Mashaal Cannot Change Hamas
If Mashaal is unable to convince members of his own movement, Hamas, to accept reconciliation with Fatah, he is less likely to convince other Hamas figures and followers to abandon their radical ideology — let alone accept Israel's right to exist.
The re-election last week of Khaled Mashaal as Hamas leader has been interpreted by some Arab and Western analysts as a sign of the radical Islamist's desire to march toward "moderation and pragmatism."
Hamas, according to political analyst Ahmed Rafik Awad, chose the "moderate" Mashaal in order to avoid internal differences.
According to Awad, Mashal is known for his "balanced personality and centrist positions, making him an extremely acceptable figure in the Arab and international arena."
Another analyst, Walid al-Mudalal, said that the re-election of Mashaal for another four years "would give him a chance to continue his effort to rearrange Hamas's relations with the West and convince the West that Hamas is not its enemy."
Some Western analysts have been quick to endorse this theory by pointing out that under Mashaal Hamas would adopt a new and moderate strategy, including accepting Israel's right to exist.
Their argument is apparently based on remarks made by Mashaal [in English, of course, but not in Arabic] to the effect that Hamas is prepared to accept the two-state solution.
What the optimists are ignoring, however, is Mashaal's assertion that acceptance of the two-state solution does not mean recognizing Israel's right to exist.
Mashaal is, in fact, saying that Hamas will accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem without giving up its struggle to eliminate Israel.
Hamas re-elected Mashaal not because he has become a pragmatist and a moderate. He was re-elected because Hamas believes that he has the skills to change the West's attitude toward Hamas. There is, after all, nothing better than a leader who can appear on CNN and try to market Hamas as a peace-loving liberation movement.
Mashaal may be a charismatic and pragmatic man, but at the end of the day he will not be able to change Hamas's charter calling for the destruction of Israel.
Nor will Mashaal be able to rein in Hamas's armed wing, Izaddin al-Kassam, which is responsible for hundreds of suicide bombings and thousands of rocket attacks against Israel.
Al-Kassam has many commanders in the Gaza Strip who do not share Mashaal's ostensible pragmatism and moderation. One of them is Mahmoud Zahar, an influential Hamas figure in the Gaza Strip.
Over the past two years, Mashaal has repeatedly failed to convince his rivals in Hamas to agree to unity with Fatah. When Mashaal signed the last Doha "reconciliation" agreement with Mahmoud Abbas in Qatar last year, most Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip came out against him.
So if Mashaal has been unable to convince his own movement to accept reconciliation with Fatah, he is less likely to persuade other Hamas figures and followers to abandon their radical ideology — let alone accept Israel's right to exist.
Further evidence of the challenges facing the new-old leader of Hamas was provided this week when leaders of the Islamist movement in the Gaza Strip repeated their commitment to violence.
In response to statements made by U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to the effect that Washington would not conduct any dialogue with Hamas, leaders of the movement reiterated their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist or their own willingness to renounce violence.
"We categorically reject these statements," said Hamas spokesman Ezat al-Risheq. "Hamas refuses to recognize the Zionist entity and the legitimacy of its occupation of Palestine," he said. "Palestinian resistance is not terrorism, but a legitimate project in line with international laws."
Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, also reaffirmed his movement's refusal to recognize Israel and renounce terrorism.
Those who expect real changes in Hamas following the re-election of Mashaal are living in an illusion. Even if Mashaal himself changes, Hamas will always remain the same Hamas.
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Khaled Abu Toameh
There is growing concern in Ramallah, Cairo, Riyadh and Dubai that the U.S. Administration is working to prevent the collapse of Hamas.
"The Americans mistakenly think that moderate political Islam, which is represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, will be able to combat radical Islam. The Americans are trying to bring the Muslim Brotherhood back to the region." — Palestinian official, Ramallah.
The Iranians, with whom the U.S. is now negotiating on nuclear weapons -- amid fears in the Middle East that the U.S. will capitulate to Tehran's demands if it has not effectively capitulated to them already -- have now joined Qatar and Turkey in opposing any attempt to confiscate Hamas's weapons.
The Paris conference was actually a spit in the face to the anti-Hamas forces in the Arab world. By failing to invite the Palestinian Authority to the conference, Kerry indicated that he does not see any role for Abbas and his loyalists in a post-Hamas Gaza Strip.
by Amir Taheri
According to Küntzel, German leaders have at least two other reasons for helping Iran defy the United States. The first is German resentment of defeat in the Second World War followed by foreign occupation, led by the US. The second reason is that Iran is one of the few, if not the only country, where Germans have never been looked at as "war criminals" because of Hitler.
by Malcolm Lowe
Go to Nazareth and you can easily find the mini-mosque. It displays a large poster of Koran quotations denigrating Christianity and urging Christians to convert to Islam.
Overlooked is a fundamental difference between the two regimes. Israel is a state governed by the rule of law. The Palestinian Authority, like most other states in the region, is a personal dictatorship. Arafat started the fashion of simply disregarding the laws.
What is needed in Israel is a central policy unit with the brief of developing long-term policies both to integrate Israeli Christians and to engage with the great variety of Christians in foreign countries.
by Peter Huessy
The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler not only invents points the Cheneys did not make, he then casually dismisses "uncomfortable points" they did make. How many Pinocchios is that worth?
Kessler evidently assumes that when intelligence assessments differ, the correct version is only that which differs from the points made by the Cheneys but not by their critics.
Most senior Democratic members of the Senate at the time voted -- twice -- for giving the President the authority to take down Saddam Hussein. How else can Democrats say they made a mistake voting for the war if they cannot now make the case that they were "fooled"?
The U.S. took down Saddam Hussein's regime because on balance the threat-intelligence could not be ignored.