[Marxism] Hamas leader greets Obama speech, urges "deeds, not words"

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following is the full text of Helena Cobban's IPS article on a central
Hamas' leaders' speech. The full text shows that he was welcoming overall of
the speech, while insisting that deeds, not just words, were required to
change the situation "on the ground" as the Israeli rulers are fond of
saying.

One of the things that chronic Obama- exposers and Obama-opposers are prone
to miss is the way his stands can given encouragement to the oppressed
simply by the act of trying to reach out and bring them along. Obama's
stated goal of bringing everybody together regardless of their opposing
interests except a handful of Al Qaeda types is not likely to be achieved,
but we should not leave out the possibilities that the masses will respond
to the positive side and decide to ignore the negative core. This would not
be a mistake.

It is not, for instance, a DANGER that the use of nonviolent tactics in
protests might spread in Palestine. This response to Obama's words
condemning the settlements, stating that the continuing expansion of the
settlements is wrong and must stop, that the situation of the Palestinians
is impossible, and suggesting that the model of South Africa is legitimate
for Palestine. I have no idea whether this will be the effect or not, but no
US president (and all most no prominent US politician) has ever gone so far
in the last 60 years in criticizing Israel and suggesting support to SOME
forms of Palestinian resistance.

And we should not leave out the possibility that the political situation
among the true Israelis (who are only the Jews) may become more unstable.

And this may be true in the long run, even if he spends the next year or so
backing away from what he said in this speech, which would be quite in
character.

By the way Ahmadinejad in Iran would be well advised to take Obama's advice
to drop the claim that the Holocaust was a Jewish fraud, and accept the fact
that it happened pretty much as described by the mainstream historians,
because it did. I notice his competitors in the election are demanding this
also, which is to paraphras Sotomayor's supposedly racist word, the approach
of a "wise Iranian."".
Fred Feldman
 
 

US-MIDEAST:
Hamas Leader to Obama: Deeds, Not Words 

Helena Cobban* 


DAMASCUS, Jun 5 (IPS) - The head of Hamas's political bureau, Khaled
Meshaal, gave a qualified welcome here Thursday to the big speech that Pres.
Barack Obama addressed to the Muslim world in Cairo.

"The speech was cleverly written in the way it addressed the Muslim world...
and in the way it showed respect to the Muslim heritage," Meshaal told IPS
in an exclusive interview. "But I think it's not enough. What's needed are
deeds, actions on the ground, and a change of policies." 

His remarks came just hours after the speech, in a wide-ranging interview in
one of the Hamas leader's offices here in the Syrian capital. 

In the interview, Meshaal was friendly, quietly self-confident, and
thoughtful. He was firm in describing his movement's positions, including
when he restated that he wants Hamas to be treated as "part of the solution
and not part of the problem". 

He said he would be happy to meet Sen. George Mitchell, who is expected to
arrive in Damascus within the next two weeks for the first time in his
capacity as U.S. peace envoy. 

"If Mitchell wants to meet me, we'll welcome him with a cup of fine tea,"
Meshaal said with a smile. 

This seems unlikely to happen in the near future. In the Cairo speech, Obama
restated the three preconditions that Pres. George W. Bush and his allies in
the international "Quartet" defined in 2006 for Hamas, before any members of
the Quartet - the U.S. European Union, United Nations and Russia - would
agree to deal with it. 

Meshaal expressed his displeasure with that part of Obama's speech, noting
that in the speech Obama also said he was ready to start talks with Iran,
"without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect". 

"Why is Obama ready to deal with Iran without preconditions, but not us?"
Meshaal asked. "Obama is using some new words in his rhetoric, somewhat
different from what we heard from Bush, but under no circumstances will
preconditions be acceptable to us." 

IPS asked Meshaal if he thought some approach like the one Mitchell used to
mediate an end to the conflict in Northern Ireland in the 1990s might work
in the Palestinian-Israeli arena. In that effort, Mitchell defined a set of
principles regarding issues like abstention from violence and commitment to
democratic resolution of differences that he applied equally to all sides in
the conflict. 

Meshaal replied, "Before we get into details, if Mitchell wants to resolve
the conflict here, he should talk to everyone. The Northern Ireland
principles were the result of dialogue, not of defining preconditions." 

That was when he extended the invitation to Mitchell to come and meet over a
cup of tea. 

IPS asked whether - and how - he judged that Hamas's longstanding desire to
be seen as part of the solution could be meshed with Mitchell's mission. 

"Yes, we want to be part of the solution, but on the basis of Palestinian
rights," he said. "We have already said we'll work for the success of any
project that ends the occupation of 1967, restores Palestinian rights, and
grants to Palestinians our right of self-determination." 

"We need two things from Obama, Mitchell, the Quartet, and the rest of the
international community. Firstly, pressure on Israel to acknowledge and
grant these rights. The obstacle to this is completely on the Israeli side.
Secondly, we need the international actors to refrain from intervening in
internal Palestinian affairs. You should leave it to the Palestinians to
resolve our differences peacefully. You should respect Palestinian democracy
and its results," he said. 

