Hamas: We won't negotiate peace with Israel

[Parihaka]

Hamas: We won't negotiate peace with Israel

Mahmoud al-Zahar says peace with Israel not on new Palestinian government's agenda. Meanwhile, Fatah and Hamas officials outline terms of reconciliation agreement, stress deal is first step on the way to establish independent state, in joint press conference in Cairo in the hopes of establishing an independent state, they said in a press conference on Wednesday. Fatah Central Committee Member and chief negotiator Azzam al-Ahmed said, "The agreement is the beginning and we shall take quick steps to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state."


Al-Ahmed said that the Palestinian people have waited for the agreement for many years, adding that the prays
of Palestinian youth have been answered.

He accused Israel of using the division to "shirk its international responsibilities" and added that the US also abandoned its responsibility for ending "the longest occupation in history."

"We as Palestinians have learned a hard lesson for the past three years in our struggle against the occupation. The occupation exploited the division to judaise Jerusalem, complete the fence and seize lands in the West Bank," al-Ahmed said. "We felt a need to end the division to end the occupation."


The Fatah official stated that Israel had warned Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of the consequences of such an agreement. "When Abu Mazen (Abbas) presented his initiative, Netanyahu warned him, but Abu Mazen answered him from Moscow – Hamas comes first. Hamas is part of Palestinian life – it is the forefront of the struggle. Our unity is our best weapon against the occupation."

Hamas' deputy politburo chief Moussa Abu Marzouk announced during the press conference of the coming of a "new age" and said that all Palestinian factions will meet over the weekend to sign the agreement.

"This is not the end of the dialogue," he said. "After all the factions sign the understandings with Fatah and Hamas we shall form a new government and embark on a new era in the Palestinian struggle – in order to obtain our rights and preserve the Palestinian people's national rights."

'Peace with Israel not on our agenda'
Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas leader who participated in the talks said that peace with Israel was not on the table. "Our program does not include negotiations with Israel or recognizing it," Zahhar said in Cairo. "It will not be possible for the interim national government to participate or bet on or work on the peace process with Israel."


Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad welcomed the agreement in a message posted on his Facebook page. Fayyad said that the deal is a vital step towards unity and would lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on 1967 borders with Jerusalem as capital.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu congratulated Abbas on reaching the agreement.

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh received similar messages from Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Badia. Khalil Assaf, independent Palestinian figures assembly representative in the West Bank, said the agreement was "the most important thing to happen to the Palestinians in 2011."


Earlier on Wednesday, Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar revealed additional details of the historic pact, including the release of political prisoners and the establishment of a joint security higher committee.

Following the announcement on the unity pact, Palestinians residents across the West Bank and Gaza Strip went out on the streets to celebrate the dramatic reconciliation between the longtime foes.


"It is a positive step for our national unity," said Gaza resident Yusuf Lafy, adding, "It brings us one step closer to liberating our occupied territories, because it will garner international legitimacy."

Cool response from Washington

The United States reacted coolly on Wednesday to the reconciliation annoucement, calling Hamas a "terrorist" group and saying any Palestinian government must renounce violence.
"The United States supports Palestinian reconciliation on terms which promote the cause of peace. Hamas, however, is a terrorist organization which targets civilians," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.

"To play a constructive role in achieving peace, any Palestinian government must accept the Quartet principles and renounce violence, abide by past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist," he said.

Spokespersons for the White House and the State Department said that they were seeking more information about the reported deal between the two groups.

[bigross86]

Wow, there's a shocker...

I wonder, how do people like Zraver and NeilE want Israel to make peace with Hamas when Hamas goes and publishes stuff like this? I wanna hear the spin on how this too is Israel's fault somehow

[Doktor]

Wow, there's a shocker...

I wonder, how do people like Zraver and NeilE want Israel to make peace with Hamas when Hamas goes and publishes stuff like this? I wanna hear the spin on how this too is Israel's fault somehow

Of course it is Israel's fault. You are accepting only 80-90% of their demands. That's not 100% dedication to the peace process from your side!!!

[S2]

The More Things Change...

There's every reason to believe that functional integration of HAMAS with P.A./Fatah will prove illusory. The internal power struggle hasn't been resolved by this and Fatah will realize in time they've lost influence among their constituents and the external community.

