Hamas: don't give in on Shalit – by Khalid Amayreh

By Khalid Amayreh* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The cruel Israeli regime is organizing a fresh campaign to demand the release of one of its occupation soldiers, detained in a secret Gaza location.

The new campaign, publicized by the Jewish-controlled media in Europe and North America, is assuming many expressions, including protests led by the soldier’s family, a propaganda ship organized by the American Jewish followers of the Nazi-minded rabbi Meir Kahana, and a call by happy-go-lucky French President Nicolas Sarkozy for the unconditional release of the Israeli soldier.

This is the same Sarkozy who kept silent during the murderous Israeli onslaught against the defenseless people of Gaza eighteen months ago. He is now invoking humanitarianism and charity as if the thousands of Gaza children, men and women, annihilated or maimed by the Israeli army were non-humans.

It is true that Gilad Shalit is not being accorded a five-star treatment. But this is not due to any presumed sadistic urges on Hamas’s part to torment the young soldier who is likely to have the blood of many children on his hands.

In Israel, it is difficult to find an adult Israeli male whose hands have not been stained with Palestinian blood. After all, Israel is a society of murderers and child-killers. It is a society whose members Zionism has transformed into racists, cannibals and Nazi-minded murderers and child killers.

Indeed, were it not for the fact that Israel has been making constant and meticulous efforts to discover his whereabouts and liberate him by force, there is no doubt that Hamas would allow the International Commission of the Red Cross, even his family, to visit him.

But Israel, a country that murders peace activists on high seas and then calls the cold-blooded murder “armed confrontations with terrorists,” can’t be trusted.

Palestinians have had a long and bitter experience with Israeli treachery. This is why Hamas can’t allow itself to make the slightest risk in this regard. Yes, one might sympathize with Shalit at a certain human level. However, Shalit is only one person while the entire Palestinian people are held hostage by an evil regime that can only be compared with history’s worst.

There are, of course, other aspects to this sensitive issue. Israel detains thousands of Palestinian political and resistance prisoners in its dungeons. And as the recently-freed Palestinian Islamic leader Sheikh Nayef Rajoub revealed, many of these prisoners are being subjected to Medieval savagery at the hands of those claiming to be “a light upon the nations.”

For those who have forgotten, Shalit was taken prisoner in battlefield. Moreover, had Israel succeeded in carrying out a rescue operation, he would have most likely got killed.

This is probably the endgame that Israel wishes for its imprisoned soldier. A dead Shalit would be a Hasbara bonanza for the Zionist propaganda machine. On the one hand, it would allow Israel to torture and kill more Palestinian political prisoners (several Palestinian prisoners died recently due to torture, medical negligence and other causes). It would also absolve Israel from freeing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners as demanded by Hamas and insisted by the vast bulk of the Palestinian masses, irrespective of their political orientation.

To be sure, Hamas had been negotiating in good faith with Israel, hoping to reach a dignified breakthrough that would see the repatriation of Shalit to his family in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian detainees to their families. That would be a win-win formula for everyone.

However, the Israeli government consistently and arrogantly rejected this logical proposal, making racist arguments which even the leaders and ideologues of the Third Reich didn’t dare to make.

For example, Israeli leaders routinely invoke the mendacious canard that the Judeo-Nazi state cannot free prisoners who have Jewish blood on their hands. Well, what about the thousands or tens thousands of Israelis who have Palestinian, Lebanese and now Turkish blood on their hands? Is non-Jewish blood less red than Jewish blood?

Israel doesn’t dare indulge in a genuine argument in this regard. The reason is simple. Israel views the blood and lives of non-Jews as insignificant, at least in comparison to Jewish blood and Jewish lives. Just try to have a brief conversation with a rabbi and you will be more than shocked hearing what he will be saying in this regard.

In any case, Hamas must not show the slightest sign of fatigue vis-à-vis Israel because the lives and freedom of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are at stake. Hamas has been successfully managing this Shalit affair for over three years. Israel committed untold massacres and has been imposing a manifestly criminal siege on 1.7 million human beings, in the hope of creating a crack in Hamas’s wall of steadfastness. But neither Israeli pressure, nor western conspiracy, nor Arab collusion and Palestinian Authority treachery, have succeeded in pressurizing Hamas to give in or give up.

In the final analysis, Hamas has a huge moral responsibility toward thousands of Palestinian families whose children are languishing in Israeli concentration camps and dungeons.

Needless to say, these people have spent the prime of their lives in Israeli prisons so that their people will be able to live in dignity and in order to maintain the hope for freedom and liberation from evil Zionism.

Hence, we must not hesitate to proclaim and reassert the Palestinian position in this regard, namely that Shalit must stay behind bars as long as Israel insists on keeping our men, and women and children behind bars.

This position may not be popular in New York and Paris. But why show the slightest concern about what Paris and New York think in the first place. They have always been and continue to be our direct or indirect tormentors. Our responsibility is first and foremost toward these tortured Palestinian prisoners and their suffering families who have kept our national just cause alive.

In a nutshell, our prisoners are not children of a lesser God.

The United States and the Muslim World: Has Obama reneged on his Cairo promise?

By Khaled Hroub
Director of the Cambridge Arab Media Project, United Kingdom

Responding to a student's question in his landmark visit to Istanbul in April 2009, Barack Obama said, "States are like big tankers, they're not like speedboats. You can't whip them around and go in another direction ... you turn them slowly, and eventually you end up in a very different place." Obama has begun to turn the American tanker, but this gradual change does not satisfy the expectations that swept the Muslim world upon his election. The image of the United States, badly damaged in recent years, requires a speedier overhaul than the one currently underway. Many Muslims and mainstream Islamists around the world wonder whether the turning of the tanker will be permanent. A policy reversal is more than likely when Obama leaves office, and the burst of fresh air that Obama's election brought to U.S.-Muslim relations could easily run out.

This article discusses the impact of Obama's presidency on improving U.S.-Muslim relations, with particular focus on Islamists and political Islamic movements. Obama's policy towards the Muslim world and the Middle East will hinge on two topics: the Palestinian- Israeli issue and support for democratization. While George W. Bush gave priority to democracy promotion in the Middle East and ignored Palestine, Obama seems to have taken the opposite approach, concentrating on Palestine and ignoring democratization. If Obama cannot fulfil the high hopes pinned upon him by many Muslims, their compounded frustration could be more damaging than the anger they experienced during the Bush years, and lead to more radicalization. Underneath this fatalistic resignation would lie the sentiment, "If Obama cannot not mend fences with Muslims, no one can."

‘Obamania' has had a significant effect on U.S.-Muslim relations. According to Gallup polls, in most Arab countries, the approval rate of American leadership doubled, and in some cases, tripled during the first year of Obama's presidency. From 2008 to 2009, approval of U.S. leadership increased from 14% to 37% in Tunisia , 25% to 47% in Algeria, 6% to 25% in Egypt, 12% to 29% in Saudi Arabia, and 4% to 15% in Syria. (Lebanon and Palestine are the outliers; approval of American leadership fell from 25% to 22% in Lebanon, and 13% to 7% in Palestine.Overall, this positive upswing corresponds to the new language and tone that Obama brought to international relations. Confrontational policies have been replaced by cooperation, unilateralism by multilateralism, war-mongering by engagement and dialogue.

Perhaps the most striking dimension of the new administration's foreign policy, as repeatedly stated by Obama himself, is America's new approach to the Muslim world, and the Muslim Middle East in particular. Obama's major developments in this field include reinstating Palestinian issue at the top of the foreign policy agenda, scheduling a deadline for the removal of American troops in Iraq (whose presence is seen by many Muslims as a proof of American imperial hegemony over Muslim land), announcing that the infamous Guantanamo Bay detainment facility will close, and combating the disrespect towards and fear of Muslim-American and Arab-American citizens that emerged after 9/11.

