proved correct.
Sir Isaac Isaacs, ninth Governor-General of Australia became embroiled in controversy with the Jewish community both in Australia and internationally through his outspoken opposition to Zionism. He wrote ""the honour of Jews throughout the world demands the renunciation of political Zionism".
Sir Gerald Kaufman, the prominent Jewish Labour MP, caused a stir last month when he pointed this out in the Commons: "The current Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among Gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians." and ""My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town .. a German soldier shot her dead in her bed. My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza."
And yes, I remember that scathing article by former NY Times by Middle East Bureau Chief Chris Hedges on the subject of Israeli death squads: "And I walked out towards the dunes and they were -- the -- over the loudspeaker from an Israeli army Jeep on the other side of the electric fence they were taunting these kids. And these kids started to throw rocks. And most of these kids were 10, 11, 12 years old. And, first of all, the rocks were the size of a fist. They were being hurled towards a Jeep that was armour-plated. I doubt they could even hit the Jeep. And then I watched the soldiers open fire. And it was -- I mean, I've seen kids shot in Sarajevo. I mean, snipers would shoot kids in Sarajevo. I've seen death squads kill families in Algeria or El Salvador. But I'd never seen soldiers bait or taunt kids like this and then shoot them for sport. It was -- I just -- even now, I find it almost inconceivable. And I went back every day, and every day it was the same." Is this cruelty born out of a contempt for Arabs? Yes, I think it bloody well is."
Kinda puts talking to Hamas in perspective?
Would you say the same about Pakistan created by the partition of India in 1948 as a muslim state or are your objections to Israel purely founded on the fact that it is a founded as a Jewish state? The creation of Pakistan caused far more refugees. If you are talking about refugees why do you take no account of the fact that no Jews were allowed to remain in areas occupied by the Arabs in 1948 and most Jews in the middle east (including a lot of my family) were also forced to leave their homes. These refugees equal in number the Palistinian refugees. The refugee problem would probably never have happened if the Arabs had accepted the partition plan and not resorted to violence. Like every country Isreal has a right to self-defence. Your comments also overlook the fact that Jews in the Middle East were discriminated against and the anti-Jewish riots in Palistine in the 1920s and 1930s.
856,000 Jews left their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s; 260,000 reached Israel in 1948-1951, 600,000 by 1972. The Jews of Egypt and Libya were expelled while those of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa left due to physical and political insecurity. Most were forced to abandon their property. By 2002 these Jews and their descendants constituted about 40% of Israel's population. The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC) estimates that Jewish property abandoned in Arab countries would be valued today at more than $300 billion and Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands at 100,000 square kilometers (four times the size of the State of Israel).
(Source Wikipedia)
Sami Joseph
Let's hope that israel does not extend this policy to US Presidents again!
Hamas won the democratic election throughout the Palestinian territories, West bank and Gaza to become the elected goverment of the Palestinians.
Israel immediately witheld all monies due to the Palestinians in Gaza (it is called theft).
Israel then armed Fatah to overthrow Hamas in Gaza with Fatah being led by CIA trained terrorist and torturer Mohammed Dahlan. Fatah's attempted coup failed.
Your propaganda line is a total distortion. Hamas won the legislative elections, but Fatah remained the executive power. It's as if the Republicans won Congress in the USA and then sent tanks in to blast a Democratic president out of the White House. Why defend a violent, misogynistic, anti-semitic, homophobic, anti-freedom group of thugs (Hamas)?
Israel are perfectly entitled to withhold monies from a movement (Hamas) that wants to eliminate it. What a joke if Britain had sent aid to the Nazis after Hitler had declared he wanted to annihilate Britain.
"Abbas was and is based in the West Bank not Gaza" - wrong. He was president of the whole of Palestine, including Gaza. Hamas violently attacked the Gazan branch of the legitimate executive authority of Palestine.
"By the way, his presidency terminated on 9th January so he is no longer president." Oh I see, so it's all right to mount a coup against a government before its term runs out, is it? Once again, you're advocating pick-n-mix democracy. Hamas are not democrats. Jihadists the world over may use bits of democracy if they see a short-term advantage, but in the end their aim is the violent suppression of freedom and the re-imposition of the mediaeval caliphate by force.
If you think disengagement would bring peace you are living in a dream world. You only have to look to the relative stability in the West Bank, which exists only because of the presence of IDF troops who are there to defend the settlers. Remove the settlers you remove the troops, remove the troops you remove the peace and you have another Gaza on your hands.
I find it incredible to hear people lecturing Israel about peace, when all Israel has ever wanted is to live peacefully with its neighbours. Israel has made peaceful relations with both Jordan and Egypt - not by arms but by agreement and negotiation.
By the way I'm not Jewish before I get accused of being a Zionist fanatic.
Hamas was elected as the leader. What right do we have to reject the ones chosen by the people? Do they recognize Israel? Well, no. The Hamas movement is based on their history, and their history includes being forced from the land. For them, history does not begin in 1948. So, of course they don't recognize Israel. And you can't start a negotiation with them by demanding such recognition.
Also many Palestians left willingly, often urged to do so by their leaders who wrongly believed Israel would soon be defeated.
Vanity Fair, 2008
www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=1
1) Hamas was not pushed back into extremism after being elected, they never stopped being extremists. They constabtly preached that they would destroy Israel before and after being elected.
2) The Hamas Government didn't fail to prevent the rcokets being launched into Israel they were launching the rockets into Israel.
3) As the blockade on the Gaza Strip would have ended Hamas had a lot to gain from modifying their stance on Israel. They just chose continuing hatred over the greater good.