Print This Post
Jan
12
Not sure what a proxy is? What a puppet looks like? Then read this, from the Jerusalem Post:
[An Egyptian government] official told The Jerusalem Post by phone that two senior Iranian officials who visited Damascus recently warned Hamas leaders against accepting the [Egyptian cease fire] proposal.
His remarks came as Hamas representatives met in Cairo with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Gen. Omar Suleiman and his aides to discuss ways of ending the fighting in the Gaza Strip.
The spokesmen said Hamas voiced its strong opposition to the idea of deploying an international force inside the Gaza Strip.
…
The Egyptian official said that the two Iranian emissaries, Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, and Said Jalili of the Iranian Intelligence Service, met in the Syrian capital with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal and Islamic Jihad Secretary-General Ramadan Shallah.
“As soon as the Iranians heard about the Egyptian cease-fire initiative, they dispatched the two officials to Damascus on an urgent mission to warn the Palestinians against accepting it,” the Egyptian government official told the Post.“The Iranians threatened to stop weapons supplies and funding to the Palestinian factions if they agreed to a cease-fire with Israel. The Iranians want to fight Israel and the US indirectly. They are doing this through Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon”.
…
[Egyptian political analyst Magdi Khalil] said that Hamas was not only jeopardizing Egypt’s national security, but had also destroyed the Palestinians’ dream of statehood. “By endorsing the Iranian agenda, Hamas has brought the Iranians to Egypt’s eastern border,” he said. “Hamas has also copied Hizbullah’s policy of entering into pointless adventures”. [emphasis added]
Now, you can argue all you want about Egypt’s role, but their population, albeit poor and concentrated in dense living areas, isn’t falling apart or at war anywhere near the extent to which the population under Hamas’ rule is. And, despite the anger that exists against Egypt for a perceived failure to assist or accommodate Palestinians, Egypt seeks to honor the word and spirit of the Camp David accords and Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.
This New York Times op-ed, published today, explains more about the tension between the Arab nations, directed by Iran and aimed primarily at Egypt and Jordan.
On Egypt:
In Egypt, where leaders have been castigated for refusing to keep open the Rafah crossing to Gaza, officials have argued that they are bound by the agreement on border security that followed Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. But there is an underlying subtext to their message: that Gaza is not Egypt’s problem.
“Gaza is no longer Egypt’s responsibility, and Egypt is determined not to take it back,” said Abdel Raoud el-Reedy, a former ambassador to the United States who is the chairman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
Egypt controlled Gaza, a 140-square-mile coastal strip, until the 1967 war with Israel. Now, Egypt is trying to negotiate a cease-fire there, because resolving the conflict is very much in its interests. Representatives of Hamas were in Cairo on Sunday and representatives from Israel were expected to arrive Monday, officials said.
Hamas wants the border open, but Egypt has refused, except for humanitarian passage for the injured coming out and medicine going in. Israel wants an international force on the Egyptian side of the border, to prevent smuggling through illegal tunnels, but Egypt has refused, saying that would undermine its sovereignty.
Rather than saying explicitly that Egypt does not want responsibility for Gaza, the authorities have stressed that Israel should be held accountable, while reaffirming their support for a two-state solution.
Why Palestinian leadership doesn’t do more to guilt Egypt about its failures in Gaza during its occupation there, I still can’t answer – every time I ask, I get the same response: well, Israel has been the occupier for 60 years. Which is just another way to refuse to blame Egypt or other Arab nations for their failures to the Palestinians.
Speaking of which, the NYT piece on Jordan’s current position:
Jordanians, too, are anxious. “It is a real concern in Jordan,” said Adnan Abu Odeh, who was an adviser to King Hussein.
While the prospect of having to absorb the West Bank may be remote, Jordan does not want to have to do so, fearing it would destroy the fabric of society in the country, where about half the population is of Palestinian origin.
“This kind of formula means a Palestinian loss of their land and a Jordanian loss of their identity,” Mr. Odeh said. [emphasis added]
Hmm, why do you suppose the Jordanians fear that the fabric of their society would be destroyed if they absorbed Palestinians, when 50% of their country already is Palestinian? Explain that (or take the easy way out and just reiterate that thing about Israel and occupation).
So, why am I bothering to blog about these points now, especially since I almost never write about or go in for the “fear Iran” stuff?
Because the choices being made by Hamas – and they are choices, by the leadership and political party that was elected – indicate not only that Hamas does not have peace on its mind for themselves or for those who elected them (which is something some people argue is implicit in a Palestinian’s vote for Hamas), but that Hamas lacks leadership and will continue to prioritize Iran’s best interests over and above the Palestinian people’s best interests (which is not something implicit in a vote for Hamas).
