A Modest Proposal: Why Hamas May Move Towards a Settlement with Israel

More than two months after the unilateral ceasefires in the Gaza War, there has been little progress in discussions on Israel and Palestine. Not only have unity talks between Fatah and Hamas failed to reach a conclusion, but the Israeli-Hamas talks on a prisoner exchange have also been fruitless.

So what's the hold-up? Self-confidence. Hamas self-confidence.

According to all measurements, Hamas's popularity has been increasing, even in the West Bank, since the end of the war. Surviving the border blockade of Gaza and the heavy bombardments of Operation Cast Lead Hamas has strengthened its position in Gaza, as it has put out a constant anti-Fatah rhetoric.

In the unity talks to establish the pre-conditions for an election to form a unity government, the Palestinian Authority (dominated by Fatah) has been insisting on the principles of the Quartet of the US/UN/EU/Russia. These call for Hamas to renounce terrorism, recognise Israel, and abide by the 2005 agreement between Tel Aviv and the PA. Hamas does not and cannot accept this for the time being.

Despite its stronger position, Hamas is walking on a thin and fragile tightrope: it must either accept the Quartet's conditions and work in partnership with Fatah, or it will be excluded from the political arena and be increasingly marginalised. If the Obama Administration's regional policies move the new Israeli Government, because of deepening economic crisis or a resurgence in perception of Israeli "security" in US domestic politics, Hamas can lose everything it has now.

Hamas is putting its bargaining power on the line. It may get more concessions from Israel at the behest of the US over the course of time. However, even this will never allow Hamas to sustain its uncompromising stance against recognition of Israel and acceptance of the 2005 agreements.

What does this mean? Hamas officials, who are aware of this dilemma, will not insist on political principles that can never be fulfilled. As they gain more of a role in a Palestinian Government, encouraged by their showing in the next elections, they are going to recognize Israel.

This will probably take years. At first, a long-term truce (hudna) based on pre-1967 borders and some economic, political, environmental, and security cooperation will be established. That in turn may establish the platform for a long-standing peace agreement in the following years.

Those who are sceptical should look back to early 2006, just before Hamas's triumph in the Gaza elections. On 4 March, Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk stated that recognition of Israel would be a rejection of the rights of Palestinians, and other officials claimed during the election campaign that Fatah's 16 years of peace talks with Israel were a waste of time. However, another top official, Mahmoud al-Zahar told CNN in January that a long-term truce was possible if Israel withdrew to pre-1967 borders and released Palestinian prisoners. T

Three years later, Hamas spokesman Ayman Taha has said that the organization is unwilling to recognize Israel and to accept the agreements signed by the PA. Yet, as it manoeuvres in negotiations in Cairo and with Tel Aviv, Hamas has to consider if that position will jeopardise its political future.

In 2006, the US would not recognise Hamas' victory in Gazan elections because it believed that the organisation would be reinforced in its refusal to accept any relationship with Israel. Three years later, Hamas can defy this prediction:  establishing and consolidating its gains in a Palestinian Parliament and possibly a Presidency, the Gazan leadership could decide to come in from the political cold. The process would take time and careful language, but acceptance of the Quartet's conditions and a unity government in Palestine are possible. And so, eventually, is a regional peace based on pre-1967 borders with Israel.

Breaking News: Palestinian Unity Talks to Resume in Cairo?

The head of the Fatah delegation in Palestinian reconciliation talks has said that groups will meet in Egypt on April 1. Ahmed Qurei (pictured) declared, "We are exerting every possible effort ... in order to reach an agreement" on a unity government.

Hamas is saying, however, that it has not been invited to Cairo. Reconciliation talks adjourned without agreement on 19 March after differences between Fatah and Hamas.

Flashback: How Israel Denied Civilian Casualties in Gaza

Related Post: UN Report - Israel Violations of Gazan Human Rights “Too Numerous to Count”

As yet more reports, this time from Israeli soldiers and from the United Nations Human Rights Council, document the extent of Israeli abuses and killing of Gazan civilians, Enduring America takes a look back at the Israeli explanations --- and denials --- during the war:

On 27 December, Israel began bombing the 360 square kilometres of Gaza, in which 1.4 million Palestinians live. A day later, On 28 December, 2008, Tim Marshall of Sky News interviewed Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpUslPq_GGc[/youtube]

Tim Marshall: “What concern the outside world it seems most of all is the civilian deaths. Now the death toll is approaching 300. Approximately a third to be civilians.”

Livni: “Not civilians!”

Tim Marshall: “Hamas is saying maybe 180 of its men of being killed. That leaves about a third of civilians. You do not accept of these figures?”

