Ezra Klein's ignorance regarding the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is so profound, that I really had to seriously contemplete
whether it was even worthwhile to respond to his latest idiotic dispatch, but I
couldn't resist, because it's a perfect example of the reinvention
of Hamas that is underway on the left.
E. Klein writes:
Late last week, Gershom Gorenberg, an Israeli-based writer,
reported that Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas, had stated his
willingness to accept "a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967
boundaries -- that is, alongside Israel, not in place of it." This
statement, a bombshell if there ever was one, received coverage in
the Israeli press, some mentions in the Italian press, and
virtually no visibility in the English-language press.
He goes on to lament that the American
media was overly focused on Barack Obama's position on Hamas: "And
so we have the odd spectacle in which Hamas's apparent willingness
to resign itself to a Jewish state is ignored, but Obama's promise
to ignore cracks in their militancy is greeted."
But there is absolutely nothing shocking
about Meshaal's statement to anybody who has followed developments
in the region closely.
Hamas has played games with the 1967
border issue for a long time. For instance, in January of
2006, in the wake of the terrorist group's election victory, its
co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar
promised a long-term truce to Israel if it withdrew to the
pre-1967 borders and met other demands. He stated, "we can
accept to establish our independent state on the area occupied (in)
'67." I don't see how that's any different than what Meshaal is
saying currently.
Of course, Hamas has long been
perfectly willing to say that it'll accept a return to the 1967
borders now, but the catch is that
it preserves the goal of conquering all
of Israel later. As Hamas leader Ismail
Haniyeh put it more candidly around the same time
as al-Zahar, "Hamas supports the establishment of a Palestinian
state with Jerusalem as its capital in the territories occupied [by
Israel] in 1967 - as an interim solution. However, Hamas will
continue to maintain its views regarding the boundaries of
historical Palestine, and [in terms of] refusing to recognize the
legitimacy of the occupation."
And, to be clear,
to Hamas, "historical Palestine" encompasses
all of Israel, so the entire area is considered "occupied"
land.
Even the very article that E. Klein cites from
his own magazine, includes this important caveat:
(Meshaal's) interview reflects
a political and psychological balancing act, says Israeli analyst
Menachem Klein of Bar-Ilan University. Meshaal hasn't abjured
Hamas' fundamental beliefs, as expressed in the organization's 1988
charter: All of Palestine, including pre-1967 Israel, is an Islamic
waqf, sacred trust, to be liberated solely by jihad. But
in the course of entering Palestinian electoral politics, Hamas has
taken pragmatic positions that contradict the charter -- including
acceptance of a de facto two-state outcome. "It's very hard to
totally abandon fundamental beliefs. [Meshaal's] solution is to ...
keep the beliefs, but in the private domain, and to act publicly in
a different way," Klein says.
So, if Hamas's leadership has
undergone any change at all, it's that it may be pursuing the
Yasser Arafat strategy of making public statements offering vague
concessions, allowing useful idiots in the West to interpret them
as "bombshells," milking the "peace process," all the while
supporting terrorism and privately maintaining the ultimate desire
to destroy all of Israel.
To put it in terms that E.
Klein may actually comprehend, it's kind of like when progressives
who support a single payer health care system advocate an
incremental approach out of political pragmatism.
P.S.: Before anybody asks, I
am not related to the two other Kleins mentioned in this
post.
topics:
Health Care, Barack Obama, Islam, Israel
