http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart
THE HAMAS GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED
Tanya Reinhart
Yediot Aharonot , May 31, 2006, translated from Hebrew by Mark Marshall
(quotes and references added).
The Hamas government must be recognized, not only because recognition of
Hamas would be good for Israel, as the former Mossad head Ephraim Halevy
recently argued, (1) but because this is the right move by any criterion of
justice and international law. The U.S. and Europe decided, despite Israel's
opposition, to permit the Palestinian people to hold democratic elections.
According to Jimmy Carter's report in the "Herald Tribune", the elections
were "honest, fair, strongly contested, without violence and with the
results accepted by winners and losers. Among the 62 elections that have
been monitored by... the Carter Center, these are among the best in
portraying the will of the people." (2)
In a just and well-ordered world, it would be unthinkable for a government
that was elected in this way to be disqualified because Israel does not like
the choice of the electorate in question. But in a world in which the U.S.
rules, might is right, and might can define democracy as it chooses. Thus it
was announced that the outcome of the Palestinian elections would not be
recognized until the three "mantras" were fulfilled: Hamas must renounce
terror, honour previous accords, and recognize the State of Israel.
Meanwhile the Palestinian people would be punished and starved through an
economic boycott, in the hope that this will lead to the collapse of the
elected government.
In January 2005, Hamas announced its resolution to replace armed struggle
with political struggle and agreed to a unilateral ceasefire ("calm"). In
the 17 months since then, Hamas has not perpetrated a single terrorist
attack. According to security sources, since the election, Hamas has not
even participated in the launching of Qassam rockets from Gaza, most of
which are carried out by Fatah. (3) What exactly is the substance of the
demand that Hamas renounce terror?
Regarding previous accords, Hamas PM Haniyeh explained that according to the
Oslo Accords of 1993, after an interim period of five years, a Palestinian
state was to have come into existence. But Israel violated every clause of
the Accords and continued to colonize and to dispossess Palestinians of
their lands. From now on, he says, his government will only honour accords
that are good for the Palestinian people.
Since the Oslo Accords, we Israelis have become accustomed to the idea that
negotiations with the Palestinian Authority always revolve around the sole
question of what is good for Israel - the extent to which the Palestinians
are prepared to recognize its existence as a Jewish state and to take care
of its security. Suddenly Israel is confronted with an elected Palestinian
government which is not willing to play that game any more. Haniyeh is
telling the government of Israel: From now on, you will represent the
position of Israel in the negotiations, and we will represent the position
of the Palestinians. At the Algiers meeting of the Palestine National
Council in 1988, the Palestinian people undertook to recognize the partition
of the country and to be satisfied with a state within the 1967 borders.
Israel has not done a thing since then to prove that it is prepared to
accept such a compromise. The Palestinians will recognize the right of
Israel to exist only when Israel proves that it is prepared to recognize the
right of the Palestinian people to exist.
But that is precisely what the governments of Israel and the army have never
accepted. No Palestinian leadership has yet been found to be a suitable
partner for peace, but a leadership that announces that it represents only
the Palestinian people is in their eyes a real enemy that must be destroyed.
Olmert may have succeeded in garnering a majority in the U.S. Congress for a
boycott of the Hamas government, but in Israeli society itself he does not
have a majority. According to a poll by the Truman Institute in March of
this year, 62% of Israelis are in favour of negotiations with Hamas. (4) But
for quite some time now, the majority in Israel has had no say. At the
moment, what remains to be hoped for is that Europe will come to its senses
and also influence the U.S. to accept the democratic choice of the
Palestinian people.
(1) Interview in Yediot Aharonot Saturday Supplement, May 26, 2006. See also
Associated Press, 'Former Mossad chief calls for long-term deal with Hamas'
May 27, 2006.
