Zahar's Op-ed Highlights Hamas' Rejectionism

donsutherland1 · 04-17-08, 12:44 PM

In today's edition of The Washington Post, Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of the terrorist organization and one of its senior leaders, hails President Carter's meetings with several senior officials from Hamas. Aside from Hamas' usual omissions of the terrorist attacks it wages against Israel's civilians and its oft-repeated claim to deserve a place at the negotiating table, a closer look reveals the terrorist organization's unrelenting pursuit of Israel's elimination.

In the op-ed, Zahar writes, "Our movement fights on because we cannot allow the foundational crime at the core of the Jewish state...to slip out of world consciousness, forgotten or negotiated away." The "foundational crime" is a reference to Israel's re-establishment. Zahar rejects negotiated terms that would permit Israel's existence.

Such a position is consistent with Hamas' Charter. That document declares:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that...

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion...

Zahar's op-ed also reveals a flagrant double-standard. Zahar writes, "no 'peace plan,' 'road map' or 'legacy' can succeed unless we are sitting at the negotiating table and without any preconditions." In other words, Hamas rejects the minimal conditions that the Madrid Quartet has set, namely that it recognize Israel's right of existence, refrain from violence, and respect existing diplomatic agreements.

However, when it comes to Israel, Zahar states, "A 'peace process' with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees."

In other words, he seeks to impose harsh preconditions that Israel would have to satisfy just to launch a "peace process" after it had already withdrawn to pre-1967 war boundaries. Moreover, the objective of such a "peace process" would be to establish the parameters by which Israel would bring about its own demise. That end is clear, as Zahar reaffirms Hamas' rejection of Israel's right to exist (the "foundational crime" to which he referred and said could not be "negotiated away") and insistence that Palestinian refugees and their descendants "return" to Israel. Such an influx of Palestinians would transform Israel from a Jewish-majority state to a Jewish-minority one, defeating the original intent of the UN to bring self-determination to the region's Arab and Jewish peoples and that changed demographic situation would be employed to engineer Israel's disappearance.

In sum, Zahar rejects preconditions for Hamas while demanding stringent preconditions for Israel. Moreover, Hamas seeks negotiations that would be aimed at bringing about Israel's elimination, rather than a two-state solution to the historic dispute.

Tashah · 04-17-08, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

In sum, Zahar rejects preconditions for Hamas while demanding stringent preconditions for Israel. Moreover, Hamas seeks negotiations that would be aimed at bringing about Israel's elimination, rather than a two-state solution to the historic dispute.

Or to paraphrase...Give us everything and then, and only then, will we be satisified.

No dice.

WI Crippler · 04-17-08, 05:00 PM

I have to laugh at the idea that anybody would simply believe that Hamas wants a withdrawal to the 1967 borders. Its quite obvious that they want more than just that.

Hatuey · 04-17-08, 08:26 PM

Well we have reestablished why a reasonable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem will never come from the extreme factions of Palestine and Israel.

Bad Biscuit · 04-18-08, 10:23 AM

I have a number of problems with this OP and hopefully I'll get an answer to the points I make.
---------------------

Quote:

In today's edition of The Washington Post, Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of the terrorist organization and one of its senior leaders, hails President Carter's meetings with several senior officials from Hamas. Aside from Hamas' usual omissions of the terrorist attacks it wages against Israel's civilians and its oft-repeated claim to deserve a place at the negotiating table, a closer look reveals the terrorist organization's unrelenting pursuit of Israel's elimination.

-----------------------
Usual omissions? Why say this? Do you really think the leader of any government or political grouping will go on about its attacks except for the purpose of praise and commendation? Would Israel? Would the US, the UK? Given that that is unrealistic isnt your point simply made for propaganda purposes?
----------------------

Quote:

Zahar's op-ed also reveals a flagrant double-standard. Zahar writes, "no 'peace plan,' 'road map' or 'legacy' can succeed unless we are sitting at the negotiating table and without any preconditions." In other words, Hamas rejects the minimal conditions that the Madrid Quartet has set, namely that it recognize Israel's right of existence, refrain from violence, and respect existing diplomatic agreements.

---------------------

Why say the 'flagrant' double standard when in fact its pretty simple. Hamas wants to be at the table without having accept conditions that are tantamount to surrender. Moreover,
1/ Recognition of Israel is not the entry fee to the table but a prize on the table.
2/ Refraining from violence without Israel doing the same thing is an act of surrender, by definition. No government in the world could do it.
3/ Recognising existing diplomatic agreements that in most palestinians eyes have already been undermined by the enemy, is another act tantamount to surrender. One of the main reason this group retains support is that it will not play by the rules that Isreal sets down for it.

