This is a video I've been wanting to make
for a while.
The new Hamas Charter has been out for several
months, and I wanted to look into it and see
if it changes anything in how we should view
this organization; in how Israel should deal
with Gaza, which Hamas rules; and in how Israel
should conduct itself vis-a-vis the Palestinians
in general.
I didn't get to in until now, but seeing as
November 2017 marked the one hundred year
anniversary of the Jewish-Palestinian conflict,
this is a good a time as any.
It's been a hundred years.
Have we made any progress?
So, to understand the stakes involved in this
new Hamas Charter, we are going to have to
talk about the history of the conflict.
Therefore, I am going to provide a brief historical
review of the past hundred years.
Of course, this is not going to be a full
analysis of the conflict.
What we shall focus on is the history of Arab
refusal to accept Israel's right to exist,
since that is the main thing that we are discussing
when we ask if Hamas has changed.
So keep in mind that this is a partial picture
that I am portraying.
It was in November 1917, after the Brits conquered
the land of Israel from the Turks in the first
world war, that the British government announced
that it would support the idea of turning
this land into a national home for the Jews.
The idea was not to turn it into a Jewish
state, but to allow Jews to immigrate to their
historical homeland, and form a country together
with the local Arab population.
This idea, however, encountered immediate
resistance from the local Arabs, and from
Arabs all over the Middle-East.
Why did the Arabs object?
Well, first of all it is a human reaction:
humans are usually suspicious of foreigners
who come to live among them.
But there were also strong ideological components.
First, there's Muslim imperialism, the idea
that every piece of land that they perceive
as belonging to Islam cannot be given away.
Secondly, there is the fear from western invasion,
which was and still is very prevalent in the
Arab world.
The memory of the crusades is still with them,
and they saw this as the beginning of a new
crusade.
Third, there is Antisemitism, the belief that
Jews are evil and are plotting to disenfranchise
them.
All of these, combined together, generated
a hostile reaction to the idea of a national
home for the Jews in Israel.
They believed it would not end there, but
will result with the Jews and the West taking
over the entire Middle East.
Or as they put it: either we push the Jews
to the Sea, or they push us to the Euphrates.
This idea, that they must push the Jews to
the sea, has remained hanging over the Jewish-Arab
relationship for the past century.
It should be said that when they are more
specific about it, the Arab leaders don't
say that the Jews should be thrown into the
sea, but pushed into boats on which they would
go back to the countries they came from.
But in the Jewish consciousness, the idea
that the Arabs want to throw us to the sea
has been solidified.
When there seems to be a chance that the Arabs
might make peace with Israel and accept its
right to exist, Israeli skeptics react by
saying: the Arabs are the same Arabs, and
the sea is the same sea.
Now, the Palestinians claim that it is their
land, which has been taken from them unlawfully.
This claim, however, has no legs to stand
on.
It is true that in 1917 there were about half
a million Arabs living in the territory which
the Brits defined as Palestine, but that doesn't
mean that they owned it.
As an Israeli individual, I can say that I
own the land that is my private property,
and I can also claim that I have ownership
over the entire land that constitutes the
state of Israel.
That is because I am a subject of the Israeli
government, the government that makes and
enforces the laws of this land, the government
that is responsible for its protection and
development.
Since I pay taxes to this government, obey
its laws and help in the defense of the land,
I can say that this land is my land.
But the Arabs living here in 1917, those who
would become known as Palestinians, had no
Palestinian government.
They were subjects of the Ottoman Empire,
whose government was in Turkey.
So they had ownership over their private land,
but any other land belonged to every other
subject of the Ottoman Empire just as much
as it belonged to them.
As a matter of fact, you can argue that there
were about the same number of Jews and Palestinians
living in the Ottoman Empire at the time,
so the Jews had an equal claim.
It doesn't matter anyway, because the Ottoman
Empire collapsed, and Palestine was no longer
under the sovereignty of the Turkish government.
So it essentially became no-man's-land.
The League of Nations, which was the international
authority at the time, passed a resolution
in 1922 that ordained Palestine to be the
national home for the Jews, and gave Great
Britain a mandate over the land to oversee
this process.
So the Jews who started to immigrate and settle
in Palestine did so legally.
The Arabs did not accept the resolution, and
turned to violence.
1920 marks the year when Palestinian terrorism
began, and ever since then Jews have had to
live behind walls, and maintain a strong defense
force.
