Acceptance versus recognition
A Hamas spokesman wants Barack Obama to talk to him
The Economist
“HAMAS is very close on recognition of Israel,” says Ahmed Yousef, the Islamist movement’s deputy foreign minister, speaking from the top floor of a high-rise building in Gaza City. “We show all sorts of ideological flexibility on this.” That does not, alas, mean he can unequivocally accept the three conditions the Quartet (the United States, the European Union, the UN and Russia) laid down three years ago if Hamas is to join international negotiations. But he comes close to doing so, sounding almost desperate to stretch the semantic elastic to satisfy the doubters. It is a formulation that sticks closely to the enunciations of both Khaled Meshaal, the movement’s Syria-based leader, and Ismail Haniyeh, its prime minister in Gaza.
Hamas “honours” all previous agreements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation [with Israel], which include recognition, provided the other side abides by all its reciprocal promises. Hamas is ready to extend its present “unilateral ceasefire” if the other side formally agrees to one: not exactly the Quartet’s demand for a definitive disavowal of violence. And when it comes to recognising Israel, “the issue is not Israel’s right to exist. We know Israel is there. It’s not a matter of recognition.” The distinction, it seems, is a semantic but nonetheless ticklish one: between acceptance and recognition. Some diplomats draw an analogy with the Irish republicans of Sinn Fein, who engaged in negotiations with Britain over Northern Ireland after disavowing violence, but still refused to accept the province’s legitimacy as part of the United Kingdom.
Mustering his arguments, Mr Yousef repeatedly insists on Hamas’s eagerness to jump into the diplomatic fray. Again echoing Mr Meshaal, he pins fresh hope on Barack Obama, copiously praising his Cairo speech to the Muslim world in June. “In general it was excellent,” he says. “I do believe he’s sincere. But is he ready to walk the way he talks?” Or will he succumb to “pressure from Christian fundamentalists and the Jewish lobby? We wait for facts on the ground.” Mr Yousef also lauds George Mitchell, Mr Obama’s special envoy. Mr Mitchell, incidentally, was largely responsible for drawing in Sinn Fein.
“Let us sit down and talk. It’s unfair to place preconditions,” says Mr Yousef, citing a string of UN resolutions which, he says, Israel has flouted over the years without being barred from negotiation as a result. “[The Israelis] deceive the world community by saying Hamas does not recognise Israel. We have said we accept a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders—that is 20% of the land of Palestine. Fatah [formally] recognised Israel but what did it get [in return]? We have even offered a hudna [truce] of 10-20 years, to build confidence, to make a better climate.” Perhaps, suggests Mr Yousef, the two sides could agree to an immediate ceasefire for a year, to build on today’s “period of quietness”.
In any event, if Hamas is to follow suit, a number of other issues must first be tackled, says Mr Yousef. Israel, he says, must lift its cruel siege of Gaza. The building of Jewish settlements on the West Bank must stop. There must be an exchange of prisoners between Israel and the Palestinians. And Mr Obama must then call an international conference.
Mr Obama must also “boost the Egyptians to go ahead with national reconciliation between the Palestinians.”“We should blame ourselves as well as others for failing to achieve national reconciliation.” Mr Yousef promises that Hamas, which won the Palestinians’ last general election, in 2006, would gracefully bow out of office if it were to lose next time round, maybe early next year. “We accept the peaceful rotation of power.”
Repeating Hamas’s argument that any Israeli-Palestinian deal should be put to all Palestinians in a referendum, including those in the diaspora, he insists that if people chose a two-state solution, “Hamas would not object”, even though it would still prefer a single state for “all the Abrahamic faiths, maybe a Holy Land federation…we leave it to the next generation to decide what kind of [arrangement]”.
Like most Hamas officials, he breezily dismisses the movement’s charter, with its anti-Semitic slurs and its chilling calls for the Jewish state’s violent destruction. It is “not an important document—we don’t use it. Why should we change it when we never use it?” If Hamas wanted to show good will as part of its campaign to enter negotiations, the junking—or drastic editing—of its blood-curdling charter would be a telling token of intent. "
A Hamas spokesman wants Barack Obama to talk to him
The Economist
“HAMAS is very close on recognition of Israel,” says Ahmed Yousef, the Islamist movement’s deputy foreign minister, speaking from the top floor of a high-rise building in Gaza City. “We show all sorts of ideological flexibility on this.” That does not, alas, mean he can unequivocally accept the three conditions the Quartet (the United States, the European Union, the UN and Russia) laid down three years ago if Hamas is to join international negotiations. But he comes close to doing so, sounding almost desperate to stretch the semantic elastic to satisfy the doubters. It is a formulation that sticks closely to the enunciations of both Khaled Meshaal, the movement’s Syria-based leader, and Ismail Haniyeh, its prime minister in Gaza.
Hamas “honours” all previous agreements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation [with Israel], which include recognition, provided the other side abides by all its reciprocal promises. Hamas is ready to extend its present “unilateral ceasefire” if the other side formally agrees to one: not exactly the Quartet’s demand for a definitive disavowal of violence. And when it comes to recognising Israel, “the issue is not Israel’s right to exist. We know Israel is there. It’s not a matter of recognition.” The distinction, it seems, is a semantic but nonetheless ticklish one: between acceptance and recognition. Some diplomats draw an analogy with the Irish republicans of Sinn Fein, who engaged in negotiations with Britain over Northern Ireland after disavowing violence, but still refused to accept the province’s legitimacy as part of the United Kingdom.
Mustering his arguments, Mr Yousef repeatedly insists on Hamas’s eagerness to jump into the diplomatic fray. Again echoing Mr Meshaal, he pins fresh hope on Barack Obama, copiously praising his Cairo speech to the Muslim world in June. “In general it was excellent,” he says. “I do believe he’s sincere. But is he ready to walk the way he talks?” Or will he succumb to “pressure from Christian fundamentalists and the Jewish lobby? We wait for facts on the ground.” Mr Yousef also lauds George Mitchell, Mr Obama’s special envoy. Mr Mitchell, incidentally, was largely responsible for drawing in Sinn Fein.
“Let us sit down and talk. It’s unfair to place preconditions,” says Mr Yousef, citing a string of UN resolutions which, he says, Israel has flouted over the years without being barred from negotiation as a result. “[The Israelis] deceive the world community by saying Hamas does not recognise Israel. We have said we accept a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders—that is 20% of the land of Palestine. Fatah [formally] recognised Israel but what did it get [in return]? We have even offered a hudna [truce] of 10-20 years, to build confidence, to make a better climate.” Perhaps, suggests Mr Yousef, the two sides could agree to an immediate ceasefire for a year, to build on today’s “period of quietness”.
In any event, if Hamas is to follow suit, a number of other issues must first be tackled, says Mr Yousef. Israel, he says, must lift its cruel siege of Gaza. The building of Jewish settlements on the West Bank must stop. There must be an exchange of prisoners between Israel and the Palestinians. And Mr Obama must then call an international conference.
Mr Obama must also “boost the Egyptians to go ahead with national reconciliation between the Palestinians.”“We should blame ourselves as well as others for failing to achieve national reconciliation.” Mr Yousef promises that Hamas, which won the Palestinians’ last general election, in 2006, would gracefully bow out of office if it were to lose next time round, maybe early next year. “We accept the peaceful rotation of power.”
Repeating Hamas’s argument that any Israeli-Palestinian deal should be put to all Palestinians in a referendum, including those in the diaspora, he insists that if people chose a two-state solution, “Hamas would not object”, even though it would still prefer a single state for “all the Abrahamic faiths, maybe a Holy Land federation…we leave it to the next generation to decide what kind of [arrangement]”.
Like most Hamas officials, he breezily dismisses the movement’s charter, with its anti-Semitic slurs and its chilling calls for the Jewish state’s violent destruction. It is “not an important document—we don’t use it. Why should we change it when we never use it?” If Hamas wanted to show good will as part of its campaign to enter negotiations, the junking—or drastic editing—of its blood-curdling charter would be a telling token of intent. "
No comments:
Post a Comment