Gaza Aid Con: Ignoring Hamas?

It's almost amazing to witness the dicotomy in TIME's reporting. On the one hand, we get Tim McGirk providing the latest boogie-man warning about the perils that Israel will face should PM designate Netanyahu come to power with a right wing government.
.
.
But when we flip things around to HAMAS, a group publically dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the death of its Jewish citizens, we hear the repeated mantra that space must be made at the table for them, with no fewer than to so-called 'wisemen' making claims that HAMAS' presence must be respected due to the 'support' provided by the Palestinians.
.
.
One has to ask why a seat for HAMAS must be made if the group cannot even come up with the bare minimum requirements of ending its campaign of violence, incitement, and even living with Fatah as a political equal, (forget about even acquiescing to the agreements already signed by the Palestinian Authority).
.
.
That Scott pushes the idea of a requiremnt to the presence of HAMAS, even as the organization steals its way through both reconstruction supplies and ordinance scheduled for safe demolition seems premature at the very least.
.
.
Truthfully, it would be more enlightening to examine the inside workings of HAMAS to see if the group even has the capacity to make the same leap that the PLO did 20 years ago post Madrid.

jacobblues' last point I think is a very good one, and I would be curious to read an analysis of the leadership of Hamas and their propensity to change/compromise with Israel. Defenders of Hamas generally claim that it can change and eventually be a partner for peace, but yet its leaders continuously seem to claim otherwise at every available opportunity. Just today, Moussa abu Marzouk, the deputy head of the Hamas' political bureau, announced that Hamas is proposing a truce with Israel just to give its fighters some respite and enable them to prepare for renewing the fight.
.
I ultimately agree that no peace can occur without Hamas' support of the initiative - mainly because the group is the source of the majority of Palestinian violence. I don't think that this can happen though until some of the 'moderates' within Hamas unseat the more radical elements (until then, it does no good to negotiate with someone that makes no qualms of their intention to kill you based on your religion/heritage).
.
At the end of the day, if Hamas keeps up its daily rocket and mortar fire, all of those funds could be rendered useless anyway when Israel is forced to conduct another large scale military incursion into Gaza.
.
Two questions I was debating with a friend the other day were these: If every day there was rocket fire, Israel issued a statement claiming "This is day X of rocket fire since we withdrew our forces. If this continues for 30 days uninterrupted we will conduct a massive bombing campaign" would the blame for deaths resulting from the bombing campaign lie with Hamas, Israel, or both? Conversely, if Hamas claims "This is day X of the blockade. As long as this continues we will shoot rockets into Israel" would the blame for the rockets lie with Hamas, Israel, or both?
.
While I think philosophically many people would agree that both parties are significantly responsible for the outcomes in both cases, I think the sad truth is that the media coverage would be decidedly slanted towards blaming Israel in both cases. That is why many people are upset with coverage of the conflict.

otrain,

I appreciate your comments. The problem is that the world must recognize, for better or worse, HAMAS has been elected the representatives of the Palestinian people. I believe these folks voted for HAMAS, not because of their position with respect to Israel, but because FATAH was viewed by many to be incompetent and corrupt. In some cases, in elections, two FATAH candidates ran in the same election and the HAMAS candidate won a plurality.
I don't think it is wrong to ask HAMAS to stop violence and respect previous agreements. Even Netanyahu has respected agreements he opposed. However, recognition of Israel should not be at the beginning of the process, but should be expected at the end.
Will HAMAS recognize Israel? Probably not, but if they agree to let the Palestinian Authority negotiate for behalf of the Palestinian people, I think there would be progress. I believe HAMAS agreed to put any peace agreement to a vote before all of the Palestinian people, and they would respect the results.
For Israel's part, they missed several opportunities to booster the standing of moderates. The unilateral withdrawl from Gaza was a big mistake. Not because Israelis should not have left (they should) but they could have done it in a way to make the moderates look good. By doing it unilaterally they have a "victory" to HAMAS. Furthermore, Israel's failure to freeze settlements has made moderates look weak. It makes one wonder whether the Israeli government wanted moderates to fail in order to claim there is no one to take to and Israel would have to make painful concessions. Right now, Israel has not had to concede on anything and it looks like no Israeli government is really interested in doing what is necessary to achieve peace.

hamas will never stop. As long as Israel is a nation there will be war, correction, even if Israel were to fall they would go back to killing each other. That whole part of the world needs a bright light enema. Flush them all.....end of story

americarules,
the only thing worth flushing is your head.
It's so nice to hear of a genuine effort to offer substantial aid to Gaza. Hamas will not, however, go away, or any other militant action as long as the Palestinians feel opressed. A two state solution has to be given a chance. We must see real efforts, a decade after Camp David and presidential terms that, no pun intended, flushed it all down the drain.
Where are the blogs from Beirut on the International Tribunal?

