[GandalfTheGrey]

You know, the one the Israeli propaganda trot out every time the think there is a risk of a viable settlement being reached?

Noam Chomsky in a recent interview put this so-called charter into perspective:

The charter was produced by, apparently, a handful of people, maybe two or three, back in 1988, at a time when Gaza was under severe Israeli attack. You remember Rabin’s orders. This was a primarily nonviolent uprising which Israel reacted to very violently, killing leaders, torture, breaking bones in accordance with Rabin’s orders, and so on. And right in the middle of that, a very small number of people came out with what they called a Hamas charter.

Nobody has paid attention to it since. It was an awful document, if you look at it. Since then the only people who have paid attention to it are Israeli intelligence and the US media. They love it. Nobody else cares about it. Khaled Mashal, the political leader of Gaza years ago, said: look, it’s past, it’s gone. It has no significance. But that doesn’t matter. It’s valuable propaganda.

He then talked a bit about the Likud charter and the rank hypocricy of the Israelis - which I don't want to cause a distraction with right now...

And then he raises the more interesting story of another charter - the PLO one, written in the 1960s, and was pretty much the Likud charter in reverse (we want everything):

There is an interesting history about the so-called PLO charter. Around 1970 the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Yehoshafat Harkabi, published an article in a major Israeli journal in which he brought to light something called the PLO charter or something similar to that. Nobody had ever heard of it, nobody was paying any attention to it.

And the charter said: here’s our aim. Our aim is it’s our land, we’re going to take it over. In fact, it was not unlike the Herut claims except backwards. This instantly became a huge media issue all over. The PLO covenant it was called. The PLO covenant plans to destroy Israel. They didn’t know anything about it, nobody knew anything about it, but this became a major issue.

I met Harkabi a couple years later. He was kind of a dove, incidentally. He became pretty critical of Israeli policy. He was an interesting guy. We had an interview here at MIT, in fact. Incidentally, at that time there was material in the Arab press that I was reading saying that the Palestinians were thinking about officially throwing out the charter because it was kind of an embarrassment.

So I asked him, “Why did you bring this out for the first time just at the time when they were thinking of rescinding it?” He looked at me with the blank stare that you learn to recognize when you are talking to spooks. They are trained to pretend not to understand what you’re talking about when they understand it perfectly.

He said, “Oh, I never heard that.” That is beyond inconceivable. It’s impossible that the head of Israeli military intelligence doesn’t know what I know from reading bits and pieces of the Arab press in Beirut. Of course he knew.

There’s every reason to believe that he decided to bring this out precisely because he recognized, meaning Israeli intelligence recognized, that it would be a useful piece of propaganda and it’s best to try to ensure that the Palestinians keep it. Of course, if we attack it, then they’re going to back off and say: we’re not going to rescind it under pressure, which is what’s happening with the Hamas charter.

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-world ... dchildren/

Of particular interest is the bold part. While only speculation on Chomsky's part - I strongly believe he is right bang on the money - and it applies just as much with regards to the Hamas charter.

The charter is irrelevant, and it is an embarassment to Hamas. They want to disown it - but they can't be seen to back down in the face of Israeli aggression. And Israel knows this.

[Heisenberg]

They want to disown it - but they can't be seen to back down in the face of Israeli aggression. And Israel knows this.

Well, in that case, I'd say Hamas is pretty much fucked.

A useful lesson to Hamas (or any "resistance movement", really): don't make your enemy's propaganda for him. The IRA wasn't dull enough to say "We want to ethnically cleanse Northern Ireland", after all. Why should we have any sympathy?

[layman]

So it is Israels fault that hamas refuse to talk straight on their goals.

Perfectly reasonable to assume the worst given the history and actions of them. Noone is stopping them updating this.

[GandalfTheGrey]

So it is Israels fault that hamas refuse to talk straight on their goals.

Perfectly reasonable to assume the worst given the history and actions of them. Noone is stopping them updating this.

Well done on completely missing the point layman

[wat0n]

If Hamas wants to be regarded like PLO, it could start by acting like PLO - i.e. go to a Norse capital and sign some deal with Israel there.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Yes wat0n - I mean the PLO are doing such a sterling job in securing a viable state/settlement for their people aren't they?

[wat0n]

They are doing a much better job than Hamas for sure, don't you think?

[GandalfTheGrey]

They are doing a much better job than Hamas for sure, don't you think?

Actually no.

Hamas are the only group who keeps the true plight of the Palestinians alive in the international consciousness. If not for them, the international community would have rolled over and meekly accepted Israel's canton/concentration camp solution years ago.

Why do you think Israel feels the need to conduct an indiscriminate massacre of Gaza every 2-3 years?

