Israel's Mossad, Out of the Shadows

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Washington Dispatch: Former Israeli intelligence chief Efraim Halevy explains why he advocates talks with Hamas.

By Laura Rozen


(snip)

Mother Jones: Mr. Halevy, in your memoir you make clear your belief that Europe, and to a lesser extent the United States, have not fully come to terms with the national security threats posed by Islamic militancy and terrorism. Yet you've also said it would be a grave mistake for the West to treat all Islamist terrorist groups the same way, and argued that Israel should have some sort of process for talking with Hamas. If the West, led by Washington, continues to shun Hamas as an illegitimate terrorist group, do you see a risk that the group could take on a more nihilistic type of violence, a la al Qaeda?

Efraim Halevy: Hamas is not al Qaeda and, indeed, al Qaeda has condemned them time and time again. Hamas may from time to time have tactical, temporary contact with al Qaeda, but in essence they are deadly adversaries. The same goes for Iran. Hamas receives funds, support, equipment, and training from Iran, but is not subservient to Tehran. A serious effort to dialogue indirectly with them could ultimately drive a wedge between them.

MJ: Why do you think Israel and Washington should talk with Hamas?

EH: Hamas has, unfortunately, demonstrated that they are more credible and effective as a political force inside Palestinian society than Fatah, the movement founded by Yassir Arafat, which is now more than ever discredited as weak, enormously corrupt and politically inept.

pulled off three "feats" in recent years in conditions of great adversity. They won the general elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006; they preempted a Fatah design to wrest control of Gaza from them in 2007; and they broke out of a virtual siege that Israel imposed upon them in January 2008. In each case, they affected a strategic surprise upon all other players in the region and upon the United States, and in each case, no effective counter strategy mounted by the US and Israel proved effective.

Security in the West Bank is assured not by the fledgling and ineffective security forces of Abu Mazen now undergoing training once again by American-led instructors. It is the nightly incursions of the Israeli Defense Forces into the West Bank, their superior intelligence, together with that of the Israel Security Agency that does the job.

Current strategy in the West Bank to forge a credible Palestinian security capacity is floundering; indeed, several of the deaths of Israelis at the hands of West Bank terrorists were perpetrated by none other than members of the units under the command of Abu Mazen.

It makes sense to approach a possible initial understanding including Hamas—but not exclusively Hamas—at a time when they are still asking for one. No side will gain from a flare up leading to Israel re-entering the Gaza strip in strength to undo the ill-fated unilateral disengagement of 2005.

MJ: Should Hamas be required to recognize Israel's right to exist before Israel would talk with it?

EH: Israel has been successful in inflicting very serious losses upon Hamas in both Gaza and the West Bank and this has certainly had an effect on Hamas, who are now trying to get a "cease fire." But this has not cowed them into submission and into accepting the three-point diktat that the international community has presented to them: to recognize Israel's right to exist; to honor all previous commitments of the Palestinian Authority; and to prevent all acts of violence against Israel and Israelis. The last two conditions are, without doubt, sine qua non. The first demands an a priori renunciation of ideology before contact is made. Such a demand has never been made before either to an Arab state or to the Palestinian Liberation Organization/Fatah. There is logic in the Hamas' position that ideological "conversion" is the endgame and not the first move in a negotiation.



http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/02/israel-mossad-out-of-the-shadows.html

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. Halevy correctly describes the so-called "coup" in Gaza

as The Heathlander points out in his blog:

"You’ll probably recall that mainstream coverage largely portrayed Hamas’ takeover in Gaza last June as a “coup”, a power-grab revealing once and for all the underlying ‘totalitarian’ nature of the Hamas movement. Serious analysts of the conflict - Conflicts Forum, the International Crisis Group, the IISS, The Heathlander, Alastair Crooke, Nir Rosen, Tony Karon, Ali Abunimah, Jonathan Steele, etc. - recognised that the situation was rather more complicated.

To them, we can now add former-Mossad chief Efraim Halevy..."

http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/mossad-is-pro-hamas-who-knew/

[Lithos]

3. What defines a coup?

There are two different coups under discussion. Abbas attempted in late December of 2006 to hold early elections with the hope of re-establishing Fatah control via the voting booth was charged by Hamas as a coup. While I agree that this appeared to be illegal, so too was Hamas' armed take over of the Gaza strip in June 2007 effectively creating two Palestinian governments which is probably much closer to the definition people take for a coup.

Halevy, is probably the ultimate pragmatist and believer in realpolitiks and is not going to judge whether Hamas is "ideologically correct" or what is moral or not. To him the difference between Hamas' political attempt in late 2006 and the armed takeover by Hamas are both expressions of realpolitiks. It would be inappropriate to try and extract ideological or moral judgements from his statements.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. Hamas repeatedly takes the heat for being

the instigator of unrest in Gaza in 2006.

Halevy is clear that Fatah initiated this.

Events were far more accurately described in the Arabic press, where Dahlan was clearly identified as the instigator of trouble. This was rarely mentioned in ANY English press, much less MSM.

I used "coup" in quotes because I think it's ridiculous to accuse Hamas of a coup (weren't they the majority in the gov't??) when it was in fact Fatah that was attempting a nefarious power move.

[Lithos]

6. Hamas is not innocent by any stretch

They equally participated in the violence during the mid-part of 2006 with neither party taking turns escalating the conflict. Like two very petulant and dangerous children, Hamas didn't play fair and neither did Fatah.

As for "coup", I would judge Hamas' military takeover and effective disassociation from the existing Palestinian state as being closer to the definition of a coup than Abbas' earlier political maneuverings.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. By what sources of information do you make your judgment?

I'd love to see the source material you read to form your opinion.

And "innocent" is not a word I ever employed.

From the moment Hamas unexpectedly won the election, they strove to form a unity gov't. It was Fatah who preferred to watch their nascent nation founder rather than work together. And they certainly did not hear the message that the populace sent loud and clear: we reject your corruption.

The reason I posted the OP was to point out a source, in English, that others could point to, that displayed a different understanding of events than is generally portrayed in our media.

I'm not clear what it is you feel you need to correct. My use of "coup" in my response to the OP?

[Violet_Crumble]

2. Interesting interview. Thanks for posting it...

Israel has been successful in inflicting very serious losses upon Hamas in both Gaza and the West Bank and this has certainly had an effect on Hamas, who are now trying to get a "cease fire." But this has not cowed them into submission and into accepting the three-point diktat that the international community has presented to them: to recognize Israel's right to exist; to honor all previous commitments of the Palestinian Authority; and to prevent all acts of violence against Israel and Israelis.

Let me get this straight. Hamas is constantly criticised for putting preconditions on a ceasefire, yet Israel also insists on preconditions before they'll agree to a ceasefire?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. I think Hamas is criticized because they "only" wanting a ceasefire. nt