Livni: “We do not accept these figures and this is not only the values of the international community. These are our values as well. We are targeting Hamas, we are trying to avoid any kind of civilian casualties. Before the operation we called all the population which lives nearby Hamas headquarters to leave. We are doing everything in order to avoid or minimize civil casualties but a war is a war and these things can happen, this is not our intention but we can not avoid completely any kind of civilian casualties. But the possibility for this, lies on the Hamas shoulders.”

Almost a month later, Yigal Palmor, the Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman, claimed there was no evidence to support claims that white phosphorus bomb shells were illegally fired near civilians.

Subsequent reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and foreign journalists have documented evidence of the use of white phosphorous in crowded residential areas. The United Nations said that its headquarters were hit by three white phosphorus shells during the Israeli operation.

Israeli officials have fallen back on the claim of a "legal" use of white phosphorous on the battlefield. In 2005 spokesman Peter Kraiser told the BBC:

It's not forbidden by the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

There's another part of Kraiser's explanation, however, which does not sit easily with the Israeli invasion of Gaza more than three years later:

If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.

In Gaza, where approximately 4000 people are jammed into each square kilmetre, no one can talk about “minimizing civilian casualties". The worst thing in this case is that, given the geographical and demographical data, even a 5 year-old child can tell you that phosphorus bombs will not only kill combatants/terrorists but also will take lives of dozens of women, children, and elderly people in the midst of crowded buildings located on narrow streets.

There is no 'but" after the revelation of innocents lives taken by disproportionate and illegal military operations. There is no escape with the hard-nosed declaration “war is war".

UN Report: Israel Violations of Gazan Human Rights "Too Numerous to Count"

Full Text: UN Human Rights Council Report on Israel's Human Rights Violations in Gaza
Related Post: Flashback - How Israel Denied Civilian Casualties in Gaza

A United Nations Human Rights Council report has concluded that "there are strong and credible reports of war crimes and other violations of international norms" in Israel's recent military operations in Gaza.

The report documents incidents "too numerous to count" of human rights violations by Israeli troops during the 22-day war in December/January. The report cites the killing of unarmed civilians, sometimes without warning (in other words, in cold blood), and the use of Gazan children as human shields.

The report also cited "credible reports" of Hamas' use of human shields and putting civilians at risk, however, it focuses on a "disproportionate" Israeli military operation, putting the number of Gazan deaths at 1440 and those of Israelis at 13.

Israeli attacks have brought "a dramatic deterioration of the living conditions of the civilian population", with "targeted and indiscriminate" attacks on hospitals and clinics, water and sewage treatment facilities, government buildings, utilities and farms. The assault "intensified the already catastrophic humanitarian situation of the Palestinian people", damaging more than 200 schools and left more than 70,000 people homeless.

The inevitable response from those supporting Tel Aviv will be that the Human Rights Council is dominated by "anti-Israeli" and "undemocratic" states who have their own human rights issues. Indeed, the omnipresent Mark Regev, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman, has already jumped in: This is "another example of the one-sided and unfair attitude of the rapporteur of the Human Rights Council, a council that has been criticized by current and previous secretaries-general for its unbalanced attitudes toward Israel".

This response will ignore the fact that the report was not compiled by the states on the HRC but by nine investigators independent of any Government, including Radhika Coomaraswamy, the U.N. Secretary-General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict. It will also ignore the release of another report on Monday from Physicians for Human Rights, which cited cases where Israeli forces did not evacuate injured civilians for days and prevented Palestinian teams from reaching the wounded, leading to further deaths.

It should also be noted that the cases cited in the UN report corroborate the "Oranim" testimonies of Israeli Defense Force soldiers, which revealed in detail the abuse and killing of civilians.

Obama's "Engagement": Is Hamas Next?

Text: La Republicca summary of interview with Meshaal (in Italian)

Barack Obama has a new admirer.

Hamas political director Khaled Meshaal, speaking over the weekend to the Italian newspaper La Republicca, said: ""A new language toward the region is coming from President Obama."

More importantly, Meshaal made clear that Hamas is ready to take a relationship with the Obama Administration to the next level, notably the hand-holding and chats that would come with Washington's recognition of the Palestinian organisation:

The challenge for everybody is for this to be the prelude for a genuine change in US and European policies. Regarding an official opening toward Hamas, it's a matter of time.

The analysis of La Republicca was that Meshaal was riding the wave of Obama's Friday message to Iran; however, the Hamas leader made no reference to that US initiative. Instead, his comments should be read in light of Gaza. They are a signal that Hamas has not only survived the Israeli onslaught of December but has emerged politically stronger, and it is a clear challenge to Washington to recognise that "reality":

The great powers need us in order to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Our weight in the Palestinian problem comes from us being rooted in the society, in the population, which voted for us and will do it again.