The conditions that it sets for negotiations .i.e withdrawal to 67 borders, removal of controls settlements etc etc are exactly the same sort of unreasonable conditions for negotiations that Israel and your quartet itself sets. Therefore there is no double standard. Its an equal standard of difficult expectations that both sides hold to.

But lets examine your words for a moment. You say what Hamas wants is 'harsh'. This is a troubling bias. For example. Given that we have a ceasefire and that Hamas is enabled to govern what is 'harsh' about;
1/ releasing controls on its borders?
Its easy for Isreal to stop these operations, simple physical logic. One could of course argue that it allows hamas to arm itself. This is true. But why is this Hamas's concern? Surely Hamas can only take this problem seriously if Israel also undertakes not to rearm itself. How on earth could Hamas agree to have its borders controlled by the enemy to stop it re-arming while the enemy is free to do so? How is this playable to its own public?

2/ Repudiating annexation of Jerusalem?
'Harsh'? Israel has already made agreements to this effect in the past. It wasnt harsh then, so why now? So many in Isreal and around the world think this is reasonable and indeed brings israeli policy back to legality, so how can it be 'harsh'?
3/ Moving back to 1967?
In fact in many respects Isreal is already close to this point thanks to the wall. What would be so 'harsh' about a modern industrial society moving their wall back a bit more?
This is of course, would entail the dismantling of these large settlements. On this is Id have to say yes. That is 'harsh'. In fact its so 'harsh' that it proves once and for all why the palestinians have opposed these as undermining peace - because once built, removing them is 'harsh'.

Lastly there is the refugee issue. Zahar speaks of the need for dignity and justice. Yet who is to say in what form this refugee justice will take place? What about monetary compensation? I'll bet even Hamas knows it cannot flood the israeli state with millions of palestinians. Even if israel accepted it there's probably not many refugees now willing to up sticks and move en mass into what are now Jewish neighbourhoods.
This is probably why Hamas leadership have been distancing themselves from their own charter for some years now. The charter is old news, but like any Government or political group in wartime that is the last thing it can admit. This is very much like when the IRA realised that it wasnt going to create a revolution to unite Ireland, ever. The IRA realsied that decades before they could admit that, and worked for years to find a peaceful solution that did not amount to surrender.
Like the Irish penchant for strident political bombast, the Arabs have a long history of blood curdling rhetoric. However there is a difference between what is said on the podium and what they are in actuality willing to negotiate on.

BB

donsutherland1 · 04-18-08, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Biscuit

...Usual omissions? Why say this? Do you really think the leader of any government or political grouping will go on about its attacks except for the purpose of praise and commendation? Would Israel? Would the US, the UK? Given that that is unrealistic isnt your point simply made for propaganda purposes?

Hamas' omissions are material to understanding the situation. Much of the hardship Hamas blames on Israel would not be occurring were Hamas to cease its terrorist attacks.

Quote:

Why say the 'flagrant' double standard when in fact its pretty simple. Hamas wants to be at the table without having accept conditions that are tantamount to surrender.

It is a double standard for Hamas to insist that it pays no "entrance price" to negotiations while seeking to impose a severe "entrance price" on Israel. There is nothing reciprocal in that kind of arrangement.

Quote:

The conditions that it sets for negotiations .i.e withdrawal to 67 borders, removal of controls settlements etc etc are exactly the same sort of unreasonable conditions for negotiations that Israel and your quartet itself sets. Therefore there is no double standard. Its an equal standard of difficult expectations that both sides hold to.

There is no concrete requirement that Israel return to the 1967 borders. Those borders offer guidance to the parties. Negotiations will determine the final boundaries.

With respect to Hamas, Hamas expects not a commitment that Israel will return to given borders but that Israel will carry out concrete steps to do so just for Hamas agreeing to talk to Israel. Hamas' ultimate objective--its "price" for peace--remains Israel's elimination, not a two-state solution. Mr Zahar's op-ed piece made that very clear with his declaration that reversing the "foundational crime" [Israel's re-establishment] is non-negotiable. Therefore, the talks would really be about how to "wind down" Israel's existence.

As Tashah simply and eloquently put it, "no dice." No sovereign state can reasonably be expected to accept terms that bring about its demise.