In the 1930s the Jews also started to strike
back and formed their own terrorist groups,
but, like I said, we are not talking about
this side of the story.
The Palestinian violence became so bad that
the Brits had to appease them and put limitations
on the amount of Jews that were allowed to
come in, and so, in the years when European
Jews needed refuge the most, the gates of
their homeland were closed before them.
It became painfully apparent that Jews and
Arabs cannot form a state together, so, after
world war two, a UN committee suggested splitting
the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state.
The part that the Jews got was slightly bigger,
but half of it was desert land, so it was
a fair deal.
Nevertheless, the deal was rejected by the
Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world.
The plan went before the UN general assembly,
and got the two thirds of the votes needed
to pass.
However, UNGA resolutions have no legal effectiveness.
They are merely recommendations, which are
passed on to the UN Security Council, the
body whose resolutions are legally binding.
So, after the UNGA resolution in November
1947 to end the British mandate and form two
states, it was left for the UNSC to ratify
it.
The Arabs refused to let this happen, and
threatened that if the Security Council adopts
this plan, they are going to invade Israel
and destroy it.
The Americans got cold feet, fearing another
Holocaust, and delayed the UNSC vote to find
a solution.
The Brits, however, were tired of this mess,
and announced that they are pulling out by
May 1948, leaving the Jews to fend alone against
the Arabs.
On the day that they left, the newly formed
state of Israel was attacked by the armies
of five Arab countries, and after a bloody
war it managed not only to secure its own
designated lands, but also to conquer all
the land of Palestine except for the West
Bank, which was occupied by Jordan, and the
Gaza strip, which was occupied by Egypt.
The Security Council then recognized Israel
in these borders, and gave it legal status.
But the original plan, the one that included
a Palestinian state, never went to a vote,
which is why Israel claims to this day that
the West Bank and Gaza are legally in limbo.
During the Israeli conquests, many Palestinians
were driven away from their homes and became
refugees.
As for the Jews living in the areas occupied
by the Arabs, they were, shall we say, ethnically
cleansed, in the most thorough way.
So there were no Jews left in the West Bank
and Gaza, but there were still Arabs living
in Israel, and eventually they became Israeli
citizens.
The UN general assembly passed a resolution
that every Palestinian refugee who wants to
go back to their home, and live peacefully
with their Jewish neighbors, should be allowed
to do so.
Unfortunately, there were no Palestinians
who were willing to live peacefully with their
Jewish neighbors.
The Arabs still believed that they were going
to destroy Israel eventually, and kept on
denying its right to exist.
The refugees were put in refugee camps, as
a temporary measure until the day that they
will vanquish the Jews and return triumphant
to their homes.
They are still there.
In 1967, the Arab countries once again ganged
up on Israel and announced that they were
going to destroy it.
It resulted in a six day war in which Israel
conquered the West Bank and Gaza, as well
as the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.
Israel announced a new formula: land for peace.
If the Arab countries want their land back,
they must make peace with Israel and recognize
its right to exist.
The Arabs rejected the formula at first, but
in time, Arab states did start a peace process
with Israel.
This was also the time in which the Palestinian
national movement came to life.
The representative of this national movement
was the Palestine Liberation Organization,
the PLO.
It was formed in 1964, at first as part of
the Arab coalition against Israel, but after
the defeat in the six day war, they realized
that Arab countries will not be their salvation,
and decided to go their own way.
In 1968 the PLO adopted the Palestinian Charter,
a pretty extreme document, written in the
radical revolutionary language of the late
sixties.
The charter announces that Palestine belongs
only to the Palestinians, and all of the international
resolutions recognizing the Jewish rights
in the place are invalid.
It rejects the claim that the Jews are a nation
with national rights, and rejects any forms
of peace.
The only possible solution is the complete
elimination of Israel, and the way to achieve
it is through war and terrorism.
Article six states that the Jews who had resided
in Palestine before the beginning of the Zionist
invasion, i.e. before 1917, will be considered
Palestinians.
What about the millions of other Jews who
were living in Israel in 1968?
The charter doesn't say.
It is left to the reader's imagination to
figure out what their fate shall be.
Palestinian terrorism intensified after that,
and became an international menace.
But it led the Palestinians nowhere, because
neither Israel nor any other Western country
considered the PLO a legitimate player, as
long as it was ideologically committed to
the elimination of Israel.