[Godstud]

Hamas does no such thing. Hamas is known, by pretty much everyone, as a TERRORIST organization. That's a double FAIL! That doesn't further the plight of anyone.

Why do you think Israel feels the need to conduct an indiscriminate massacre of Gaza every 2-3 years?

If you mean, respond to repeated terrorist attacks, then I think they feel quite validated.

[Paul Sanderson]

It looks as though the Hamas Charter hasn't actually been rescinded in any kind of way. The statement that it is "a piece of history and no longer relevant" is immediately followed up by "but cannot be changed for internal reasons."

Did Khaled Meshaal follow this statement up with any explanation as to why it couldn't be changed? If not, why would anyone believe that it's not relevant? It basically sounds like it's their constitution or mission statement. I'm guessing by "cannot be changed for internal reasons", he means "too many of our members still support it"

[Decky]

It's shame Labour were not so loyal to Clause IV.

[wat0n]

Actually no.

Hamas are the only group who keeps the true plight of the Palestinians alive in the international consciousness. If not for them, the international community would have rolled over and meekly accepted Israel's canton/concentration camp solution years ago.

So when Abbas went and got the PA to be recognized as Palestine by the international community, he didn't keep the idea of Palestine alive in the world's consciousness?

Why do you think Israel feels the need to conduct an indiscriminate massacre of Gaza every 2-3 years?

First of all, Israel has done no such thing. If it really did something like that and killed Palestinians at random, at the very least Palestinian casualties would resemble the broader Palestinian population yet they don't - fighting age males are over represented.

If anything, civilians represent a higher percentage of those killed by Palestinian armed groups than those killed by the Israeli army (65% vs 55% at most, and likely lower) so if you had any sort of internal consistency, and you don't, you would most certainly not whitewash Hamas' and other Palestinian militias' actions and beliefs.

Secondly, as we all know Hamas is currently at war with Israel and launches rockets against Israeli population centers from time to time (or looks to the other way when other Gazan groups do so), which in turn explains why Israel carries out military operations in Gaza.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Hamas does no such thing. Hamas is known, by pretty much everyone, as a TERRORIST organization. That's a double FAIL! That doesn't further the plight of anyone.

The use of terrorism can be very effective in raising awareness for the plight of a group of people. With the Palestinian issue there is an interesting sort of cross-conflict, where the Israelis are only interested in completing the colonization of the WB, yet the military resistance they face is from Hamas in Gaza - who are fighting against the blockade in Gaza. And yet because Hamas's continued belligerence is doing the most in keeping the issue of Palestinian rights alive in a general sense, they are in fact doing the most to expose Israel's injustices in the WB. If it was simply left to Fatah to find a settlement for the Palestinians, they would simply roll over and concede to the bantustan "state" that Israel desires - complete with another White House lawn photo, a nobel peace prize or two - and it would be hailed as a great triumph for world peace.

Its not much of a stretch to say that Hamas is the only group who is preventing such a disaster.

Waton:

So when Abbas went and got the PA to be recognized as Palestine by the international community, he didn't keep the idea of Palestine alive in the world's consciousness?

Only in the sense of paying further lip service to the illusion that a viable settlement is possible along the current political trajectory. The very idea that this act is a bold act of belligerence by Abbas and co that is a slap in the face to Israel's ambitions - is not only a bad joke, but a dangerous one that plays along Israel's game.

you would most certainly not whitewash Hamas' and other Palestinian militias' actions and beliefs.

strawman - I did no such whitewashing. Hamas is a terrorist organisation, no one is whitewashing that. But it doesn't change the fact that terrorism sometimes has positive results for the groups they are representing. Its not an endorsement of terrorism - just a simple statement of fact.

Secondly, as we all know Hamas is currently at war with Israel and launches rockets against Israeli population centers from time to time (or looks to the other way when other Gazan groups do so), which in turn explains why Israel carries out military operations in Gaza.

And I welcome Waton to our latest installment of 'relevant pop-quiz of the day'. And the question is: which came first - the savage blockade of the Gaza strip, or the rockets?

[wat0n]

Only in the sense of paying further lip service to the illusion that a viable settlement is possible along the current political trajectory. The very idea that this act is a bold act of belligerence by Abbas and co that is a slap in the face to Israel's ambitions - is not only a bad joke, but a dangerous one that plays along Israel's game.

Just because you don't like the two state solution, because you'd not mind to see Jews as second class citizens in the region, doesn't mean that the two state solution is not viable or that Abbas is not dealing with Israel with peaceful means.

strawman - I did no such whitewashing. Hamas is a terrorist organisation, no one is whitewashing that.

Of course you did, it is easy to tell given that this thread is an attempt to excuse the inexcusable. The difference is that you don't consider its terrorism a bad thing as you don't think the victims of its terrorism are worth anything.

