WHY ISRAEL MUST NEGOTIATE WITH HAMAS

THE RISE OF HAMAS

Published on February 14, 2006 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics

The victory of the Hamas in the elections to the Palestinian Assembly has sent shock waves through the Western capitals. Of the Quartet only Russia has been pragmatic enough to invite the Hamas leadership. Since the government of Israel is unlikely to allow the leaders in Palestine to travel, the leadership currently based in Syria will meet Putin and the members of the Russian government. What does the victory of Hamas portend for the peace process envisaged by the two state solution firmed up in the road map. An answer to this question is of vital purchase for the understanding of near east politics and trends.

Hamas is an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Islamic Resistance Movement) and the acronym means also enthusiasm in Arabic. It was founded in 1987 on the eve of the first Intifada. The intellectual roots of this organization go deep into the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest political organization in the Near East. Right from the very beginning Hamas eschewed politics of the traditional Palestinian variety exemplified in the Al Fattah of Arafat. It regarded Arafat and his crew as being too secular, too corrupt and after the signing of the Oslo Accord too cosy with Israel. Very few would know that Hamas was an ardent and enthusiastic supporter of the Jordan King Hussein 's brutal crackdown on the PLO run refugee camps in the kingdom in the later 1970s. Unlike Arafat and his faction Al Fatah within the PLO, the Hamas has never recognised Israel. The regime of Ariel Sharon did everything in its power to undermine the leadership of Arafat.

The prestige of Yasser Arafat was deeply dented when the Israeli government in wanton disregard to the canons of international law bombed the headquarters of Arafat and forced him to live the rest of his life in a hole ten feet under the ground. He was forbidden to travel and with the threat of Israeli state sponsored assassination hanging over his head, Yasser Arrafat was essentially rendered irrelevant to the political sphere.

It is this vacuum that Hamas fills. By rendering the Palestenian moderates irrevelent to the politcs of Palestine, by humiliating the leadership and by practicing state sponsored terrorism against target in Gaza and the West Bank Israel paved the way for the rise of Hamas.

It is likely that the Hamas leadership will have to moderate its views in conformity with power. However Israel will have a tough act to follow.

Comments (Page 1)

Leauki

on Feb 14, 2006

You describe Hamas. But you make no case for why Israel should negotiate with them.

Furthermore, you don't even make a case for why there is a question of whether Israel should negotiate with Hamas. Since Hamas don't recognize Israel and want to destroy it, why should Israel talk to them? There is simply no reason.

The Arab Palestinians should be treated by Israel like any nation that votes to attack another is usually treated. And the rest of the world should not aid them in any way. It's very easy. There is simply no reason to talk to them, to give them money, to even recognize them as a nation.

The Arabs could have gotten their state several times. They always refused. What on earth makes you think that Israel should continue to give them a chance to say no?

Leauki

on Feb 14, 2006

(Why do you always screem the title of your articles?)

DJBandit

on Feb 14, 2006

It is likely that the Hamas leadership will have to moderate its views in conformity with power. However Israel will have a tough act to follow.

Don't you mean the other way around? It is Hamas who has to change to a similar level to that of Israel and so it is Hamas who has a tough act to follow. You see Israel is already moderate in it's views in conformity with power, it is Hamas, as you so nicely point out, that has to moderate and so they will be the ones with problems not Israel.

And as Andrew J. Brehm said, you made no argument as to why Israel "has" to negociate with Hamas.

Hamas has 2 choices now, they can either continue to be the terrorist they have been know to be till now and continue to attack Israel and ignore their responsability as leaders of a nation and responsability to their people while now being an easy target for their enemies, such as the US, since they are now the Gov't and there are not many places to hide when you have to lead an entire country. Or they can take their duties as leaders of Palestine, move away from terrorism and become part of the rest of the world, try to form new relationships with other countries and find a more diplomatic solution to the problem with Israel.

We all know what they will chose, or have already.

Just passing by

on Feb 14, 2006

It is likely that the Hamas leadership will have to moderate its views in conformity with power.

Why should they have to moderate? They were elected by the oppressed Palestinian people to stand up militantly to the Zionist invaders. Moderation is capitualation, and the Palestinian people have spoken. They are sick of surrender and dehumanization.

Leauki

on Feb 14, 2006

Zionist invaders

Priceless!

After four or five Arab wars with the goal of driving the Jews into the sea (after driving them out of all the other Arab countries), the Jews have now become "invaders".

Next on this program: the pieces process, where Hamas attempt to hack the Jews into pieces.

I wish the "Palestinians" really were an oppressed people. They would be much cheaper for the EU and the US if they were. Real oppressed peoples don't get hundred of millions of Euros in aid. And real oppressed peoples do not try to kill their neighbours all the time.

Real oppression might be a good change for a bit.

I am sure Hamas will implement the required bits.

Moderateman

on Feb 14, 2006

palistinians attack and kill jews= freedom fighter against the zionist invaders.

Jews target a "freedom fight" {read terrorist}= horrible use of power to keep the poor palistinians down!

gahhh

DJBandit

on Feb 14, 2006

#4 by Just passing by (Anonymous user)
Tuesday, February 14, 2006

I would recomend you take your name as advice to yourself.

Leauki

on Feb 14, 2006

palistinians attack and kill jews= freedom fighter against the zionist invaders.

Jews target a "freedom fighter" {read terrorist}= horrible use of power to keep the poor palistinians down!

Got it.

It's easy enough once you get the hang of it.

Also note:

anti-Semitism"
noun
Hostility or prejudice against Jews in the past and theoretically in the present unless targeted at Israel. In fact, classic anti-semitism and its major crimes ended on May 15 1948.