In 1969, the PLO elected a new head, Yasser
Arafat, who was more diplomatic than the people
who wrote the charter.
Under his leadership, the PLO adopted the
ten point plan in 1974, which stated that
it is alright to accept temporary political
solutions, as long as it advances the Palestinians
towards the goal of conquering all of Palestine.
This gave Arafat room to maneuver and negotiate
deals in which the Palestinians would get
only part of the land.
But Israel refused to negotiate with the PLO
as long as it didn't recognize its right to
exist, and revoke its charter.
It was hard to believe that the PLO will ever
accept these terms.
But by the late eighties, several things had
happened that compelled Arafat to change course.
First, the PLO was beaten militarily and financially.
Secondly, the Soviet Union was collapsing,
so you had to play by American rules.
And third, 1987 saw the beginning of a Palestinian
popular uprising, Intifada, in the West Bank
and Gaza.
This made the Palestinians a hot topic, and
the PLO had to capitalize.
In 1988, Arafat indicated that he is willing
to recognize Israel's right to exist.
This initiated a hectic period of negotiations,
which eventually led to the Oslo agreement
in 1993.
The agreement was based on the formula of
land for peace: Israel withdrew from parts
of the West Bank and Gaza and handed them
over to the Palestinian Authority, headed
by Arafat.
The Palestinian Authority had to show that
it can maintain peace and prevent terrorist
attacks, and gradually change the Palestinian
rhetoric to a peaceful one.
In turn, Israel was supposed to gradually
hand over more and more lands, until we get
to a situation of two states living peacefully
side by side.
Throughout that period, Arafat was speaking
in two tongues.
To the Western world he was saying that he
wants peace and recognizes Israel's right
to exist, but to the Arabs he was saying that
it is all in accordance with the ten point
plan.
The Palestinian Charter was supposed to be
revoked, and there was a process of revocation,
but it is unclear if it was actually revoked.
For the Israeli right, this was proof that
the Arabs are the same Arabs, and the sea
is the same sea.
The left believed that you have to give the
peace process time to bring change.
Well, did we make any progress since then?
I would say that we did.
Arafat is dead now, and his successor Abu
Mazen is a lot less ambivalent when he declares
his commitment to the two states solution.
To me, there are two lessons to be learned
here.
The first is that you don't make concessions
to someone who is ideologically committed
to destroy you.
Ideologues believe that their ideology makes
them stronger than you, so when you make compromises,
they do not respond with compromises of their
own.
They just see it as validation to their belief
that you are weak, and it only strengthens
their resolve in their ideology.
But when you see cracks beginning to form
in the ideology, you should seize on the moment
and go for compromise.
As a liberal, I believe that most people are
not extremists, and just want to live a peaceful
life.
So if you allow that side of them to express
itself, many of them will.
It doesn't matter what Arafat's true intentions
were.
The moment he said that he accepts Israel's
right to exist, he made it legitimate for
other Palestinians to say so, where before
they would have been considered traitors and
shot.
And once they are able to say it, they start
to have discussions about it, and start thinking
about other compromises.
Thus, through small steps, we can progress
towards peace.
I see no other way to achieve it.
Unfortunately, the PLO is not the only representative
of the Palestinian people.
In the 1980s, the Islamist movement Hamas
first made its showing on the Palestinian
street.
Back then, the world was not yet aware of
the true nature of Islamism, and Israel stupidly
thought that Hamas would be a moderating force,
so it helped it grow.
But in 1988, just as the PLO was ready to
change, Hamas revealed its true face as a
Jihadist organization.
The first Hamas Charter, written that year,
is arguably the most anti-Semitic document
ever written.
It puts even the Nazis to shame.
For instance, the Nazis believed that there
are two evil forces that are controlling the
world from behind the scenes: the Zionists,
an evil cabal of Jews, and the Freemasons,
another evil cabal.
Whereas article 28 of the Hamas Charter states
that:
"The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion.
It does not refrain from resorting to all
methods, using all evil and contemptible ways
to achieve its end.
It relies greatly in its infiltration and
espionage operations on the secret organizations
it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The
Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage
groups.
All these organizations, whether secret or
open, work in the interest of Zionism and
according to its instructions.
They aim at undermining societies, destroying
values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating
character and annihilating Islam."
So, as we can see, while the Nazis blamed
the Freemasons as well, Hamas just claims
that the Freemasons are one of the arms of
Zionism.
