Israel-Palestine: Hamas' Meshaal Makes His Move

Israel-Palestine: How Netanyahu Demolished the Plan A of the Peace Process

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

In a televised statement on Thursday, Hamas political director Khaled Meshaal rejected Israel’s peace proposal while hailing the US President Barack Obama’s “new language.”

With reconciliation talks with Fatah due to take place in Cairo on Sunday, Meshaal’s pragmatic speech should be interpreted as another links in a chain of moves to strengthen Washington’s hand and to put more pressure on Israel. Nevertheless, Meshaal did not bring any new ideas to the table but repeated Hamas' rhetorical position.

Meshaal took apart the recent speech by the Israeli Prime Minister, “The [Palestinian] state that Netanyahu talked about, with control on it by land, sea and air, is a freak entity and a big prison, not a country fit for a great people… Mr. Netanyahu offered merely self-governance under the name of a country”

As for Netanyahu's demand for Palestinians recognition of Israel, Meshaal responded: “The enemy's leaders call for a so-called Jewish state is a racist demand that is no different from calls by Italian Fascists and Hitler's Nazism.”

Meshaal offered no change in Hamas’s current political position, rejecting the demands of the US-EU-UN-Russia Quartet, “Dealing with Hamas and Palestinian resistance movements must be based on respecting the will of the Palestinian people and its democratic choice, not through putting conditions, such as those of the quartet” He continued to stand upon "the establishment of a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital, that has full sovereignty on the borders of 4 June 1967; the removal of all settlements; and the achievement of the right of return".

Having drawn a firm line against any movement towards Israel, Meshaal then praised Obama with a message for "the sake of the reconciliation talks":: “We appreciate Obama's new language towards Hamas. And it is the first step in the right direction towards a dialogue without conditions, and we welcome this.”

This is not the first time that Hamas has mentioned talks with the US but on an unconditional basis. On 11 June, Meshaal told the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, “Obama says he will turn a new page in the region and begin a dialogue with the Iranians and with the Syrians unconditionally… If so, why is he placing conditions on Hamas?”

The question is whether Washington takes up Meshaal's rhetoric to put pressure on Israel. The Obama Administration has left open that possibility: when it asked Congress to allow continued aid to Palestinians, it said this was possible even if officials linked to Hamas become part of the government after reconciliation talks.

If the Cairo discussions proceed, the Obama Administration might use Meshaal’s message as leverage in the event that Israel does not move beyond symbolic developments, such as Thursday's declaration that it is reducing the number of its soldiers in four West Bank.

On then to Egypt: this time the seemingly endless cycle of stop-start discussions may have significance.

Israel-Palestine: How Netanyahu Demolished the Plan A of the Peace Process

Related Post: Israel-Palestine - Netanyahu’s Two-State Magical Sidestep
Transcript: Netanyahu Speech on Israel-Palestine (14 June)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s carefully-framed speech on 14 June portrayed a peaceful Israel pursuing all necessary steps for a regional peace agreement.

It's when you read the speech more closely that problems emerge. Netanyahu’s priority of economic development rather than political agreements, Israel’s pre-conditions for peace (including no pre-conditions on Israel), and its political and social securitization are out of step with dynamics in the Middle East.

Netanyahu's speech was bolstered by developments  such as the conflict between Fatah and Hamas. Since the beginning of June, the tension in the West Bank has soared dramatically. After several Hamas members were killed by Fatah, a Damascus-based Hamas spokesman, Talal Nasser, called on Palestinians to fight the Palestinian Authority as though they were fighting the Israeli occupation. In response, the Palestinian police arrested 36 Hamas supporters in the West Bank. Hamas’s unsustainable and irrational steps were partly curbed by its chief in Damascus, Khaled Mashaal, who complained instead about pre-conditions set by the Obama Administration. He declared that Hamas would not be an obstacle to the peace process if it was included as a partner in Israeli talks with the Palestinian Authority.

