Hamas and moderate Islam

Last summer, a few weeks after Hamas seized military control of the Gaza Strip, I sat on a Mediterranean beach with several Hamas leaders as they sought to divine the future.

Earlier in the day, hard-liner Mahmoud Zahar had called Gaza the "new Riviera."

Sitting by the surf, Ahmed Yousef, a more pragmatic, Western-trained Hamas political strategist, held up Turkey's Islamist-influenced Justice and Development Party (AKA the AKP), as a model.

"You can actually deal with Hamas and work with them to moderate them," Yousef said. "Don't make them your enemy. We should try these things before blocking the road. Everybody tried to destroy Hamas and didn't give us a chance. Deal with us."

The simmering issue -- whether to talk to Hamas -- is boiling again as former US President Jimmy Carter arrives in the Middle East on a personal diplomatic mission.

Carter is drawing fire for his plans to meet in Syria with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.

On Sunday, Carter told "This Week" on ABC News that he is "quite at ease" with his plans to meet Mashaal.

"I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process," Carter said.

The same issue came up last week while I was doing some reporting in Turkey as the nearby nation faces political uncertainty amid the state prosecutor's attempts to ban Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his ruling AK Party.

In short, the prosecutor is accusing Erdogan and the AKP, after leading the nation for five years, of trying to transform Turkey into an oppressive Islamic state.

That's a topic for another time, but the trip brought to mind Yousef's comments on the beach last year and made me wonder what, if anything Hamas, could learn from the AKP.

First off, the political parallels aren't well aligned.

Erdogan and the AKP lead an independent, predominantly Muslim nation of 70 million that has had one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

Hamas controls virtually nothing but the small, isolated Gaza Strip with an economy that has been strangled by Israeli sanctions.

Way back in 1949, Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel, which has, in turn, provided Turkey with lots of guns.

Hamas has yet to recognize Israel or give up on its stated goal of, one-day, destroying the predominantly-Jewish nation.

That is one of the most significant differences separating the AKP and Hamas.

When it first won power in 2002, the AKP put any designs of imposing Islamic values on Turkey on the back burner. Instead, the AKP focused on economic issues as it sought to gain EU membership for Turkey.

Both Hamas and the AKP retain popular support by providing people with the services they need.

But Hamas does not appear to have learned much from the AKP.

After winning political power in the 2006 PLC elections, Hamas did little to moderate its views.

While Israel and the US cut off ties with the Hamas-led PA until the group abandoned its stated pledge to destroy Israel, Hamas dug in its heels.

Hamas took to fighting not just with Israel, but with its Palestinian rivals in Fatah, which was arming up for a military showdown with Hamas.

Fragile Palestinian unity fractured last June when Hamas took the initiative and seized military control of Gaza.

Even before, and ever since, Hamas has made it clear: There can be no lasting peace until Israel and the US talk to us. We're not changing our political positions to placate the West.

Publicly, Hamas has stood by the basic principle it has offered for years: A pledge to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip based on the borders set in the 1967 Six Day War.

This is unacceptable to the US and Israel because Hamas won't go one step further and explicitly acknowledge that Israel has the right to exist in the rest of the land that was once British Mandate Palestine.

That has made it impossible for there to be any positive political momentum in the last two years.

Hamas argues that it was never given a chance to govern, never given a chance to demonstrate its pragmatic side.

The point is certainly debatable.

Perhaps this week Khaled Mashaal will reveal his more pragmatic side to Jimmy Carter and take a dramatic step to change the dynamics.

Somehow, I doubt it.

Comments

[Edie]

Dion,

Hamas does have it's pragmatic side, like you said, but don't you think it is very difficult for the pragmatists to assert their influence when - not only Hamas - but the entire Gaza Strip - is under constant duress and hostile attacks/relations with Israel?