This latter was a reference to the hard-hitting campaign that Israel, the
U.S. and its allies have maintained against Hamas ever since its candidates
won a strong victory in the Palestinian Authority (PA)'s parliamentary
elections in January 2006. 

That campaign has included sustained efforts to delegitimise the Hamas-led
government that emerged from the elections, attempts by Israel to
assassinate the government's leaders, including during Israel's recent
assault on Gaza, and the mission that U.S. Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton has led in
the West Bank to arm and train an anti-Hamas fighting force loyal to the
U.S.-supported Palestinian leadership in Ramallah. 

In his reaction to Obama's speech, Meshaal referred to the U.S.'s role in
this intervention, saying, "Rather than sweet words from President Obama on
democratisation, we'd rather see the United States start to respect the
results of democratic elections that have already been held. And rather than
talk about democratisation and human rights in the Arab world, we'd rather
see the removal of Gen. Dayton, who's building a police state there in the
West Bank." 

On Thursday, the tensions between Hamas and forces loyal to the
Ramallah-based Fatah Party leadership boiled over into outright fighting in
the West Bank town of Qalqilya that left two Hamas fighters and one
pro-Ramallah security officer dead. 

The deep divisions between Hamas and Fatah have also been seen by many as a
major obstacle to lifting Israel's extremely damaging siege of Gaza, since
Israel refuses to open the crossing points into Gaza unless pro-Fatah people
control the Gaza side of the crossings. 

Meshaal told IPS, "We're eager for the reconciliation with Fatah. It's both
a political and a humanitarian necessity. But success is unlikely because of
outside intervention." 

Attempts to effect a reconciliation have been sporadically underway in Cairo
since February, but so far with no success. IPS asked Meshaal if he thought
Egypt was unsuccessful as a mediator. "Egypt is not the problem," he said.
"The problem is not the mediator, but the outside intervention." 

He also said that the continuing differences between Hamas and Fatah should
not be seen as posing an immoveable obstacle to lifting the Gaza siege. He
argued that if the international community really wanted the Gaza siege
lifted it could find ways to do this. 

Gaza has its longest land border with Israel, which also controls its
coastline. It also has a short land-border with Egypt. 

IPS pressed Meshaal on an issue of great concern to some Israelis: whether,
when he talks about "an end to Israeli occupation" he is referring to
Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 or to the
establishment of the Israeli state in 1948 in what had previously been the
area of "Mandate Palestine." 

He replied, "I have said I accept a Palestinian state if Israel withdraws to
the pre-1967 line. That doesn't annul the historical fact of the Israeli
occupation of 1948, but Hamas and the other factions have all accepted this
solution of a Palestinian state at the 1967 line. But there's still no
Israeli acceptance of this, and no international recognition of this
outcome." 

Asked whether the establishment of a Palestinian state in just the areas
occupied in 1967 would secure the end of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,
he responded, "That state is our demand today. When our people are free and
have their own state they will decide on this position." 

In a discussion on the right of the numerous Palestinian refugees from 1948,
and their descendants, to return to their ancestral homes and lands in what
is now Israel, he defined this as meaning that these refugees still have the
right to return to their "home villages or towns". 

Hamas is often portrayed in the west as politically inflexible, but on some
key issues it has acted in a realistic way that demonstrates its
leadership's ability to adapt its positions to changing realities on the
ground. 

One of these shifts was its move toward accepting the concept of a
Palestinian state in just the West Bank and Gaza. Another was the decision
it took in 2005 to participate in the PA's parliamentary elections, though a
decade earlier it had opposed such participation. 

Meshaal explained this latter shift by saying, "In 1996, when we opposed the
elections it was because they were seen as derived from the Oslo Agreement,
which we opposed. But by 2006 Oslo was dead... Also, by 2005-2006 the PA had
become a real burden on the Palestinian people, with all its corruption. The
Palestinian people wanted Hamas to enter the PA's institutions, to lift this
burden from them, and we had to be responsive to that." 

In his reaction to Obama's speech, Meshaal welcomed the change from the
rhetoric used by Pres. Bush - though he indicated it was not as far-reaching
a change as he would have wished. But he also stressed that rhetorical
change is not, on its own, nearly enough. 

"Obama talked about the Palestinian state, but not its borders," he said.
"He didn't mention whether it should comprise all the Palestinian land that
was occupied in 1967, or just part of it, as Israel demands..." 

"Yes, he spoke of an end to Israel's continuing settlement activity; but can
he really get them to stop? Without addressing these issues, the speech
remains rhetoric, not so very different from his predecessor's." 

Meanwhile, any time George Mitchell comes to Damascus and he needs a cup of
tea, he knows where he can find one. 

*Helena Cobban is a veteran Middle East analyst and author. She blogs at
www.JustWorldNews.org. 




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu