Giving Israel a new look at Hamas

[bemildred]

In portraying the nature of the Hamas movement, Gaza correspondent Shlomi Eldar demonstrates just how little the Israeli intelligence community seems to know about its own ignorance of the subject.

“Hamas offers two alternatives: 1. A separate track, dealing only with the release of Gilad Shalit in return for 1,000 Palestinian political prisoners. 2. A release of prisoners will take place in the broader context of a strategic approach (as follows), and the number of prisoners released will not be in the hundreds.”

That is an excerpt from an extraordinary document its authors called “Hamas and Israel: Peaceful Coexistence.” Its publication for the first time, in the fascinating book “Getting to Know Hamas” by Shlomi Eldar, the Gaza-affairs correspondent for Channel 10 News, is more than a journalistic coup. According to Eldar, the document ? composed by Khaled Meshal, the political chief of Hamas, after Shalit was seized by Palestinian militants in a 2006 cross-border raid, and sent by messenger to then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ? represents the first demonstration of strategic thinking on the part of Hamas: thinking that Israel does not recognize and does not want to get to know.

The detailed document, whose existence and transmission to the prime minister were denied completely by Olmert’s office at the time, constituted an offer by Hamas to conduct a multilevel dialogue with Israel, beginning with discussion about a cease-fire and the building of long-term trust, and ending with a coexistence agreement to last 25 years, and the establishment of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders.

http://www.haaretz.com/culture/books/giving-israel-a-new-look-at-hamas.premium-1.465584

[azurnoir]

1. It's hard to "look" with ones eyes closed

and a blind fold in place

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. There were so blind that in OCL they were able to take out multiple levels of Hamas cadre

at virtually the same time. They also destroyed most of the available military supplies that were stored in "secret" locations

[oberliner]

3. Ha'aretz Premium

Can't access beyond the first paragraph.

[bemildred]

4. It came up for me, and then it didn't.

And it was an interesting subject.
What can I say?

[oberliner]

6. It's just frustrating

Nothing against your post - it's just annoying to not be able to read the article.

I am not pleased with the Ha'aretz Premium model, cheapskate that I am.

[bemildred]

7. Frugal, discerning, prudent. Cheapskate is so negative.

I admit I am tempted to sign up sometimes, but the spam penalty deters me. I already get too much crap that I "asked" for. Nevertheless I wish them luck with it.

[bemildred]

5. As it happens, I got a copy, and printed it.

Later today, when I have a chance to go through it, I'll post a summary.

[bemildred]

8. OK, I think I'm ready to attempt to summarize.

It's a book review, I assume you can see the particulars. It doesn't really make an argument, it expresses opinions and comments on the book and its content. I will summarize paragraph by paragraph following the four posted above:

The coexistence document does not mention recognition of Israel or peace, but it does stipulate extended cease fire and civilian cooperation.

"The coexistence document represents the high point of repeated attempts by Meshaal to build a system of practical cooperation with Israel, ..." and then some comments on the importance of the document and the history surrounding it.

And then the next paragraph elaborates on the fact that Hamas is not a monolithic organization, nor is secure in its control of Gaza.

Then we have a new subhead: "Power Struggles", followed by five pararaphs on Hamas internal disputes, and a last one which points out that the effect of these struggles was a.) formative of orderly government, they are not at each others throats, and b.) that Israel has failed to exploit these divisions in Hamas by failing to see them or negotiate with the more reasonable factions.

Then a subhead: "Terrorist Kingpins", with a paragraph on Hamas leaders, a paragraph on Israel's support of Hamas back in the old days, and a paragraph on the Dahlan fiasco in 2006. Making the general point (again, I think) that Israel has failed to do a proper job of understanding its enemy.

Then a subhead: "Will Hamas Fall?", with a paragraph on the failure of the assassination campaign against Hamas leaders, and the blockade, to loosen Hamas' hold or silence the rockets, leading to OCL. Then several paragraphs about OCL, some interesting bits, then more or less characterizing it as an "own goal" pursued for political reasons. And finally a paragraph attacking the "ideology" of refusing to negotiate with Hamas or otherwise refusing to engage it in any constructive ways, and a plug for the book.

I think that attack on the "ideology" of assassination and denial is the point of the review, if there is one, which I suppose is why I like it so much.

[pelsar]

9. this is why i see it as nothing more than hot air...

just taken from the summary above:

that Israel has failed to exploit these divisions in Hamas by failing to see them or negotiate with the more reasonable factions.

israel has no business in 'exploiting the divisions" nor is israel very good at it anyway. So it seems that israel has learned its lesson from past attempts

funny i thought "respecting" their govt and not attempting to influence the divisions was supposed to be a good thing...(at least thats what i've learned here...so now all of a sudden israel is supposed to attempt to interfer in their govt?

so confusing when the "rules" are so flexible

[bemildred]

10. Well, it IS complicated, so I can sympathize.

Anyway, I have no trouble at all with exploiting divisions in ones enemies, assuming you do it in ethical ways, and of course vice-versa, I have no problem with them exploiting yours, as long as they do it in ethical ways. It's OK to compete, the question is do you follow the rules?

[pelsar]

11. now those are really vague concepts...

rules and ethics in international politics......i do believe the "playbook" is written in several languages without "translations."

i suspect only the failures are deemed unethical, whereas the ones that succeed are probably not even publicised

[bemildred]

12. I'm just not in the mood for the "international law" dispute,

or any of the others this leads to, today.

And what you say is much too true, so I'm going to leave you in your swamp of expediency for now.