donsutherland1

If one is assessing the possible impact a Fatah-Hamas rapprochement or the strengthening partnership between Lebanon’s government and Hezbollah might have on larger Middle East peace prospects, one needs to consider Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s religious orientation. That nature does not offer encouragement for enlarging current prospects for peace.

Although there is always some remote possibility that the raison d’etre of a religion-oriented terrorist organization such as Hamas or Hezbollah might eventually evolve toward the pursuit of more pragmatic and compromising ends, the historic experience with respect to such evolutions has been dismal. This experience has much to do with the nature of religion itself.

Religion is far more basic than a secular ideology. It defines who one is as opposed to what one stands for. Its core principles are a matter of faith—either one subscribes or one does not—rather than carefully-constructed logic that can always change with the receipt of new information. Its body of doctrine is seen as truth revealed by God or prophets, not a temporary consensus brought about by pragmatic compromise. When it comes to one’s identity, one’s fundamental faith concerning God, and assessing doctrines with perceived holy origins, the barriers to change are formidable. Religion can be a cohesive force even in the face of enormous challenge, while the political ground can shift dramatically as calculations of interest change.

In short, precisely because politics is an art of compromise while religion is a matter of faith, political separatist movements are far more likely to evolve down an alternative path of compromise than terrorist organizations that anchor their mission in religion. At the same time, it is much more difficult to “divide-and-conquer” a religious movement than it is an interest-driven political one.

Both Hamas and Hezbollah define themselves as Islamic organizations. Hamas’ Charter declares:

The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Movement's program is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgment in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps.

Hezbollah’s “Open Letter” of 1985 that defines its mission states:

We are the sons of the umma (Muslim community)—the party of God (Hizb Allah) the vanguard of which was made victorious by God in Iran… [W]e do not constitute an organized and closed party in Lebanon… We are an umma linked to the Muslims of the whole world by the solid doctrinal and religious connection of Islam, whose message God wanted to be fulfilled by the Seal of the Prophets, i.e., Muhammad.

Those religious connections make it highly unlikely that either Hamas or Hezbollah will contribute toward Arab-Israeli peace anytime soon. When it comes to the quest for such peace, both terrorist organizations reject any kind of permanent accommodation with Israel. Instead, they seek only Israel’s destruction.

The Hamas Charter states:

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.

Hezbollah’s proclaims:

…our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no ceasefire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev’s and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.

Since those words were published some two decades ago by the two terrorist entities, they have been reaffirmed time and again by concrete action. Hezbollah has maintained its anti-Israel/anti-West agenda in pursuit of what Columbia University History Professor Martin Kramer termed an “all-encompassing Islamic state” of which Lebanon would become but one component. When confronted by international sanctions, hardship that is actions have inflicted on the Gaza Strip’s residents, and the Madrid Quartet’s invitation to play a role in the peace process were it to recognize Israel’s right to exist, abandon violence, and respect existing diplomatic agreements, Hamas has maintained its own path of violent rejectionism.

That both terrorist organizations have proved uncompromising is on account of the religious-orientation on which they have anchored their mission. They see Israel as a “foreign” entity that must be purged by their definition of Islamic duty and radical historical narrative. Barring their own reinterpretation of Islam (not very likely given the prevailing conception that it is the Umma’s strict responsibility to adhere to the laws of Islam, rather than question or revise them) or a broader Islamic Reformation (religious reformations have been rare historical events), neither Hamas nor Hezbollah will play a constructive role toward peace.

As a result, should the Palestinian government in the West Bank forge a renewed governing relationship with Hamas, that development would undermine the prospects for a far-reaching Israel-Palestinian peace agreement. The Lebanese government’s deepening partnership with Hezbollah will only further constrain its freedom to reconsider its rejection of Israel’s offer for direct, bilateral peace negotiations. Furthermore, that intensifying partnership could hasten the destruction of the delicate sectarian balance on which Lebanon’s post-civil war governing system has been constructed. Instead, it could hasten the rise of a revolutionary Islamic state modeled after Iran, as a stepping stone toward Hezbollah’s long-term objective of a larger Islamic entity into which Lebanon would be absorbed.