Quote:

Like the Irish penchant for strident political bombast, the Arabs have a long history of blood curdling rhetoric. However there is a difference between what is said on the podium and what they are in actuality willing to negotiate on.

There is a world of difference between the IRA terrorist organization and the Hamas terrorist organization. The IRA employed violence toward political ends. Hamas employs violence solely toward Israel's elimination. Morevoer, so as to assure that the terrorist movement does not stray from that objective, Hamas' Charter anchors the objective of Israel's elimination in its interpretation of religion. It defines any compromises that fall short of that objective as an abuse of religion ("Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion..."). When it comes to religious doctrine, there is far less room for pragmatism or compromise than with a secular political ideology. Matters of faith are far more basic and slow to change than matters of politics.

Joby · 04-18-08, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Only three months ago I buried my son Hussam, who studied finance at college and wanted to be an accountant; he was killed by an Israeli airstrike. In 2003, I buried Khaled -- my first-born -- after an Israeli F-16 targeting me wounded my daughter and my wife and flattened the apartment building where we lived, injuring and killing many of our neighbors. Last year, my son-in-law was killed.

Hussam was only 21, but like most young men in Gaza he had grown up fast out of necessity. When I was his age, I wanted to be a surgeon; in the 1960s, we were already refugees, but there was no humiliating blockade then. But now, after decades of imprisonment, killing, statelessness and impoverishment, we ask: What peace can there be if there is no dignity first? And where does dignity come from if not from justice?

Our movement fights on because we cannot allow the foundational crime at the core of the Jewish state -- the violent expulsion from our lands and villages that made us refugees -- to slip out of world consciousness, forgotten or negotiated away. Judaism -- which gave so much to human culture in the contributions of its ancient lawgivers and modern proponents of tikkun olam -- has corrupted itself in the detour into Zionism, nationalism and apartheid.

Now change leaders or we will kill your children!

But serioulsy, in the Op-Ed Zahar makes a connection between the Gazans struggle and that of "the corageous Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto who rose up in defense of their people." With all of Gaza's power gone, people starving, sewers shut off, the blockade on, and civilians being killed daily...it isn't that much of a stretch.

Especially since the US, a traditional mediator and a neutral party, has completely failed in our role of trying to forge some bridges. Let's remember that it was the Israelis who ended the last cease-fire by gunning down a family of seven, and that not talking to terrorists has never been succesfull. Hamas is in power, and it's willingness to dig it's heels in will only increase with the level of blockade they face.

donsutherland1 · 04-18-08, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joby

...in the Op-Ed Zahar makes a connection between the Gazans struggle and that of "the corageous Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto who rose up in defense of their people." With all of Gaza's power gone, people starving, sewers shut off, the blockade on, and civilians being killed daily...it isn't that much of a stretch.

The comparison is invalid. There are big differences:

1. The Gaza Strip could have had an entirely different future had its leadership chosen to begin building a viable economy when Israel fully disengaged.

2. Israeli military operations and other restrictions are the result of Hamas and other terrorist groups continuing to carry out terrorist acts against Israel's civilians. Without such terrorist attacks, many of Israel's current counterterrorism measures would not be necessary.

3. Israel's electricity reductions have been minimal. Hamas has staged blackouts for propaganda purposes.

Palestinian journalists: Hamas staged blackouts | Jerusalem Post

4. Hamas has been stealing humanitarian assistance and fuel that was intended for ordinary Palestinians. Such theft has created unnecessary hardship for ordinary Palestinians.

The situation was vastly different in the Warsaw Ghetto. For some brief information on the situation there, one can go to, among other sites, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's website at: Warsaw.

Bad Biscuit · 04-21-08, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Hamas' omissions are material to understanding the situation. Much of the hardship Hamas blames on Israel would not be occurring were Hamas to cease its terrorist attacks.

----------------
So far the only thing thats material is your desire to paint your subjective viewpoint. Id hoped to get an answer to the questions, but ill assume you just didnt get it and ask again. Your views on the causes of the hardship are not the point here, the point that needs answering is - Do you really think the leader of any government or political grouping will go on about its attacks except for the purpose of praise and commendation? Would Israel? Would the US, the UK? Given that that is unrealistic isnt your point simply made for propaganda purpose?

Quote:

It is a double standard for Hamas to insist that it pays no "entrance price" to negotiations while seeking to impose a severe "entrance price" on Israel. There is nothing reciprocal in that kind of arrangement.