(2) Jimmy Carter, 'Punishing the innocent is a crime', International Herald
Tribune May 7, 2006
(3) Amos Harel, 'IDF and Qassams / Zero tolerance', Ha'aretz, April 7, 2006;
Amos Harel and Arnon Regular, 'IDF: Hamas about to rein in Qassams',
Ha'aretz
April 10, 2006.
(4) Poll conducted March 16-21, 2006, jointly by the Harry S. Truman
Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in
Ramallah, http://truman.huji.ac.il/upload/PressRelease-15-240306English.doc
***
Palestine: Israel's Olmert Comes to Washington
By Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies
http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/tp40olmert.htm
May 26 2006
* Bush capped Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's visit to
Washington with a cautious endorsement of Israel's plan
for annexation of large swathes of Palestinian
territory including major settlement blocs and about
80% of Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
* Bush hailed Olmert's "bold moves," but the visit
still highlighted a potential divide between U.S. and
Israeli approaches, as well as between the White House
and Congressional Republicans.
* On the ground in the occupied territories,
humanitarian conditions continue to deteriorate, and
desperation and violence are on the rise.
* A new Palestinian initiative raises the possibility
of a referendum on accepting a Palestinian state in
territory occupied in 1967, implicitly recognizing
Israel.
* Bush promised to defend Israel if it is attacked by
Iran; Olmert pushed for international action against
Iran, and said he and Bush see eye to eye on the Iran
crisis.
Ehud Olmert's high-profile visit to Washington
succeeded in winning support for his version of the
Sharon-initiated plan for a unilateral Israeli move in
the West Bank. The plan would remove about 60,000
settlers from dozens of scattered settlements, while
annexing huge swathes of land including three major
settlement blocs populated by about 160,000 settlers,
to Israel. Despite Israeli claims, all the
settlements - the small scattered "outposts" and the
huge city-sized suburban-style settlements outside of
Jerusalem - are equally illegal under international
law, UN resolutions and the Geneva Conventions.
The plan includes imposing a unilaterally determined
border between Israel (which currently has no
acknowledged borders) and a putative Palestinian state.
According to Israel's foreign minister, the border
would largely follow the route of the Apartheid Wall
Israel has built throughout the occupied West Bank.
According to the United Nations, that border would mean
Israeli annexation of about 15% of West Bank territory
and the vast majority of its scarce water aquifers.
The plan is based on Sharon's 2002 model which called
for an Israeli land grab in the West Bank in the form
of legalizing major settlement blocs, and an end to the
Palestinian right of return as a quid-pro-quo for
Israel's settler pull-out and troop withdrawal from the
streets of Gaza. However, since the 2005 Gaza
"redeployment" Israel continues its occupation by
controlling all of Gaza's entry and exit, airspace,
coastal waters, economy, water and electricity, as well
as by continual military attacks and "targeted
assassinations" of Gazan military and political leaders
with high numbers of accompanying civilian casualties.
In a letter to Sharon in April 2004, Bush accepted that
deal.
Olmert's plan is based on Sharon's vision. Former
President Jimmy Carter, writing in USA Today about the
plan, said "It is inconceivable that any Palestinian,
Arab leader, or any objective member of the
international community could accept this illegal
action as a permanent solution to the continuing
altercation in the Middle East. This confiscation of
land is to be carried out without resorting to peace
talks with the Palestinians, and in direct
contravention of the 'road map for peace,' which
President Bush helped to initiate and has strongly
supported."
But because it envisions a pull-out from a part of the
economically and strategically more valuable West Bank,
rather than Sharon's Gaza pull-out, Olmert's plan is
politically riskier within the fractious Israeli
political scene. And Olmert, who was Sharon's deputy
until the general's stroke in January 2006, does not
have any of Sharon's military credentials. So the plan
faces stronger challenges in Israel.