It will certainly impede relations with the United States as HAMAS insidiously spreads its influence into the west bank...and they shall do exactly that. The Israeli political factions will be forced to the right as well.

HAMAS' raison d'etre remains confrontation with Israel. They can be no partner for peace without neutering themselves. Doing so destroys their utility to their Syrian and Iranian masters as well as their confrontational-minded constituents.

This accomodation furthers their near-term objective of gaining control of the P.A. decision-making apparatus. They've successfully resisted the P.A. in Gaza and their next step will be to expand influence within the west bank.

Fatah will eventually find themselves standing on shifting sands or be forced into civil war. This time the war will be fought in the cities of the west bank. Not Gaza.

[Parihaka]

In Shift, Egypt Warms to Iran and Hamas, Israel’s Foes

CAIRO — Egypt is charting a new course in its foreign policy that has already begun shaking up the established order in the Middle East, planning to open the blockaded border with Gaza and normalizing relations with two of Israel and the West’s Islamist foes, Hamas and Iran.

Region in Revolt
Palestinian Factions Give Differing Views of Unity Pact (April 29, 2011)
Thousands Fleeing Qaddafi Bask in Tunisia’s Hospitality (April 29, 2011)
Bahrain Sentences 4 Protesters to Death (April 29, 2011)
CBS Reporter Recounts a ‘Merciless’ Assault (April 29, 2011)
Rebels Repel Assaults By Loyalists in Libya (April 29, 2011) Egyptian officials, emboldened by the revolution and with an eye on coming elections, say that they are moving toward policies that more accurately reflect public opinion. In the process they are seeking to reclaim the influence over the region that waned as their country became a predictable ally of Washington and the Israelis in the years since the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

The first major display of this new tack was the deal Egypt brokered Wednesday to reconcile the secular Palestinian party Fatah with its rival Hamas. “We are opening a new page,” said Ambassador Menha Bakhoum, spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry. “Egypt is resuming its role that was once abdicated.”

Egypt’s shifts are likely to alter the balance of power in the region, allowing Iran new access to a previously implacable foe and creating distance between itself and Israel, which has been watching the changes with some alarm. “We are troubled by some of the recent actions coming out of Egypt,” said one senior Israeli official, citing a “rapprochement between Iran and Egypt” as well as “an upgrading of the relationship between Egypt and Hamas.”

“These developments could have strategic implications on Israel’s security,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the issues were still under discussion in diplomatic channels. “In the past Hamas was able to rearm when Egypt was making efforts to prevent that. How much more can they build their terrorist machine in Gaza if Egypt were to stop?”

Israel had relied on Egypt’s help to police the border with Gaza, where arms and other contraband were smuggled to Hamas through tunnels.

Balancing its new independence against its old allegiances, Egypt is keeping all its commitments, including the peace treaty with Israel, Ambassador Bakhoum emphasized, and she said that it hoped to do a better job complying with some human rights protocols it had signed.

But she said that the blockade of the border with Gaza and Egypt’s previous enforcement of it were both “shameful,” and that Egypt intended soon to open up the border “completely.”

At the same time, she said, Egypt is also in the process of normalizing its relations with Iran, a regional power that the United States considers a dangerous pariah.

“All the world has diplomatic relations with Iran with the exception of the United States and Israel,” Ambassador Bakhoum said. “We look at Iran as a neighbor in the region that we should have normal relations with. Iran is not perceived as an enemy as it was under the previous regime, and it is not perceived as a friend.”

Several former diplomats and analysts said that by staking out a more independent path, Egypt would also regain a measure of power that came with the flexibility to bestow or withhold support.

If Egypt believes Israel’s refusal to halt settlements in the West Bank is the obstacle to peace, for example, then “cooperating with the Israelis by closing the border to Gaza did not make sense, as much as one may differ with what Hamas has done,” argued Nabil Fahmy, dean of the public affairs school at the American University in Cairo and a former Egyptian ambassador to the United States.

Many Egyptian analysts, including some former officials and diplomats who served under then-President Hosni Mubarak, say they are thrilled with the shift. “This is the new feeling in Egypt, that Egypt needs to be respected as a regional power,” said Emad Gad, a foreign policy expert on relations with Israel at the official Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.

Egypt is recognizing Hamas, he said, for the same reason the Egyptian prime minister recently had breakfast with his family at a public restaurant without heavily armed body guards: any official who wants to stay in government is thinking about elections. “This is a new thing in Egyptian history,” Mr. Gad said.