However, in the eyes of important actors in the international community, there is no legitimate ground for Hamas unless it confirms the conditions of the Quartet: recognition of Israel, ending terrorist activities and abiding by the past agreements signed by the PA. And Hamas will not issue that confirmation as long as Gaza and the West Bank are divided both geographically and politically.

Thus Netanyahu can rely upon the "existential threat" of a strong Hamas troubling Fatah in the West Bank and, more importantly, relying of the backing of a "potentially nuclear-armed" Iran.

There are, of course, issues beyond Hamas. How can there be a peace process with Fatah while settlements are still not frozen and the proposal of a demilitarized Palestinian state includes "ironclad security provisions" for Israeli security forces? How can Netanyahu foresee a real regional peace agreement without giving any concessions  to Israel's Arab neighbours, for example, when his Syrian colleague Bashar Assad has already declared that there will be no negotiations without the promise to return the Golan Heights to Syria?

For Netanyahu, the wonder of "Hamas" is that it can always trump these difficulties because of the overriding notion of Israeli "security".

Securitization of Israel’s Existence

The remarkable threats in Netanyahu’s speech were those of nuclear weapons and radical Islam. Because Iran is considered as the nexus of these two, it is the number one enemy for Israel. Radical Islam’s branches – Hamas and Hezbollah – follow:

The Iranian threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday. The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons....Hamas will not even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has spent three years in captivity, cut off from his parents, his family and his people.

The contrast to these menaces is the unique character of Israelis. They are the ones whose forefathers and prophets lived in the same lands where they now live; they are the only nation linking their state’s existence with religion and history. It is Israelis who suffered from expulsions, pogroms, massacres, and a Holocaust which has no parallel in human history. Despite these hardships, it was Israelis who formed their own state.

The threat of Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas endangers this unique "existence", word used three times by Netanyahu in his speech. Each time, "existence" referred not only to community but to Israeli institutions: “It is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel’s continued existence as the state of the Jewish people....On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed....Our people have already proven that we can do the impossible. Over the past 61 years, while constantly defending our existence, we have performed wonders.”

Netanyahu’s Investment in "Peace"

But how to deal with the issue that, while Netanyahu might have an emphasis on "security", others would be looking for "peace"?

In a speech where every word was selected carefully, “peace” was used on 43 occasions, 15 more times than Barack Obama invoked it in his Cairo speech. The word “war” was used seven times, once to highlight Israel’s success in the 1967 Six-Day War, six times to depict the ugliness of wars in general.

In addition, there were two references to the religion of the Torah and the prophet. This was to show one party in the conflict, Israelis, demanding peace not just in their political debates but also in their prayers. This religious commitment put forth Israel’s honesty when “the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own”. Israelis struggle for peace day and night while Arabs dismiss “the truth”.

Israel’s Pre-Conditions for A Two-State Solution under “The Road Map”

Netanyahu's headline statement, according to many in the Western media, was that he finally accepted "peace" through a two-state solution. However, the corollary of Netanyahu’s demand that Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state is that Israelis will not accept the right of return of Palestinians who left their homes after 1948 war. His insistence, “The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel,” means that Israel will control all borders, reserving the right to intervene, in the name of both Israeli and Palestinian securities, with forces surrounding the entire Palestinian territories. This may also include Israeli defense of Jewish settlements and some military outposts inside the West Bank.

When all this is taken into consideration, as well as Netanyahu’s declaration, “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel,” it is clear that the Israeli Government’s demands are distant from the "two-state" conditions in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. In this case, the Road Map loses its meaning, even before parties agree on progress towards regional peace.

The Justifications of Preconditions

Netanyahu’s approach was a combination of religious belief and a “security” perspective to justify a position as necessary rather than illegitimate. He said:

The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.