And it goes on, here and in other articles,
to blame Zionism for all the wars, violence,
pestilence and social problems that affect
every human society of Earth.
The implication is that all you have to do
is to get rid of the Zionists, and the world
will be a heavenly place.
Like Hamas, the Nazis also did not claim that
all Jews are in on the conspiracy, but only
that cabal of Zionists.
But since they could not point out which one
of the Jews is a Zionist, and they saw the
nature of Jews as the cause of Zionism, their
solution was to simply kill all the Jews.
But while the Nazis never publicly said that
the solution is genocide, the Hamas charter
has no qualms about it, and in article seven
it quotes a hadith that states that the Day
of Judgment will not come until the Muslims
fight the Jews and kill them.
In short, this is Antisemitism taken to its
most extreme form.
As we recall, the Oslo agreement was based
on the concept of land for peace.
The Palestinians got autonomy over parts of
the land, and in return, they were supposed
to maintain the peace, to show that Israel
can trust them and give them more land.
In reality, because Hamas rejected the Oslo
agreement, it did not give more peace to Israelis,
but a lot more violence and bloodshed.
Hamas launched a suicide bombers campaign,
and the number of Israeli victims of terrorism
rose dramatically.
Nevertheless, the peace process soldiered
on, and in 2005 Israel cleared completely
out of Gaza.
This was followed by Palestinian general elections,
in which Hamas took part for the first time.
It was an optimistic sign that maybe Hamas
is willing to accept the peace process.
Alas, Hamas did not only take part in the
election.
It also won it.
This was a surprise, which was not predicted
by the polls.
Take heed of that: polls taken in the Arab
world are usually completely unreliable, and
tend to grossly underestimate the power of
Islamism.
At least that's the way it was until recently.
I sense that Islamism has been losing popularity
lately.
But in 2005 it was much stronger than anyone
realized, and so Hamas won the elections.
I was actually optimistic about it.
I thought that since Hamas now has responsibility
for the fate and wellbeing of the Palestinian
people, it will have to moderate.
But Hamas showed that it is committed to only
one thing, and that is jihad.
At first it formed a coalition with the secular
Fatah, Abu Mazen's party, but then it started
to train its own police force, basically a
private militia.
In 2007, this force took over Gaza, and murdered
the Fatah people.
Fatah, with the help of Israel, managed to
maintain control over the West Bank, and since
then the Palestinian Authority has been split
between those two rival groups, and there
are two Palestinian governments.
The Hamas government of Gaza declared that
the Oslo agreements are invalid, and that
it will never ever recognize Israel's right
to exist.
Whenever asked about it, its leaders refused
to disavow the Hamas Charter.
At this point, Israel had two options.
One was to announce that the peace process
had failed, and reoccupy Gaza.
But that would have taken us back to square
one in the peace process, and all the sacrifices
we made would have been for nothing.
The other was to freeze things the way they
are, prevent Gaza from getting stronger and
becoming a threat, and wait until Gaza has
a government that is committed to the peace
process.
This was the option that Israel chose, so
it placed a blockade on Gaza to prevent it
from gaining military power, and gave the
Gaza government three conditions to the lifting
of the blockade: it has to recognize Israel's
right to exist; it has to renounce terrorism;
and it has to accept the past agreements signed
by previous Palestinian governments.
This was in 2007, ten years ago.
I was hoping that in time, Hamas will realize
that it has no choice but to give up on its
ideology.
I thought that the Gaza population will put
pressure on them to change, so that the blockade
will be lifted.
But Hamas went in another direction.
They thought that they could get the blockade
lifted without complying with Israel's conditions.
After establishing a reign of terror over
Gaza, ensuring that there will be no dissenting
voices, they basically turned the local population
into hostages in their theatre of cruelty.
They turned the Gaza neighborhoods into death
traps, where civilian homes are connected
by underground tunnels, and booby-trapped
with explosives.
The strategy is to lure the Israeli forces
in, and then kill as many soldiers as possible,
as well as cause maximum devastation in Gaza.
For that purpose, they build rockets and shoot
them into Israeli civilian centers, until
it becomes unbearable and compels Israel to
attack Gaza.
Then we get a period of quiet while Gaza rebuilds
its rocket arsenal, and then it starts again.
