Hamas' Mesh'al lays out new policy direction

Since 1996, Khaled Mesh'al has been the Chairman of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) Political Bureau. After the assassination of Hamas leader Abdul 'Aziz Rantisi in 2004 by Israeli forces, Mesh'al became the movement's overall leader. He lives in exile in Damascus, from where he oversees the movement's activities both within Palestine and outside.

The most recent interview with Mesh'al was conducted by the Jordanian Arabic-language Al-Sabeel newspaper in July 2010. In it, Mesh'al laid out the policy direction of Hamas on a number of critical issues: negotiations with Israel, recognition of Israel, resistance, Jews, Christians, women, among other issues. In the Arab world, the lengthy interview is being viewed as highly significant, and is regarded as a clear indication of positions that Hamas wants to pursue, especially with regard to its future attitude towards Israel. The Afro-Middle East Centre (AMEC) translated the interview into English and publishes it here to make it accessible to a wider audience, and to allow for greater understanding of the political and other perspectives of a movement which has become one of the most important role-players in the Middle East today. It is an important piece articulating, in its own words, the perspectives of Hamas' leadership, and is critical reading for observers of the Middle East, and policy-makers for whom the Middle East is important.

» Lees het interview

A barely tolerated minority

All Palestinian political activity more radical than a Cub Scout meeting is illegal in East Jerusalem.

Haaretz | 30.07.10 | By Daniel Seidemann

Hamas-affiliated Palestinian parliament member Mohammed Abu Tir - renowned for his bright orange beard - is my neighbor in Jerusalem. We live about a mile apart.

I've never met him, nor do I care to. I have no illusions about Hamas.

Abu Tir has just been released after spending four years in Israeli jail in because of his membership of the Change and Reform Party, which is associated with Hamas (and which both Israel and the Palestinian Authority allowed to participate in the 2006 legislative elections ). He is now facing exile. Not new charges, not a new indictment, not a trial.

I unequivocally object to the interior minister's decision to revoke his residency rights in Jerusalem and to expel Abu Tir from Israel and the city that is both of our homes - for the crime of being a public, political symbol of Hamas. This decision illuminates more about Israel's problematic rule over "unified" Jerusalem than it does about Hamas.

Such as the fact that Palestinians of East Jerusalem, who as "permanent residents" rather than citizens, are treated by Israel as visiting guests enjoying the privilege of residency, not as an indigenous population with the right to be there. Israel has for years shown an appetite for revoking that privilege. East Jerusalemites who move even a short distance outside the city risk forfeiting their residency, permanently, on the grounds that Jerusalem is no longer their "center of life." Those who go abroad for purposes of work or study risk the same fate.

And it is not just Hamas that is outlawed in Jerusalem: All Palestinian political activity more radical than a Cub Scout meeting is illegal in East Jerusalem. Palestinians in East Jerusalem are not being paranoid if they fear that the expulsion of Abu Tir portends a new trend, where any "proscribed" political activity may result in permanent exile.

Israeli non-recognition of the Palestinians of East Jerusalem as an indigenous community with rights is evident in every policy that governs that part of the city.

Israel has expropriated one-third of the privately owned Palestinian land there to build 50,000 residential units for Israelis; none for Palestinians. The expropriations are always made for "public purposes," but the "public" involved is, invariably, Israelis only. Much of the remaining Palestinian property in East Jerusalem is under threat of confiscation as "absentee property" - based on an Israeli law that nullifies Palestinian ownership if the current or previous owners reside even a few miles away in the West Bank or anywhere in the Arab world. And the burden of proof is on Palestinian property owners, who are presumed to be guilty of being "absentees" unless they can prove otherwise.

The planning regime in East Jerusalem has been geared to accelerate development in the Israeli sector and put an artificial cap on the Palestinian sector. Since it is virtually impossible to obtain a building permit, Palestinians often build without one - that is, "illegally," running the risk of heavy fines and ultimately demolition.

These are not random examples. Overall, policies regarding planning, property and construction in East Jerusalem indicate that from the perspective of the government of Israel, the birth of an Israeli child in Jerusalem is a simcha (joy ), whereas the birth of a Palestinian child is a demographic problem.