"expansionism"
noun
Israel's policy of defeating Arab countries that try to destroy the Jewish state.

"freedom fighter"
noun
A peace activist targeting Jews (see "peace activist").

"Palestinian"
noun
A non-Jewish inhabitant of Palestine (see "German" in Hitler's dictionary) and any descendant living anywhere else. Some Palestinians are Egyptians. Most Palestinians are Muslims. There are Christian Palestinians, but they are often Palestinians for a shorter time.

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=81628

on Feb 14, 2006

This is why Israel never killed Arafat all those years. There is actually far worse... should anyone be surprised that the Pals would select the most repugnant people to lead them?

Dynosoar

on Feb 14, 2006

Lee1776

on Feb 14, 2006

Of the Quartet only Russia has been pragmatic enough to invite the Hamas leadership.

Really?

"The group of international mediators (the USA , the EU, the UN and Russia) laid down three conditions to Hamas: to recognize Israel 's right for existence, end the armed struggle and follow all the previously signed agreement. Brussels and Washington will not negotiate with the new Palestinian government if it refuses to meet the three requirements." PRAVDA 14Feb06

While Russia maybe willing to talk to Hamas about thier Charter, they are far from willing to open their wallets. At this time the US, EU and Russia has declared that they will not give money to a Hamas ran Government until Hamas changes its charter.

Until Hamas changes Charter number thirteen, there is no reason to talk with them. Because they even spell out that talks are a waist of time:

Article Thirteen: Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. 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.

Link

bakerstreet

on Feb 14, 2006

So the sins of one group cover the sins of another? Oddly, I don't see that. If Hamas ejected everyone that had helped and promoted the killing of innocents, maybe it would make sense. Instead, you seem to be saying that if your government has done bad things, the best thing to do is legitimize other people's crimes.

Not everyone agrees that the acts of Hamas are understandable given the situation in Palestine. People don't excuse senseless violence just because the violent were wronged. I'm glad that isn't the case, since only a perfect nation, totally free of historical sins, could reject the legitimacy of any authority, know matter how evil.

Bahu Virupaksha

on Feb 14, 2006

. Moderation is capitualation, and the Palestinian people have spoken. They are sick of surrender and dehumanization.Bonus Rating: Trolling Insightful

While Russia maybe willing to talk to Hamas about thier Charter, they are far from willing to open their wallets.

Furthermore, you don't even make a case for why there is a question of whether Israel should negotiate with Hamas. Since Hamas don't recognize Israel and want to destroy it, why should Israel talk to them? There is simply no reason.

Let me start with the last post. Power ans governace and its everyday problems will bring about moderation in the views of the Hamas leadership, if not the rank and file. Therfore Israel and the Quartet must negotiaste in good faith.

The first post. It is impossible to go back to 1948 and set the clock back. What happened was a tragedy of gargantuan propotions and the time has come to be pragmatic. There is no way USA will allow any war against Israel, and hence it is better to be prudent than sorry. I know it is difficult but an attempt must be made. Moderation is not capitulation afterall did not Sharon withdraw from the West Bank. No I dont think suicide bombing had much to do with the decision. It is the realization that only a Two State solution as envisaged by the road map is a practical solution.

Russia may notr be willing as yopu say to open its purse but squeezing the Palestinan Authority of funds will not go well in the world and it will escalate into sustained militant campaigns.

Bahu Virupaksha

on Feb 15, 2006

Not everyone agrees that the acts of Hamas are understandable given the situation in Palestine. People don't excuse senseless violence just because the violent were wronged. I'm glad that isn't the case, since only a pe

It may not be a sensible thing to say but I think it is best to leave the Middle East to settle its own disputes. As for the Palestenians, in 1948 they were betrayed by their own Arab Governments and with the on set of the Cold War the problem became worse. I think it is just atrocious that Palestenians are denied basic human rights that the rest of the world takes for granted. This includes the Palestenians in Israel.

bakerstreet

on Feb 15, 2006

"It may not be a sensible thing to say but I think it is best to leave the Middle East to settle its own disputes."

I may be a pessimist, but I think the last thing the powers that be in the Middle East want to do is settle this dispute. Granted, they have shifted more toward tolerating the existence of Israel, but they've shown time and again a Palestinian state isn't nearly as profitable and edifying to them as the Palestinians suffering where they are, and the 'great struggle' continueing. HAMAS's favorite time to attack is on the eve of talks to settle the dispute.

" I think it is just atrocious that Palestenians are denied basic human rights that the rest of the world takes for granted. This includes the Palestenians in Israel."

Again, not to be insulting to the Muslim world, but there aren't many nations IN the Middle East that don't deny the basic human rights that the rest of the world takes for granted. Even in the most moderate and secular nations, Westerners would find things that trouble them deeply.

As you say, you can't turn the clock back to 1948. Millions have been born in Israel for generations since. They aren't interlopers anymore, they are natives. In a perfect world, sure, they should leave freely alongside Palestinians, but since the day the nation was founded they've had to protect themselves from people like those in Hamas.

Make no mistake, it isn't just Hamas in a vacuum. Other Middle Eastern nations have been fighting a proxy war with Israel through these terrorist organizations. Will it be different when Hamas finally accomplished the Palestinian dream and has a seat in the UN? Or will it just be a more stable foothold with which to launch further fundamentalist attacks on Israel's right to be there in the first place?

The only way we can be certain it isn't is if we don't have to deal with people who are responsible for launching terrorist attacks and supporting the terrorist organization. Anything else is legitimizing their past behavior by telling the world all you have to do is create enough mayhem and perpetuate the suffering of the people you represent to become a diplomat..

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!