Palestinian PM (for now!) Ismail Haniyeh gave an eloquent and stirring speech in which, among many, many other things, he said (again) that he was generally in favor of the 2002 Beirut peace initiative (the one that Saudi Arabia backed and Ehud Olmert recently said he was interested in) with a 10-15 year truce with Israel pending a final settlement and the creation of Palestinian state along the 1967 borders. He also gave a long explanation of how Fatah and US at several turns tried to sabotage negotiations to form a national unity government. He spoke respectfully about all parties throughout, clearly going out of his way to be diplomatic and calm things down. In other words, he was extremely impressive.
Perhaps he still doesn’t want to recognize Israel, but frankly I can’t blame him after what that country did to his. At the end of the day, he is offering peace and negotiations.
Kudos to al-Jazeera English for showing it all (I happened upon it by chance, perhaps other channels did too.)
I was pleased to see this speech covered in the Israeli newspapers. I just saw a post on Ha’aretz and assume it will likewise be covered by Maariv, et. al. (Alas, I read no Hebrew.)
But is he *really* offering peace and negotiations? I only ask because this is what he said this a few days ago — in another speech that was noticed in Israel:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AE5650FF-E5E4-4D00-9F9B-D9538B583200.htm
So on the one hand, we have angry, defiant Haniya and on the other hand we have conciliatory, peaceful Haniya. I don’t see how he can expect to be able to say one thing in Tehran and then return to Gaza and say something else and not expect the Israeli public to be suspicious. Notice I’m not passing judgment one way or the other — I’m just trying to put myself in the shoes of the Israeli public.
Out of interest, does anyone know what phrase Haniya used in Arabic for “Jihad-like movement”. It just seems a little odd. Why is he inferring that its not a movement of “real Jihad”?
A 10-15 year truce is probably Hamas-speak for a permanent settlement, but would you give your enemy everything (that you will give voluntarily – the Palestinians are never going to talk Israel into packing up and leaving) in exchange for what is, on its face, a temporary peace?
I think conflicting signals are par for the course here, on both sides — what kind of signal does Avigdor Lieberman’s appointment send? I think this Haniyeh speech was an important sign that while he will fight the occupation, which is perfectly reasonable, he is also willing to consider a long-term cessation of violence during which a lot of things can happen, including a comprehensive peace.
Specifically, it is not reasonable to expect him to recognize Israel while Israel does not recognize Palestine. Recognition is at the heart of the matter here, and he has hinted at it along the 67 lines. One thing Hamas won’t give up, and neither should they, is the claim to Jerusalem. That’s where some creative diplomacy from outside players will be needed, as well as serious pressure on Israel.
It’s that or the Israelis can continue hoping, as they have for the past 50 years, that the Palestinians will be beaten into submission and give up. I think it’s pretty clear right now that that road just convinces Palestinians and other Arabs to wait it out, especially as the problem of Israel in the region is not only the Palestinians, it’s one of regional balance.
I have been traveling for the past 12 hours so have not followed up on coverage of the speech, but I was disapointed on what I saw initially. It really deserves a full transcript, especially Haniyeh’s blow-by-blow account of the national unity government negotiations with Fatah and the fight over the finance and security ministries. I’ve asked a friend at al-Jazeera for what they might have, we’ll see…
I am glad to also see that Haniyeh, and to a lesser extent Abbas, were rather ashamed of the events of the past few days. They should be. And congrats to the Egyptian mediators — presumably Omar Suleiman — who negotiated an end to it. Out of a limited choice he will make a fine president, on foreign policy at least.