To Talk with Hamas

[bemildred]

By URI AVNERY

Israel must negotiate with whatever Palestinian leadership is elected by the Palestinian people. As in every conflict throughout history, one does not elect the leadership of the opponent--first, because the opponent will not accept this, and, just as importantly, because an agreement made with such a leadership will not hold.

The broader the leadership is, the better. If an agreement is reached, it is vitally important that all sections of the Palestinian people are committed to it. And it is essential to include the most extreme factions. If Hamas had not decided to take part in the elections, it should have been forced to do so.

A group that is ready to negotiate with Israel, thereby already recognizes the State of Israel. And if it is not ready to negotiate, the problem does not arise. A matter of simple logic. But generals and politicians are not professors of logic, nor apparently do they know much about negotiations and agreements.

On the Palestinian side: the very fact that Hamas is participating in elections that are based on the Oslo agreement proves that the Palestinian political system is moving in the direction of peace. On the face of it, the Hamas victory seems to be bad for peace. But the real result may be quite different: it may moderate the radical movement and make sure that any agreement reached will be solid and permanent. ]]

CounterPunch

[bullimiami]

1. truly there will be no peace unless hamas and every other large group

participate in it.

[Feenicks]

2. Indeed, the Hamas victory could be the worse thing

On the face of it, the Hamas victory seems to be bad for peace. But the real result may be quite different: it may moderate the radical movement and make sure that any agreement reached will be solid and permanent

for Hamas because now they will not be able to attack from the shadows, being the reigning power. An attack now fully represents the people of Palestine. I agree that this vault to leadership can ONLY have a moderating effect on Hamas.

The problem in the near future is going to be dealing with disgruntled Fatah, who have been ripped away from the gravy teet. The Palestinians, who have forced Fatah to pay for their corruption, greed, and inaction, could be in for a rough ride as the 2 sides battle it out.

[pelsar]

3. iran?

overthrowing the shah was a good idea....getting khomeni, and a facist theorcratic dictatorship in its place, probably wasnt.....hamas can go either way....

[Behind the Aegis]

4. drool

But, drool is to be expected from Avnery. For someone who likes to pretend he knows logic, his seems to be lacking.

[bemildred]

5. LOL. Touche.

Although I can't say I've ever seen Uri claim to be a logician.
And it does seem to me some of his points are reasonable.

Edit: For instance, I really liked his first paragraph.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

16. Well the thing is, there are lots of stories about how ...

Hamas must recognize Israel and must stop wanting to destroy Israel and so on, so it seems reasonable to me for Uri to use "must" in the same sense to assert Israel "must" negotiate with whatever leadership the Palestinians elect, or else accept a permanent state of conflict. I've never been able to see myself why one should ever refuse to talk to anyone, like hot-air was precious or something and not to be wasted on unworthy recipients, or like there was something bad about attempting to ameliorate violence in the absence of a total solution to everything. So generally when someone, e.g. the US Government, refuses to talk to someone else, e.g. al Qaeda, I generally interpret it as meaning that they don't really want the issue resolved, i.e. they like the current situation as it is but don't feel free to say that. Of course, it's also political drama, posturing, and very popular in that sense too. Everybody like to pretend they are Humphrey Bogart. And it seems reasonable to point out that Israel does not seem impelled to renounce it's intent to destroy Hamas, or to give up it's weapons, or to "recognize" Hamas as the legitimate ruling party of the PNA, which it is now, so it seems a bit unfair to demand that Hamas do what the state of Israel is not willing to do.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. How did you do that?!

My message, for some unknown reason, was deleted. How did you reply to my message?! I have to take care of something else, but I will post to your reply.

[bemildred]

18. Well, I read it before it was deleted.

So I had time to think about it, and then I responded.
I don't know why yours was deleted either, I didn't see
anything egregious, but I don't pay much attention to
that stuff anyway. If it was up to me you could say
anything you like as long as you don't descend into
repetitious name-calling and overt drool.

[channa18]

6. At least drool has some purpose.....

Mr. Avnery has none.


His perpetual desire to engage "any terrorist ,any time" no matter what atrocity or war crimes borders somehere between blind ignorance on one hand and self loathing with venom towards his own people on the other.

Perhaps Mr. Avnery could expand his words-of-wisdom to the USA explaining why we must engage the 'misunderstood' al-Queda or even expand those deep seated thoughts to Mr. Blair about those racist subways and busses that persecute those the freedom-fighters.


Uri Avnery never saw a terrorist group or terrorist attack that seemed to give him pause or revulsion. An amazing man. His world of 'wrong is right' and 'up is down' defies any conscience.



edit for spelling. Thank you.

[bemildred]

7. That's "deep seated".

You're right, he doesn't see the world in a black and white way.
I suppose that is why he is so annoying to people that do.

[Matilda]

10. The world is full of people who see things in black and white,

and they're generally fighting with each other.

I guess that's why I like people like Uri Avnery, who see both sides of the equation.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. 'self loathing with venom towards his own people'??

I'd ask you to supply any examples of this, but as I already know it'll consist of nothing but repeating where Uri Avnery has said something critical about the Occupation, and most of us are already aware that criticism of Israeli policy is not anti-Semitism or 'self-loathing', that particular claim can be automatically written off as Drool With No Purpose Or Use-By Date...

Violet...

[Tom Joad]

13. In this context, "self-loathing" person means someone who has

the desire to live with other people as equals. Not claiming superiority. Instead, insisting that other peoples also have human rights, no more and no less, than your own. Having no desire to rule over others, or dispossess others of their homes or land. Such People often see everyone, regardless of ethnicity, as "their own people".

For many governments in power, this is a very dangerous thinking, so it is encouraged that such people be hated, because if such a view were to spread, wars could not be waged, whole ways of thinking could be shattered.

Hence using the derogatory term "self-loathing" is encouraged by the powers to be for someone who is "anti-racist". It is used as a tool to discourage such subversive thinking. Vicious verbal and even physical attacks on such people have been common. Websites, not to be referenced here by any decent DU'er, have even described such people in the most hateful and disgusting terms. This is a tool to keep the status quo, prevent change.

For other examples in other political contexts: See History- Mississippi Freedom Riders, U.S. 1960's

[Englander]

15. Yes, it's just a meaningless insult. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Definately n/t

[TomClash]

8. The only reason not to negotiate

is that it might lead to something the Israeli right does not want to do, like give up territory. Nations "negotiate" with "terrorists" all the time. The US just allowed the release of several female Iraqi prisoners, obviously timed to influence the outcome of the Jill Carroll saga. It is really laughable that the political descendants of the Stern Gang and the Irgun "don't want to negotiate with terrorists."

[Orangeone]

9. I Agree

Besides remember they didn't want to negotiate with secular Palistinians either. Unless the Palestinians elect Nelson Mandela--Israel will claim they have no one to negotiate with.

[pelsar]

12. we just get confused...

the problem with israelis is that many of us understand arabic....including the meanings in between the sentences....which kind of confuses us, since many times we hear stuff like:

kill the jews, jews are pigs, all of palestine is ours etc (fridays in the mosques in particular).....but then during the week on CNN we hear things like, we are "willing to live in peace with the israelis" (from hamasnikim...)

its just so confusing....

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Don't go there, pelsar...

You omit to mention that in exactly the same way, Palestinians hear vile and disgusting crap spewed about them from synagogues. Or unlike Israelis, aren't Palestinians supposed to be confused about the mixed messages they hear from Israel?

Violet...

[Andromeda]

21. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.