Why Isn't Kerry Listening to What the Radicals Are Saying?
Translations of this item:
Kerry needs to listen to what Hamas and other groups are saying in Arabic.
Hamas is not the only Palestinian party that would reject any U.S.-sponsored agreement. Most of the Palestinian groups...have already expressed their opposition to the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pursues his efforts to reach a peace agreement between the Palestinian Authority [PA] leadership and Israel, Hamas reaffirmed that it would not honor any deal that does not meet its goals.
The Hamas announcement serves as a reminder that any US-brokered deal between Israel and the PA will not mean the end of the conflict.
In fact, PA President Mahmoud Abbas is not in a position to sign any document that calls for an end to the conflict with Israel.
Abbas has no control over the Gaza Strip, which has been under the rule of Hamas since the summer of 2007. Any agreement he signs with Israel would only apply to those areas under the control of the PA, in the West Bank or territories handed over to him by Israel.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sits with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Amman, Jordan, on June 28, 2013. (Image source: U.S. State Department)
Hamas is not the only Palestinian party that would reject any U.S.-sponsored agreement. Most of the PLO groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, have already expressed their opposition to the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
This is in addition to other radical Palestinian groups that do not belong to the PLO, first and foremost Islamic Jihad.
"The Palestinians are not bound by any agreement that results from the current negotiations [between Israel and the PA] and which harm Palestinian rights," said Hamas's top leader in the Gaza Strip, Mahmoud Zahar. "The Palestinian negotiators have no legitimacy and are not authorized to speak on behalf of the Palestinians."
Zahar claimed that Abbas and his Fatah faction were negotiating with Israel only because of American pressure and to ensure continued Western funding for the Palestinian Authority.
Even senior Fatah officials seem to agree with Zahar's assessment. Over the past few months, some of these officials, such as Sufian Abu Zaida, Hussam Khader and Mohammed Dahlan, have not hesitated to come out in public against the peace talks and any future agreement with Israel.
Given Hamas' announcement that it would not honor or recognize any deal signed between the PA and Israel, Kerry needs to take into account that any peace agreement will not put an end to the conflict.
In the future, Hamas and the other rejectionist groups will say that Abbas did not have a mandate from his people to sign an agreement with Israel.
"The Palestinians have reached a level of awareness where they would not allow anyone to decide their fate," Zahar explained, referring to the ongoing negotiations between the PA and Israel. "The talks are continuing and if we don't do anything now, we could end up with an Oslo Two Accord."
Hamas and its Palestinian allies will in any case never accept Israel's right to exist. So even if Abbas today gets 100% of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem to establish a Palestinian state, Hamas, which represents a substantial part of the Palestinian population, will continue to fight to "liberate the rest of Palestine."
As Zahar stated, "Our battle is not outside Palestine. Rather, it is inside Palestine. Our program is to liberate Palestine."
Kerry needs to listen to these voices and take them into account as he continues to talk about a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not enough to listen to what Abbas and chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat are telling him in English. Kerry needs to listen to what Hamas and other groups are saying in Arabic.
Reader comments on this item
|Crystal Clear! [14 words]||Jan Karnis||Dec 11, 2013 14:09|
|Re: "Why isn't Kerry Listening..." [151 words]||Jen Schiller||Dec 10, 2013 11:45|
|Islamic Reformation [24 words]||Bob Smith||Dec 10, 2013 10:30|
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Louis René Beres
Jihadi violence serves not only to advance the terrorist's delusion of immortality, but also to add, however perversely, an apparent and desperately needed erotic satisfaction, using religion as the justification.
Persuasive promises of immortality -- the desperate hope to live forever -- underlie virtually all major religions.
Washington and Jerusalem should finally address what needs to be done in addition to military remediation -- reinforcing efforts to convince these terrorists that their expected martyrdom is ultimately just an elaborate fiction.
by Gill Gillespie and Shabnam Assadollahi
The aim of the current Iranian regime is clearly to acquire a nuclear weapons capability and to retain as much territory in Iraq as possible under Shia Islamist rule, whatever the human cost. Those aims are also the reason Iran's regime is now trying to intervene in Iraq.
Iran will doubtless be demanding that any cooperation with the West be compensated for by "concessions" permitting its nuclear weapons program.
Involving Iran in Iraq at this point will merely alienate any Sunni allies whose assistance is much needed to defeat IS.
Many people inside Iran have alerted the U.S. Administration for over two years about other industrial facilities being secretly built in Iran and not declared to the International Atomic Energy. So far, all intelligence from within Iran has been wilfully ignored by the Obama Administration.
by Burak Bekdil
The Turkish government "frankly worked" with the al-Nusrah Front, the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, along with other terrorist groups.
The Financial Task Force, an international body setting the standards for combating terrorist financing, ruled that Turkey should remain in its "gray list."
While NATO wishes to reinforce its outreach to democracies such as Australia and Japan, Turkey is trying to forge wider partnerships with the Arab world, Russia, China, Central Asia, China, Africa and -- and with a bunch of terrorist organizations, including Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Ahrar al-Sham and the al-Nusrah Front.
Being NATO's only Muslim member was fine. Being NATO's only Islamist member ideologically attached to the Muslim Brotherhood is quite another thing.
by Samuel Westrop
British politicians seem to be trapped in an endless debate over how to curb both violent and non-violent extremism within the Muslim community.
A truly useful measure might be to end the provision of state funding and legitimacy to terror-linked extremist charities.