Mahmoud Shokry, a former Egyptian ambassador to Syria under Mr. Mubarak, said: “Mubarak was always taking sides with the U.S., but the new way of thinking is entirely different. We would like to make a model of democracy for the region, and we are ensuring that Egypt has its own influence.”

In the case of Iran, a competing regional power, Ms. Bakhoum noted that although Egypt broke off relations with the Islamist government after its 1979 revolution, the countries reopened limited relations in 1991 on the level of a chargé d’affaires, so normalizing relations was more of an elevation than a reopening.

The deal between the Palestinian factions capitalized on the forces unleashed around the region by Egypt’s revolution. In its aftermath, Hamas found its main sponsor, the Assad government of Syria, shaken by its own popular protest movement, while the Fatah government in the West Bank faced throngs of young people adapting the chants of the Egyptian uprising to the cause of Palestinian unity.

Egypt had laid out a proposal virtually identical to the current deal for both sides as early as 2009, several participants from all sides said. But the turning point came in late March, about six weeks after the revolution.

For the first time in years of talks the Hamas leaders were invited to the headquarters of the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs instead of merely meeting at a hotel or the intelligence agency — a signal that Egypt was now prepared to treat Hamas as a diplomatic partner rather than a security risk.

They also met with Egypt’s interim head of state, Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, the leader of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and Mr. Mubarak’s longtime defense minister.

“When I was invited to the meeting in the Foreign Ministry, that was something different, and this is what the agreement grew out of,” said Taher Nounou of Hamas. “We definitely felt that there was more openness from the new Egyptian leadership.” Foreign Minister Nabil el-Araby told the Palestinians that “he doesn’t want to talk about the ‘peace process’ any more, he wants to talk about the peace,” Ambassador Bakhoum said.

She said the Egyptian government was still studying how to open the border with Gaza, to help the civilians who lived there, and to determine which goods might be permitted. But she said the government had decided to move ahead with the idea.

[S2]

Palestinian Authority Tries To Have Its Cake

In a move offering no surprise, Prime Minister Abbas tried to allay fears in Israel and America that an internal reconciliation between HAMAS and Fatah would not impede the peace process.

Naturally, those fears haven't been alleviated-

Abbas Seeks To Allay Fears On Accord-WAPO April 28, 2011

The essential roadblock, recognition of Israel, remains key. Although a requirement by the Quartet (U.N., U.S., E.U, and Russia), there's no indication whatsoever that HAMAS intends to proffer recognition. Meanwhile Abbas insists that foreign policy will remain the purview of the P.A. under his leadership.

Maybe. It's disingenuous and/or delusional for Fatah officials to not acknowledge the impediments to peace created by this rapproachment with HAMAS. While they may be entirely correct to seek a reconciliation I can't believe Fatah truly believes the conditions for such under their aegis have been established. They've almost no influence whatsoever inside Gaza. HAMAS influence inside the west bank, conversely, is prevalent and spreading. To that end, reconciliation and accomodation may more functionally be defined as appeasement. In so doing, Fatah can't help but take on the more confrontational qualites defining HAMAS.

This endless cancerous dance continues and can only serve to strengthen the reactionary right-wing inside Israel. In truth, like other attempts before now, this peace process is DOA. It may be that only war will break the deadlock and continuing political polarization between Israel and the Palestinians and within the P.A.

[Red Seven]

...this peace process is DOA. It may be that only war will break the deadlock...

As morbid as it sounds, I almost wish that it would.

[S2]

Red Seven Reply

"As morbid as it sounds, I almost wish that it would."

Red Seven, it's not morbid. It's humane to recognize when discord is such that discussion is fruitless. That's the case here and, perhaps, with U.S-Pakistani relations.

Without the preparedness to call a spade a spade and move to the next level of leverage there's no incentive for the weaker party to abandon the present posture. That paradigm permits the weaker party to live for another day without risk.

Therein lies the value of total war. Total war promises a paradigm shift through utter destruction of the present elements underpinning stalemate. What follows is undefined but, if swept clean, offers the prevailing side the opportunity to define the argument and set the conditions. International peace-keeping measures might actually, however entrenched they've become, prove an impediment to true peace.

