« Saddam's Trial Back On Track | Main | Well, I Never... »
March 01, 2006
Are Hamas' Goals Immutable?
I continue to hold to the idea that the elevation of Hamas to an official governing status will be a good thing--for Israel--after all is said and done. I believe that Hamas' intentions are immutable, but others disagree. Academic Elephant references a thoughtful piece by Henry Kissinger in the Washington Post; AE seems to agree with Dr. Kissinger that the burden of official leadership might transform the stated Hamas mindset that requires the destruction of the state of Israel.
Kissinger's article is very informative in delineating the issues up till now, and the following is my condensation of his main points:
A serious peace process assumes a reciprocal willingness to compromise. […]Such a reciprocal commitment has been lacking between Israel and the Palestinians. Until the Oslo agreement of 1993, Israel refused to deal with the Palestine Liberation Organization because its charter required the elimination of Israel and its policies included frequent recourse to terrorism. […]
The emergence of Hamas as the dominant faction in Palestine should not be treated as a radical departure. Hamas represents the mind-set that prevented the full recognition of Israel's legitimacy by the PLO for all these decades […]
What would be needed from Hamas [in order to produce a moderate secular partner to Israel] is an evolution comparable to Sharon's. The magnitude of that change is rarely adequately recognized. […]
A serious, comprehensive negotiation is therefore impossible unless Hamas crosses the same conceptual Rubicon Sharon did. And, as with Sharon, this may not happen until Hamas is convinced there is no alternative strategy -- a much harder task since the Sharon view is, in its essence, secular, while the Hamas view is fueled by religious conviction.
Hamas may in time accept institutionalized coexistence because Israel is in a position to bring about unilaterally much of the outcome described here. […]
Whatever happens, whoever governs Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the parties will be impelled by their closeness to one another to interact on a range of issues including crossing points, work permits and water usage. These de facto relationships might be shaped into some agreed international framework, in the process testing Hamas's claims of a willingness to discuss a truce. […]
Whether Hamas can be brought to such an outcome or any negotiated outcome depends on unity among the quartet and, crucially, on the moderate Arab world. […]
This last statement is where I think Kissinger goes astray. I cannot think of any sovereign state that endorses, as a fundamental principle of its founding, the destruction of another state--except for Hamas. Kissinger's assigning of principal responsibility for the success of the peace process to everyone other than Hamas is clearly mistaken. And in any event, I think the following article presents strong evidence that Hamas' goals must be treated as incompatible with any sort of peaceful coexistence with Israel (via Instapundit).
I think that Hamas has no intention of embracing any sort of negotiated peace, and therefore a strong argument can be made that--given that the mainstream Arab states and the worldwide liberal/Left continues to ignore Hamas' stated intentions--it's for the better that Hamas is now on the hot seat of leadership for the world to judge.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/566