Determined to deliver a clear message to the Muslim world about this new approach, Obama gave his first televised interview just one week after taking office to the Saudi-owned, Dubai-based Al Arabiya satellite station. In the interview, he stressed that Muslims should know that the U.S. is not their enemy. Obama said that his job is "to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the wellbeing of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries."

Obama's reconciliatory approach to the Muslim world continued with his two historic speeches in Istanbul and Cairo in April and June of 2009, respectively. In both speeches, he reiterated the themes of coexistence and common values, dismissing the notion of a clash of civilizations. Obama made clear distinctions between the peaceful Muslim majority and the small, violent radical groups hijacking Islam and claiming to act in its name. The Cairo speech was praised around the world as an oratorical masterpiece, and several books analyzing its significance and impact have already been published.

Islamist Ambivalence
Preceding Obama's visit to Cairo, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement titled "The Brothers' Opinion on the American President's Visit to Egypt" on June 4th, 2009.The strangeness, and perhaps the significance, of the statement is that it did not pronounce any clear position on Obama's visit. The Brothers' reiterted their stance on Israel, attacked Western policies, and confirmed the right of the Egyptian people to defend their country and change their internal authoritarian regime. At the end, the Brothers declared they would assess Obama's visit after it had taken place, and avoided making any prior judgement. Short and vague--but not condemning the visit altogether--it reflected the conflicted mood among Arab Islamists toward Obama's visit. After Obama's speech, the Brothers issued no followup message as they had promised, and posted nothing about the Cairo visit on their homepage. This reflects a continuing ambivalence among the Brotherhood, and among mainstream Islamist groups, about how to respond to Barack Obama, no longer a pet presidential candidate but the leader of the United States.

Reactions to President Obama by Islamist groups and intellectuals have been varied and conflicting. A range of these reactions, spanning several movements, will be surveyed here. Isam Al-Aryan, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, wrote an article in Beirut's Al-Akhbar daily titled "A Letter to Barak Obama." In the article, Al-Aryan warned Obama against supporting authoritarian regimes in the region, lamenting that these regimes have surrendered their sovereignty and interest to outsiders. Al-Aryan also expressed bitterness that global American military outreach often operates against the essence of American values.

It is a matter of allegiance to your country when you promote principles that are called upon by the American Constitution, the values of freedom, respect of human rights, democracy, and respect for the will of people. By contrast, it is not a matter of allegiance to your country to keep your armies ... occupying all corners of the world. It is not a matter of faithfulness to your principles to keep those detainees in jail without conviction and extract false confessions from them by torture; and to use tyrants and autocrats who remain in power because of your support...

Among the strongest Islamist endorsements for Obama, Mustapha Ikhlaif's article in Al Jazeera called upon Obama to convert to Islam and become the worldwide Caliph of Muslims. The author, a Moroccan academic who writes with Islamist undertones, argues that the race and ethnicity of a Muslim leader is of no importance as long as he embodies the message of Islam. Ikhalif contends that Persians, Turks, Seljuks and other ethnicities have ruled over the Arab region - why could not Barak Hussein Obama be one of them? Obama has been received warmly, even hailed by Muslims, and the only major step he must take before reigning over Muslim countries is simply to convert to Islam.

Al Jazeera also featured work by Muhanna Al-Habeel, a staunch critic of Obama and his Arab and Muslim fans. Al-Habeel, a Saudi writer, wonders how Obama "can explain to us the meaning of justice and tolerance in Islamic values at the same time that his forces strike against tens of innocent people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and those American-occupied areas [are drowned] in rivers of blood." Al-Habeel went on to exclaim, "How nice Mr. President looked while he was sending his greetings to the victims in their graves..."

Between these extremes, another Islamist writer, Nabil Shabib, a Syrian living in Germany, is skeptical. He believes Obama's choice to visit Turkey first among Muslim countries was a loaded move. Shabib contends that Turkey is the type of majority-Muslim state the West wants to see--a secular Muslim country. More importantly, Obama wants to exploit the respected position of Recep Tayyip Erdugan's Turkey in order to implement American policies in the Muslim world. Obama wants Turkey to adopt a more active role in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and in the Arab/Israeli conflict. For Shabib, this amounts to "Turkey becoming a Trojan horse for American policy in two components: soft political discourse; and political substance that is based on the continuation of hegemony in a new transformed ‘soft hegemony' after military failures."
Hamas and Obama
Hamas, after greeting Obama's candidacy with such enthusiasm, has been frustrated by the first year of his Presidency. Hamas followed the American presidential race closely and supported Obama to the point of harming his campaign. In April 2008, Ahmad Yousef, political advisor to the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, praised Obama during a WABC radio interview. The statement was widely used by Obama's opponents, who denounced him as Hamas' favorite candidate.

Khaled Meshaal, Hamas' chief political leader, has expressed that his organization is more willing to enagage with American policymakers since Obama came to office. Hailing Obama's victory, Meshaal said, "It's a big change--politically and psychologically and it is noteworthy and I congratulate President Obama ... yes, we are ready for dialogue with President Obama and with the new American administration, on the basis that the American administration respects our rights and our options."

Since his election, Obama holds a very delicate position regarding Palestine and Hamas, a litmus test for many Muslims concerning Western credibility in promoting human values and justice. In his Cairo speech, Obama introduced a new approach to Hamas. "Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist."[

In an interview, Meshaal responded by saying
Undoubtedly Obama speaks a new language. His speech was cleverly designed... The essence of the speech was to improve the U.S. image and to placate the Muslims. We don't mind either objective, but we are looking for more than just mere words. If the United States wishes to open a new page, we definitely would welcome this. We are keen to contribute to this. But we [believe that cannot happen] merely with words. It must be with deeds, by changing the policy on the ground'.

However, despite early signs in January 2009 that the Obama administration was ready to engage with Hamas,[16] putting an end to American isolation of the party and the 1.5 million Palestinians under its jurisdiction in the Gaza Strip, nothing tangible took place.

The greatest challenge for the Obama administration is how to translate rhetoric and well-intentioned statements into concrete change. After a year, Obama's presidency has a mixed balance sheet, and frustration is gathering rapidly. On the Palestinian issue, Obama failed to pressure Israel to put a freeze on settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Withdrawing troops from Iraq in January 2010 has been postponed until August 2010. Obama's dialogue and enagement approach has not been particularly successful in confronting Iran about its nuclear program. Both Republican and Democratic Congressmen stalled Obama's plan to close Guantanamo by voting down measures to relocate the detainees. Turning the hefty tanker is a strenuous job indeed.

Democratization Deficit
The second level of challenges Obama faces with regard to the Muslim world, and Islamists in particular, centers around democracy promotion. Islamists in the Arab world were dismayed that Obama did not use Cairo as an opportunity to address democratisation or the need for political reform in Egypt. Furthermore, he praised President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, an autocrat determined to hand over power to his son, Gamal. Downplaying the issue of democracy advancement is a notable shortcoming of "Obama-ism". As new realism becomes a cornerstone in Obama's foreign policy, his speeches about American involvement in the world have almost completely dropped the previous (Bush-style) emphasis on democratization.

There is a debate raging in Muslim countries on whether it's beneficial to invite external powers to promote democracy. There are concerns about a double standard, since the United States has been famously uneven in its application of democracy. The U.S. desires and fights for democracy in Iraq, but completely ignores Saudi Arabia, for example. The U.S. praises elections in Lebanon when they bring victory to Western-supported coalitions but lambasts elections that empower Hamas in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.

