Hamas softens stance on Israel, drops Muslim Brotherhood link

[webfact]

Hamas softens stance on Israel, drops Muslim Brotherhood link

By Nidal al-Mughrabi and Tom Finn

REUTERS

 

FILE PHOTO: Hamas militants hold weapons as they celebrate the release of Palestinian prisoner Mohammed al-Bashiti, who served 12 years in an Israeli jail after he was convicted of being a member of Hamas' armed wing, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip July 25, 2016. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa/File Photo

 

GAZA/DOHA (Reuters) - The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas on Monday dropped its longstanding call for Israel's destruction, but said it still rejected the country's right to exist and backs "armed struggle" against it.

 

In a policy document presented in Doha by its leader Khaled Meshaal, Hamas also said it would end its association with the Muslim Brotherhood, a move apparently aimed at improving ties with Gulf Arab states and Egypt, which view the Brotherhood as a terrorist group.

 

Israel responded to the announcement by accusing Hamas of trying to "fool the world", while the group's main Palestinian political rival, the Fatah faction of President Mahmoud Abbas, also reacted coolly to the policy shift.

 

The publication of the policy document comes two days before Abbas is due to visit Washington, and days after President Donald Trump told Reuters he may travel to Israel this month and sees no reason why there should not be peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

 

"We don't want to dilute our principles but we want to be open. We hope this (document) will mark a change in the stance of European states towards us," Meshaal told reporters.

 

Hamas, which has controlled the Gaza Strip since 2007, said in the document it agreed to a transitional Palestinian state within the borders of 1967, when Israel captured Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem in a war with Arab states. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

 

"Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights," said Meshaal, in a shift that brings Hamas more into line with the position of Fatah.

 

"TERROR TUNNELS"

 

Israel said the document aimed to deceive the world that Hamas was becoming more moderate.

 

"Hamas is attempting to fool the world but it will not succeed," said David Keyes, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "They dig terror tunnels and have launched thousands upon thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians. This is the real Hamas."

 

Founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, the banned Egyptian Islamist movement, Hamas has fought three wars with Israel since 2007 and has carried out hundreds of armed attacks in Israel and in Israeli-occupied territories.

 

Many Western countries classify Hamas as a terrorist group over its failure to renounce violence, recognise Israel's right to exist and accept existing interim Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements.

 

Meshaal said Hamas's fight was not against Judaism as a religion but against what he called "aggressor Zionists".

 

Fatah spokesman Osama al-Qawasme upbraided Hamas for taking decades to join Fatah in accepting a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, a position Hamas used to criticise Fatah for.

 

"Hamas's new document is identical to that taken by Fatah in 1988. Hamas is required to make an apology to Fatah after 30 years of accusing us of treason for that policy," Qawasme said.

 

It remained unclear whether the document replaces Hamas's 1988 charter, which calls for Israel’s destruction. Meshaal said the document would "guide Hamas's daily political activity".

 

Abbas's Palestinian Authority has engaged in peace talks with Israel on the basis of seeking a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, although the last, U.S.-mediated round collapsed three years ago.

 

There was no immediate comment on Monday from Egypt and Gulf Arab states to the Hamas document.

 

"For Hamas ... it's a signal of their desire to align with conservative Sunni elements in the region and create some immunity (from Saudi pressure)," said Beverley Milton-Edwards, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Centre and author of a book on Hamas.

 

But while the document could strengthen Hamas's position in the Palestinian Territories and the Middle East, she said, it was unlikely to lead "to any definitive swing in opinion in the group's favour in the United States or even Europe."

 

Meshaal said Hamas remained part of the Muslim Brotherhood's "intellectual school" but was "an independent Palestinian organisation".

 

U.S.-allied Arab states including Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia classify the Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation. The 89-year-old Brotherhood held power in Egypt for a year after a popular uprising in 2011, but was then removed by the army after mass street protests.

 

The Brotherhood denies links with Islamist militants and advocates Islamist political parties winning power through elections, which Saudi Arabia considers a threat to its system of absolute power through inherited rule.