Bush was also not enthusiastic about all aspects of the
plan, especially its reliance on unilateral Israeli
action. During Olmert's visit, Bush praised the plan
as "bold" and "creative." But Bush is concerned about
his record low poll ratings and growing international
isolation vis-Ã -vis Iraq, and is therefore more
cautious in how he endorses Olmert's plan. Bush's
acceptance of the plan was more conditional than his
enthusiastic embrace of Sharon's Gaza pull-out,
especially as he urged Olmert to at least go through
the motions of diplomatic contacts with Palestinian
president Mahmoud Abbas. Trying to repair Iraq-frayed
and Iran-threatened relations with European and key
Arab allies, Bush pushed Israel to engage with the
Palestinians before moving unilaterally. It is not
evidence of a serious U.S. commitment to real
Palestinian-Israeli negotiations (which have stalled
for the last three years). But it does indicate U.S.
concern about appearing to supporting Israeli
unilateralism. The Washington Post described Bush
telling Israel to "at least make the appearance of
seeking a Palestinian partner before they can declare
none exists." That might open the way for a small
crack, in the U.S.-Israeli alliance.
Bush's domestic and international political concerns
also are leading to his new willingness to split from
his Republican allies in Congress, who hold some of the
most ferociously hard-line pro-Israeli views dominating
the House of Representatives. That was obvious in the
administration's opposition to the overwhelming House
vote for the radical Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Bill of
2006, that passed the House the day before Olmert's
arrival. The bill would end all U.S. diplomatic
contacts with any Palestinian officials, Hamas members
or not; would prohibit almost all humanitarian
assistance to Palestinians; would designate West Bank
and Gaza territory under the Palestinian Authority as a
"terrorist sanctuary;" would close the Palestinian
information office and deny visas to all Palestinian
officials, and more. Ironically, if it became law the
bill would prohibit exactly the kind of "engagement"
with Palestinian President Abbas that Bush was urging
on the Israeli leader. Support for the bill, which was
mobilized by AIPAC, the most powerful component of the
pro-Israeli lobbies, was overwhelming, and crossed
party lines. Despite AIPAC pressures however,
(including an AIPAC staffer accusing Rep. Betty
McCollum of "supporting terrorism" because of her no
vote) there were 37 votes against the bill, as well as
many "present" votes and non-voting Representatives.
Rep. McCollum stood up to the lobby with an
unprecedented open letter stating that AIPAC literature
and staff would not be welcome in her office until they
apologized. Many members who spoke against the bill
referred to arguments put forward by the member
organizations of the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli
Occupation.
On the ground, the economic crisis caused by the cut-
off of aid and the physical as well as political
isolation of the Palestinians in the wake of the Hamas
election, has exploded. A May 7 World Bank study
reported that more than 50% of Palestinians in the
occupied territories are now living under the
international poverty line of $2 per day; in Gaza more
than 70% are below the poverty line. Unemployment is
officially 34% across the territories, in Gaza alone it
is 44%, rising to 55% whenever the frequent Israeli
closures of the border crossings are imposed. With
the cut-off of funds from international donors, and
especially with Israel's illegal withholding of tax
revenues it owes to the PA, over 40% of all Palestinian
Authority employees have not been paid for three
months. That has particularly dangerous implications
in Gaza, where more than half the entire workforce is
employed by the PA; many of those now unpaid employees
are the sole support of extended families of up to 15
people or even more.
During a high-level Israeli-Palestinian-U.S. conference
in Washington several weeks ago, U.S. officials were
asked what was their plan - what did they think would
be accomplished by cutting aid and isolating the
Palestinians because they had elected Hamas? The
State Department's top Middle East official answered
"we don't have a plan. We don't need a plan." Israeli
security officials themselves acknowledge that anti-
Hamas sanctions won't end the crisis; the chief of
staff of the Israeli military, Lt. General Dan Halutz,
told the Knesset this week that economic sanctions
would not topple Hamas nor diminish support for it.