These policies disclose the consistent Israeli approach to Palestinians in East Jerusalem since 1967. With it, Israel is sending a clear message to these Palestinians about how it perceives them: "You are a barely tolerated minority whose position in Jerusalem hangs by a thread. We reject you as an indigenous, empowered or entitled collective. You are here under sufferance rather than by any inalienable right, and the privileges we extend to you can be revoked at whim."

After 43 years, the cumulative impact of these policies is an increasingly anomalous situation that is eating away like acid at the already vulnerable foundations of Israeli democracy. After 43 years, these policies also are increasingly unjustifiable even to Israel's staunchest allies, and are contributing to the growing and unprecedented isolation of Israel.

The foregoing is no mere litany of Israeli misdeeds. The underlying problem is not that Israel is ruling East Jerusalem unfairly and unwisely, but that we are ruling it at all. Consequently, these policies are now collapsing under their own weight. Neither the Palestinian residents of the city nor a consensus within the international community - including among Israel's closest allies - will countenance continued aggressive Israeli hegemony imposed over a functionally disenfranchised Palestinian community in one of the most sensitive places in the world.

Today, engaging and empowering the Palestinians of Jerusalem as a cohesive community is not only critical to the stability of the city, but it is the litmus test of the seriousness of any political process ostensibly aimed at ending the conflict.

Under current Israeli government policies, including the expulsion of Mohammed Abu Tir and the four other Hamas legislators from Jerusalem, Israel conspicuously fails this litmus test.

Daniel Seidemann is a Jerusalem-based lawyer specializing in Israeli-Palestinian relations in Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Authority is imprisoning Gazans

The same government that includes a call to end the blockade on Gaza, in practice aids in imprisoning the Gazans by preventing them from holding valid Palestinian passports.

Haaretz | By Amira Hass | 28.07.10

Lies and power go hand in hand. But what is considered outrageous in a sovereign state is catastrophic for a society fighting for its freedom. The Palestinians have two sets of leadership under occupation competing for the dubious title of "government" - and both are generating lies to perpetuate their status. The Hamas government, which won the majority of the vote in democratic Palestinian legislative elections, is not recognized by most countries. Yet these countries warmly accept the Palestinian Authority government, which was appointed by the president and leader of the party that lost the election, Fatah.

A Hamas policeman checks passports at the Rafah crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, June 2010

This is the government that has explained its decision to postpone the municipal and local elections, originally scheduled for July 17 this year, by its desire to prevent the political rift between the West Bank and Gaza from widening. Parallel elections would not have been possible in the Gaza Strip because of the split between the parties and clashes over authority and legitimacy.

It is possible to argue over the logic of the initial stubbornness to hold elections that would have fortified the double-rule reality (one political experience in Gaza, and a different one in the West Bank ). This is why, indeed, independent circles in Gaza welcomed the decision to postpone. But everyone knows the real reason behind the postponement was internal disputes within Fatah, as well as a possible fear that competing slates would succeed - despite the fact that Hamas announced it would boycott the elections.

The same government that includes a call to end the blockade on Gaza in every one of its statements, in practice aids in imprisoning the Gazans by preventing many of them from holding valid Palestinian passports. Not only does the Fatah government refuse to send blank passports to Gaza to be filled out, thus forcing Gazans to use the services of special go-between agencies which send the applications to Ramallah, but its general intelligence service even intervenes - as has been revealed lately - and in many cases vetoes passports for Gaza residents.

Now, with Egypt easing the restrictions on entry through its border with Gaza, this arbitrary cruelty has become even more pronounced. The feeling of imprisonment, and the lies accompanying it, generates bitterness toward the government in Ramallah - even among those who are not Hamas supporters.
Security forces in the West Bank continue to arrest people identified with Hamas. The fact that the vast majority of these people are imprisoned for extended periods without a trial or any charges brought against them, raises the suspicion that this practice is not meant to foil security risks, but to actually take revenge for Fatah's defeat in Gaza and to repress its political opponents.

Take Murad Amira, for example, from the village of Na'alin. As a volunteer paramedic in the Red Crescent he goes every Friday to the demonstrations held in his village against the separation wall. He was arrested by the Palestinian general security service six weeks ago and only released yesterday - without any explanation provided to him, his family or friends.
The Ramallah government supports the popular struggle in its words, but at the same time its security services continuously harass activists in Na'alin who are close to Hamas: They arrest them for two or three days, release them, and arrest them again. That is why official support for the popular struggle is viewed as just another fabrication. It's no surprise the protests have remained the private domain of those directly affected by the lands expropriations and haven't drawn the masses, certainly not those who fill the coffee houses, restaurants and festivals in Ramallah.