This subtle move put a “history” of thousands of years above international law to establish the “unique” character of Israel. And it also ensured that the security perspective was not forgotten. Netanyahu set this up through a clear distinction between Israel, with its values and culture, and those who would always remain outside that ideal:

But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.

And because Palestinians can never be part of the unique character, with its inherent "peace", security's conditions must be placed upon them from the outset of negotiations: 

Without these two conditions (the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the demilitarization of the Palestinian state), there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza… Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.

Once again, to give substance to the threat of the ideological-cultural outsider, Netanyahu invoked specific enemies, "In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran.”

The Future of Settlements

The problem for Netanyahu, entering this speech, is that all his definitions of a proper Israel and a potentially dangerous Palestine did not cover the in-between area: Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Therefore, he began by trying to pull those settlements back into "Israel", not geographically but on a higher cultural ground:

The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements… But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.

On a less exalted level, Netanyahu had said: No Freeze on Settlements (see the follow-up to the speech in Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington).

But, to return to Netanyahu's attempted higher plane of discussion, he never referred to "the West Bank".  Instead, he used "Judea and Samaria", the Biblical expression used for the West Bank, three times. Once more, an eternal religious invocation --- one which can only be claimed by Jewish people --- was deployed to keep open the issue of "legitimacy" in a disputed area.

Indeed, "Judaea and Samaria" provided the foundation for Netanyahu's claim of no connection between Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands and terrorist attacks:

Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence… The attacks against us began in the 1920s. We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and children… The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality.

Putting the Burden on the Palestinian Authority

Netanyahu was clear, "The Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas.”

Given Netanyahu's refusal to make any concessions on the Israeli position, it is obvious that there can be no positive answer from the other side. The Palestinian Authority's leader Mahmoud Abbas dismissed Netanyahu’s speech as “sabotaging” peace efforts. Nemer Hammad, an advisor to Mahmoud Abbas said, "Netanyahu’s speech had not brought anything new."

Netanyahu and his Cabinet members knew that this would be the reaction. The speech was not meant to open negotations but to frame them in such a way that they could not be started. Why? The Israeli Prime Minister's strategy is to buy time and then, in more favourable political condition, returns to talks based on his agenda of the economic development of the West Bank. As he said in another part of his speech: “I call on the Arab countries to cooperate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it.”

Almost two weeks have now passed since Netanyahu's speech, responding to President Obama's original plan for Israeli-Palestinian talks.  The Plan B of a wider engagement between the US and Iran in the region, alongside or awaiting those talks, is now comatose after turmoil in Tehran. A Plan C, based on an anti-Iran rhetoric as well as changed relations with countries like Syria, may come into play.

All this, however, is speculation beyond immediate significance: the Netanyahu effect --- blending security, Israeli exceptionalism, and religion --- has been to take Plan A off the table.

Israel-Palestine: The Politics of Prisoner Releases

The political ground in Palestine changes again. Arrests and violence have tapered off, at least for the time being, and on Monday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas ordered the release of hundreds of Hamas prisoners held in the West Bank.

Many officials interpreted Abbas' decision as  the outcome of last week’s mutual declarations of Hamas and Fatah that they would exchange lists of detainees to break the ice before forthcoming discussions in Cairo. Azam al-Ahmad, the head of the Fatah bloc in the Palestinian Legislative Council, said: "The gesture aims at putting an end to division and lays the ground for Palestinian reconciliation talks to be held by Egypt next month."

This is a partial explanation for Abbas' move, but its wider implications should be noted. After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had declared the recognition of a de-militarized Palestinian state, surrounded with ironclad security provisions, the Palestinian Authority leader needed to hit back. And, unless many occasions in the past, Abbas had some leverage.  Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in his meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, might have maintained the hard-line position of the Netanyahu Government on Israeli settlements, but Clinton did not fold. So Abbas, if he could get an easing of tensions with Hamas, might be in a position to put some pressure on Tel Aviv. 