OTOH, can Israel actually conduct total war on Palestine and/or any other possible foe(s) without external assistance? To pursue objectives to a favorable conclusion under such a scenario, they need immunity from external pressure-total independance.

Absent such, they become vulnerable to pressure, for instance, from America. Absent our preparedness to apply that pressure, WE become vulnerable to global pressure to lean upon Israel. In short, we'd have to buy off on their objective or prove we've no leverage with Israel.

War with the Palestinians almost certainly means war with HEZBOLLAH too. Such may include, therefore, war with Syria and/or Iran. IMV, Israel has to be prepared for all those possibilities and even intervention by Turkey at this point. A tall order.

I once had deep faith in Israel's war-making potential. Much of that was eroded by their abysmal operational performance in 2006. Combat has become much more complex these days and I'm uncertain they've overcome their battlefield leadership and organizational impediments. Moreover, depending upon the foes, the gap may have closed in net performance. Remember that HEZBOLLAH has never needed victory to achieve success. They've only needed to deny Israel such. Setting the conditions, therefore, for an Israeli success almost certainly means pre-emptively expanding the war immediately beyond Israel's existing borders. It must reach to Damascus and even Teheran.

Pulling the trigger is a hairy calculus.

[USSWisconsin]

It is even more scary when we have Pakistani SA contractors with root permission privileges on our secure servers...

They have access to lots of things.

[S2]

USSWisconsin Reply

"It is even more scary when we have Pakistani SA contractors with root permission privileges on our secure servers..."

Please explain more. I don't understand.

[Red Seven]

... That's the case here and, perhaps, with U.S-Pakistani relations.

Do you mean with respect to cross-border incursions and drone strikes in Pakistani territory? If so, I am all for it and was all for it when we failed to block Al Qaeda escape routes during the Tora Bora battles lest we violate Pak territory.

Therein lies the value of total war. Total war promises a paradigm shift through utter destruction of the present elements underpinning stalemate. What follows is undefined but, if swept clean, offers the prevailing side the opportunity to define the argument and set the conditions. International peace-keeping measures might actually, however entrenched they've become, prove an impediment to true peace.

Brilliant.

OTOH, can Israel actually conduct total war on Palestine and/or any other possible foe(s) without external assistance? To pursue objectives to a favorable conclusion under such a scenario, they need immunity from external pressure-total independance.

Tough call. They get condemned every time they twitch, ostrasized by the world community and the media for maintaining a justifiable aggressive defensive posture.

Remember that HEZBOLLAH has never needed victory to achieve success. They've only needed to deny Israel such.

So true of insurgencies in general.

Setting the conditions, therefore, for an Israeli success almost certainly means pre-emptively expanding the war immediately beyond Israel's existing borders. It must reach to Damascus and even Teheran.

I'm ready, when do we go?

[S2]

Red Seven Reply

"Tough call. They get condemned every time they twitch, ostrasized by the world community and the media for maintaining a justifiable aggressive defensive posture..."

Remember that total war means never having to say you're sorry...;)

[bigross86]

S-2, could you possibly conceive a situation where Israel would be given carte blanche for total war?

[USSWisconsin]

"It is even more scary when we have Pakistani SA contractors with root permission privileges on our secure servers..."

Please explain more. I don't understand.

Businesses in US have hired contractors in Pakistan, and given them access to systems and information that can cause trouble if it is abused. When I work with these contractors I get the distinct impression that they do not like the American people at all, and they dislike Israeli contractors even more - even when the contractors are working for an Israeli company and aren't Israelis themselves. When someone on my team acts this way, I am concerned about their access to critical systems which could impact the company or the customers.

SA - Systems Administrators --IT professionals who have full access to the systems they support.

[S2]

USSWisconsin Reply

"When someone on my team acts this way, I am concerned about their access to critical systems which could impact the company or the customers."

I understand. Does your employer understand the risk? If not, is the management leadership approachable or would you jeopardize your position bringing such a concern before them?

Your perception of Pakistanis is astute. It's an unusual Pakistani who hasn't bought into our supposed perfidy. It's my sense that they'd very much like to see us suffer grievously.

Further, virtually all Pakistanis view the PRC as their "all-weather" friend. Now, the tangible evidence of such hasn't nor isn't there yet it's a perception the Chinese are happy to promote. In point of fact I suspect the Pakistanis would view any challenger to American dominance as a potential saviour.