Even former Mossad and Shin Bet chiefs say negotiate with Hamas without preconditions

The claim that Hamas refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist and that this makes negotiations with them impossible has been made again, this time by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Neither the first part of the claim nor the second are true  and negotiations should start without preconditions.It’s not just me that says so but many Israeli experts including the former heads of Mossad and of Israel’s Shin Bet military intelligence.

 In 2005 Mohammed Ghazal of Hamas said “The Charter is not the Koran. Historically, we believe all Palestine belongs to Palestinians, but we're talking now about reality, about political solutions ... The realities are different...I don't think there will be a problem of negotiating with the Israelis” (1).

In 2006 Hamas signed up to a document proposing a Palestinian state only on the land annexed by Israel in the 1967 war (2)

In April 2006 CNN reported that a spokesman for the Hamas government "Mahmoud Zahar even mentioned the possibility of a “two-state” solution in which Palestinians have “freedom and independence side by side with our neighbours.”" (3)

In April 2008 Khaled Meshal of Hamas said Hamas would accept the result of any referendum of Palestinians that decided to accept Israel's existence, including on some land taken in the 1967 war. (4).

Photo: Khaled Meshal

In January 2009 Ghazi Hamad of Hamas said “We accept a state in the '67 borders...We are not talking about the destruction of Israel.” (5)

On 11th May this year Hamas' foreign minister (part of the Fatah-Hamas unity) government said he accepted the 1967 borders as the borders of an Israeli state (implying a two state solution, with Israel existing on the rest of its current territory) (6).

(Given the periods of all out war, politicians' tendencies to tell every audience what they think it wants to hear, the different factions in Hamas and Palestinians's anger after the 2008/9 Gaza "war" some Hamas spokesmen have also said the opposite, but realistically they know they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of destroying Israel even if they wanted to)

Strictly speaking many of their offers have been of long-term 'hudna' or 'ceasefire' for 10 years or longer, but if there was peace for 10 years that'd give more influence to moderates on both sides and reduce the influence of hardliners. One expert has said the difference between a hudna and recognition is “semantics” (7) – (8).

As former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami and Israeli professor Yossi Alpher (among others) have said, full recognition comes at the end of peace negotiations, it shouldn't be a pre-condition for them. Israel never demanded Jordan or Egypt formally and fully recognise Israel before negotiations began (9) – (10).

Israeli historian and IDF veteran Avi Shlaim has written that “The only way for Israel to achieve security is…through talks with Hamas, which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with [Israel] within its pre-1967 borders for 20, 30, or even 50 years.” (11)

In case you think all of the above people are some kind of unrealistic liberals, Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad says Israel should talk to Hamas, who have have proven they can relied on to abide by and enforce peace agreements and negotiations ; and the former head of Shin Bet (Israeli military intelligence) Shlomo Gazit says the pre-conditions the Israeli government have placed on negotiations are "ridiculous, or an excuse not to negotiate.” (12) – (13).

So Hamas does not need to recognise Israel before negotiations can take place.

Above - Efraim Halevy ; Below - Shlomo Gazit

Not negotiating with Hamas, even after it won Palestinian legislative elections found free and fair by election observers from the EU, the Carter Center and others, has resulted in the political wing of Hamas sometimes losing control of some factions of it’s military wing, the Al Qassam Brigades (14). This shifts influence in Hamas towards those who believe only force will work and undermines the position of those who want to negotiate.

The Israeli government thought that by using military attacks (including targeting civilians and the wounded) and blockades against Fatah under Arafat in the West Bank and Gaza they would force Arafat out of power and get a Palestinian leadership who would be willing to make peace on whatever terms Israel dictated. Predictably, this did not happen. Palestinians reacted to military attacks killing civilians along with combatants (and to many Fatah officials’ corruption) by electing Hamas (15) – (17).