This is not the end of the story, however.  Israel tried to play down the Abbas initiative --- "It is just an exchange of prisoners for the expected round of reconciliation talks" --- but recognised that this might not be enough. So, on Tuesday, Israel released the Hamas speaker of the Palestinian parliament, Aziz Dweik, who had been in prison since 2006. This was no minor prisoner: Aziz Dweik had been captured by Israeli Defense Forces just after Hamas militants had abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006 and had been a possible bargaining chip for Shalit's return.

The moral may be that moving detainees about might buy time and a bit of breathing space, but it is no substitute for firm agreements. Next scene? The Fatah-Hamas talks in Cairo.

Iran: What's Happening? Sifting Information from Rumours on Twitter

NEW The Latest from Iran (19 June): The Known and the Unknown

The Latest from Iran (18 June): From Green to “A Sea of Black”
LATEST Video: The Protests in and Beyond Tehran

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

On "Anonymous Iran", Josh Shahryar has posted a summary of 16 points about the Iranian crisis. This is based on a thorough examination of stories circulated via Twitter --- "no news media outlets have been used in the compilation".

We've cross-checked Mr Shahryar's summary against our information --- from Iranian and international news outlets, the best of the websites covering the crisis, and contacts. We also have tried to assess the importance of the points: for example, without downplaying the other indicators, we think #16 on the political manoeuvres is the most significant, The notations in italics are our current assessment:

1. During the last protest in Tehran, several policemen have been spotted by protesters who were wearing green bands which is the color of the revolution. The policemen have told them candidly that they support them. [Unverified, although there is video footage of demonstrators mingling peacefully with police]

2. During the protests, on several occasions, Baseejis who have attacked peaceful protesters have been arrested on the spot by the police. This seems to have occured in several spots, yet it hasn't been a crackdown of sorts. A few cases only! [Unverified]

3. Several Baseeji militiamen have been spotted laying down their arms and going home after being asked to interfere with the protesters. [Unverified]

4. By far the biggest threat people are facing right now are plainclothesmen. They seem to be everywhere and are targetting people who are not in groups. These men have been mostly linked with Ansar e Hezbollah. [N.B.: This is a different organisation from the Lebanese Hezbollah.] They are responsible for beating people up, arresting people, threatening protesters, arresting reformists from their homes and such. [Verified from numerous sources]

5. So far, it has been confirmed that 15 people in Tehran and 32 people around the country have been killed. Hundreds more have been injured and in excess of 800 people have been detained. Among these there are dozens of reformists. Most of these arrests have been made by the notorious plainclothesmen mentioned above. [The casualty figures, especially outside Tehran, are hard to verify. The number of arrests can only be an estimate, although "hundreds" is indicated from numerous sources.]

6. During yesterday's protests, mullahs have been spotted joining rallies within Tehran and in several other cities. No one could confirm what the status of these Mullahs was or is within the clerical society, but their numbers have been very visible this time. [Unverified, but a number of clerics have been openly critical of President Ahmadinejad and the electoral process. See today's New York Times for an interesting analysis.]

7. Protests have occured not just in Tehran yesterday, but in Ahvaz, Mashhad, Kermanshah, Qazvin, Shiraz, Tabriz and EVEN Qom. [Largely verified, although we are checking the Qom claim.]

8. Pro-Ahmadinejad protesters' numbers have been greatly exaggerated by the state media in comparison to Mousavi's supporters' numbers. In reality, Pro-Ahmadinejad protesters were only a pocket full of people. Most of these people have been identified by other protesters as either people who work at government offices or people who were brought from the countryside. [Unverified and should be treated with caution. Television images showed more than a "pocketful" of people and the claim that their opinions are not legimitate should be considered with the same scepticism as the claim that opposition demonstrators are not legitimate in their protest.]

9. After downplaying the protests for days, the state-run media has finally started to announce news of the events a little more accurately. [Verified, although the state media is now trying to ignore the protests. See today's updates.]

