This
is the third entry in the series Letters of Understanding. In an
e-mail-based dialogue, sponsored by IslamOnline.net’s Muslim
Affairs section, American student David Mauldin and Palestinian
student Tasneem Shaer discuss Hamas's victory in the Palestinian
elections and the challenges that the new government faces.
What
do you think of this dialogue? Which argument do you support?
E-mail us your feedback and comments: mideast@islamonline.net
*
February
21, 2006
David,
I
believe that the idea of whether Hamas is going to recognize
Israel or not has been made clear by the spokesmen of Hamas. He
made it clear that Hamas is ready to negotiate with Israel on
subjects relating to the daily life of Palestinians and
Israelis, and how to achieve stability in the region, but
without recognizing the state of Israel.
You
said that if Hamas wanted to negotiate with Israel, it had to
recognize it and I don’t agree with such an idea; throughout
history, there are examples of negotiations between belligerent
parties without them recognizing one another. I also believe
that if Palestinians recognize Israel, they will be — in some
way — giving legitimacy to its acts of aggression.
In the past, Fatah recognized Israel and negotiated with it and
the result was more bloodshed and an ongoing disaster for the
Palestinians. So, as a Palestinian, in light of our previous
experiences with negotiations, I am totally aware that Fatah's
recognition of Israel achieved nothing for the Palestinians
with regard to extremely important issues, such as the right of
return and the right to an independent state. Since Fatah's
recognition of Israel — despite what you said about Israel
wanting Fatah — was of no result, I don’t think that Hamas
recognizing Israel will lead to anything.
David, there is something that has to be made clear regarding
Palestinians' means of resistance. When a Palestinian blows
himself up, he doesn't do that because he has lost hope in life
or because he feels that there is no way out except to die; why
should he kill himself then? If this is his motive, he can just
leave Palestine and search for a better life in the United
States, Europe or any other part of the world. So, a Palestinian
who blows himself up doesn’t have psychological problems;
rather, he wants to liberate his homeland from its occupiers,
occupiers who have all kinds of arms, from tanks to aircrafts,
while he has nothing but his bare hands.
A
Palestinian who blows himself up doesn’t have
psychological problems; rather, he wants to liberate his
homeland from its occupiers |
|
Why
is Israel allowed to act in any way it pleases, no matter how
brutal its actions are? Why is it allowed to seize the land
of Palestinians to build the so-called "security wall"
without being blamed or questioned, while a Palestinian who
stands in the face of Israeli tanks and rockets, with nothing in
his hand but a stone, is considered by the whole world as a
terrorist who poses a threat to the security of Israel?!
When it comes to the support of the Arab world to Palestinians,
in light of the threat of aid cut the Palestinians are receiving
from various donors, I think that financial support is kind of
enough. Maybe Arab governments haven’t shown much support to
the Palestinian cause, but Arab people and Muslims throughout
the world show great support to the cause. This is something
that strengthens our hope.
Finally, I think that the United States is the main obstacle in
the way of achieving stability in the region. Hamas leaders have
expressed their willingness to discuss the future of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict with US officials. So why doesn’t
the United States try to issue positive statements instead of
the negative ones you talked about in your e-mail? Why isn't the
world ready to give the Hamas-led government a chance?
To
sum up, I think that forcing Hamas from power may lead to the
emergence of a new force on the political scene, a force that
doesn’t even accept having a period of truce with Israel and
only aims to wipe Israel off the face of Earth. So why don't we
try? No one will lose anything.
*****
February
21, 2006
Tasneem,
Israel
made the same argument you did recently. When Putin decided to
invite Hamas to Moscow, the Israelis shouted that Russia was
giving international legitimacy to a terrorist group. This
argument is misguided and the writers of the editorial point
that out: This does not mean that the international community
should forgive Hamas for the terrorist attacks it had committed
in the past. But if there is a chance that Hamas would
abandon terror, why not use it? Russia recognizing Hamas by
inviting them to Moscow has nothing to do with accepting
the Israeli blood spilled, but everything to do with a chance
for real advances towards ending the conflict.