 

(Additional reporting by Maayan Lubell in Jerusalem and Ali Sawafta in Ramallah; Writing by Tom Finn; Editing by Gareth Jones)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-05-02

[ezzra]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

but said it still rejected the country's right to exist and backs "armed struggle" against it.

 

When you reject and deny a human being their right to exist, your struggle has no meaning and validity in it's own rights, as there are no justifications what so

ever to tell someone I want you dead and gone  because I don't consider you to be worthy of life..... 

[boomerangutang]

                       Gadz, with so many conflict zones popping up around the world, we had almost forgotten about the festering pustule between Israel and the Palestinian Territories.  Good to hear Hamas is softening its stance.  Let's see if actions back up the rhetoric.  Peace benefits both sides.

[geriatrickid]

LOL what changed?

The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas on Monday dropped its longstanding call for Israel's destruction, but said it still rejected the country's right to exist and backs "armed struggle" against it.

 

If you do not accept the country's right to exist and support violence directed at the country, what exactly changed?  It's like saying you don't wish someone was  killed in a mortar attack, but will support that person's death if caused by a sniper.

[TheFishman1]

Hamas is very very bad

[humqdpf]

5 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

LOL what changed?

The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas on Monday dropped its longstanding call for Israel's destruction, but said it still rejected the country's right to exist and backs "armed struggle" against it.

 

If you do not accept the country's right to exist and support violence directed at the country, what exactly changed?  It's like saying you don't wish someone was  killed in a mortar attack, but will support that person's death if caused by a sniper.

There is a world of difference between rejecting a country's right to exist as a separate country and calling for its destruction. For instance, there are many who wish that Scotland was a separate country but also more people who reject the right of Scotland to exist as a separate country. No one is calling for the destruction of Scotland.

 

In the deadly game that is played between the current government of the State of Israel and Hamas, one grasps at every straw that even looks like a softening in attitudes in the hope that one day one of those straws will be that which breaks the camel's back that is this conflict.

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, humqdpf said:

There is a world of difference between rejecting a country's right to exist as a separate country and calling for its destruction. For instance, there are many who wish that Scotland was a separate country but also more people who reject the right of Scotland to exist as a separate country. No one is calling for the destruction of Scotland.

 

In the deadly game that is played between the current government of the State of Israel and Hamas, one grasps at every straw that even looks like a softening in attitudes in the hope that one day one of those straws will be that which breaks the camel's back that is this conflict.

 

That's a marginally viable opinion if one skips them parts advocating armed struggle, "river to the sea", and the full blown version of the so-called Palestinian Right of Return. It all amounts to the same thing. As far as I'm aware, calls for a military confrontation with Scotland aren't really much of a "thing".

 

 

[Srikcir]

20 hours ago, humqdpf said:

one grasps at every straw that even looks like a softening in attitudes in the hope that one day one of those straws will be that which breaks the camel's back that is this conflict.

Hamas' shift might be a similar to Iran's ideological shift from its "Death to Satin USA" to diplomatic engagement with the G7 that ultimately led to nuclear weapons disarmament. Iran never abandoned its anti-American rhetoric but as a practical matter elevated its economic policies to better secure its national interests.

 

As noted, time will tell if Hamas' ideological shift is sincere and sustainable to resolving the conflict between Palestine and Israel, ie., with a two-state solution. However, PM Netanyahu may not support that solution and effectively discourage Hamas resistance to diplomatic engagement through aggression.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Hamas' shift might be a similar to Iran's ideological shift from its "Death to Satin USA" to diplomatic engagement with the G7 that ultimately led to nuclear weapons disarmament. Iran never abandoned its anti-American rhetoric but as a practical matter elevated its economic policies to better secure its national interests.

 

As noted, time will tell if Hamas' ideological shift is sincere and sustainable to resolving the conflict between Palestine and Israel, ie., with a two-state solution. However, PM Netanyahu may not support that solution and effectively discourage Hamas resistance to diplomatic engagement through aggression.

 

Iran's stance was not one of denying the US's very existence and legitimacy. That difference.

