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

A tale of two charters : Netanyahu's Likud party's charter refuses Palestinians a state

Photo: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - his Likud party's 1999 Charter rules out any soveriegn, independent Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza, yet simultaneously refuses to talk to Hamas on the grounds that it's charter does not recognise the Israeli state

Hamas’ refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist is the number one reason given for the refusal of the Israeli government and it’s allies to negotiate with the Hamas government which Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza elected in January 2006.

This claim is based on Hamas’ founding charter, which, as Palestinian scholar Khaled Hroub has pointed out, was written decades ago and does not reflect Hamas’ current positions (1).

It also makes the Charter of the Israeli Likud party, whose leader Benjamin Netanyahu is now Israeli Prime Minister, interesting reading.

It states that:

“The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. (2)”

Also “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria [i.e the West Bank] and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values... Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting. (2)”

(The charter was written in 1999 which explains the reference to settlements in Gaza which no longer exist – though Likud opposed the withdrawal, leading to the split in the party which led to serial war criminal Ariel Sharon forming the “centrist” Kadima – which shows you just how extreme the remaining Likud members must be)

Strangely Likud's charter has not led to any other governments refusing to recognise the Israeli government until it changes it to recognise the right of a Palestinian state to exist, nor any sanctions being placed on Israelis for electing Likud.

Likud’s charter is much more blunt than most Israeli political statements on a Palestinian state are, but doesn’t differ greatly even from the Oslo agreement offered by Yitzakh Rabin’s Labor government in 1993 , which involved a Palestinian Authority in which Israeli forces could summarily arrest any Palestinian, but no Israeli could be arrested by Palestinian forces no matter what they had done. The West Bank and Gaza would continue to be occupied by Israeli forces. Israeli settlements and Israeli military posts would continue to separate Palestinian enclaves from each other. The best West Bank land and water would be reserved for Israeli settlers.

(This was still enough of a concession in Netanyahu's eyes for him to label Rabin a traitor and for his supporters to call Rabin a Nazi in a campaign of vilification which ended with Rabin being assassinated by an Israeli extremist.)

This is largely still the situation today, although Israeli governments have broken even the modest commitments they made under the Oslo agreements by continuing to annexe more land by force and build more settlements. The Gaza settlements were given up by Sharon under pressure from Bush, who wanted an apparent peace-making success to distract from his massive unpopularity in polls in the US due to Iraq and Enron, but Gaza remains under constant siege and regular military assault by Israeli forces. In return for the withdrawal from Gaza, the US gave Israel a free hand to annexe more of the West Bank (3) – (4).

Prime Minister Netanyahu has talked of a Palestinian “state” since, but each time makes clear that in fact he would not allow a state that was a state in anything but name. It would not have it’s own military or control of it’s own borders or airspace. Since the US and Israeli governments continue to demand Hamas sign up to “existing peace agreements” – i.e Oslo -  Israeli forces would also be able to enter this Palestinian “state” at will and arrest anyone they liked at will and be beyond the control of this “state”’s courts. Meanwhile the Israeli government continues to expand settlements and annexe land in the West Bank, in breach of Oslo (5) – (8).

Netanyahu’s calls for negotiations to begin were with Fatah only, not Hamas. Since Hamas won legislative elections in 2006and the only elected Palestinian Prime Minister is the leader of Hamas, this is a bit like offering to negotiate with a US President who’s a Democrat but refusing to accept the US congress’ inevitable (and constitutional) involvement in the process because the Republicans won control of congress in the last elections. President Abbas of Fatah cannot make agreements without parliamentary approval under the Palestinian constitution – and if he does, they won’t hold.

Fatah rejected this deal as categorically as Hamas did. Israeli historian Avi Shlaim points out that “The problem with Israel's concept of security is that it denies even the most elementary security to the other community.” – i.e the Palestinians (9) – (10).

There has never been an Israeli government which recognised the right of a Palestinian state to exist, making it more than a bit hypocritical for them to demand that Palestinian negotiators accept Israel’s right to exist before negotiations begin.

It also seems unlikely that they would accept recognition of an Israeli state which would not be allowed it’s own military or control of it’s own borders, would not have legal sovereignty over crimes committed in it’s territory ; and would have to allow Palestinian forces and settlers the right to control large parts of it and arrest Israelis under military laws. Yet this is what they demand Palestinian negotiators, including Hamas, accept, before negotiations even begin, when they demand recognition of Israel’s right to exist and that Hamas accept the terms of the Oslo agreement before negotiations can begin.

Despite Israeli government propaganda about rational, secular Israelis facing crazy fundamentalist Hamas the view that God gave Israelis Israel, including the West Bank and Hamas, is mainstream in Israeli politics. The use of the biblical term “Judea and Samaria” for the West Bank in Likud’s charter is one example. Netanyahu in his speech said Israelis’ right to the land – including the West Bank - was based on the presence of Abraham and others there 3,500 years before. It was also used in briefings by Israeli intelligence to the cabinet under the “centrist” Kadima and “left-wing” Labor party coalition government during Operation Cast Lead. Even some Israeli military judges, who oversee military law applied to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank, have used the same language on the land having been given to the Jewish people by God (11).

Ehud Barak, the Labor Defence Minister during Operation Cast Lead remains Defence Minister under Netanyahu in coalition with Likud.