But it doesn't change the fact that terrorism sometimes has positive results for the groups they are representing. Its not an endorsement of terrorism - just a simple statement of fact.

Sometimes terrorism can work, usually when it leads to a political settlement. But Hamas isn't going on that direction as it doesn't really have anything to offer in that regard - you said it yourself, the mere act of talking is essentially shooting its feet.

And so, the Israelis won't budge to them. Why would they? The unilateral withdrawals from both Gaza and Lebanon taught us that a definitive end of the conflict will only come when all sides (because there are more than just two sides right now) finally talk, and that any and all further withdrawals should be carried out with this in mind - and no further withdrawals can be done from Gaza that change the status quo for the better.

And I welcome Waton to our latest installment of 'relevant pop-quiz of the day'. And the question is: which came first - the savage blockade of the Gaza strip, or the rockets?

The rockets did.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Just because you don't like the two state solution, because you'd not mind to see Jews as second class citizens in the region, doesn't mean that the two state solution is not viable or that Abbas is not dealing with Israel with peaceful means.

We have seen what negotiating with the Israelis in good faith leads to. One needs look no further than the outrageous continuation (and usually acceleraration) of settlement expansion whenever so called "negotiations" are happening. Abbas stops violence, cracks down on extremists, shows up to negotiations in good faith - and Israel returns the favour by changing the facts on the ground - at accelerated pace. Its outrageous behaviour that no one should have to put up with. Even Obama had enough of it. Israel demonstrates time and time again that the only language they respond to is the language of force - and it is a fact that Hamas are the only thing providing any sort of challenge to Israel's outrageous imperialism in the WB.

Of course you did, it is easy to tell given that this thread is an attempt to excuse the inexcusable. The difference is that you don't consider its terrorism a bad thing as you don't think the victims of its terrorism are worth anything.

You are very much mistaken. I absolutely recognise terrorism for what it is, and I constantly condemn it, and never excuse it. You seem to be unable to tell the difference between excusing an atrocity and acknowledging its effectiveness - yet curiously, you said exactly that in your next paragraph.

But Hamas isn't going on that direction as it doesn't really have anything to offer in that regard - you said it yourself, the mere act of talking is essentially shooting its feet.

4

Absolutely - Hamas is not doing anything constructive by way of finding constructive long term solutions - and I condemn them for that. But that doesn't change the fact that they are at this point providing the only challenge to Israeli imperialism, by answering Israeli aggression in the only language they understand - force.

[wat0n]

We have seen what negotiating with the Israelis in good faith leads to.

It leads to peace treaties, when you can actually deliver the goods - just ask Egypt or Jordan if you don't believe me.

One needs look no further than the outrageous continuation (and usually acceleraration) of settlement expansion whenever so called "negotiations" are happening. Abbas stops violence, cracks down on extremists, shows up to negotiations in good faith - and Israel returns the favour by changing the facts on the ground - at accelerated pace. Its outrageous behaviour that no one should have to put up with. Even Obama had enough of it. Israel demonstrates time and time again that the only language they respond to is the language of force - and it is a fact that Hamas are the only thing providing any sort of challenge to Israel's outrageous imperialism in the WB.

It's an outrageous behavior indeed, though it's not like Abbas can actually deliver the goods Israel wants, can he?

In the end, he's going to hurt Israel in a stronger way than Hamas has so far.

You are very much mistaken. I absolutely recognise terrorism for what it is, and I constantly condemn it, and never excuse it. You seem to be unable to tell the difference between excusing an atrocity and acknowledging its effectiveness - yet curiously, you said exactly that in your next paragraph.

Oh, I can but Hamas isn't really trying to get anything at all that goes in the direction you want.

It doesn't want a two-state solution or even a binational state.

Absolutely - Hamas is not doing anything constructive by way of finding constructive long term solutions - and I condemn them for that. But that doesn't change the fact that they are at this point providing the only challenge to Israeli imperialism, by answering Israeli aggression in the only language they understand - force.

Are they? The Israeli right feeds on the possibility of Hamas taking over the West Bank if it leaves it, pretty much.

It's simple, as long as those who want to fight Israel at all costs can actually do so, many Israelis will be reticent towards the idea of leaving the West Bank.

[GandalfTheGrey]

It leads to peace treaties, when you can actually deliver the goods - just ask Egypt or Jordan if you don't believe me.

Yes, but we are not talking about state actors that could potentially pose an existential threat to Israel - we are talking about the stateless and occupied Palestinians. Bit of a difference - and of course you would expect different approaches between the two. Israel treads all over the Palestinians because they know they can - although its not such a smart move long term. Completely different to how they treat sovereign neighbour states who really can pose a meaningful security threat.

It's simple, as long as those who want to fight Israel at all costs can actually do so, many Israelis will be reticent towards the idea of leaving the West Bank.

