The Conflicts Forum held a debate about a week ago on “an elected Hamas is still a terrorist organization” in which, among others, Stephen Cook, Dan Ayalon, Mark Perry and Stanley Cohen participated. The point being debated is rather badly phrased — it’s obvious that Hamas has used terrorism as a tactic in its struggle for the liberation of Palestine — but the debate is lively and stimulating. It’s really a debate about one (really meaning the US or “international community” in this context) should embrace Hamas as a potential partner for peace rather than ostracize them. Since there are plenty of occasions where political groups that use terror tactics have been integrated politically (from the Zionist terrorist groups of the 1940s to the IRA to the PLO) that question should be moot. The really bigger question, it seems to me, is whether some partners on both sides are interested in peace at all. I don’t think that in Israel either Likud, Kadima, or a good part of Labor is really interested — hence the failure of Oslo and the continual race to expand West Bank settlements under various governments since the mid-1990s. On the Palestinian side Hamas has not resolved some of its ambivalence, although it is certainly seems more willing to consider a fair two-state settlement than a group like Islamic Jihad. Both sides have used, on purpose and with the intent to terrorize, unthinkable violence against civilians. But the Palestinians have done so largely out of self-defense against a foreign occupier while the Israelis have done so mostly to perpetuate an occupation internationally recognized as illegal and to crush a liberation movement.
Correction: The debate was not hosted by the Conflicts Forum but rather by Intelligence Squared, which also chose the phrasing of the question.
What exactly does “really interested” mean? Contrasted against “resolved some of its ambivalence” it sounds a bit unscientific.
By “really interested” I meant that the Israelis, a good chunk of labor included, do not seem interested in a peace deal where they would have to give up what they’ve occupied since 67, the settlements they’ve built in the west bank, the golan heights etc. They are interested in peace, as Ehud Olmert always says, but don’t put anything consequential in exchange. The calculus appears to be that since they’re dominant militarily, they can live with small-scale terrorism.
by Hamas’ ambivalence I mean that it still has to make clear that it is ready to give up claims to the Palestine of pre-48 and settle for the Palestine of pre-67. There have been hints in this direction, but some elements inside it (notably the Kahled Meshaal / Damascus branch) are against.
And politics is an art, not a science.
I would call politics a qualitative science, though most wouldn’t agree there.
As for peacemaking, Israel look at its neighborhood rivalries as it always has, bilaterally. To include the Golan and the Palestinian Territories in one package does not reflect the reality of peacemaking in the Middle East in the past, nor its future. We don’t need to rehash Oslo and Camp David, but I think that if the Israelis were confident that the Palestinian leadership was not intent on driving them into the sea (and sentiments count here, as Abu Mazen well understands), a full settlement would squeak by on referendum. There would be some territorial exchange, Jerusalem would be divided, and the right of return would be rejected out of hand, but it would pass. We’re pretty far away from this hypothetical right now though, and I would argue that most of this distance needs to be covered by the Palestine side.
Dear al-Himyari, Does “most of this distance need to be covered by the Palestine side” because they are the enormously weaker side and have to therefore give concessions first? Or because you think they are the main obstacle to the points that you mentioned (right of return, divided jerusalem, “territorial exchange” – which is exceedingly vague btw)?
the context that this debate is speaking into is that palestinians are at a stalemate. they either retain their stance supporting hamas and the democratic process while their economy continues to plummet and 70% of their people survive off of international aid or else they go back to the old status quo of fateh and its corruption and just maybe given a chance to lighten the load of injustice but only ever so slightly.
For any change to come about in this stalemate it needs a dramatic change in world perception of what this conflict is really about. both hamas and the government of israel have used terror as a means to their ends. the demands made of hamas (recognizing israel, renouncing violence and applying all previously signed peace accords) should be asked of israel in reverse (non of these israel currently applies).
palestine’s impasse is only to israel’s benefit. to have a neighbor warring amongst itself, prompts the question which role israel has played and does in perpetuating such circumstances.
I mean the pyschological distance, if one can put a finger on such an arbitrary yet crucial parameter, and I mean with respect to the ruling government, Hamas. If Israel can be convinced that the Palestinian establishment is ready to make a deal on the basis of the 67 borders, and if Hamas is willing to make the changes to its platform asked of it by so-called Quartet, this constitutes a strong negotiating position from which Israel cannot turn aside without substantial loss of international support. It is a very asymmetric conflict, where the best weapon the Palestinians have is their ability to continue to deny israel’s legitimacy. But this weapon can backfire on them, and has in the eys of many. With this concession if you will, the ball would be in Israel’s court, and Israel would be under pressure to deliver an agreement.
While Israel may benefit from Palestine’s impasse, perhaps Palestine too would benefit from an extended period of introspection. Back in January our country chose leadership that truly united us but proved incapable at running our government. I don’t want Palestine to be united anymore.
Hello
My name is miss jesica i saw your profile today at (arabist.net)and became intrested in you,i will also like to know you the more,and i want you to send a mail to my email address so i can give you my picture for you to know whom l am.Here is my email address (jesidabah03@yahoo.co.in).I believe we can move from here.I am waiting for your mail to my email address above.miss jesica .(Remeber the distance or colour does not matter but love matters alot in life)
Please reply me with my email address here
I think Jesica really adds to the debate
Issandr, you have a groupie! Teehee.
Intelligence Squared choose the silliest and most obvious debate titles.
Phentermine AND Jesica!! This thread just gets better and better. What could be next? Stock market tips? Ways of enlarging relevant body parts? Or better yet, I hear there is a broken hearted widow of a deposed african dictator looking for a friendly bank account to depose of several million dollars, just send your details to the following address…
Out, damn spam!