jacobblues,
"But when we flip things around to HAMAS, a group publically dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the death of its Jewish citizens"
I dont know why you have a problem with what Hamas says when in fact its Israel that has been constantly targeting civilians in the last 60 years. Did you forget the Gaza War so quickly? Did you forget that there are about 5 million Palestinian refugees that some of them have been waiting for more than 60 years to return? Did you forget the ehtnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and 1967? Are you forgeting the fact that Israel has been imposing a ruthless occupation on the West Bank and Gaza for more than 42 years now?
And after all that, you scream bloody murder and accuses Hamas of violence and terrorism?! Your Bibi doesnt even want a 2 state solution, is Hamas really crazy for choosing resistance?
Sorry Jacobb but you cant eat your cake and have it too...
.
.
otrain,
"If every day there was rocket fire, Israel issued a statement claiming "This is day X of rocket fire since we withdrew our forces. If this continues for 30 days uninterrupted we will conduct a massive bombing campaign" would the blame for deaths resulting from the bombing campaign lie with Hamas, Israel, or both? Conversely, if Hamas claims "This is day X of the blockade. As long as this continues we will shoot rockets into Israel" would the blame for the rockets lie with Hamas, Israel, or both?"
The blame in both cases is on Israel because, regarding the first question, Israel only withdrew from Gaza, it did not withdraw from the West Bank as well. Thus, Palestinian lands are still occupied and therefore Palestinians would naturally keep resisting. Its common sense. Same goes to the second question.

"Closed Zone", a great animated short from an animator who drew for "A Waltz with Bashir":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aJZGl15awE&
.
It's hard to argue with the pro-Israeli side. They try to paint Hamas as this outsider, barbarian group that arrived from the mountainous terrain beyond the borders to take over Israel and harm Israeli civilians for no other reason than to serve as comic book level villains.

Hamas on Thursday praised a bulldozer attack in Jerusalem earlier in the day, calling it the "natural response" to Israel's demolition of Palestinian homes in Arab East Jerusalem and to Israel's military operations in the Gaza Strip.
.
.
An initial police investigation indicated that the bulldozer driver reached the intersection near Teddy Stadium and managed to push a police vehicle for about 30 meters. After that, he tried to push the police vehicle into a bus, but was apparently blocked by an electrical post.
.
.
According to ZAKA, the bus was full of girls dressed in Purim costumes en route to Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital to cheer up patients before the holiday.
.
.
Sorry Nick, no comic books here. The violence is all to real.

karim0cairo82,
I believe you misunderstand what Hamas means when it says "occupation". Numerous times they have reiterrated their stance that they view the "occupation" to include the entirety of the state of Israel - not just Gaza and the West Bank.
.
As a result of this definition (which is conveniently brushed under the rug by many Palestinian supporters), as long as Jews continue to live in Israel, Hamas will continue to launch rockets. Based on your observations above, it would seem that you are suggesting that either Israel asks all of its citizens to relocate elsewhere or they deserve to have rockets shot at them and do not have the right to retaliate.
.
Until Hamas acknowledges that it would be satisfied by Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, I think it is incorrect to assume that this action alone (or coupled with lifting of the blockade) would persuade them to stop using violence as a means to an end, while at the same time acting shocked when Israel gets fed up with it and responds with force.
.
persianadvocate, you saw the video on memri (http://www.memritv.org/video.html) and heard the words spoken by prominent Hamas politicians out of their own mouths - not interpreted or analyzed or reported by another source. They do not need any help to look like villains. I do not think that all members of Hamas hold those extreme views, but is unfortunate that those that do hold so much power and get so much media coverage.

I think it is ironic that some suggest it is not worth talking to Hamas because they want "all" of Palestine. I have a question, how is that different from Likud, which wants all of Palestine as well? Granted Israel includes 78% of Palestine and the Israeli government is not even satisfied with that. They continue to confiscate more Palestinian land and wonder why the Palestinians are not in the mood to talk peace. President Abbas, talks and talks and the Israeli government takes and takes. No wonder he is unlikely to be re-elected as President of the Palestinian Authority. Oh, I forgot, Israel "withdrew" from Gaza. Somehow, considering Israel controls almost everything that goes into Gaza, controls the airspace and most of the electricity, Israel has not so much withdrawn as to remove a few settlers from the hellhole and leave the desolate place to Hamas and the U.N.

Israel will have to negotiate with Hamas, and it can't wait for Hamas to accept 22% of Palestine. Besides, in the end Israel will end up with more than the 78% it had pre-1967 war. That is a good deal considering the Arab states agreed to recognize Israel is it was willing to accept "only" the 78%. However, Israeli governments have grown arrogant since 1967, and the 78% and sharing of Jerusalem will not be enough.