These are the same security authorities that have won praise from the occupier for the quiet they've achieved while the occupier acts: confiscating land, demolishing homes, expelling people, arresting children, preventing free movement and killing. The lies that accompany these activities and their close affiliation with Fatah cast a shadow over the trustworthiness of the leadership in the eyes of its people.

Finkelstein: mensenrechtenschendingen Israël in Gaza aanpakken

De joods-Amerikaanse hoogleraar Norman Finkelstein beschuldigd Israël van het plegen van oorlogsmisdaden in Gaza vanwege de huidige belegering van de strook en haar oorlog van begin dit jaar. Hij uitte zijn beschuldiging op de internationale conferentie genaamd "UNRWA and Future of Palestinian Refugees", vorige week woensdag in Londen. Hij stelde dat de oorzaken en gevolgen van de Gaza-oorlog momenteel aan het licht komen, zowel in de Goldstone-rapport als in het recente aanhoudingsbevel uitgevaardigd door het Verenigd Koninkrijk voor Tzipi Livni, die verklaarde dat ze 'trots is op alles wat ze in Gaza gedaan heeft'.

In de korte beschrijving van de geschiedenis van de blokkade merkte Prof. Finkelstein op dat de wapenstilstand die tussen Israël en Hamas in juni 2008 werd overeengekomen door Israël werd verbroken, en niet Hamas*. Hamas was gestopt met raketaanvallen, terwijl Israël doorging met de illegale blokkade van Gaza, en 's nachts de aanval op Gaza aanving, terwijl de ogen van de wereld op de Amerikaanse verkiezingen van 4 november 2008 waren gericht. Daarbij werden zes Hamas-strijders gedood, waardoor Israël Hamas provoceerde te reageren. Hamas deed dat met het hervatten van de raketaanvallen op Israël.

Finkelstein citeerde een Palestijn die naar de raketaanvallen verwees als: "Bescheiden zelfgemaakte raketten zijn een schreeuw van protest naar de wereld." Finkelstein merkte op dat wanneer we Hamas willen blijven veroordelen voor het gebruik van raketten, dat we dan zullen moeten aangeven hoe het kleine strookje land zich dan wel tegen de aanhoudende Israëlische aanvallen, onderdrukking en hardnekkige blokkade moet verdedigen. Als we geen alternatief kunnen bieden, kunnen we het ook niet bekritiseren.

Zelfs dode Palestijnen waren nog niet dood genoeg volgens Israël, met hun 'precisiewapens' (Sheik Radwan begraafplaats januari 2009).

In de bespreking van de belegering van Gaza in detail, benadrukte Finkelstein de disproportionaliteit van de Israëlische aanvallen. De verhoudingen van dood en vernietiging zijn opvallend: 100 Palestijnen werden gedood voor 1 Israëli; 600 Palestijnse burgers werden gedood voor 1 Israëlische burger; en 6.000 Palestijnse huizen werden verwoest voor 1 Israëlisch huis. Op basis hiervan kan het beleg van Gaza niet worden betiteld als oorlog, want bij een oorlog geldt de minimale voorwaarde dat er sprake moet zijn van twee tegen elkaar strijdende partijen. Israëlische soldaten zelf hebben verklaard dat Israël "krankzinnige hoeveelheden vuurkracht" heeft gebruikt.

Israël's bewering over Hamas' gebruik van burgers als menselijk schild en het zich opzettelijk in dichtbevolkte gebieden verschuilen zijn bestreden door de rapporten van Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, het Dugard Comité en het Goldstone-rapport: er is geen bewijs gevonden die deze bewering ondersteunt.

Hier is Tzipi Livni nog steeds "trots" op.