In conclusion, when one is assessing the possible impact of a given organization’s gaining influence, it is imperative that one understand the fundamental nature of that specific entity. U.S. failure to seriously consider the extreme nature of Ayatollah Khomeini’s agenda led to a historic blunder in which it essentially abandoned the embattled Shah. The adverse consequences of that watershed event continue to ripple through the world today. In the case of Hamas and Hezbollah, enlarged roles in Palestinian or Lebanese society will only undermine prospects for the kind of pragmatic compromise that will be essential to achieving Arab-Israeli peace. Policy approaches that ignore those realities and naively assume that both terrorist entities can help unlock peace will very likely result in dashed expectations and a further deterioration in prospects for peace.

Infinite Chaos

You previously asserted in another thread that Israel made unilateral concessions for peace in the west bank but Ariel Sharon's govt successfully took an independent Palestinian state off the agenda and halted the "road map". (Carter 'Diplomacy' Misfires Again in the Middle East) So is Israel really after a peaceful settlement that includes a Palestinian govt?
There are too many murky dealings and histories in the Middle East to pretend all in Israel is whiter than white and the arabs are to blame for everything.

The history of Khomeini's agenda had been public notice for years before -

• 1963 The Shah introduces his White Revolution - a package of social and economic reforms. He clamps down on secular and religious opponents and imprisons Ayatollah Khomeini.
• 1964 Ayatollah Khomeini is sent into exile in Turkey for opposing a bill granting US military personnel diplomatic immunity. In 1965, he moves to Iraq where he remains until 1978.
• 1969 Ayatollah Khomeini delivers his lectures in exile on the nature of Islamic government.

Country Profile and Recent History of Iran - selected quotes. This is years before the unpopular Shah is deposed. he was embattled not simply because Khomeini stood against him but because he was repressive and corrupt - rather than side with the right people and keep friends, the US chose to back the losing side who could only remain in power if the military government oppressed the Iranian peoples.

donsutherland1

Infinite Chaos

I know that France is a popular butt of jokes on this board but their interests continued and they tend to still have influence in the middle east and in Iran. There was another way short of supporting an unpopular Shah but the U.S. (all the Presidents before and after Carter) was not interested.

Sorry - I don't mean to derail the purpose of the thread being about Hamas and Hezbollah.

donsutherland1

The article you cited also states:

Israel's Ambassador to the US, Daniel Ayalon, tried to put a positive spin on Weissglas's statement, telling Army Radio that the disengagement plan is not meant to freeze all possibility of a peace process with the Palestinians, but is rather a response to the absence of a partner on the Palestinian side.

"This plan gives Israel some breathing space, to wait until there is a partner with whom it will be able to start negotiations. I think this is the core aims of the plan," he said.

More importantly, Prime Minister Sharon's own description reveals that the move represented only a tactical pause, not Israel's abandoning the peace option. Prime Minister Sharon explained:

I want to use this opportunity to call on the Palestinians and to say again what I said in Aqaba: We have no interest in ruling you. We want you to run your own lives in your own country, a democratic Palestinian state, a territorially contiguous state in Judaea and Samaria (West Bank), a country with an functioning economy that has normal ties with the State of Israel. Abandon terrorism and let's work together to stop the bloodshed. Let's move forward together towards peace. We want to progress quickly with the implementation of the road map and with our attempts to achieve genuine peace.

We hope that the PNA will play its part. However, if, in another few months the Palestinians still are not fulfilling their commitments under the road map, Israel will carry out a unilateral security move of disengagement (Hebrew: hitnatqut) from the Palestinians. The aim of the disengagement plan is to keep terrorism at a minimum - as far as this is possible - and to provide Israel's citizens with maximum security. The process of disengagement will improve quality of life and will strengthen Israel's economy...

The disengagement plan is designed to give maximum security and to create minimum friction between Israelis and Palestinians. We are interested in holding direct negotiations, but we have no intention of making Israeli society hostage to the Palestinians...

I'd like to emphasize that the disengagement plan is a security move, and not a political one. The steps to be adopted won't change the political reality between Israel and the Palestinians and will not undo the possibility of going back to implementing the road map and of reaching an arrangement through agreement.

The disengagement plan doesn't preclude the implementation of the road map, but is a step that Israel will take in the absence of any other option in order to improve its security. The disengagement plan will be implemented only in the event that the Palestinians continue to drag their feet and put off the implementation of the map.

Clearly, under the disengagement plan the Palestinians will get far less than they would be able to attain in direct negotiations on the road map. Parts of the disengagement plan designed to provide maximum security to Israel's citizens may be carried out concurrently with the attempt to implement the road map; this, in accordance with the circumstances that will be created.

I favor the U.S. working with its European allies such as France in helping devise joint strategies and cooperation in protecting and advancing their common strategic interests. A partnership that leverages, let's say France's relationships within the region, can prove constructive. In my opinion, the next U.S. President will need to make it an early priority to strengthen the vital trans-Atlantic U.S.-Europe partnership.

SquareMelon

To assume that only religion drive both Hamas and Hezballah in their dealings and agendas is too simplestic. Those organizations consider themselves to be resistance movements against an occupation and would need to deal with their populations accordingly. In case you do not know, they are not established to convert others to their religion, but to drive a political as well as resistance agenda to liberate their occupied lands.

In addition, the religious nature of their enemies is also very obvious. Israel was established on other people land based on religous principles. Last I checked, it is called a jewish state. Its constitution is largely based on jewish principles and the extreme religious parties there still contribute to its policies and as some may say drive it. The only requirement to immigrate to Israel is to be jewish. Even some friends of Israel support it based on biblical interpretations, one does not need to go far to see examples of those

__________________
The Square Water Melon Revolution

donsutherland1

Noting a religious orientation is not synonymous with suggesting that "only religion" drives the agendas of the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations.

Israel was re-established on British territory in which the Jewish people share historical legitimacy with Arabs. The UN's partition plan accommodated the core needs of both peoples. The Arabs attempted aggression rather than compromise and that bad decision contributed to the situation that prevails today.

Three quick things:

1) Official state religion is an entirely different issue.
2) Israel is a free society and gives enormous latitude to free speech.
3) Aliyah makes it possible for any Jewish person to automatically move to Israel. It does not bar others from doing so. There is naturalization procedure for others.

SquareMelon

Though in your post, the only thing that you refered to was the impact of their religious orientation...


This british territory was actually not british, it was called palestine and the british were there via a mandate after world war one, they were only there for less than 30 years, that does not make it their territory does it?

The jewish people that were living in palestine prior to 1948 were a minority and the palestinians were the majority, at the time, the majority got the minority of the land per the partition, off course to them it was unfair.

It is just not accurate to state that the aggression started by the arabs then. The jewish terrorist organizations were launching wars not only against the palestians prior to 1948 but also against the british. I do not need to remind us who was on the british government most wanted list prior to 1948. Does king david hotel ring bells. What happened in 1948 and prior definitely need a separate thread as a lot of it is not clear to many.


I mean, if a religion is assigned to a state, that will be in the constitution, do not you think that items in the constitution are used to create laws no..?
I mean you highlighted the items in the charter of hamas that establish a religion for them then you said that a state having a religion is a sepoarate issue, is n't that a contradiction.

Israel freedom of whatever is available for jewish israelies only, what is the importance of free speech for those who can find themselves homeless over night because the state decided to evict them from their land and homes for no reason like what is happening all over Israel for the arab population.

I appreciate it if you can provide statistics about non jews who were able to immigrate to Israel

flashgoro

You can't push somebody out of their house and then wave your hands around to the world, demanding peace, just because the house's owner punches you in the face and tells you to get out.

Israel has (with USA support) sold the world on their legitimacy to be on that land, despite logical reasoning and a careful and critical examination of history that tells us otherwise, and done a great job of labelling protesters as terrorists.

I'm not saying the Arabs are innocent - on the contrary there's definitely a history of stubborn and difficult tension between the two groups, with all kinds of barbaric religious beliefs complicating everything - but to pin Hezbollah and Hamas as the roadblock to peace in the Middle East is completely laughable to me.

donsutherland1

At the time the British Mandate was coming to a close, there were two peoples--Arabs and Jews--who shared legitimacy and an equal right to self-determination in the region.

Israel was established in a fully legal process. The Jewish people's shared legitimacy to the land is backed by historical, archaeological, and biological evidence.

The Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist organizations are road blocks to peace. However, they are not the only barriers to Mideast peace e.g., Iran is a substantial barrier.