Unlike Likud in 2009, with it’s platform of preventing a Palestinian state, Hamas in 2006 did not campaign on a platform of destroying Israel. If they had campaigned on a platform of destroying Israel, Palestinians would have laughed at them. How could a few thousand militants with automatic weapons and home made rockets destroy the Israeli military with  its thousands of state of the art tanks, aircraft, helicopters, artillery pieces and drones?

It’s not true that Hamas have refused to negotiate either. Hamas leaders including Khaled Meshal and elected Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh repeatedly offered negotiations with Israel; initially on condition it withdrew from the territory it annexed in the 1967 war and since, later without pre-conditions. They’ve also stated they accept any Palestinian state would have to exist alongside Israel (12) – (18).

This ended after Israel’s ‘Cast Lead’ offensive on Gaza in December 2008 to January 2009, in which around 1,400 Palestinians were killed, at least half civilians, many reported by Amnesty International to have been killed in war crimes, turning Palestinian public opinion against any deal with Israel (19) – (20).

The Israeli foreign ministry website shows the number of Israeli civilians killed by the rocket fire which was meant to be the reason for the Israeli offensive in the six months before ‘Operation Cast Lead’ began. One. It also shows that within a few weeks of the operation beginning , three Israeli civilians had been killed by rocket attacks (21).

That does not make the rocket fire or the killing of three civilians by Palestinian terrorist groups justified, but it does show that the Israeli offensive must have had some motive other than just stopping rocket fire, much of which was by factions other than Hamas.

It should come as no surprise that when you kill lots of the other sides’ civilians, more of them want revenge on you and kill more of yours.

The mindset that thinks you can always bomb any opponents into submission forgets that September 11^th and July 7^th did not make Americans or British foreign policy less extreme – so bombing Palestinians, Afghans or Iraqis is not going to make their politics less extreme or less violent towards us either. They are not some alien race, but humans who suffer much like us – and react similarly to us when attacked, with a minority calling for restraint and a majority for revenge on someone, anyone.

The Israeli government’s refusal to negotiate with Hamas even after it’s election victory led to Hamas’ political wing losing influence over some of it’s military wing – the Qassam Brigades. Factions other than Hamas were even harder for Hamas’ political leaders to control – and the Israeli offensive aimed at destroying Hamas’ ability to govern Gaza – for instance targeting police stations and police - while simultaneously holding Hamas responsible for every rocket fired out of Gaza.

Former heads of Mossad and Israel’s Shin Bet military intelligence have called for negotiations with Hamas without preconditions, along with former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami and many others.

(1) = Khaled Hroub (2006) ‘Hamas : A Beginners Guide’, Pluto Press, 2006

(2) = Likud – Platform, http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

(3) = Tanya Reinhardt (2006) , ‘The Roadmap to Nowhere : Israel/Palestine since 2003’, Verso Books , Chapters 1 and 4 (the late Tanya Reinhardt, who died in 2006, was an Israeli Professor of Linguistics and former student of Noam Chomsky. Her book quotes Israeli media sources extensively.)

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

(5) = Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs 14 Jun 2010 ‘Address by PM Netanyahu at Bar-Ilan University, ’,http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2009/Address_PM_Netanyahu_Bar-Ilan_University_14-Jun-2009.htm

(6) = NYT 14 Jun 20010 ‘Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats’

(7) = guardian.co.uk 14 jun 2009 ‘Netanyahu backs an independent Palestinian state for first time’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/14/binyamin-netanyahu-israel-palestinian-state

(8) = Haaretz (Israel) 13 Oct 2009 ‘U.S. to Egypt: Fatah-Hamas deal undermines Israel-PA talks’,http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-to-egypt-fatah-hamas-deal-undermines-israel-pa-talks-1.6197 , ‘Sources told Haaretz that Mitchell made clear to the Egyptians on Saturday the United States expects any Palestinian government to follow the conditions of the Quartet, which include recognition of the State of Israel, acknowledging earlier agreements and renouncing terrorism.’

(9) = See (6) above

(10) = See (4) above

(11) = guardian.co.uk 26 oct 2009 ‘West Bank land belongs to Jews, says Israeli army judge’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/west-bank-jews-army-judge

(12) = Telegraph 09 Feb 2006 ‘Hamas offers deal if Israel pulls out’,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1510074/Hamas-offers-deal-if-Israel-pulls-out.html

(13) = Guardian 4 Mar 2006 , ‘Hamas says peace possible at Moscow talks’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1723217,00.html

(14) = Guardian 22 Jun 2006 ‘Climbdown as Hamas agrees to Israeli state’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1803184,00.html

(15) = Ynet news (Israel) 22 Dec 2007 ‘Report: Hamas weighing unconditional truce with Israel’, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3485394,00.html

(16) = IHT 23 Dec 2007 ‘Israel rejects Hamas request for cease-fire talks’,http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/23/africa/hamas.php

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

(18) = Khaled Hroub (2006) ‘Hamas : A beginner’s guide’ , Pluto Press, London, 2006

(19) = Amnesty International 02 July 2009 ‘Impunity for war crimes in Gaza and southern Israel a recipe for further civilian suffering’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/impunity-war-crimes-gaza-southern-israel-recipe-further-civilian-suffering-20090702

(20) = Amnesty International 02 Jul 2009 ‘Israel/Gaza: Operation "Cast Lead": 22 days of death and destruction’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/015/2009/en

(21) = Israel Foreign Ministry ‘Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism since September 2000’, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm