AP publishes a press release for Hamas: Exiled leader: Hamas might is ‘humble’.
Khaled Mashaal told The Associated Press in an interview Sunday at his office in Damascus that Hamas’ military capacity is “humble.”"The enemy is exaggerating it in an attempt to justify its aggression and justify more aggression and more brutality,” he said. “Our weapons are humble, but we have great will. This is what makes our action effective.”
Israel launched a military offensive in the Gaza Strip in early March, seeking to quash Hamas militants firing rockets at Israeli towns. More than 100 Palestinians were killed before Israel ended the assault and Egypt began trying to mediate a “tahdiya” or calm.
The “calm” by the way, means that Israel absorbs a few Qassams a day.
Mashaal said Egyptian-mediated talks between Hamas and Israel had snagged on the question of the extent of the tahdiya. Israel proposed a calm only in Gaza, where both sides would stop military operations, but Hamas wants it to also include the West Bank, he said.
Those Israelis, imagine that, demanding that they be allowed to defend their own territory. (Though it appears that they’re willing to contract out more of their antiterrorism efforts to Fatah.)
After allowing for an Israeli statement about the damage that Qassams do, Meshaal continues.
Mashaal expressed concern that Israel and the U.S. are preparing for a regional war.”Israel and America are beating the drums of war in the region. The neo-conservatives in America and Israelis want a new war to overturn the balance of power and achievements gained by the resistance,” he said, referring to his group and Hezbollah.
Neo-conservatives? He must be keeping current with his readings of Walt and Mearsheimer.
Mashaal revealed details on Egyptian-brokered negotiations for a prisoner swap of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. Islamic militants in Gaza affiliated with Hamas captured Schalit in June 2006 in a cross-border raid.He said Hamas had agreed with Egypt on the number of Palestinian prisoners to be released — 1,000 — and on the details of the phases of the releases. But he said Israel had held up the deal because it rejects some of the names on the Hamas list on the grounds that they have been involved in attacks on Israelis.
The deal was for a release in staged phases, he said: First, Hamas would hand over Schalit to Egypt, and Israel would release 350 prisoners. Once Egypt handed Schalit over to Israel, another 100 Palestinians would be released, Mashaal said.
So Israel doesn’t just imprison innocent women and children, it also imprisons terrorists (pardon me for not using “militants”) who attack Israel. Actually, Israel has (too often, if you ask me) released terrorists involved in terror attacks. Israel’s red line, for the most part, is whether the terrorist has actually killed anyone.
There’s an incredible chutzpah here. After Hamas made an agreement with Egypt, Israel was expected to go along.
For some reason or the other Israel didn’t accept the terms that Hamas and Egypt worked out, so the further captivity of Gilad Schalit is - Israel’s fault.
Addressing Schalit’s father, who has often appealed to Hamas to release his son, Mashaal said: “Do not blame Hamas, (Israeli Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert is responsible for your son’s detention.” He said Schalit was being well treated.
I don’t know if many people consider being held by hostiles for nearly two years as “well-treated.”
Still in Mideast Openings, David Ignatius believes that Israel could gain a lot from talking to Hamas.
An Israeli who challenges the conventional wisdom about Hamas is Efraim Halevy, former head of his nation’s celebrated spy service, the Mossad. In a March 19 interview on al-Jazeera’s English-language channel, he called for an opening to Hamas to try to reach a cease-fire. “I believe Hamas is a force on the ground. I believe we have to deal with realities,” Halevy told al-Jazeera. “This is the moment to try to engage them and see if some kind of interim arrangement can be found.”Halevy elaborated on his proposal in a telephone interview Thursday. He said that a formal exchange with Hamas around a negotiating table is unlikely; the two sides are too angry and entrenched. What’s possible instead is a “listening dialogue,” in which each side responds indirectly to the other.
Halevy set three conditions for a viable cease-fire: It can’t include the West Bank, where Palestinian security forces aren’t strong enough yet to stop terrorism; it can’t simply be a “momentary pause” that allows Hamas to regroup and rearm for the next round of fighting; and it must include some political discussion about the future, probably conducted through Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
I wonder if “angry and entrenched” are Halevy’s words or Ignatius’s. Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It doesn’t seek to sabotage peace, it seeks to kill Israelis. Sabotaging peace (such as it is) is just a side benefit.
Of course, what’s interesting is that Halevy’s condition that the “ceasefire” not include the “West Bank” makes it a non-starter for Hamas. Ignatius doesn’t dwell on that.
But my question is: even accepting Halevy’s terms would it, could it work?
Has it worked with Fatah?
Talking with Hamas will have the effect of making Hamas a partner. Hamas will exploit normalization to demand certain terms of Israel. Israel will then either have to accept those terms or play the heavy. Israeli governments seem hesitant to play the heavy.
Or take a different view. Say Hamas despite its “commitment” uses the “ceasefire” to build up its infrastructure. Israel seeing an intolerable situation in the offing targets some buildings in Gaza that are identified as arms depots.
What will happen:
a) The world will agree that Israel had the right to attack Hamas’s infrastructures as Hamas has shown itself to be strengthening itself in violation of their agreement.
b) The media will immediately hyperventilate about the “escalation” due to Israel’s attack; the diplomats will express “concern” about the “cycle of violence; The UN and EU will gnash their teeth about the “heightened tensions” Israel precipitated by its attack; and Secretary Rice will call on both sides to “exercise restraint.”
If you chose “a,” I can only ask, “What color is the sky in your world?” If you chose “b” you know that’s the case because that’s roughly what happened when Israel struck at Hezbollah in 2006. Despite having conformed to the UN and withdrawn its troops behind the international border, Israel suffered cross border attacks from Hezbollah for 6 years, before finally attacking. (Worse, the UN even protected Hezbollah when Hezbollah violated the border and kidnapped and killed three Israeli soldiers.)
Talking to Hamas will have the effect of normalizing the terrorists while tying Israel’s hands from responding to terrorism. It’s a no win situation for Israel.
Ignatius should know better, but time and again he has demonstrated that he’s learned nothing over the years.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