Among Islamists (and other opposition forces) in the Arab world there is a great dilemma surrounding what to demand from the West. If Muslims ask the United States to pressure their authoritarian regimes for democratization, they must relinquish sovereignty. Advocates of democracy also understand that explicit American support can be the kiss of death for a popular movement in the Middle East. On the other hand, if the U.S. does not intervene, autocrats will remain in power, citizens will still be denied free speech and political participation, and America will appear complicit.

The onus lies on both sides. If Obama truly believes that a stable Muslim world is in the best interest of the United States, then he must adopt a more consistent approach on democracy promotion, one that is less focused on immediate gain. This is necessary to establish a long-lasting, healthy relationship between the U.S. and Muslim states.

Islamists must develop vision of what they desire from the West, and the U.S. in particular, in terms of democracy promotion. If Islamists pragmatically engage with the U.S. to pursue democratic reforms, they can broaden their own support, and counteract the belief that democratization is a Western conspiracy to infiltrate Muslim countries. It is equally important that the Islamist movement continues its trend toward politicization and secularization, as demonstrated by the successful Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey. Focusing on public service and pushing ideological rhetoric and identity politics to the background will encourage external actors to deal more seriously, and less fearfully, with Islamist parties.

The ‘Obamania' that swept the Muslim world has evaporated and harsh realities have resurfaced. Obama's tanker-speedboat analogy is frustratingly realistic, Many Arab observers have insisted that no matter how much goodwill Obama gained upon election, rhetoric must be proven by deeds. It is unfortunate that Obama has found himself in the middle of several intractable issues: two wars; the global financial crisis; domestic disputes about Healthcare. This limits the time and effort that he has allocated for U.S.-Muslims relations, especially the Palestinian cause and democratization, which ought to be top priorities.
http://www.alzaytouna.net/arabic/print.php?a=118091

Who is the Terrorist: Hamas or Israel?

By Dr. Elias Akleh - Intifada Palestine
Israelis justify their genocidal economic siege against Gaza Strip, their December 2008 barbaric war crime onslaught against 1.5 million Palestinian civilians in Gaza, and their international piracy against the international “Break the Siege Campaign” and the humanitarian aid Freedom Flotilla with the false claim that the democratically elected Hamas leadership, in the Gaza Strip, is a terrorist organization.

Examining Hamas’ history in order to validate/debunk this terrorism claim one discovers that Hamas did not invade and occupy any other country, but Israel did. In 1948 Israel occupied almost half of Palestine, and later in 1967 occupied the rest of Palestine, parts of Egypt, parts of Syria, and parts of Lebanon with it. This illegal occupation still stands up to date.

Hamas did not evict complete populations of cities, did not perpetrate massacres of civilians, and did not level and raze complete cities. Israel did. Israelis had forcefully evicted the residents of Palestinian cities in 1948 and again in 1967. Israelis had committed many massacres against Palestinian civilians, such as the massacres of Deir Yassin, Ein al-Zeitun, Al-Tantura, Al-Dawayima, Jenin, and many others in Gaza Strip and Lebanon. The Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi, in his book “All That Remained” had documented 500 Palestinian towns the Israelis destroyed and leveled to the ground in order to erect Israeli colonies in their places.

Hamas did not create the worst refugee crises in the world. Israel did. In 1948 Israelis expelled almost 800,000 Palestinians from their homes and towns, drove them to the neighboring Arab countries, and denied them the right of return as per UNSC resolutions. In 1967 Israelis, again, drove thousands other Palestinians from their town out of the country. For the last 62 years these refugees are living under the charity of the UNRWA.

Hamas did not send its army to attack its neighboring countries. Israel did. Israeli army attacked Jordan until it was defeated in Al-Karameh Battle in March 1968. Israel attacked Egypt and occupied the Egyptian Sinai until 1973 when the Egyptian forces destroyed the Israeli Bar Lev Wall on the eastern bank of Suez Canal. This led to Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian Sinai Desert. Israeli army invaded and occupied Lebanon twice; once in 1978 and again in 1982. The second occupation lasted eight years until Hezbollah’s resistance defeated Israelis in 2000 and forced them to retreat from Lebanese land.

Hamas did not steal Palestinian land, farms and homes from their rightful owners to build illegal colonies (settlements) in violation of all international laws and despite opposition of many UNSC resolutions, and to forcefully introduce aggressive extremist religious Jewish Israelis within Palestinian communities. Hamas did not forge land and home deeds to illegally seize Palestinian properties. Israel did. Land seizure, home demolition, and home theft are routine attacks on Palestinian civilians. Such practices have intensified lately with the latest plan of demolishing 22 Palestinian homes in Jerusalem in order to build a tourist park.

Contrary to what pro-Zionist media wants us to believe Hamas is not the extreme religious fanatics intolerant to other religions with a psychotic fervor to kill Jews. True, they are fundamental Muslims, whose religion teaches tolerance and acceptance of the “People of the Book”; Jews and Christians. They are not against Jews per se, but against the Zionist occupation of their land. Israeli Jews are the most extremist religious fanatics, who prescribe to the religiously racist “God’s Chosen People” ideology that is intolerant to all other religions.

Hamas did not bomb, torch, or destroy any Jewish synagogues nor dug up and razed Jewish cemeteries. Israel did. Since 1948 Israelis had destroyed hundreds of Mosques, turned others into Jewish bars or clubs or senior homes. Jewish colonizers (settlers) had torched and vandalized many mosques. Religious extremist Jews are threatening to demolish Al-Aqsa Mosque, third holiest Islamic place, in order to build third Solomon Temple in its place. Israeli government had confiscated land belonging to Christian church. The Israeli army had bombed Christian churches including the Nativity church in Bethlehem, a Sumerian church in Nablus, and an Orthodox church in Gaza.

When a Jewish cemetery gets vandalized Israel and Zionists cry anti-Semitism. Yet Israelis give themselves the right to destroy hundreds of Palestinian cemeteries. In a most presumptuous act the Israeli government is digging up and razing almost a thousand years old Islamic cemetery in Jerusalem to build a museum of tolerance in its place.

Hamas was not involved in human organ trafficking by murdering Jewish children and stealing their body organs. Israelis did. Rabbis, who suppose to respect life, with the cooperation of Israeli military officials and Israeli military physicians were caught red-handed into this despicable crime.

Hamas did not manufacture drugs and smuggle them into the US. A gang of Rabbis, American Zionist Jews, and Israelis are involved into manufacturing ecstasy drugs in Israel and smuggling them into the US to profit on American addiction.

Hamas did not send arms with military trainers to every corner of the Middle East to arm and to train terrorist groups to terrorize local citizens and to attack local governments. Israel did. Israel had armed and trained Lebanese Phalangist militia, who started the Lebanese civil war and later on became Israel’s proxy army during Israel’s occupation of Lebanon. Israel had, also, armed and trained Kurdish militia in north Iraq to terrorize Iraqi civilians and to attack Turkish troop in east Turkey. Israel had armed and trained Jundullah terrorist group to terrorize Iranian citizens, and to attack and bomb Iranian government buildings.

Israel’s arming and training had expanded beyond the Middle East to reach South African government who terrorized and suppressed the local citizens. In Algiers Israel armed and trained terrorist groups, who perpetrated many massacres against civilians. In Sudan Israel armed terrorist groups to create a division between the North and the South Sudanese. Israeli military trainers reached Latin America, where they trained drug lords’ militias in Mexico and Columbia.