Posters may wish to have a look at the actual document, before building castles in the air:

 

A Document of General Principles and Policies

http://hamas.ps/en/post/678/a-document-of-general-principles-and-policies

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Hamas' shift might be a similar to Iran's ideological shift from its "Death to Satin USA" to diplomatic engagement with the G7 that ultimately led to nuclear weapons disarmament. Iran never abandoned its anti-American rhetoric but as a practical matter elevated its economic policies to better secure its national interests.

 

As noted, time will tell if Hamas' ideological shift is sincere and sustainable to resolving the conflict between Palestine and Israel, ie., with a two-state solution. However, PM Netanyahu may not support that solution and effectively discourage Hamas resistance to diplomatic engagement through aggression.

I would guess it's about sincere as the Israeli government's commitment to a 2 state solution.

[sanemax]

On 5/2/2017 at 5:46 AM, webfact said:

GAZA/DOHA (Reuters) - The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas on Monday dropped its longstanding call for Israel's destruction, but said it still rejected the country's right to exist and backs "armed struggle" against it.

Posters on TV regularly and continually to state that  Palestinians recognise Israels right to exist and want to live in peace , and therfore Israel should participate in peace talks

    The above statement shows that Palestinians do not recognise Israels right to exist .

    It would be extremely foolish for Israel to give Palestinians any concessions what so ever .

   Its quite clear that the notion of a two state solution will bring peace to the region is actually a solution .

   All that would do would be to give the Palestinians a platform to attack Israel .

A two state solution would bring war, not peace

   

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Posters on TV regularly and continually to state that  Palestinians recognise Israels right to exist and want to live in peace , and therfore Israel should participate in peace talks

    The above statement shows that Palestinians do not recognise Israels right to exist .

    It would be extremely foolish for Israel to give Palestinians any concessions what so ever .

   Its quite clear that the notion of a two state solution will bring peace to the region is actually a solution .

   All that would do would be to give the Palestinians a platform to attack Israel .

A two state solution would bring war, not peace

   

 

Hamas does not represent all of the Palestinians, even if it does enjoy wide popular support.

If you hold that a two-state solution would not contribute to peace, what other (realistic) options are there?

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

building castles in the air:

Thus my caveat: "time will tell if Hamas' ideological shift is sincere and sustainable"

I am pragmatic to the idea of political strange bedfellows.

 

[geriatrickid]

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Hamas' shift might be a similar to Iran's ideological shift from its "Death to Satin USA" to diplomatic engagement with the G7 that ultimately led to nuclear weapons disarmament. Iran never abandoned its anti-American rhetoric but as a practical matter elevated its economic policies to better secure its national interests.

 

As noted, time will tell if Hamas' ideological shift is sincere and sustainable to resolving the conflict between Palestine and Israel, ie., with a two-state solution. However, PM Netanyahu may not support that solution and effectively discourage Hamas resistance to diplomatic engagement through aggression.

He will be encouraged and covertly  aided and abetted by Hamas rivals, the PLA, Jordan and Egypt.  

The dropping of the close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood is intended to curry favour with Egypt who won't let Hamas have access across the border. Every time the terrorists in the Sinai attack Egypt or Israel, it undermines Egyptian  stability and  damages the tourism sector. Jordan does not need, nor want a united palestinian entity, since the Hashemite kingdom is mostly Palestinian. Once there is a palestinian state, at some point there will be a demand for unity with Jordan and a conversion to a greater Palestine and then we are back to where we were 75 years ago.

[Morch]

37 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Thus my caveat: "time will tell if Hamas' ideological shift is sincere and sustainable"

I am pragmatic to the idea of political strange bedfellows.

 

 

Well, guess I'm not seeing that "ideological shift". Not when reading the actual paper and paying attention to details. The question is not whether you are pragmatic when it comes to the idea of political bedfellows, but how sides (and specifically addressing this topic, Hamas) see it. The evidence is not encouraging, to say the least.

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

If you hold that a two-state solution would not contribute to peace, what other (realistic) options are there?