In het Goldstone-rapport werd vastgesteld dat de aanval een "doelbewuste disproportionele aanval" was, "bedoeld om de burgerbevolking te straffen, te vernederen en te terroriseren." Finkelstein voegde toe dat Richard Goldstone een naar eigen zeggen overtuigde zionist is en supporter van Israël, en hij er dus geen belang bij heeft om Israël onnodig te bekritiseren. We moeten dus aannemen dat wat Goldstone heeft gerapporteerd een accurate weerspiegeling is van misbruik en verlegging van de verantwoordelijkheid voor wat er is gebeurd in de Gazastrook. Het Goldstone-rapport, dat om deze reden grote belangstelling geniet, zet voor de eerste keer in dit conflict de beoordeling van mensenrechtenschendingen centraal, in plaats van de hardnekkige aandacht voor het zogeheten "vredesproces". De waarheid over de voortdurende mensenrechtenschendingen begaan door Israëli's tegen de Palestijnen moeten als eerste worden aangepakt als we vooruit willen. (bron)

* Toegegeven door Israël, zie woordvoerder voor Israël Mark Regev: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SILJxPTqjAM



Lees ook:
IPS: Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December (2008)
De juiste chronologie van de Gaza-oorlog
Gaza op De Israël Lobby

Verzwegen: raketten komen van Fatah, niet van Hamas

Nog steeds bepalen de redacties van de Nederlandse pers dat we niet hoeven te weten dat aan Fatah gelieerde militanten na het laatste ’staakt-het-vuren’ raketten op Israël afvuren.

Hamas ‘not responsible’ for recent rocket attacks, says Israel
However, an Israeli security official acquitted Hamas of responsibility for the most recent attacks. “Our intelligence says it’s not them,” he said. Instead, other groups, notably Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees and fighters linked to the supposedly moderate Fatah movement are thought to have launched these strikes. (The Telegraph 6 februari jl.)

Het Parool 1 februari jl.: “Israël werd zondag getroffen door enkele raketten en mortiergranaten, die waren afgevuurd vanuit de Gazastrook. Hoewel de radicaalislamitische beweging Hamas het daar voor het zeggen heeft, is de verantwoordelijkheid voor de beschietingen opgeëist door de al-Aqsa Martelaren Brigades (zie foto), de gewapende tak van de Fatahbeweging die met Hamas strijdt om de macht.”

The Telegraph heeft er blijkbaar geen moeite mee om te stellen: “de naar zeggen gematigde Fatah-beweging”, waarmee het (voorzichtig) aangeeft dat het wel eens niet zou kunnen kloppen wat er over Fatah wordt beweerd. Het woord Fatah betekent voor sommigen “Verovering door jihad“, en Wikipedia meldt: “The word Fatah is prominently used for the Islamic expansion in the first centuries of Islamic history, and so has strongly positive connotations for Muslims.”

Is Fatah een “gematigde” (soms zelfs “seculiere”) partij? De Al-Aqsa Martelaren Brigade, bekend van zijn zelfmoordaanslagen, is een militante tak van de Fatah-partij, waarvan de foto’s na de verkiezingszege van Hamas uit de media zijn verdwenen als sneeuw voor de zon, terwijl Hamas-mensen vrijwel alleen maar worden afgebeeld als gemaskerde terroristen. De reden daarvoor is dat het publiek moet begrijpen dat Fatah - in tegenstelling tot “de radicaalislamitische Hamas” - de enige en echte onderhandelingspartner kan zijn. En dat we daarvoor best de democratie opzij mogen schuiven. Daarnaast onderhandelt Fatah, middels zijn voorman Abbas, al 15 jaar met Israël, en er is nog geen vrede.

Ook tijdens het vorige bestand, totdat Israël het in november 2008 twee keer brak, heeft Hamas geen enkele raket afgevuurd. Op een video (dd 12 januari 2009) van een Engels nieuwsprogramma wordt het aangetoond, en tegen het einde wordt dat bevestigd door Mark Regev, woordvoerder van de Israëlische regering: Israel admits: “No Hamas rockets were fired during ceasefire”

Foto’s van Fatah-milities die je in de media niet meer zal tegenkomen, en ook de Nederlandse regering heeft deze mensen als onderhandelingspartner erkend:


De Volkskrant noemde dit “activisten” - terwijl ze toch echt als terroristen te boek staan. Waarom zou de Volkskrant dat doen denkt u?


Nablus 2006

Lees ook: Gaza: History Matters - Why Hamas is Not the Issue