Given the rising levels of impoverishment and
isolation, it is hardly surprising that violence is
rising throughout the occupied territories. Armed
conflicts between feuding political factions have
increased, along with a broader violence-producing a
break-down of communal solidarity and the shredding of
Palestine's already stressed social fabric. Further,
Israel has escalated its military attacks on
Palestinians, including the killing of at least four
unarmed civilians and wounding over 50 more in a raid
in Ramallah, as well as arresting a top Hamas militant
on the day of Olmert's meeting with Bush.
The day after Olmert left Washington, Palestinian
President Abbas announced a new political initiative,
calling for a Palestinian referendum that would
articulate a Palestinian understanding of a two-state
solution and of recognition of Israel. The proposal
was for a vote on the Hamas-Fatah agreement hammered
out by leaders of both factions imprisoned together in
an Israeli jail over the last two months. The text
specifies establishment of a Palestinian state in the
territories occupied by Israel in 1967, and refers to
the Arab League's 2002 Beirut summit statement that
calls for full Arab recognition of Israel when it ends
its occupation of the 1967 territories. The statement
is understood to implicitly recognize Israel. Some
Hamas leaders have already agreed; others view it as a
violation of the election's legitimacy. Palestinian
pollsters believe it would pass with a strong majority.
Certainly it would provide additional popular support
to the beleaguered President Abbas, but it would also
provide a democratically legitimate kind of political
cover for Hamas and other leaders who may want to shift
their rhetoric to reflect public opinion, but have been
unwilling to violate their earlier commitments and
principles.
Such a referendum could provide an important moment for
asserting a new Palestinian consensus, with the
possibility of opening new negotiations. But such a
vote would have only partial legitimacy, involving only
those Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza
(maybe, or maybe not, including occupied Arab East
Jerusalem). It would exclude Palestinian Israelis, as
well as the millions of Palestinian refugees and exiles
in the far-flung diaspora. So while it could be an
important indicator of collective opinion, or even
consensus in the occupied territories, that would be an
indicator of the opinion of only one sector of the
Palestinian people.
During his Washington visit, Olmert also reasserted
Israel's hard-line approach to Iran. Greeted with
applause in Congress, he said that "a nuclear Iran
means a terrorist state could achieve the primary
mission for which terrorists live and die: the mass
destruction of innocent human lifeâ?¦.This challenge,
which I believe is the test of our time, is the one the
West cannot afford to fail." In language reminiscent
of Bush's build-up for war in Iraq, Olmert said
"history will judge our generation by the actions we
take now â?¦ the international community will be measured
not by its intentions but by its results." Bush
restated his pledge to defend Israel if it is attacked
by Iran, which some analysts saw as a subtle warning to
Israel not to take the military initiative against
Iran. But Olmert also claimed that he and Bush saw "eye
to eye" on Iran.
Whether or not that is true, Israel remains a major
player in the Iran nuclear crisis: at times directly
threatening a military strike on Iran, at other times
cheerleading for a militarized U.S. response. And
Israel's own unacknowledged but widely known nuclear
arsenal remains a key provocation across the Middle
East region. Immediate diplomacy - including direct
U.S.-Iran talks - is urgently needed to resolve the
current crisis. But in the longer term, only creation
of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone throughout
the Middle East - with no exceptions - has the
potential for a permanent peace.
Establishment of such a zone is already part of U.S.
law: UN Security Council Resolution 687, ending the
1991 U.S. war against Iraq, calls for "establishing in
the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass
destruction and all missiles to deliver them." That
resolution was drafted by U.S. diplomats, and its
passage by the Council makes it part of international,
as well as U.S. domestic law. It's time we held the
U.S. accountable to its own commitments.
Phyllis Bennis' new book is Challenging Empire: How
People, Governments, and the UN Defy U.S. Power, just
published by Interlink. It is available from IPS or
from www.interlinkbooks.com
You can also get a copy of Challenging Empire with a
donation of $100 or $10/month to IPS in January 2006.
To subscribe: http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