There are not many simple things in the Middle East, but here, the simple fact is that anyone who is arguing on behalf of stopping the violence in Gaza must, because of these failures by Hamas, condemn their control because it is these failures that continue to inflict suffering on the residents of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas has no clothes and all that’s left to see is the sniping between the Arab nations and a glaring spotlight – no matter how hard some try to turn away – on the split within the Arab world and its failure to fellow Arabs.
For people thinking and approving the belief that a vote for Hamas was an implicit vote for resistance, whatever Hamas decides constitutes resistance, you got what you asked for – you cannot be heard to publicly condemn violence that’s now occurring. There’s just no logic in that.
[NB: I'm not for war and I don't buy the 60 years of occupation argument lock, stock and barrel (though I do buy some of it). However, I can understand how Palestinians might want that continued fight for resistance - even though we're told so often that all they want is peace (and that's certainly been my first-hand experience).]
Finally, if you’re going to show any sincerity in analyzing what a solution to the current conflict can, should and will look like, there is no excuse for ignoring or pushing aside Hamas because, for better or worse, it is in fact charged with making decisions for the residents of Gaza – all of them. (It is the paucity of discussion on this topic, particularly on the Internet and social media networks that have garnered a lot of attention for their PR potential but have largely failed to embrace an actual dialogue around resolution, that I find to be the greatest failure by people who populate those places of discourse and claim that they want an end to violence.)
This responsibility for failing the Palestinians connects directly to Iran. From the NYT oped:
The Palestinian cause has always been an explosive, emotional and destabilizing one for Arab states. Islamist parties have scored points with the public by making much of traditional Arab leaders’ failure to help the Palestinians. The Gaza conflict, by reigniting these passions, is deepening regional rivalries and further upending traditional balances of power.
Egypt and to some extent Jordan have been thrown off balance by the withering criticism they have faced. Arrayed against them is the alliance of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, the quartet that is fighting against a diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — and with that, against the two-state solution.
The Palestinians – particularly those in Gaza – have abdicated control and power over their lives to Hamas, Iran and Syria – while Egypt and Jordan continue, despite all the pressure, to honor the Camp David accords. From the NYT op-ed:
Mohamed Bassiouny, a former Egyptian ambassador to Israel who is now a member of Parliament, was nearly shouting Sunday as he tried to champion Egypt’s cause.
“The problem is there is a conflict of wills between two groups,” he said. “One group headed by Egypt, this group is pushing for peace and tranquillity and stability, and there is another group headed by Iran pushing for escalating the situation and stopping all kinds of efforts for tranquillity.”
Egypt has struggled to assert its role as the traditional diplomatic center of the Arab world, with some self-promotional fanfare and little results. It engaged the formal international system of diplomacy to resurrect the peace process.
But its opponents have refused to grant political legitimacy to a process they see as biased against them.
Egypt has been fading as a center of regional influence for years, weighed down by poverty, enormous population growth and political stagnation. Even though the mood on the street has changed, its leaders have held tight to the notion that abiding by the 1978 Camp David accord to normalize relations with Israel and pursuing a two-state solution were in Egypt’s best interests.
The fighting in Gaza exposed the fragility of that approach, and the frantic tone of the Sunday afternoon news conference suggested that the government had not yet figured out how to respond.
The elected – democratically elected – leaders of Egypt, speak in terms of and act in accordance with their beliefs about what is best for Egypt. Unless the people who elected Hamas actually desire to be annihilated in the name of resistance to their perceived ideas of occupation by Israel (and not Egypt or any other occupier prior to 1948) and the creation of a single Muslim, I have a hard time believing that what Hamas, Iran and Syria want for Gaza is what Gazans want for Gaza.
You tell me who among the players is showing real leadership in the name of life and peace.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:18 am January 12th, 2009 in Politics
Comments
2 Responses to “Hamas: A fatal failure in leadership and a prize-winning puppet”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
Jill,
I can’t tell whether Egypt’s position is principled or cowardly. They seem to be attempting to take a principled stand against more radical elements while likewise adopting a “Sergeant Schultz” approach to the Gaza Strip, neither taking responsibility nor wanting to really know what is going on along the border.
I am attempting to understand of what is going on over there through the filter of the media bias, but have to admit to some confusion where Egypt is concerned.
I am a bit confused on Egypt’s position. It’s difficult to say if they are pro or con, within all of the muddle and mayhem.