Hamas was hoping that the combination of Israeli
deaths, fear of rockets, and international
pressure due to the suffering of the people
of Gaza, will force Israel to capitulate and
lift the blockade.
But Hamas miscalculated.
They thought that Israel's concessions to
the Palestinians were due to weakness, and
that Israeli resolve will eventually fold
under the pressure.
But the majority of Israelis who support the
peace process do it not because they are weak
and afraid of war, but rather because they
believe that the Palestinians also have the
right to a state of their own.
By the same token, we also believe that Jews
have a right to a state of our own, and anyone
who denies that right becomes our mortal enemy.
Thus, the tough stance towards Gaza has a
wall-to-wall support in Israel, which has
not wavered at all throughout the last decade.
Hamas made no gains, and managed to completely
destroy Gaza.
And now, finally, they realize that they have
to change.
Earlier this year, they presented a new charter,
more moderate than the first.
Will it be enough to make a leftist like me
reevaluate my stance towards Hamas, and reconsider
my support of the blockade of Gaza?
Let's find out.
Article two: "Palestine, which extends from
the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean
in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the
north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is
an integral territorial unit.
It is the land and the home of the Palestinian
people.
The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian
people from their land and the establishment
of the Zionist entity therein do not annul
the right of the Palestinian people to their
entire land and do not entrench any rights
therein for the usurping Zionist entity."
Right away, then, we learn that Hamas still
wants all of the land for the Palestinians,
and does not recognize that the Jews have
rights over any part of it.
So it still does not recognize Israel's right
to exist.
Article fifteen: "The Zionist project does
not target the Palestinian people alone; it
is the enemy of the Arab and Islamic Ummah
posing a grave threat to its security and
interests.
It is also hostile to the Ummah’s aspirations
for unity, renaissance and liberation and
has been the major source of its troubles.
The Zionist project also poses a danger to
international security and peace and to mankind
and its interests and stability."
This article is all that has remained from
the anti-Semitic rhetoric of the original
charter.
Evidently, Hamas realized that such overt
and blatant Antisemitism is hurting it diplomatically.
So the Antisemitism is reduced to a dog-whistle.
The new charter still claims that the Zionists
are a danger to the world, but it doesn't
specify how.
Those in the know understand that it is because
the Jews are evil, and want to take over the
world.
Article sixteen: "Hamas affirms that its conflict
is with the Zionist project not with the Jews
because of their religion.
Hamas does not wage a struggle against the
Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle
against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.
Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify
Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial
project and illegal entity."
This distinction appears in the original charter
as well.
As I already mentioned, this is a regular
anti-Semitic trick.
The anti-Semites claim that they are not against
all Jews, but only against Zionists, those
evil Jews who want to take over the world.
But they also see the Zionists as a product
of the Jewish mentality, so at the end of
the day, they do blame and hate all Jews.
Now, in the original charter, it was obvious
that when Zionists were mentioned, it was
to be understood in the anti-Semitic sense
of the word, as this cabal of Jews that plots
to take over the world.
Here, we see that the definition of Zionism
is closer to what Zionism actually is, which
is the national movement of the Jews.
So again, we see that the Antisemitism is
considerably toned down in this new charter.
Article nineteen: "There shall be no recognition
of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity.
Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine
in terms of occupation, settlement building,
judaisation or changes to its features or
falsification of facts is illegitimate.
Rights never lapse."
The Zionist entity is the state of Israel.
The charter reiterates that Hamas does not
recognize it, and wants to dismantle it.
Article twenty: "Hamas believes that no part
of the land of Palestine shall be compromised
or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the
circumstances and the pressures and no matter
how long the occupation lasts.
Hamas rejects any alternative to the full
and complete liberation of Palestine, from
the river to the sea.
However, without compromising its rejection
of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing
any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the
establishment of a fully sovereign and independent
Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital
along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with
the return of the refugees and the displaced
to their homes from which they were expelled,
to be a formula of national consensus."
This is a significant article.
We see that while Hamas does not relinquish
its demand to have a Palestinian state over
the entire land, it is willing, at this stage,
to accept a state over the West Bank and Gaza,
in what is known as the 67 borders.
This is reminiscent of the PLO ten point plan,
reflecting the understanding that they can't
conquer Israel all at once, so they must do
it in stages.
This article has two main purposes.
First, it allows Hamas to have a truce with
Fatah, as it now accepts that Fatah has the
right to negotiate a peace deal with Israel
based on the two states solution.