Also, early you state, 'Hamas has yet to recognize Israel or give up on its stated goal of, one-day, destroying the predominantly-Jewish nation.'
but then you do say, 'Publicly, Hamas has stood by the basic principle it has offered for years: A pledge to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip based on the borders set in the 1967 Six Day War.'

To accept a Palestinian state in the WB and Gaza is a de facto recognition of Israel. It is (like the PLO did in 1988 officially) giving up 78% of historic Palestine.

They have repeatedly stated their willingness to do this and have also offered multiple ceasefires, which they've adhered to until provoked.

To ask technically for Israel's 'Right to Exist' be recognized is like thanking someone for raping you. One would be saying the Jews of 1947 had the RIGHT to ethnically cleanse the region of the indigenous Arabs.

It is quite a concession for the Palestinians to accept Israel's acceptance and right to live in security and peace, but quite another to ask them to recognize Israel's 'Right to Exist'.

I DO NOT LIKE HAMAS or any theocracy, so my intention is not to defend or advance them as a party, but even the PLO evolved as an organization and ideology. Hamas' pragmatists should be supported in every way possible, because peace for Israel will be impossible without them.

Jimmy Carter has some big balls.

[JamieSW]

This is a disappointing article.

"Erdogan and the AKP lead an independent, predominantly Muslim nation of 70 million that has had one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

Hamas controls virtually nothing but the small, isolated Gaza Strip with an economy that has been strangled by Israeli sanctions."

And? The point of Youssef's analogy, surely, was not that Gaza and Turkey are the same, but that Hamas is a pragmatic organisation that can be engaged with productively. No?

"Hamas has yet to recognize Israel or give up on its stated goal of, one-day, destroying the predominantly-Jewish nation.

That is one of the most significant differences separating the AKP and Hamas."

How can Hamas, a non-state actor, "recognise" Israel, particularly when Israel refuses to define its own borders? Hamas has clearly recognised the fact of Israel's existence, in numerous statements and documents (e.g. the Prisoners' Document). It has refused to recognise Israel's right to exist, because doing so would be to not only recognise the fact of the ethnic cleansing in 1948, but to state that it was right. There's a big difference, obviously.

You say:

"After winning political power in the 2006 PLC elections, Hamas did little to moderate its views."

Well, that's only if you accept that its political views before winning the elections were, to use your words, an acceptance of "a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip based on the borders set in the 1967 Six Day War".

Why should Hamas "moderate" its views beyond this, the international consensus two-state settlement? You imply that it should go further and "recognise" Israel's "right to exist" (which, incidentally, is a pure invention - no state has a "right" to exist). Fatah did this in the 1990s, of course, and look what it got them: more settlements.

Hamas isn't prepared to fall into the same trap. It's position that recognition will come as a product of negotiations, not a precondition to them, is eminently reasonable.

That said, and contrary to your article, Hamas clearly has taken many steps to indicate its willingness to accept Israel within the pre-1967 borders. The 16-month unilateral truce, for example, or the Prisoners' Document, which agreed to focus resistance on land occupied in 1967. Even more significantly, Hamas agreed to abide by any settlement agreed upon by Abbas and Israel, so long as it was put to a Palestinian referendum.

Then you have the numerous statements from top officials in Hamas suggesting that the organisation would accept a two-state settlement. For example, Mesha'al recently declared:

"Now we have a vision: we accept a state on the 1967 borders."

You write:

"While Israel and the US cut off ties with the Hamas-led PA"

By "cut off ties" you presumably mean halt all humanitarian aid, steal Palestinian tax revenues, imprison something like a third of the Palestinian legislature and kill around 650 Palestinians, over half of whom were not involved in the hostilities.

"Fragile Palestinian unity fractured last June when Hamas took the initiative and seized military control of Gaza."

This is incredibly misleading. The National Unity government, which Hamas had been pushing for for months, collapsed because Israel and the U.S. continued to withhold aid and steal Palestinian tax revenues despite the new government's pledge to "respect" previous agreements with Israel.

