We are pleased to present this illuminating analysis of Palestinian thinking about the Hamas. It represents an attempt by a moderate Palestinian to attempt to fit the Hamas victory into the rubric of dialogue and rapprochement, leading to the two-state solution that we think is the only hope for both Palestinians and Israelis. The problem with all such approaches is that they are attempting to square the circle. It seems there is no path to peace with Hamas while Hamas leaders continue to assert that it will never make peace with Israel under any circumstances. Ahmed Yousef proposes a pause for peace in the New York Times, but Khaled Meshaal, Ismail Haniyeh and others continue to insist there can never be peace. We should not ignore harbingers of change, but we can't ignore what Hamas leaders say most consistently.

The only policy that offers hope of changing Hamas intransigence seems to be continuation of the international boycott. Unfortunately, the boycott as implemented is hurting the Palestinian people selectively, while Hamas itself finds ample sources of funds to purchase arms and maintain its "security" organizations. It may also be wishful thinking to hope that in present circumstances, the US will be willing to launch a new foreign policy initiative of the type that would be required, (see here ) or that Israeli public opinion would be amenable to such an approach following the failure of the Oslo peace process. It would be good indeed if both sides could agree to the Clinton proposals and the Arab peace initiative, as Walid Salem suggests, but if they did there would not be a problem. Indeed, Mr. Arafat and the PLO did not agree to the Clinton Proposals. Had he done so, there would have been a Palestinian state today. We cannot expect that Hamas will accept what the PLO rejected. The idea of using an international force is constructive. However, the test of this international force must be its ability to restore order in Gaza first, to stop the rocket attacks on Israel as well as the internecine violence, and to disarm the terrorist groups. If the force is a success in Gaza, then the same solution can be applied to the West Bank. The jury is still out on the UNIFIL force in Lebanon, but if the relative calm of Lebanon today could be imposed in Gaza, it would be a decided improvement over the current nightmare. It is very unlikely that the Hamas can or will stop terror attacks originating in Gaza, boycott or no no boycott, Hudna or no Hudna. Since the election of Hamas, an unprecedent barrage of rocket fire has fallen on Israel, and an Israeli soldier was kidnapped on Israeli soil. All this occurred while the famous Tahidiyeh (lull) was in force and Hamas keeps threatening to break the Tahediyeh. This is the Hamas response to Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. It doesn't require much imagination to predict the response of Hamas to withdrawal from the West Bank. -- A.I.

From the moment that Hamas took power in the Palestinian Authority, three strategic approaches have been used to analyse the impact of this success on the two-state solution and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. One approach believes that both sides entered a political impasse combined with a social and economic impasse in Palestinian society. The second approach states that Hamas' success will move the Palestinians from a strategy of impotence, which did not lead to the fulfilment of Palestinian’s rights, to a strategy of Jihad and resistance, thereby securing these rights. The third approach considers Hamas' success as an opportunity that includes a challenge to move towards peace and reconciliation between Israel and possibly the entire Islamic world. [more]

by Moderator @ 08:10 PM CST [Link]