Hamas: we’ll tolerate Israel for 10 years. max.

The New York Times visits Khaled Meshal in Damascus and offers him a microphone, Addressing U.S., Hamas Says It Has Grounded Its Rockets to Israel.

“I promise the American administration and the international community that we will be part of the solution, period,” the leader, Khaled Meshal, said during a five-hour interview with The New York Times spread over two days in his home office here in the Syrian capital.

Speaking in Arabic in a house heavily guarded by Syrian and Palestinian security agents, Mr. Meshal, 53, gave off an air of serene self-confidence, having been re-elected a fourth time to four-year term as the leader of the Hamas political bureau, the top position in the movement. His conciliation went only so far, however. He repeated that he would not recognize Israel, saying to fellow Arab leaders, “There is only one enemy in the region, and that is Israel.”

There’s a slight understatement to the observation that “[h]is concilliation went only so far.”

But he urged outsiders to ignore the Hamas charter, which calls for the obliteration of Israel through jihad and cites as fact the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Mr. Meshal did not offer to revoke the charter, but said it was 20 years old, adding, “We are shaped by our experiences.”

For years we were told to ignore the Palestinian National Charter too. That it was an anachronism. We were told to ignore what Arafat said in Arabic and only pay attention to his carefully guarded statements to the international media. Needless to say, even now the Palestinian National Charter is the guiding document of Fatah. Obviously the Hamas Charter is still operational.

He explained why he was giving the interview, his first to an American news organization in a year, by saying: “To understand Hamas is to listen to its vision directly. Hamas is delighted when people want to hear from its leaders directly, not about the movement through others.”

That also seemed aimed at the Obama administration, which has decided to open a dialogue with Iran and Syria, but not with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and accepts previous Palestinian-Israeli accords.

Actually I think that the reporters are overestimating their own importance. Hamas is clearly reaching out to the administration.

Why would Hamas be reaching out to the new administration?

One possibility might be that they’re losing support at home (h/t Israel Matzav)

In the next-door tent, bitterness against Hamas is brewing. Many Gazans do not accept the party’s official view that the war was a great victory. Instead, many now blame Hamas for recklessly dragging them into a futile war that devastated their already beleaguered territory. “Where is Ismail Haniyeh?” cries a Gazan, referring to Hamas’s prime minister. “Why hasn’t he come here to see how we live? I lost my home. Why? For Hamas to succeed! It has destroyed Gaza. That’s a fact.”

Getting recognized by the American government could boost their standing at home.

Or maybe they recognize that the government would be particularly receptive to superficial moderation.

The current thinking in large sectors of today’s sophisticated, intellectual, and opinion-maker thought in the United States [and West] is as follows:

. . . The leaders of Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhoods, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea are basically reasonable, pragmatic people who you can work with.

Or maybe it’s some combination of the two.

But here’s the part of the interview that could be considered a bad joke:

On the two-state solution sought by the Americans, he said: “We are with a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce. This includes East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.” Asked what “long-term” meant, he said 10 years.

Apart from the time restriction and the refusal to accept Israel’s existence, Mr. Meshal’s terms approximate the Arab League peace plan and what the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas says it is seeking. Israel rejects a full return to the 1967 borders, as well as a Palestinian right of return to Israel itself.

So the longest Meshal will deign to accept Israel, is for ten years. So the qualification, again, is quite an understatement.

Elder of Ziyon sums things up:

So Meshal wants to see Israel destroyed, he wants all Jews in the Middle East murdered, and he might be willing to offer a ten year pause for Israel to get destroyed demographically. The prestigious NYT, however, characterizes this as being virtually indistinguishable with the most moderate Arabs, and casts Israel as the intransigent party for not wanting to joyfully accept suicide.

When I first read the article I thought much like the Elder, but the qualifications Bronner adds make me wonder. Is Bronner subtly expressing his skepticism? The article was co-reported by Taghreed El-Khodary, who lives in Gaza. Were the reporters constrained from openly expressing their doubts to protect El-Khodary?

I realized that the Times is providing a microphone to Meshal, which is distasteful. However it could be that the reporters are adding their own little distortion. Of course that won’t stop the credulous from believing that Hamas has undergone a sea-change and is now willing to live in peace with israel. (h/t memeorandum)

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.