As long as there is no noticeable resistance to the occupation, Israelis (and most of the rest of the world) will remain reticent towards Palestinian rights. There is no denying the fact that Israel only agreed to come to the negotiating table in the first place in 1988 as a direct result of the resistance of the first intifada. If the Palestinian leaders had gone with your "pretty please with sugar on top - we'll be nice if you agree to sit down with us" approach, Israel would have just continued transforming the occupied territories into an Israeli metropolis, with not so much as paying lip service to the idea of Palestinian rights.

So the Israelis agreed to at least sit down because of the intifada, but even then they succeeded in turning it into an agreement that rubber stamped imperialism - and it has continued to this day - enabled directly by the Israelis cynically abusing the PA's goodwill. The only thing that has kept the small glimmer of Palestinian rights alive is the threat posed by Hamas - and that is why Israel has to target them so ruthlessly.

[wat0n]

Yes, but we are not talking about state actors that could potentially pose an existential threat to Israel - we are talking about the stateless and occupied Palestinians. Bit of a difference - and of course you would expect different approaches between the two. Israel treads all over the Palestinians because they know they can - although its not such a smart move long term. Completely different to how they treat sovereign neighbour states who really can pose a meaningful security threat.

Jordan had, for all intents and purposes, stopped fighting Israel ever since the latter intervened on its behalf during Black September.

Israelis are also aware of why the Palestinian issue needs to be solved, particularly those in the security establishment. Yet they are also aware that they cannot really deliver peace, at least not the PA.

As long as there is no noticeable resistance to the occupation, Israelis (and most of the rest of the world) will remain reticent towards Palestinian rights. There is no denying the fact that Israel only agreed to come to the negotiating table in the first place in 1988 as a direct result of the resistance of the first intifada. If the Palestinian leaders had gone with your "pretty please with sugar on top - we'll be nice if you agree to sit down with us" approach, Israel would have just continued transforming the occupied territories into an Israeli metropolis, with not so much as paying lip service to the idea of Palestinian rights.

So the Israelis agreed to at least sit down because of the intifada, but even then they succeeded in turning it into an agreement that rubber stamped imperialism - and it has continued to this day - enabled directly by the Israelis cynically abusing the PA's goodwill. The only thing that has kept the small glimmer of Palestinian rights alive is the threat posed by Hamas - and that is why Israel has to target them so ruthlessly.

And the Palestinians are where they are now because of the Second Intifada, which in any event was way more deadly for both sides than the first one.

The reason for the difference between both is that, well, the Second Intifada actually highlighted that leaving the West Bank could have risks - something further reinforced by the unilateral withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon.

You say that Hamas has done a service to the Palestinians by fighting Israel, yet for all of their violence the ones who actually talked to Israel and got something which is recognized as a right were those from the PLO. Or what, you think that the Palestinians would be better off by not having any sort of autonomy whatsoever?

[pugsville]

The Palestinians might well be better off in the log term without the so called autonomy now, right now they are continual be compromised and forced into participating in their own oppression, it's diving them and degrading them. IF the PA is regarded as a total failure as far being representative and looking after there people, it's existence may well be hindering the development of a effective governance responsible ro the Palestinian people.

I'm not saying either way, but there is a fair argument that accepting the limited autonomy of Oslo and the PA has in fact been to the long term detriment of the Palestinian people. Of course if Israel was genuine in any way about the entire process things would be different.

[GandalfTheGrey]

You say that Hamas has done a service to the Palestinians by fighting Israel, yet for all of their violence the ones who actually talked to Israel and got something which is recognized as a right were those from the PLO. Or what, you think that the Palestinians would be better off by not having any sort of autonomy whatsoever?

Autonomy that legitimises and rubber stamps the cantonisation of the WB - with the specific aim of making the plan for a future Palestinian state wholly untennable? What a sad joke.

I commend the PLO/PA for turning up to the negotiating table in good faith - yet it is time we acknowledged the inconvenient - yet undeniable fact, that Israel is not a genuine partner in peace. They have demonstrated this just too often. For them negotiations are nothing more than cynical exercises for them to create more facts on the ground towards their ultimate goal of making a future Palestinian state unviable. On that basis, I'm afraid its simply naive to think that continued negotiations between the PA and the Israelis will ever be in the interests of the Palestinians. Thats why Hamas's terrorism serves a purpose - its crude and condemnable for the tactics they employ, but it absolutely does serve a purpose - namely to help expose the negotiations for the farce that they are. I maintain that if not for Hamas, the Palestinians would have roled over and agreed to a bantustan solution by now - one that legitimises the Israeli occupation, and formalises the apartheid state of Israel.

As pugsville said, the Palestinians will be better off long term without this sort of 'autonomy'.