No its a simple strategy both sides play. Let me make it clearer for you. Both sides seek the other to pay an entry price and conveniently fail to mention the price that they'll have to pay. When Im bargaining at the market I dont offer them the price they want first, do you? Instead I offer them the very worst price I can. These logical principles underpin all rational human interactions. To ignore this simple notion is evidence of a desire to put aside objectivity.

Quote:

Quote:
The conditions that it sets for negotiations .i.e withdrawal to 67 borders, removal of controls settlements etc etc are exactly the same sort of unreasonable conditions for negotiations that Israel and your quartet itself sets. Therefore there is no double standard. Its an equal standard of difficult expectations that both sides hold to.

There is no concrete requirement that Israel return to the 1967 borders. Those borders offer guidance to the parties. Negotiations will determine the final boundaries.

There certainly is a concrete requirement. Hamas is making it. It may be unreasonable to expect Israel to all of a sudden move its fence and 300000plus settlers back to 67 lines, but thats how one starts the bargaining - as I said above, with the worst offer.
By the way, why do you say 'Negotiations will determine the final boundaries'. Are you in the Israeli government? The Hamas government? The US government? Are you using a crystal ball? How do you know?

Quote:

With respect to Hamas, Hamas expects not a commitment that Israel will return to given borders but that Israel will carry out concrete steps to do so just for Hamas agreeing to talk to Israel. Hamas' ultimate objective--its "price" for peace--remains Israel's elimination, not a two-state solution. Mr Zahar's op-ed piece made that very clear with his declaration that reversing the "foundational crime" [Israel's re-establishment] is non-negotiable. Therefore, the talks would really be about how to "wind down" Israel's existence.

Actually the op-ed piece speaks of justice, which as I said previously that can take different forms.
To highlight the problem with your analysis, here is a question for you. Do you expect Zahar to say, in fact could you even imagine Zahar or anyone high ranking member of a political organisation saying in his op-ed piece that the refugee issue, the thing that theyve clung to for so long now IS negotiable?

Quote:

As Tashah simply and eloquently put it, "no dice." No sovereign state can reasonably be expected to accept terms that bring about its demise.

Exactly. So why do you expect that of Hamas? Tashah is quite right, 'no dice'. However, maybe no dice, but plenty of dunces.

Quote:

Quote:
Like the Irish penchant for strident political bombast, the Arabs have a long history of blood curdling rhetoric. However there is a difference between what is said on the podium and what they are in actuality willing to negotiate on.

There is a world of difference between the IRA terrorist organization and the Hamas terrorist organization. The IRA employed violence toward political ends. Hamas employs violence solely toward Israel's elimination.

What a terrifying lapse in logic. ok. lets try to clarify a few things.

1/ Eliminating British Ulster and getting the Brits out, was a political goal. Yet eliminating Israel is not?

Quote:

Morevoer, so as to assure that the terrorist movement does not stray from that objective, Hamas' Charter anchors the objective of Israel's elimination in its interpretation of religion. It defines any compromises that fall short of that objective as an abuse of religion ("Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion..."). When it comes to religious doctrine, there is far less room for pragmatism or compromise than with a secular political ideology. Matters of faith are far more basic and slow to change than matters of politics.

2/ Ah yes. The well known 'but its their religion' attack. Two problems here, these guys are so religious, yet Zahar did not mention Allah once in his op-ed piece. Second, if you read the charter, and remove the mentions of Allah, the Quran etc you find that the charter remains standing as a text. What does that tell you? The religious justifications are just that, justifications. The emotional headress of their movement if you will. Moreover, their religion does not define their actions. If it did, they wouldnt be able to much of anything. Their religios interpretation has proved infinitly maleable to justify their actions in the past and the present and their is little reason to think that their religion wont be as maleable in the future to enable to justify a just peace.

BB

donsutherland1 · 04-21-08, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Biscuit

What a terrifying lapse in logic.

My point was not to rationalize one terrorist organization or the other. It was to note that Hamas anchors its ideological objectives in religion. By doing so, it makes it more difficult for pragmatic compromise to be considered, much less accepted.

Quote:

...yet Zahar did not mention Allah once in his op-ed piece. Second, if you read the charter, and remove the mentions of Allah, the Quran etc you find that the charter remains standing as a text.

Mr. Zahar did not need to mention religion. His rejection of Israel was consistent with the Hamas Charter. On a second matter, one cannot pick and choose what is in the Charter. The Charter says what it says. There is no doubt that Hamas has wrapped its mission in religious dogma. If there were no purpose for the terrorist organization to do so, that language would not have been incorporated into the Charter.