Hamas seized Gaza in response to preparation by a group of Fatah militants led by Dahlan, in collaboration with the U.S. and Israel, to topple Hamas by force (for more info see, for example, David Rose's recent article in Vanity Fair).

"The point is certainly debatable."

Is it? I think it's unarguably true, and I can't even imagine any remotely plausible arguments against it. Can you?

"Perhaps this week Khaled Mashaal will reveal his more pragmatic side to Jimmy Carter and take a dramatic step to change the dynamics."

In fact he's already done this (see above). What remains is for Israel and the U.S. to moderate their positions in the same way.

[carlos townsend]

buenos,

i like this post, but i liked jamiesw's even better.

my props to both.

gosdspeed.

los

[mikey]

The real point is being missed. It matters not that Hamas "accept" Israel's right to exist when Hamas shows no sign of changing its stripes. Words matter not, only actions proving peaceful intentions. Firing rockets at Israeli civilians is not an example of the actions I would propose.

Why would the democratic state of Israel have any interest pragmatic or otherwise in dealing with a vicious terrorist organization dedicated to her destruction, like Hamas?
It is incredible naivete to believe a goon like Maashal and trust that he really and truly "accepts" the 1967 borders. Clearly, it is a tactical move to win over naive people. It recalls Neville Chamberlain's infamous pact with Hitler.
True peace never emerges from pacts with the devil.

[Edie]

Mikey,

Yours is an old argument that use to be used against the PLO and Arafat. Yet, PLO pragmatists won out and did something no one thought they would - they recognized Israel within the 1967 borders. They gave up 78% of the land they believed they had the historical right to have returned to them.

Also, you say Hamas must stop their actions, yet Hamas says 'end the seige'; 'end the de facto occupation'. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This kind of circular logic or demands get no one anywhere.

Why should Israel deal with Hamas? Because the Palestinians are the key to their security and acceptance in the region. Their Arab neighbors stand ready to recognize Israel within their 1967 borders and normalize all political and economic relations with Israel.

The Palestinians are the key and the U.S. and Israel - if they're truly seeking peace in the region - must realize that Hamas is the key to the key.

[Tina]

Well, not really. The PLO never actually changed their charger, Arafat simply said we should trust him when he asserted that he understood that the Jews should have a state too. As to Gaza, the area where the Israelis had built greenhouses and other agricultural systems were left for the Gazans to help them. They immediately trashed them and started firing rockets into Israel. I simply can't understand how anyone can blame Israel. The minute the Arabs stop attacking Israel, there will be peace. Read your history.

[JamieSW]

"Words matter not, only actions proving peaceful intentions."

Uh, Hamas voluntarily self-imposed a 16-month truce. I'd say that is quite a significant action.

It has also been pushing hard for a ceasefire for months, in the face of continued Israeli rejectionism.

[Edie]

Well, if we're going to mention the Gaza settlements, we should also mention that the settlers trashed their own homes with feces and ripped out the plumbing as well as trashing the greenhouses rather than leave them to the 'dirty Arabs'.

It's not as if the settlements were left in pristine condition.

The rockets were fired once it was fully understood how Israel maintained control of all borders (air, land, sea) and critical natural resources and fuel. There may not have been the settlers within Gazan borders, but Israel was still an occupier in every sense (de facto).

re: 'The minute the Arabs stop attacking Israel, there will be peace. Read your history.'

Again, that circular logic that won't resolve anything. The position of 'the other' must stop first isn't realistic or going to help either side.

I believe if one 'reads their history' they will find a foreign group of immigrants ethnically cleansed the indigenous population from a specific area (historic Palestine) to create a false demographic majority within this area (the new State of Israel) and then destroyed hundreds of villages to keep those newly created refugees from returning ... and have denied the refugees their basic human right to return to their homes and land for sixty years now ... so I'm not sure what history you're wanting people to read.

British and Israeli archives tell us this is the history. This historic record doesn't really put Israel or it's founders in the best light.