Israeli government attempts to bomb, shell or blockade Palestinians into getting rid of Hamas have similarly failed so far – and if they succeed by continuing these methods the replacement will not be more moderate, but more extreme. It’s hard to believe the Israeli government don’t know this. Do we really expect Palestinians to react differently than Americans or Israelis would to the same treatment? Did September 11^th make Americans more moderate?

 (Christian Palestinians iGaza say it’s not Hamas they fear, but those more extreme than them (18).)

UPDATE 5th June 2011 : A second former head of Mossad - Meir Dagan - has said recently that Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak are "reckless" in threatening to attack Iran and irresponsible in refusing to make serious offers of peace to the Palestinians.(19)

Dagan is not in the least liberal or left wing. He was appointed head of Shin Bet by the notorious serial war criminal Ariel Sharon (then Israeli Prime Minister) in 2002 and Sharon never replaced him. So if Dagan thinks the Israeli government is heading too far to the right, be worried. The thought that Sharon was moderate compared to his successors is frightening.

Photo : Meir Dagan (left) and Ariel Sharon (right)

Dagan also implied another former Shin Bet head - Yuval Diskin (who has also recently been replaced) was equally at odds with Netanyahu and Barak.

This suggests Israeli governments attempts to keep replacing intelligence agency heads to get ones who'll accept a harder line is spinning out of control. They may end up with the equivalent of George Tenet as CIA director before and during the US invasion of Iraq - men who are more politicians than agents or analysts who tell them what they want to hear, rather than the facts, with potentially disastrous results.

Barak was also Defence Minister under the Labor party led coalition government during 'Operation Cast Lead' or 'the Gaza War' in December 2008/January 2009 and was previously Prime Minister in the 1990s. Dagan classing Netanyau and Barak as equally reckless is a confirmation of what many critics of Israeli government policy have been saying for a long time - the differences between the leadership of the Labor and Likud parties in foreign policy and in relation to the Palestinians are minimal. Both are hardliners.

With two former heads of Mossad and one former head of Shin Bet already openly condemning Israeli policy (under both Labor and Likud led governments) the Israeli government and it's blind adherents will have difficulty presenting this criticism and calls for more constructive policies as "anti-semitic' or "anti-Israeli" or biased. No doubt they'll try though. "Self-hating Jew" is the standard propaganda charge used against Jewish or Israeli critics.

(1) = Reuters/Ynet(Israel) 21 Sep 2005 ‘Hamas: We'll rethink call to destroy Israel’,http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3145475,00.html

(2) = BBC News 27 Jun 2006 ‘Hamas 'implicitly accepts Israel’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5121164.stm

(3) = CNN 05 Apr 2006 ‘Hamas official suggests 'two-state' solution’, http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/04/mideast/index.html

(4) = Guardian.co.uk 21 April 2008 ‘We can accept Israel as neighbour, says Hamas’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/21/israel

(5) = AP/Haaretz 01 Jan 2009 ‘Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened’, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059873.html

(6) = NPR 26 May 2011 ‘Hamas Foreign Minister: We Accept Two-State Solution With '67 Borders’,http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/24/136403918/hamas-foreign-minister-we-accept-two-state-solution-with-67-borders

(7) = AP 21 Apr 2008 ‘Hamas offers truce in return for 1967 borders’,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/hamas-offers-truce-return-borders/

(8) = Forward 09 Feb 2007 ‘Experts Question Wisdom of Boycotting Hamas’,http://www.forward.com/articles/10055/

(9) = Times 26 Feb 2009 ‘Peace will be achieved only by talking to Hamas’,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5804266.ece

(10) = Forward 20 Oct 2006 ‘Preconditions for a Problematic Partner’,http://www.forward.com/articles/5948/

(11) = Guardian 07 Jan 2009 ‘How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

(12) = Interview with Efraim Halevy in Mother Jones Magazine 10 Feb 2008 ‘Israel's Mossad, Out of the Shadows’, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/02/israels-mossad-out-shadows

(13) = Forward 09 Feb 2007 ‘Experts Question Wisdom of Boycotting Hamas’,http://www.forward.com/articles/10055/