Hamas did not send assassinating teams, with forged foreign passports, to other countries to murder political officials, scientist, and university professors. Israel did. In 1973 Israeli army and Mossad assassins, sent to Beirut, Lebanon, assassinated three political figures; Kamal Nasser, Kamal Adwan and Muhammad Youssef al-Najjar. An estimated 100 other Lebanese security personnel and civilian neighbors were also murdered in this raid. In 1988 Israeli assassins were sent to Tunis and murdered Khalil al-Wazir, a PLO leader, in front of his wife and son. Several security guards were also murdered in this raid. In 1997 Mossad agents with forged Canadian passports entered Jordan and attempted to assassinate Khaled Mish’al, a Hamas official, with poisonous chemical weapon. The Israeli assassins were caught by Jordanians. In order to appease Jordan’s King Hussein, the then Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who ordered the botched assassination attempt, was obliged to send the anti-dote to cure Mish’al from the poison, and to release the crippled Sheikh Yassin, the founder of Hamas movement. In February 2008 Israeli Mossad agents were sent to Damascus, Syria, where they assassinated by a car bomb Imad Mughniyah, a senior member in Hezbollah.

Not learning from his 1997 criminal botched assassination attempt against Mish’al, Netanyahu, becoming Israeli Prime Minister a second time, had authored the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel room in January 2010. A team of at least 29 Mossad assassins, carrying forged international passports, were sent to Dubai to assassinate al-Mabhouh; a Hamas official. The assassination was exposed internationally through Dubai’s closed caption cameras.

Mossad assassins were also sent to Iran and Iraq to assassinate scientist, especially nuclear and physics scientists, university professors, and even medical doctors. According to Press TV Israeli Mossad agents were sent recently to Turkey to assassinate Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan but failed in the attempt. Erdogan has been a thorn in Israel’s side lately.

The US, Israel’s best friend and sponsor, was not saved from Israel’s assassinations. The Mossad is accused of assassinating President John F. Kennedy because he opposed Israel becoming a nuclear power, and was about to change American policy towards the Israeli/Arab conflict (see Michael Collins Piper’s book “Final Judgment”). There are also many evidence implicating Israeli Mossad agents in the 911 bombing of the Trade Center.

Hamas did not spy on the US, stole its nuclear fuel and nuclear technology. Israel did. Israel’s spying on the US is a well known fact among the American intelligence. The story of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard is very well known. Pollard was responsible for the murder of 100 CIA agents, whose names were included in vital intelligence he turned over to the Soviet Union.

Israel’s theft of American nuclear technology and fuel was exposed in the article “America’s Loose Nukes in Israel” by Grant Smith, director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, where he explained how large quantities of America’s highly enriched uranium and plutonium was smuggles to Israel via the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC). Besides building their own nuclear bombs, Israelis were trying to sell nuclear material and technology to apartheid South Africa.

Hamas did not commit any crime of high seas international piracy. Israel did. Israeli marine commandos had attacked, rammed, and hijacked “Break the Siege” boats, and lately had attacked Freedom Flotilla killing at least 9 international humanitarian peaceful activists, and kidnapping the rest to Israel, where they were imprisoned, roughed up, interrogated and deported. Twenty other activists are still missing, and feared being dumped in the ocean by Israeli terrorist commandos to cover their crime.

With such comparisons, and many others that could fill up volumes, one may ask why didn’t Israel end up on the West’s terrorist list but Hamas did? This “Terrorist List” was forced by Bush administration on the world. It is the American perspective and the American global hegemonic aspiration that determine who would be listed as a terrorist. Of course if the US would not put itself on the list for terrorizing Iraqis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis, why would it list Israel for terrorizing Palestinians and neighboring Arab Countries?

Hamas is a resistance movement with a branch of social services. It resists Israeli occupation and, at the same time, provides humanitarian and financial aid to families, who suffered from the Israeli occupation. It is not corrupt as what Fatah has lately become, and is not a collaborator with Israel as Fatah’s officials. Thus it gained popularity and trust. When the American administration forced election on Palestinians in 2006 hoping to legitimize Fatah’s collaborators again, Hamas won the election instead. This election was certified as fair and democratic by international monitors headed by Jimmy Carter, once an American president.

Hamas, rightfully, wanted to rectify the previous unjust agreements, expressed willingness to establish a long term truce with Israel, and accepted the two states solution providing that Israel would completely withdraw to 1967 borders. Israel rejected Hamas gestures the same way it had rejected all Arab peace initiatives in the past. Israelis refuse to be restricted within a defined border because that means the end of the Zionist expansionist scheme.

Israel, the Bush administration, and Abbas with his security chief Dahlan conspired to overthrow Hamas as was reported by Vanity Fair. Fortunately, Hamas was aware of the conspiracy and kicked Fatah’s security forces out of Gaza. Since then the US added Hamas to the terrorist list, and Israel started its choking siege against Gaza.
http://intifada-palestine.com/2010/06/who-is-the-terrorist-hamas-or-israel/

THE TRUTH ABOUT HAMAS THAT ISRAEL DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW

Founded: l987 by Sheik Yassin and Dr. Rantisi. Israel supported its founding as an alternative to the PLO. The Charter called for the liberation of all of Palestine in which Muslims, Christians and Jew would flourish under an Islamic government. The Military Branch, Izadeen Qassam was created in l992.

1995 Dr. Ellen Rosser met with Sheik Yassin and gave him the proposal on Jerusalem, which has Jerusalem belonging to God and governed by the religious leaders of the three Abrahamic religions and being the capital of both Israel and Palestine though belonging to neither. The proposal also has the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Council governing Jerusalem giving the Jews the right to rebuild the Temple of King Solomon at the north end of the Temple Mount. Sheik Yassin had “no objections.”

During the Second Intifida Izzadeen Qassam did conduct suicide bombings, but in June 2004 Sheik Yassin stated that Hamas would end armed resistance in exchange for a Palestinian State in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Israel assassinated Sheik Yassin and Dr. Rantisi in 2004.

From August 2004, Hamas observed a unilateral ceasefire with Israel.

In 2005 Hamas in its election campaign did not call for an end of Israel but instead called for an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

In 2005 Hamas signed the Cairo Declaration of 2005 and the National Reconciliation Document, which, as interpreted by Haniyeh and Maschaal, means that Hamas “fully respects” the previous agreements between the Palestinians and Israel.

In February, 2006, Khaled Mashaal said: “(Hamas) cannot oppose the unified Arab stance expressed in the resolution passed by the Arab League summit. That resolution, approved in Beirut, speaks of recognizing Israel and normalizing relations with it in exchange for a full withdrawal and a solution to the refugee problem”.

Hamas won the election and continued to observe the unilateral ceasefire until Israel, responding to rocket fire from the small parties (not Hamas) attacked Gaza in June 2006 killing 220 civilians. The Popular Resistance Committee, including Izzadeen Quassm (Hamas’ military branch), then captured Gilad Shalit to exchange for Palestinian prisoners.

In 2006, Prime Minister Haniyeh of Hamas wrote to Pres. George Bush offering a 20 year ceasefire with Israel during which there could be an exchange of ambassadors, in other words, official recognition of Israel.

In early 2006 in Gaza, Hamas (and the small parties who were shooting the Qassam rockets –Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP and Al Aqsa’s Martyrs’ Brigade), agreed to participate in a workshop and large march under the banner: Two Peoples, Two States, One Peace. (The Fatah-Hamas conflict prevented the workshop and march from being held.)

