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

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