Secondly, it allows the useful idiots in the
West to claim that Hamas wants peace.
There are many many useful idiots in the Western
academy and media, who see the Palestinians
as the victims, and want to blame Israel for
everything.
But it is very hard for them to sell Hamas
as the victim as long as it espouses the destruction
of Israel, so Hamas needs to give them something
to work with.
Now we can get rhetoric like this article
in the Guardian, where the title makes it
seem like Hamas accepts the two states solution.
As we have seen, Hamas accepts nothing of
the sort, but the new charter enables the
useful idiots to spread their anti-Israel
propaganda.
Article twenty-five: "Resisting the occupation
with all means and methods is a legitimate
right guaranteed by divine laws and by international
norms and laws.
At the heart of these lies armed resistance,
which is regarded as the strategic choice
for protecting the principles and the rights
of the Palestinian people."
This article reiterates the group's commitment
to armed resistance – in other words, terrorism.
As we see, it is defined as resistance against
the occupation, and the useful idiots will
tell you that by occupation they mean the
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the
so-called "occupied territories".
But, as we have seen, when Hamas says occupation,
it includes the state of Israel as well.
Article twenty-nine: "The PLO is a national
framework for the Palestinian people inside
and outside of Palestine.
It should therefore be preserved, developed
and rebuilt on democratic foundations so as
to secure the participation of all the constituents
and forces of the Palestinian people, in a
manner that safeguards Palestinian rights."
This is interesting.
Hamas historically regarded itself as an enemy
of the PLO.
The PLO is a secular nationalist organization,
whereas Hamas is an Islamist organization.
The previous charter declared that Hamas wants
to replace the PLO.
Here, they want to join the PLO.
So this is another compromise, and we see
that the new plan of Hamas is to become part
of the PLO, currently dominated by Fatah,
and eventually take over it.
And finally, article thirty-nine: "From a
legal and humanitarian perspective, the liberation
of Palestine is a legitimate activity, it
is an act of self-defense, and it is the expression
of the natural right of all peoples to self-determination."
Yes, unless there's any doubt left in your
mind, Hamas is a liberal humanist organization,
that believes all peoples have the right to
self-determination.
Unless they are Jews, of course.
Jews don't get the right to self-determination,
because it's not convenient to us, and if
they still want self-determination anyway,
then they are criminal occupiers who should
be killed.
Ok, so those were the parts that I found relevant.
Let's summarize the important points:
One.
No change in the positions which Israel deems
necessary to remove the blockade on Gaza.
Hamas still rejects Israel's right to exist,
still rejects former agreements, and is still
committed to terrorism.
If Hamas was hoping that this new charter
will get left-wing bodies within Israel to
push for moderating the tough stance against
Gaza, they were very wrong.
Everyone in Israel still sees Hamas as a mortal
enemy.
Two.
The blatant antisemitism of the previous charter
has been reduced to a dog-whistle.
I'm not impressed.
Three.
Compared to the previous charter, there is
a lot less religious talk and a lot more emphasis
on Palestinian nationality.
Hamas is not so much about the caliphate right
now, and more about trying to find ways to
reconcile with the PLO and focus on the national
struggle.
Four.
As part of the reconciliation efforts, Hamas
gets closer to PLO on some issues.
The most significant one is that they support
the efforts to establish a Palestinian state
in the 67 borders.
But while Abu Mazen promotes it as the end
goal, part of the two states solution, Hamas
sees it as merely a phase in the plan to destroy
Israel.
However, it is still very important.
In the nineties, Hamas was opposed to the
peace process, and launched a terror campaign
to sabotage it.
With this new stance, there is hope that they
will let the peace process resume without
violence.
These efforts by Hamas did indeed lead to
reconciliation talks with Fatah, and it looks
like national Palestinian unity will be reestablished.
Hamas is willing to share power over Gaza
with Fatah, and this may lead to an easing
of the blockade.
Hopefully, the people of Gaza will have a
better life going forward.
Bottom line: there can never be peace between
Israel and Palestine as long as a big political
body like Hamas is not on-board with the two
states solution and doesn't accept Israel's
right to exist.
So we are not there yet, but this is the first
time Hamas has shown any willingness to change.
It is now basically where the PLO was in 1974,
when it adopted the ten point plan.
It took a mere decade and half from there
for the PLO to recognize the state of Israel.
So there is hope.