On June `8, 2008, Israel and Hamas agreed upon a ceasefire. Hamas thereafter prevented the small parties in Gaza from launching Qassam rockets into Israel, although a few groups or individuals evaded the Hamas checkpoints to launch occasional rockets.

In November 4, 2008, the ceasefire ended when Israel attacked inside Gaza to destroy a tunnel that went into Israel. The small parties then began shooting rockets into Israel again.

On December 27-28, Israel attacked Gaza to stop the rocket fire. During Operation Cast Lead, 894 civilians were killed, including 280 under age 18. Perhaps 277 Hamas policemen and militants were killed.

Israel and Hamas are negotiating another ceasefire.

CONCLUSION: Hamas has been offering peace to Israel since before it was elected. It renounced violence in action, which is more important than words, through unilateral ceasefires and the negotiated ceasefires with Israel, it “fully respects” previous agreements, it accepts the Arab Initiative, and Haniyeh offered an exchange of ambassadors, surely an official recognition of Israel.

In other words, Hamas has more than met the conditions of the Quartet and should be accepted as a viable peace partner.
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/the-truth-about-hamas-that-israel-does-not-want-you-to-know/

Mossad fingered as responsible for murder of Hamas official

(Pal Telegraph, by Paul Woodward) - If the investigation into the murder of the Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai on Jan. 20, establishes that it was carried out by the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, Dubai police have said they will issue an arrest warrant for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

mabhouh_posterWhile this would not be the first time an Israeli leader faced the risk of arrest, unlike previous instances which have involved alleged war crimes, in this instance Netanyahu would presumably be treated as a co-conspirator to pre-meditated murder in a case that already involves Interpol.

Following the announcement by Dubai police that six of the murder suspects were carrying British passports and another three Irish passports, The Daily Telegraph reports:

British government sources told The Daily Telegraph there was no "corroboration" within Whitehall of any British involvement in the assassination plot.

Government sources also said that officials do not believe any Irish nationals were involved but were Mossad agents using Irish passports.

Ten days ago The National reported:

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will be at the top of Dubai's wanted list if the Israeli foreign intelligence service Mossad is proven to be behind the killing of a senior Hamas official, the Dubai Police chief said yesterday.

Lt Gen Dahi Khalfan Tamim told The National that "Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will be the first to be wanted for justice as he would have been the one who signed the decision to kill [Mahmoud] al Mabhouh in Dubai. We will issue an arrest warrant against him."

The BBC reports:

The British and Irish governments have said that passports belonging to the alleged killers of a top Hamas official are fake.

Ireland said the names Gail Folliard, Evan Dennings and Kevin Daveron, and their passport numbers, did not match anything issued by its officials.

Britain said it believed six British passports were also fakes.

The Times reports:

Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, in a speech over the weekend, alluded to a report in The Times on Saturday that Mossad was waging a covert war of assassinations across the Middle East, targeting Hamas and Iranian officials.

"There are a huge range of options between a full military attack and accepting a nuclear Iran," Olmert said. "There are other means that, together with other things happening, and they are happening, can create a result that would not allow the Iranians to reach what they are trying to reach."

One former Mossad agent confirmed that the organization regularly used foreign passports for travel abroad on secret missions.

"Sometimes these were legitimate passports of people who held dual citizenship, other times they were acquired," he said. "An Israeli passport raises red flags and is best avoided."

Assuming that this was indeed a Mossad operation, in a suprising twist, it appears that the Israeli agents stole the identity of a British-Israeli who is now trying to clear his name.

Dubai has identified Melvyn Adam Mildiner as one of six British passport holders believed to have been involved in the death of al-Mabhouh in a luxury hotel.

Speaking from his home near Jerusalem, Mildiner said: "The details of the passport are not all wrong. My name is spelt correctly and the number is correct, but the date of birth was wrong. The picture with it is not me. Whoever took my identity took parts of it but not everything. I have my own real passport stored properly here at home. It has not, as far as I am aware, been away. It has no Dubai stamps. I have never been to Dubai."

Mildiner, who was born in London and made aliyah in 2001, added: "I went to bed with pneumonia and woke up accused of murder on an international scale."

He said no British or Israeli officials had yet contacted him to discuss the situation.

He has hired a lawyer and is awaiting advice on how to clear his name.
http://www.paltelegraph.com/world/middle-east/77-middle-east/4199-mossad-fingered-as-responsible-for-murder-of-hamas-official

Hamas: We won't respond to heresies of Fatah spokesmen

Hamas Movement has confirmed Sunday that its response to the Goldstone report didn’t contain any apology, stressing the Palestinians' right to defend themselves and to resist the Israeli occupation.

Retorting to Fatah spokesmen in the West Bank, Hamas underlined that what Fatah spokesmen were talking about were Israeli hearsays meant to distort Hamas's image.

"Those who asked Hamas to apologize to the Palestinian people instead of apologizing to the Israelis were indeed either liars or maliciously attempting to fish in muddy waters because their source of information was a false news report invented by the Hebrew media", the Movement underlined in a statement it issued Sunday.

To the contrary, Hamas said, the Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people don’t need to be proven as media outlets were showing those crimes such as the IOF troops deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians, paramedics and ambulances live on TV during the war on Gaza.

Hamas explained that it only responded to claims included in the Goldstone report, and proved that the Palestinian resistance's behavior was a reaction to the Israeli brutal aggression on the Strip.

Moreover, Hamas deplored Fatah spokesmen's allegations that Hamas killed Palestinian people on IDs, stressing that such behavior was of Fatah faction as testified by Tawfik Abu Khousa, the former spokesman of Fatah in Gaza Strip during the armed clashes between the forces of the legitimate PA government and the mutiny trend led by the disgraced Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan in 2007.

In this regard, Hamas made it clear that it won't waste time in responding to the lies of Fatah spokesmen in the West Bank, underscoring it knows the sources, motives, and masterminds of those allegations.

"We rather spend our time on a more noble and national goal that is to achieve the Palestinian reconciliation, and thus, we would refrain, for the meantime, from responding to those fabrications", Hamas highlighted.

For his part, Mohammed Faraj Al-Ghoul, the Palestinian justice minister, raised doubts over Israeli claims that Palestinian rockets killed Israeli civilians, yet, he added, the Israeli occupation has to prove those claims with evidence but till now it refuses to allow independent committees to check those claims.

Ghoul asserted the right of the Palestinian resistance to defend the Palestinian people and to repel any Israeli aggression against them with all possible means.

He also pointed out that the PA government in Gaza would follow up the matter till the UN refers the report to the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israeli war criminals.

Meanwhile, Fawzi Barhoum, Hamas's spokesman in Gaza, deprecated the Israeli attempts to deceive the international community by alleging it had conducted an internal investigation and found nothing wrong in the Israeli behavior during the war on Gaza.

He urged the international community to bring justice to the oppressed Palestinian people and to bring Israeli war criminals to court to prosecute them for the massacres they committed against Palestinian women and children.
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/

Hamas man was 'suffocated with hotel pillow', says Dubai Police chief

The father of Hamas's Mahmoud Al Mabhouh holds up a family photo showing Al Mabhouh, at their home in the Jebaliya refugee camp, northern Gaza Strip.

By Siham Al Najami, Staff Reporter, Gulf News

Dubai: Police authorities in Dubai are still unyielding to reveal more information about the recent assassination of a senior Hamas military commander in a Dubai hotel.

Lieutenant General Dahi Khalfan Tamim, Chief of Dubai Police, reserved from giving details about the crime scene saying the cause of death is by suffocation. "Forensic examination point out that the deceased was suffocated with a pillow in his hotel room," he told Gulf News without commenting on whether he was electrocuted or tortured.