10. Text Messaging is still down in Iran and internet is extremely slow. People are unable to get sattelite channels on their televisions. At the same time, police and plainclothesmen are going door to door and taking away people's satellite dish antennas. [Largely verified. We have only anecdotal evidence of the taking away of antennas.]

11. Mohsen Rezayee, one of the candidates, is going to declare his support for a reelection tomorrow. The fourth candidate, Mahdi Karoubi openly joined yesterday's rally. [Verified.]

12. A group of prominent officials within the Ministry of Interior have written a letter to the Guardian Council declaring that they have witnessed widespread irregularities within the voting and counting processes during the election. They have asked this matter to be investigated fully. [Unverified.]

13. As of today, not a single report of the military's intervention into the peaceful protests has been established. Not a single one. [Verified. Apart from a brief reports of tanks on the streets on Monday night, there has been no evidence of Iranian military challenging the demonstrations.]

14. Khatami and Mousavi have both asked the Ministry of Justice to investigate the involvement of the plainclothesmen in the violence that has been sparked during the protests. [Verified.]

15. Several eye-witnesses have seen non-Iranian Arabs waving Hamas/Hezbollah flags around the protests. These reports have been fully confirmed and are NOT a rumor spread by Israel. [Unverified and should be treated with caution. The accusation of "foreign" support is being used by both sides in the political manoeuvring.]

16. Finally, the big news. It seems that the Green Revolution has garnered the support of Hashemi Rafsanjani, Nateq Noori, Tabatabayee and other prominent clerics and politicians. The Rohaniyone Mubarez organization that which has in its ranks pretty much most of the clerics except for the ones in power and includes Mr. Rafsanjani and Mr. Noori has declared their support for the annullment of the election and holding of new elections. Ayatollah Montazeri has yet to declare clear support. [An important claim which is not untrue but is exaggerated at this point. Rafsanjani is clearly trying to mobilise opposition to President Ahmadinejad and the election outcome. We know that he was in Qom on Saturday, asking clerics to come out against the President, but we have no indication that he was successful with "most" of them. This is a key story which should be watched carefully in forthcoming days.]

[Enduring America is continuing to follow the situation in Iran very closely- for the latest, please subscribe to our updates.]

Iran after the Elections: Confession, Accusation and Warning from Israel

The Latest from Iran (18 June): From Green to “A Sea of Black”

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

After  the Guardian Council announced its decision to review the vote in the Iranian Presidential election, a confession, an accusation and a warning came from Israel on Tuesday.

A Confession:

Mossad chief Meir Dagan said that Israel would in fact have an easier time explaining the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons to the world when the country is led by a hard-line fanatic president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than if Mir Hossein Mousavi, who is seen as a moderate, would win the election. He added: "We mustn't forget Mousavi is the one who started the nuclear program."

Dagan's statement was an inadvertent reminder of how much Osama bin Laden wanted George W. Bush instead of John Kerry to win the  2004 election. In his videotape, bin Laden said: "We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings. . . . They have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.”

Just as al-Qaeda tries to recruit men and obtain arms on the grounds of a "legitimate struggle’" supporting local Afghans, Arabs and Pakistanis, Mr. Dagan’s statement tries to maintain the stability of fear --- better your enemy who is in power than a challenger who might not be quite so menacing.

An Accusation:

According to the Jerusalem Post, Hamas members are helping Iranian officials crush supporters of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. The assertion is based on the unverified claims of two protestors. Indeed, in almost 2000 words, "Hamas" is only mentioned three times. The real target of the piece is the Iranian Government.

A Warning:

Meir Dagan stated that Iran would have a nuclear bomb ready for use by 2014. There is no evidence to counter the current US intelligence assessment that it has obtained no evidence Iran has resumed its nuclear weapons programme, suspended in 2003, and it takes no account of the current US strategy of "engagement" with Tehran. It does, however, maintain the notion of the "existential threat" of Iran.