And
in the same way, Hamas recognizing the state of Israel has nothing
to do with accepting F-16 attacks and tank incursions as legit,
but everything to do with making effective talks with the
Israelis even possible. Notice that I am not saying recognizing
Israel has everything to do with bringing about the right of
return for refugees, nor everything to do with the existence of
a Palestinian State; the recognition of Israel is not a button
that when pressed makes Palestinians and Jews dance arm-in-arm
around the Temple Mount.
The
recognition of Israel is a message to the world that
something new is going on in Palestine, that a road has
been opened up that the world should encourage and go
down. |
|
More
than anything, the recognition of Israel is a message to the
world that something new is going on in Palestine, that a road
has been opened up that the world should encourage and go down.
And something new has happened: Hamas has entered politics!
This is new. This is exciting. It opens up a whole new realm of
possibilities.
The
recognition of Israel in the past has not helped the
Palestinians because the security situation was volatile for
both sides. Nothing came out of talks because suicide bombs were
exploding, and the Israelis were making Palestinian life
miserable. The message in the failed talks is not that
recognizing Israel does nothing, but rather that violence
destroys any hope of peace. Recognizing Israel did help Fatah
— despite the group's history — because they got to speak
for the Palestinians. And that does matter.
I
do think the history of the conflict would have looked different
if talks occurred under calm situations, but anger and reprisal
raids and attacks on both sides prevented that. But again,
and I need to say this again and again, Hamas feels confident
that they can control the territories and better the lives of
the Palestinians. If it can better the lives of
Palestinians, violence and anger will begin to disappear because
living under good conditions makes one unwilling to attack
people unless one has psychological problems, which is
applicable to both Arabs and Jews.
Some
may say that the continued Israeli attacks to date prove that
the Israelis will never stop their aggression. But, again, you
need to understand the paranoia — which I do not think you
fully do and will explain in a later email — felt by Israel.
Hamas blew up Israeli buses sending body parts flying onto
Israeli streets. Now, it has political as well as physical
power, and is refusing to accept Israel.
The
attacks continue because Israel is scared that a radical power
is being born right next to them, the kind you alluded to at the
end of your last email. But, if Hamas improves the life of
Palestinians, anger will go down, and when anger goes down,
Israel will begin to relax. I believe this. Now, add what
would happen if the added remedy of Hamas accepting the state of
Israel was thrown into that cooling situation.
The
conflicts in the Middle East are the faults of everyone
who has ever been involved there. |
|
Talk
about a balm to heal the sickness. And healing the sickness of
hate that is destroying the Middle East as a whole should be the
goal of all involved. You say that there are examples through
history in which other countries negotiated without one
recognizing the other as an actual state at all. I cannot
think of any at this moment and would appreciate examples, but
even so, I ask you if you can think of any such negotiations
that have actually ended in peace.
People
talk a lot about truces and the need for them, yet the history
of the conflict and other conflicts around the world are
littered with broken ceasefires and truces. The hate needs
to be attacked, and if Hamas really can change the situation in
Palestine and accept Israel, this will go a long way towards
bringing peace. Not a ceasefire, not a 15-year truce, not a
lull in the fighting, but peace. Peace, no anger, no hate,
peace.
Of
course, the arguments might remain. You can say that
accepting Israel is accepting the terrors the Israelis have
wrought on Palestinians and the Israeli and pro-Israeli people
can say that talking with Hamas is accepting the horrors of
their suicide bombs. To me, however, this is all reeks of the
all too common virus that destroys the effectiveness of most
conversations about the Middle East.
All
too often, discussions fall into someone claiming that it is all
the United States' and Israel's fault, with someone else
countering by arguing that it is all the Arabs' and
Palestinians' fault. This argument kills all dialogue because it
runs people in circles and because it is false. The
conflicts in the Middle East are the faults of everyone who has
ever been involved there; each party has done disgusting things
and each party is guilty. To say this is wrong is to not
understand the history of the conflict and the Middle East
itself.
I
have so much to say in response to your comments on suicide
bombings and the paranoia that we have talked about. I also feel
that more explanation is needed to back up things I have said. I
wish these emails could have unlimited word lengths.
David