Mahmoud Al Mabhouh, 50, who managed to escape previous assassination attempts, was found killed in his hotel room a day after he arrived to the country. Dubai Police did not reveal the identities of the suspects.

"From our investigations and evidences collected from the crime scene, we have the identities of the people involved including the killer and the master mind behind this crime. It is a professional criminal group," he said.

Images

A security source said that surveillance cameras in the hotel captured the images of the suspects.

Hamas said the Israeli intelligence unit, Mossad, was behind the assassination of Mabhouh, one of the founders of Hamas' military wing, the Ezz Al Deen Al Qassam Brigades.

According to Lt Gen Dahi, they have send requests through the Interpol to get more information about the suspects and whether the passports they were carrying were authentic. Lt Gen Dahi refused to reveal the European countries they are approaching. He said he expects cooperation from the authorities.

"We are approaching all the channels including embassies and consulates to get more information on the suspects," he said.

"European countries don't extradite suspects but we will demand for the suspects to be tracked," he said.

"The big question to ask is how Hamas allowed such an important figure like Al Mabhouh travel without protection. He didn't have any escort or guard and they should have sought the assistance from the authorities in Dubai to provide him with security, " he said.

"If this is how they handle matters then they have no knowledge on security matters," he said.

When asked on the reasons for his presence in Dubai, he said, "I don't know. All we know is a Palestinian entered on a visit visa to the country. His last name, Al Mabhouh, was missing from his passport."

Mossad role?

Lt Gen Dahi did not confirm or deny whether the Mossad is behind the assassination of Al Mabhouh, as claimed by Hamas Movement, but referred to an article in Sharq Al Awsat quoting an article published in the Israeli daily newspaper, Yediot Ahronot.

"The Israeli expert, [Ron Ben Yishai] stated that indicators from the crime point out to the involvement of the Mossad in the operation," he said.

Al Mabhouh's brother, Fayed was qouted by AFP saying, "The first results of a joint investigation by Hamas and the UAE show he was killed by an electrical appliance that was held to his head. He was then strangled."

PALESTINIAN UNITY~ABBAS VS HAMAS

Palestinian Unity between Hamas and Fatah. Hamas wants unity, and says:

Dr. Mahmoud Zahhar, a political leader of the Hamas movement, stated that they would sign the Egyptian document for internal Palestinian unity should the Egyptian leadership provide guarantees to ensure a successful agreement.

Zahhar said that Hamas does not want to sign on unclear issues, and that Egypt should provide clarifications so that all aspects are durable to ensure a lasting unity deal.

He added that Hamas believes that the transitional period should be used to achieve all needed arrangements and reconciliation measures to guarantee national interests and unity.

“We are determined to achieve unity, we want to make sure the Egyptian document is clear for all of us”, Zahhar said, “We demanded Egypt to provide guarantees to implementing all reached deals”.

Zahhar also insists that Egypt invite Hamas leaders for talks on the measures to guarantee the future unity deal is solid and flawless.

And rightly so, they must be careful of signing an agreement that is unclear. The above is a fair request to iron out any misconceptions and clear up any vague areas regarding security and other things. Ok, that’s one side, now what about Fatah? Abbas is continually claiming he wants unity for the Palestinians and continually pointing the finger at Hamas as the ones against unity. So here is Abbas’ contribution towards unity for all parties:

Palestinian Security Forces arrested 14 members of the Hamas political party in the West Bank this Wednesday at dawn.

In Qalqilia, to the north of the West Bank, Mustafa Bader was apprehended. He has been repeatedly arrested by Palestinian security forces along with spending time in Israeli prison. Nael Nofal, Sa’id Jeidy, Abdul-Halim Al Basha and Freij Daoud were also detained in Qalqilia. They face arrest just one day after release from a Palestinian detention center.

In Allar near Qalqilia, security forces arrested Ahmad Taqatqa, Abada Taqatqa, Khalid Abdullah and Mujahid Shadid.

In the district of Ramallah, security forces arrested Moath Ziad Mashal, a journalist from Silwad village. Mashal has been arrested three times by the Israeli military, spending a combined total of five years in Israeli prisons. He has also been arrested once by Palestinian security forces despite his involvement with the Silwad local council.

In Hebron, security forces arrested Sheikh Mahmoud Al Hour, member of the Surif village council and Sheikh Mahmoud Al Asafra. Al Asafra serves as the Imam of Al Rahman Mosque in Beit Kahil.

Near the city of Jenin, security forces arrested Mohammad Fares Abu Obeid from Al Yamoun village.

The statement issued by Hamas also alleged that Fateh security forces still hold Hamas party members in detention, despite a Palestinian court order demanding their immediate release.

I think we can all see the real problems with “unity.” Perhaps when Abbas and his cohorts begin to respect the democratic mandate of all parties, including Hamas who won a majority in a free and democratic election. Then we may see some unity.
http://irish4palestine.blogspot.com/2010/01/palestinian-unityabbas-vs-hamas.html

The Transformation of Hamas

Hamas Prime Minister Haniyeh meeting with former US president Jimmy Carter in Gaza
Something is stirring within the Hamas body politic, a moderating trend that, if nourished and engaged, could transform Palestinian politics and the Arab-Israeli peace process. There are unmistakable signs that the religiously based radical movement has subtly changed its uncompromising posture on Israel. Although low-key and restrained, those shifts indicate that the movement is searching for a formula that addresses the concerns of Western powers yet avoids alienating its social base.

Far from impulsive and unexpected, Hamas’s shift reflects a gradual evolution occurring over the past five years. The big strategic turn occurred in 2005, when Hamas decided to participate in the January 2006 legislative elections and thus tacitly accepted the governing rules of the Palestinian Authority (PA), one of which includes recognition of Israel. Ever since, top Hamas leaders have repeatedly declared they will accept a resolution of the conflict along the 1967 borders. The Damascus-based Khaled Meshal, head of Hamas’s political bureau and considered a hardliner, acknowledged as much in 2008. “We are realists,” he said, who recognize that there is “an entity called Israel.” Pressed by an Australian journalist on policy changes Hamas might make, Meshal asserted that the organization has shifted on several key points: “Hamas has already changed–we accepted the national accords for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, and we took part in the 2006 Palestinian elections.”

Another senior Hamas leader, Ghazi Hamad, was more specific than Meshal, telling journalists in January 2009 that Hamas would be satisfied with ending Israeli control over the Palestinian areas occupied in the 1967 war–the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. In other words, Hamas would not hold out for liberation of the land that currently includes Israel.

Previously Hamas moderates had called at times for a tahdia (a minor truce, or “calm”) or hudna (a longer-term truce, lasting as long as fifty years), which implies some measure of recognition, if only tacit. The moderates justified their policy shift by using Islamic terms (in Islamic history hudnas sometimes develop into permanent truces). Now leaders appear to be going further; they have made a concerted effort to re-educate the rank and file about the necessity of living side by side with their Jewish neighbors, and in so doing mentally prepare them for a permanent settlement. In Gaza’s mosques pro-Hamas clerics have begun to cite the example of the famed twelfth-century Muslim military commander and statesman Saladin, who after liberating Jerusalem from the Crusaders allowed them to retain a coastal state in the Levant. The point is that if Saladin could tolerate the warring, bloodthirsty Crusaders, then today’s Palestinians should be willing to live peacefully with a Jewish state in their midst.

The Saladin story is important because it provides Hamas with religious legitimacy and allows it to justify the change of direction to followers. Hamas’s raison d’être rests on religious legitimation; its leaders understand that they neglect this at their peril. Western leaders and students of international politics should acknowledge that Hamas can no more abandon its commitment to Islamism than the United States can abandon its commitment to liberal democracy. That does not mean Hamas is incapable of change or compromise but simply that its political identity is strongly constituted by its religious legitimation.

It should be emphasized as well that Hamas is not monolithic on the issue of peace. There are multiple, clashing viewpoints and constituencies within the movement. Over the years I have interviewed more than a dozen leaders inside and outside the occupied territories. Although on the whole Hamas’s public rhetoric calls for the liberation of all of historic Palestine, not only the territories occupied in 1967, a healthy debate has grown both within and without.

Several factors have played a role in the transformation. They include the burden of governing a war-torn Gaza and the devastation from Israel’s 2008-09 attack, which has caused incalculable human suffering and increasing public dissatisfaction in Gaza with Hamas rule.

Before the 2006 parliamentary elections, Hamas was known for its suicide bombers, not its bureaucrats, even though between 2002 and 2006 the organization moved from rejectionism toward participation in a political framework that is a direct product of the Oslo peace process of the 1990s. After the elections, the shift continued. “It is much more difficult to run a government than to oppose and resist Israeli occupation,” a senior Hamas leader told me while on official business in Egypt in 2007. “If we do not provide the goods to our people, they’ll disown us.” Hamas is not just a political party. It’s a social movement, and as such it has a long record of concern about and close attention to public opinion. Given the gravity of deteriorating conditions in Gaza and Hamas’s weak performance during last year’s fighting, it should be no surprise that the organization has undergone a period of fairly intense soul-searching and reassessment of strategic options.

Ironically, despite the West’s refusal to regard the Hamas government as legitimate and despite the continuing brutal siege of Gaza, demands for democratic governance within Gaza are driving change. Yet Hamas leaders are fully aware of the danger of alienating more-hardline factions if they show weakness or water down their position and move toward de facto recognition of Israel without getting something substantive in return. Hamas’s strategic predicament lies in striking a balance between, on the one hand, a new moderating and maturing sensibility and, on the other, insistence on the right and imperative of armed resistance. This difficult balance often explains the tensions and contradictions in Hamas’s public and private pronouncements.

Last summer a militant group called Jund Ansar Allah, or the Warriors of God, one of a handful of Al Qaeda-inspired factions, declared the establishment of an Islamic emirate in Gaza–a flagrant rejection of Hamas’s authority. Hamas security forces struck instantly and mercilessly at the Warriors, killing more than twenty members, including the group’s leader, Abdel-Latif Moussa. In one stroke, the Hamas leadership sent a message to foes and friends alike that it will not tolerate global jihadist groups like Al Qaeda, which want to turn Gaza into a theater of transnational jihad.

Despite the crushing of Moussa’s outfit, the extremist challenge persists. The Israeli siege, in place since 2006, along with the suffering and despair it has caused among Gaza’s 1.4 million inhabitants, has driven hundreds of young Palestinians into the arms of small Salafist extremist factions that accuse Hamas of forfeiting the armed struggle and failing to implement Shariah law. Hamas leaders appear to be worried about the proliferation of these factions and have instructed clerics to warn worshipers against joining such bands.

Compared with these puritanical and nihilistic groups, Hamas is well within the mainstream of Islamist politics. Operationally and ideologically, there are huge differences between Hamas and jihadi extremists such as Al Qaeda–and there’s a lot of bad blood. Hamas is a broad-based religious/nationalist resistance whose focus and violence is limited to Palestine/Israel, while Al Qaeda is a small, transnational terrorist network that has carried out attacks worldwide. Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have vehemently criticized Hamas for its willingness to play politics and negotiate with Israel. Hamas leaders have responded that they know what is good for their people, and they have made it crystal clear they have no interest in transnational militancy. Their overriding goal is political and nationalist rather than ideological and global: to empower Palestinians and liberate the occupied Palestinian territories.

Unlike Al Qaeda and other fringe factions, Hamas is a viable social movement with an extensive social network and a large popular base that has been estimated at several hundred thousand. Given its tradition of sensitivity and responsiveness to Palestinian public opinion, a convincing argument could be made that the recent changes in the organization’s conduct can be attributed to the high levels of poverty, unemployment and isolation of Palestinians in Gaza, who fear an even greater deterioration of conditions there.

A further example of Hamas’s political and social priorities is its decision to agree in principle to an Egyptian-brokered deal that sketches out a path to peace with Fatah. After two years of bitter and violent division, the warring parties came very close to agreement in October. The deal collapsed at the last moment, but talks continue. There are two points to make about the Egyptian role: first, Hamas leaders say they feel somewhat betrayed by the Egyptians because after pressure from the Americans, Cairo unilaterally revised the final agreed-upon text without consulting the Hamas negotiating team. Second, many Palestinian and Arab observers think Egypt is in no hurry to conclude the Fatah-Hamas talks. They contend that faced with regional challenges and rivals (Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia), the Mubarak regime views its brokering process in the Palestinian-Israeli theater as an important regional asset and a way to solidify its relationship with Washington.

Despite its frequently reactionary rhetoric, Hamas is a rational actor, a conclusion reached by former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, who also served as Ariel Sharon’s national security adviser and who is certainly not a peacenik. The Hamas leadership has undergone a transformation “right under our very noses” by recognizing that “its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future,” Halevy wrote in the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot just before the 2008 attack on Gaza. He believes Hamas is ready and willing to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. The US Army Strategic Studies Institute published a similar analysis just before the Israeli offensive, concluding that Hamas was considering a shift of its position and that “Israel’s stance toward [Hamas]…has been a major obstacle to substantive peacemaking.”

Indeed, it could be argued that Hamas has moved closer to a vision of peace consistent with international law and consensus (two separate states in historic Palestine, divided more or less along the ‘67 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and recognition of all states in the region) than the current Israeli governing coalition. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vehemently opposes the establishment of a genuinely viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and is opposed to giving up any part of Jerusalem–and Netanyahu’s governing coalition is more right wing and pro-settlement than he is.

Hamas’s political evolution and deepening moderation stand in stark contrast to the rejectionism of the Netanyahu government and call into question which parties are “hardline” and which are “extremist.” And at the regional level, a sea change has occurred in the official Arab position toward the Jewish state (the Arab League’s 2002 Beirut Declaration, subsequently reiterated, offers full recognition and diplomatic relations if Israel accepts the international consensus regarding a two-state solution), while the attitudes of the Israeli ruling elite have hardened. This marks a transformation of regional politics and a reversal of roles.

Observers might ask, If Hamas is so eager to accept a two-state solution, why doesn’t it simply accept the three conditions for engagement required by the so-called diplomatic Quartet (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations): recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence and acceptance of all previous agreements (primarily, the Oslo Accords)? In my interviews with Hamas officials, they stress that while they have made significant concessions to the Quartet, it has not lifted the punishing sanctions against Hamas, nor has it pressed Israel to end its siege, which has caused a dire humanitarian crisis. In addition, Hamas leaders believe that recognition of Israel is the last card in their hand and are reluctant to play it before talks even begin. Their diplomatic starting point will be to demand that Israel recognize the national rights of the Palestinians and withdraw from the occupied territories–but it will not be their final position.

There can be no viable, lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians if Hamas is not consulted and if the Palestinians remain divided, with two warring authorities in the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas has the means and public support to undermine any agreement that does not address the legitimate rights and claims of the Palestinian people. Its Fatah/PA rival lacks a popular mandate and the legitimacy needed to implement a resolution of the conflict. PA President Mahmoud Abbas has been weakened by a series of blunders of his own making, and with his moral authority compromised in the eyes of a sizable Palestinian constituency, Abbas is yesterday’s man–no matter how long he remains in power as a lame duck, and whether or not he competes in the upcoming presidential elections.

If the United States and Europe engaged Hamas, encouraging it to continue moderating its views instead of ignoring it or, worse yet, seeking its overthrow, the West could test the extent of Hamas’s evolution. So far the strategy of isolation and military confrontation–pursued in tandem by Israel and the United States–has not appeared to weaken Hamas significantly. If anything, it has radicalized hundreds of young Palestinians, who have joined extremist factions and reinforced the culture of martyrdom and nihilism. All the while, the siege of Gaza has left a trail of untold pain and suffering.

If the Western powers don’t engage Hamas, they will never know if it can evolve into an open, tolerant and peaceful social movement. The jury is still out on whether the Islamist movement can make that painful and ideologically costly transition. But the claim that engaging Hamas legitimizes it does not carry much weight; the organization derives its legitimacy from the Palestinian people, a mandate resoundingly confirmed in the free and fair elections of 2006.

To break the impasse and prevent gains by more extremist factions, the Obama administration and Congress should support a unified Palestinian government that could negotiate peace with Israel. Whatever they think of its ideology, US officials should acknowledge that Hamas is a legitimately elected representative of the Palestinian people, and that any treaty signed by a rump Fatah/PA will not withstand the test of time. And instead of twisting Cairo’s arms in a rejectionist direction, Washington should encourage its Egyptian ally to broker a truce between Hamas and Fatah and thus repair the badly frayed Palestinian governing institutions. If the Obama administration continues to shun engagement with Hamas, Europe ought to take the lead in establishing an official connection. European governments have already dealt with Lebanon’s Hezbollah, a group similar to Hamas in some respects, and they possess the skills, experience and political weight to help broker a viable peace settlement.

Like it or not, Hamas is the most powerful organization in the occupied territories. It is deeply entrenched in Palestinian society. Neither Israel nor the Western powers can wish it away. The good news, if my reading is correct, is that Hamas has changed, is willing to meet some of the Quartet’s conditions and is making domestic political preparations for further changes. But if Hamas is not engaged, and if the siege of Gaza and Palestinian suffering continue without hope of ending the political impasse, there is a real danger of a regional war.
Fawaz A. Gerges is a professor of Middle Eastern politics and international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science at the University of London. His most recent book is Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy (Harcourt).
http://intifada-palestine.com/2010/01/11/the-transformation-of-hamas/

Sakka: World responsible for Gaza's humanitarian disaster

Wael Al-Sakka, the board chairman of the Arab, international authority to reconstruct Gaza Strip, has said that the world community that announced the human rights doctrines was itself breaking those rules, Gaza Strip a clear proof.

Sakka in a televised interview on Tuesday night said that an American veto was blocking an end to the Gaza siege.

He said that the catastrophic conditions in Gaza are being viewed by the entire world and with the approval of the Arab regimes, which shoulder the biggest part of the responsibility.

He said that the Palestinian people in Gaza are in shortage of all basic materials, warning that they also suffer from loss of infrastructure and collapsed economy.

Sakka asked the civil institutions worldwide to organize events that would display the world's failure in dealing with the Israeli blockade on the Strip.

Meanwhile, three Palestinians were injured when an unknown explosive object blasted near them in Nusseirat in central Gaza.

Medical sources told the PIC reporter that ambulance teams rushed to evacuate the casualties, adding that two of them were in critical condition after their limbs were severed in the explosion while the third sustained moderate injuries.

A member of the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, was also reportedly killed during a "Jihad mission", the armed wing said.

Local sources said that Mohammed Abu Hashem, 23, was killed in an explosion at a Qassam training camp while another was wounded.

http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7U9lEl89xuEvNIxnq2%2bEroDHCVrUuqiZZn37mo82Po6er7%2fYGO2mP74llCNkfO13zpUU2IveG2N6XXaFHuwUVOYaUNBeLHqLQkOuszRVlQdg%3d

Hamas: Our response to Israeli offer on swap deal after discussion

Hamas Movement said that it received the Israeli response to the German mediator's proposal on the prisoners' exchange deal and would study the response.

In a statement on Wednesday, Hamas said that it would hand its reply to the German mediator after completing internal discussions over the proposals.

The statement did not include any details on Israel's response or its position regarding the names tabled by Hamas to be released in exchange for the freedom of its soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held in Gaza for more than three years.

22nd Anniversary of Hamas Foundation

Twenty two Years of honor & dignity

In December 1987, the council of the Islamic movement headed by Sheikh Ahmad Yassin met and announced the formal establishment of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas).

The meeting took place on the backdrop of a week of intense popular demonstrations and confrontations with Zionist occupation forces in the Gaza Strip following the death of 4 Palestinian laborers from Jabalia.

http://www.qassam.ps/specialfile-162-Twenty_two_Years_of_honor__dignity.html

Mishaal: Respected leadership provides cover for resistance

DAMASCUS, (PIC)-- Khaled Mishaal, the political bureau chief of Hamas, has said that politics and resistance in the Palestinian arena complement each other and do not conflict.

Mishaal, speaking to Al-Jazeera network on Tuesday, said that politics should be in service of resistance, emphasizing that a respected leadership would preserve resistance and provide political cover for it.

There should be an authority that protects resistance, the Hamas leader underlined, adding that his Movement decided to participate in the PA elections back in 2006 after it witnessed official positions that ran contrary to resistance.

http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7bg%2faB2teNq2exTZiLRd2Vic1E7VyfUpOLsnNHkC4X9T%2b5K%2b6ThXDHk2AXUXeETwmgNaTxYiBNXYP8Q6%2biZq%2fmGaYxStHZGO7KxNYypgwBz8%3d

IOF kidnap son of Hamas official in Jenin

JENIN, (PIC)-- The Israeli occupation forces (IOF) kidnapped at dawn Wednesday the son of senior Hamas official in Israeli jails Jamal Abul Haija during an incursion into the town of Beit Qad east of Jenin.
Sajida, the daughter of Abul Haija, said that Israeli troops kidnapped her 20-year-old brother during his presence inside a greenhouse in the town, noting that he was previously imprisoned in Israeli jails.
She added that all members of her family were and still are exposed to detention and attacks by Israeli troops.

The father Abul Haija is serving nine life sentences in Israeli jails on charges of his participation in resistance activities during the battle of Jenin refugee camp in 2002. He had several injuries and lost his left hand during the events.

During the Aqsa Intifada, Israeli apache helicopters bombed three missiles at his home, which was sabotaged and burnt several times.

His eldest son Abdelsalam was detained eight years in Israeli jails and released about one year ago. His son Asim also spent two years in administrative detention.

His daughter Banan and wife Umm Al-Abed also spent some time in Israeli jails.

In another context, different local sources told the Palestinian information center (PIC) that Israeli troops kidnapped Wednesday three Palestinian young men and physically assaulted two others in Al-Khalil, Tulkarem and Nablus.

In a separate incident, Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, declared Wednesday morning the death of one of its cadres called Yasser Radi during a Jihad mission in central Gaza.

http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7%2fau%2fkwkDJYlopo9aKCzsxFMX6hYdnEPnMcFz0%2bOYm0b%2bIaUYYUiJp2Lyk9oOzY1WvFzNNTolhrzKVfullzkikrO5ZdpwMqfU%2fsgE2e6c4Kc%3d

HAMAS NASHEED ISLAMIC RESISTANCE MOVEMENT HAMAS PALESTINE