I believe one of the primary differences between Hamas and Likud is that when Likud was picked to form a government, they did not round up members of Labor and Kadima that may be in favor of negotiating with Palestinians and either shoot them in the legs, poke their eyes out, or kill them outright for their political affiliations.
.
That, and Bibi has said publicly that he is in favor of an economic solution that could evolve into a political one and he never announced that he was in favor of killing anyone based on their religion (I am not a Netanyahu supporter, but historically the Israeli right has been far more successful at negotiating peace deals and making concessions than the left).
.
Check the link I posted before. It is not propoganda, it is excerpts of speeches made by Hamas politicians and religious leaders before the most recent flare-up of violence.
.
Please tell me how you negotiate or even begin to engage with people who are not just saying those things to close friends, but making speeches in front of thousands of people and proudly proclaiming it.
.
I think the objection that many people who are against negotiating with Hamas have is that they listen to Hamas rhetoric and take them at their word rather than make apologies for those statements and suggest that if only we tried harder to understand their point of view there would be some sort of breakthrough.
.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I think there is hope in engaging with more moderate elements within Hamas, but talking with the extremists is pointless. I am disappointed with the popularity of Israel Beitenu, and do not think that they could be a viable partner for peace as the leader of a coalition, but they can be part of the government that signs an agreement. I think the same could possibly be said of Hamas.

I still have a problem with pro-Zionists making it out as if Hamas is a barbaric group that traveled thousands of miles to come and be a menace to Israeli citizens without any cause at all. Let's frame this in the proper context is all I am saying. Is anyone here contesting that Israelis drove Palestinians out of their homes and continues to control them militarily within the borders of Israel?

I love the "who was there first?" argument implicit in Nick's "Israeli's drove the Palestinians out" comment. The Jews win every time. The Jews were dispossessed by the Babylonians, who were dispossessed by the Persians (typical Iranian aggression, but not Muslim at this time), who were dispossessed by the Greeks, who were dispossessed by Greek Egyptians, who were dispossessed by the Romans, who were dispossessed by the Jews, who were dispossessed again by the Romans, who were dispossessed by the Byzantines, who were dispossessed by the Muslims (very late arrivers, those Muslims), who were dispossessed by the Crusaders, who were dispossessed by the Muslims, who were dispossessed by the Ottomans (technically Muslim, but treated Arabs as second class citizens at best), who were dispossessed by the British, who ceded control of what is now Israel to the Jews.

[...] Gaza Aid Con: Ignoring Hamas? Posted by Scott MacLeod | Comments (13) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This [...]

[...] Aid Con: Ignoring Hamas? Posted by Scott MacLeod | Comments (13) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email [...]

[...] Gaza Aid Con: Ignoring Hamas? Posted by Scott MacLeod | Comments (13) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This [...]

[...] Gaza Aid Con: Ignoring Hamas? Posted by Scott MacLeod | Comments (13) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This [...]

You lost me at: "who were dispossessed by the Persians (typical Iranian aggression, but not Muslim at this time)"
.
The Persians freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity and helped the Jews to recreate their kingdom of Judea. Also, add the whole history of how millions of European Jews immigrated into the area after nearly 2000 years of familial exile.
.
My question is still posed to others.

otrain,
Thank you for your comments. You are more open minded than most. As far as Hamas punishing members of Fatah, it has little to do with their political affiliation or their willingness to negotiate with Israel. Those who were attacked were those who were believed to be colluding with Israel and assisting Israel in directing attacks on Hamas leaders. Now, I don't know if Likud has a position on those who are aiding the "enemy" but Lieberman the leader of Israel Beitenu thinks any Israeli Arab who simply talks to Hamas should be executed.

In truth, Hamas has supported Fatah talking to Israel, if only so they don't have to swallow up their own rhetoric and admit the Palestinians are dependent on Israel. Granted, I would not what to talk to someone who claims they want to get rid of me, but we all know Israel "talks" to Hamas through Egypt, if only in an effort to get back Israeli soldiers. Hamas has to talk to Israel through intermediaries in order to get anything done on behalf of the Palestinian people.

Netanyahu has made it very clear. He is not interested in a two state solution. While I think his idea of economic cooperation is a good one (a well-fed Palestinian, is likely to be less hostile), I have heard what he requires from a Palestinian "state", which would be no state at all, but a protectorate of Israel. I understand he wants to keep control of the natural resources. However, why would any Palestinian leader, including Abbas, agree to any of his terms?

The problem is that the Israeli government has never given the Palestinian moderates anything to work with. If they had worked with the moderates, they may not have had to worry so much about Gaza. The problem is that if they would have worked with the moderates, they would have been pressured by the U.S. to give meaningful concessions to the Palestinians, which is something only supported by Israeli peaceniks (the group where my greatest sympathies lie). Instead, Palestinians learn that the only way to get anything from the Israelis is to play "hardball" because moderates like Abbas achieve nothing on behalf of the Palestinian people. Unfortuately, in the Palestinians' eyes, at least Hamas has managed to keep its dignity, the same can not be said about Fatah.

cgtx,
The problem with your premise is that you assume that when a new conqueror comes in, the old people move out. In reality, when a new conqueror comes in, most of the time the old population is absorbed into the new social order.

Meaning there has always been an "Israelite" presense in "Palestine". The thing, they were absorbed into the migrating populations that followed. Many become Christians, following the resurrection of Christ, and many became Byzantines, Muslims and Ottomans over the following centuries.

Therefore, it is arguable that the Palestinians are the descendants of the original "Israelites". It would interesting if someone did a DNA test. Recently it was discovered that the current Lebanese are descendants of the ancient Phoenicians.