(14) = International Herald Tribune 21 July 2006, ‘Gaza militants don't follow Hamas political leadership’, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/21/news/hamas.php

(15) = Guardian.co.uk 08 Apr 2002 ‘Sharon defies calls to end offensive’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/08/israel2

(16) = CNN 12 Mar 2001 ‘Sharon defends West Bank blockade’ http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/03/12/israel.blockade/index.html

(17) = The Economist 26 Feb 2002 ‘Arafat confined’,http://www.economist.com/node/1010042

(18) = AFP 25 Oct 2007 ‘Gaza Christians fear 'those more extreme than Hamas'’,http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdmJ6do6ctFlmorCNXunZ7ajZGaw

(19) = guardian.co.uk 03 Jan 2011 'Israel government 'reckless and irresponsible' says ex-Mossad chief', http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/03/israel-government-reckless-mossad-chief

Even the former heads of Shin Bet and Mossad say there should be negotiations with Hamas without pre-conditions

Tony Blair has finally said something I can support him on, however much I revile his past actions. He’s called for and end to the Israeli and ‘Quartet’( formally the EU, US, Russia, UN) blockade of Gaza (1). (To be more accurate the Quartet should be defined as the EU, US, Russia and Israel, since the UN has condemned the blockade and called for it to be lifted.)

Unfortunately Blair still holds to the other ‘Quartet’ position – that talks with Hamas can’t begin until it formally recognizes Israel, signs up to the 1993 Oslo peace agreement between Israel and the PLO; and renounces violence.

These three conditions though are some of the biggest barriers to a negotiated peace – and that’s not just my opinion. Many Israelis, including former government ministers, advisers, academics, historians and the former heads of Shin Bet and Mossad say the pre-conditions being placed on talks with Hamas are ludicrous and amount to setting impossible preconditions to avoid talking at all – combined with a war on all Gazans intended to replace the elected Hamas government by force.

Professor Yossi Alpher, director of the Jaffa Institute for Strategic studies and a former adviser to Ehud Barak, wrote in the Jewish ‘Forward’ newspaper in October 2006 that “Israel never demanded recognition from Egypt or Jordan as a precondition for negotiating with them; recognition is a logical way to conclude successful peace talks, not to begin them.”.(2).

Alpher also points out that Israeli governments have failed to abide by the Oslo agreements by continuing to expand settlements by force in the West Bank, yet demand Hamas abide by these agreements before talks begin.

Former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami signed an open letter saying “Hamas must recognise Israel as part of a permanent solution, but it is a diplomatic process and not ostracisation that will lead them there. The Quartet conditions…set an unworkable threshold from which to commence negotiations.” (3)

Shlomo Gazit, the former head of Israel’s military intelligence, called the three pre-conditions laid down by Israel “ridiculous, or an excuse not to negotiate.” (4)

Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad, also says Israel should negotiate with Hamas, noting that the group has maintained ceasefires and enforced them on other groups in the past.(5).

A poll in March 2008 showed 72% of Israelis wanted negotiations with Hamas (6).

Some may object that Hamas has failed to prevent attacks by other groups, but the Israeli government’s war and blockade on Gaza is the main reason for that. During the last offensive Israel’s deputy PM told interviewers “What I think we need to do is to reach a situation in which we do not allow Hamas to govern.” (7). On 6th January Yuval Diskin, the head of Shin Bet, told the cabinet that Israeli attacks have made it increasingly difficult for Hamas to govern (8). Attacks on Hamas’ police force and stations have continued since (9).

While claiming they’ve destroyed Hamas’ ability to govern Israeli government ministers have also said they hold Hamas responsible for attacks on Israelis from Gaza – even though they admit those attacks aren’t being carried out by Hamas (and that includes the much publicized roadside bombing which came just after the new ceasefire). (see this post and the sources listed in it)

This is what makes the ‘renounce violence’ pre-condition an impossible one for Hamas to meet. Israeli forces demand they end attacks on Israel by other Palestinian groups while simultaneously denying them the means to do so (including the very direct method of assassinating Hamas members). Once again it’s also fairly hypocritical coming from a government that reserves the right to bomb Gazans even during ceasefires.