  Its not my problem to solve .

 

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, sanemax said:

  Its not my problem to solve .

 

 

[Jingthing]

This "change" is about Hamas relations with other Palestinian political factions. It's not really about Israel. As far as it's impact on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, it's a big NOTHINGBURGER. 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Hamas does not represent all of the Palestinians, even if it does enjoy wide popular support.

If you hold that a two-state solution would not contribute to peace, what other (realistic) options are there?

I think the option that Israel prefers for now is the status quo. As its rightward drift continues annexation becomes more likely.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

I think the option that Israel prefers for now is the status quo. As its rightward drift continues annexation becomes more likely.

 

In the same way that Hamas does not represent all the Palestinians, the policies of current Israeli government (and especially, its more extremist elements) do not reflect the views of all Israelis. There is no great support, or appeal, for an annexation which would make Israel another Arab state.

 

And this topic is about Hamas.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

In the same way that Hamas does not represent all the Palestinians, the policies of current Israeli government (and especially, its more extremist elements) do not reflect the views of all Israelis. There is no great support, or appeal, for an annexation which would make Israel another Arab state.

 

And this topic is about Hamas.

Only if they gave Palestinians the right to vote or if they didn't annex all of it.

Edited May 3, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Morch]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Only if they gave Palestinians the right to vote.

 

No, there is no great support for annexation regardless of this point.

Nothing much to add on topic, I gather?

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

If you hold that a two-state solution would not contribute to peace, what other (realistic) options are there?

  The whole of the Middle east accepts Israels right to exist , ALL Countries in the region normalise relations with Israel .

   Stopping the funding to terror groups , stop Arab Nationalism and Islamic extremism, de militarise the whole region , open up all borders and have a Europe style set up .

   

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

No, there is no great support for annexation regardless of this point.

Nothing much to add on topic, I gather?

I added too late "or annex part of it."

[Morch]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

  The whole of the Middle east accepts Israels right to exist , ALL Countries in the region normalise relations with Israel .

   Stopping the funding to terror groups , stop Arab Nationalism and Islamic extremism, de militarise the whole region , open up all borders and have a Europe style set up .

   

 

That's an impossible list of conditions aimed at thwarting any possible solution. Other than the obvious nonsense elements included, many of the things mentioned were already incorporated in the Saudi Peace Initiatives. None of the above will fully materialize without solving the Palestinian issue, though.

[sanemax]

Just now, Morch said:

 None of the above will fully materialize without solving the Palestinian issue, though.

  And the only way to solve the Palestinian problem is to get rid of Israel and create an Islamic Palestinian state with Sharia law .

[Morch]

Just now, sanemax said:

  And the only way to solve the Palestinian problem is to get rid of Israel and create an Islamic Palestinian state with Sharia law .

 

That's your opinion, and apparently, the Hamas's too.

Other than that, there are plenty of other views, suggesting how a two-state solution might be worked out.

It's not easy, and it ain't perfect.

[sanemax]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's your opinion, and apparently, the Hamas's too.

Other than that, there are plenty of other views, suggesting how a two-state solution might be worked out.

It's not easy, and it ain't perfect.

 

  Yes, but unless Hamas agree to any potential solution, then they are not actually solutions .

   Hamas has categorically stated that they will not accept a two state solution

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.  

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, sanemax said:

 

  Yes, but unless Hamas agree to any potential solution, then they are not actually solutions .

   Hamas has categorically stated that they will not accept a two state solution

 

Hamas maintains a rejectionist position, that is true. At the same time, it does not represent the views of all Palestinians, nor does it provide the Palestinians with realistic options. The issue taken with your original post was to do with attributing a supposed unified Palestinian position - whereas in reality, there is no so thing. This can be considered from a negative angle (when reflecting on Hamas positions as an obstacle) or a positive one (bearing in mind other Palestinian views). I would agree that the Palestinian side does have an issue with committing to any future agreement as long as the current political divide is in place.

 

But, of course, these sort of issues (if to a milder degree) exist on the Israeli side as well.