If the campaign to destroy the Hamas government is ended then Hamas and Fatah can be reconciled, as they were in June 2007 in a coalition government, when Israel and its allies still refused to recognise Hamas as part of that government despite its election victory. Hamas can enforce a ceasefire on other groups and peace negotiations can proceed through third parties (10).

As Israeli historian and IDF veteran Avi Shlaim wrote in January “There is…no military solution...Israel's concept of security…denies …security to [Palestinians]. The only way for Israel to achieve security is…through talks with Hamas, which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with [Israel] within its pre-1967 borders for 20, 30, or even 50 years.”(11)

And in case anyone thinks Shlaim is wrong to think Hamas would negotiate or concede that Israel could exist even inside it’s pre-1967 borders, he’s right, they’ve said they’d accept that if given a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

For instance in September 2005 Mohammed Gazal of Hamas told Reuters that the Hamas Charter ‘is not the Koran’ and could be amended to accept the existence of Israel within it’s pre-1967 borders – and that negotiations with Israel were entirely possible (12). In 2008 Khaled Meshal of Hamas said a Palestinian state could co-exist with Israel (13). In January this year Hamas leaders told Associated Press reporters that “"We accept a state in the '67 borders," and “We are not talking about the destruction of Israel” (14)

Hamas’ leaders are not so blind as to think they could destroy an Israeli state that has F-16 jets, helicopters, missile armed drones, tanks and heavy artillery when they only have AK-47s and rockets. They will not give up all their negotiating cards before the negotiations even begin though. Not in return for nothing, which is what Palestinians would get from the kind of ‘negotiation’ in which one side has to give in on every point before negotiations even start. Nor would the governments of Jordan or Egypt, yet negotiating with them has led to decades of peace between them and Israel.

There is no barrier to beginning peace negotiations with Hamas via third parties. The question is, does the Israeli government want peace or does it just want more land, taken by force, at any cost in Palestinian and Israeli lives?

(1) = Independent 02 Mar 2009 ‘Blair says Gaza crossings must be opened to assist rebuilding’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/blair-says-gaza-crossings-must-be-opened-to-assist-rebuilding-1635144.html

(2) = Forward 20 Oct 2006 ‘Preconditions for a Problematic Partner’,
http://www.forward.com/articles/5948/

(3) = Times 26 Feb 2009 ‘Peace will be achieved only by talking to Hamas’,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5804266.ece

(4) = Forward 09 Feb 2007 ‘Experts Question Wisdom of Boycotting Hamas’,
http://www.forward.com/articles/10055/

(5) = Interview with Efraim Halevy in Mother Jones Magazine 10 Feb 2008 ‘Israel's Mossad, Out of the Shadows’, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/02/israels-mossad-out-shadows

(6) = Newsweek 07 Mar 2008 ‘‘We’ll Have to Talk’’
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/03/06/we-ll-have-to-talk.html#

(7) = New York Times 03 Jan 2009 ‘Is the Real Target Hamas Rule?’,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/world/middleeast/04assess.html

(8) = Guardian 06 Jan 2009 ‘Israel looks to drive out Hamas’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-hamas

(9) = CNN 1 Feb 2009 ‘Airstrikes hit Gaza after rockets wound 3 Israelis’,
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/01/israel.rockets/

(10) = Guardian 07 Jan 2009 ‘How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

(11) = see (10) above

(12) = Reuters/Ynet(Israel) 21 Sep 2005 ‘Hamas: We'll rethink call to destroy Israel’,
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3145475,00.html

(13) = Guardian.co.uk 21 April 2008 ‘We can accept Israel as neighbour, says Hamas’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/21/israel

(14) = AP/Haaretz 01 Jan 2009 ‘Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened’, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059873.html