For the full article read http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/315204/
Hamas on opposing agreements, negotiations, or recognition of Israel
Anyone who believes that Hamas’
current fundamental beliefs are flexible enough to recognize Israel or that the
organization will ultimately give up arms as a long-term political concession
is simply naïve. As it has in the past, Hamas may accept a tahdi’a or calming down of
tensions, or even a temporary truce or hudna,
but for it to accept Israel as a reality is totally contrary to its ideological
outlook. Discussions about cease-fires and who broke any number of them
masks Hamas’s stated intentions. “Removing occupation” for Hamas
currently means Israel’s destruction, not merely withdrawal from Gaza or the
West Bank or Jerusalem.
Since its inception in 1988, Hamas
has been crystal clear about its opposition to Zionism and Israel. It opposes
any kind of negotiations or agreements that recognize Israel’s reality. Hamas seeks support
from virtually any external source that will provide it arms, training, and
funding. The first of these collection of comments, like subsequent ones is
remarkable for the consistency in views expressed by Hamas leaders who
remain true to the contents stipulated in Hamas’s August 1988 Charter. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/Hamas.asp
Hamas on opposing agreements,
negotiations, or recognition of Israel –
October 1992: “…I agree with you that there is a dangerous plot under way that
threatens the entire region; that is, the plot to have the Arab, Islamic fold
accept the Zionists. If, God forbid, this materializes and Arab-Israeli
relations improve, as we mentioned earlier, it would engulf all aspects
including the political, cultural and social spheres. In this way Israel
would be able to attain its strategic objectives of a Greater Israel without
fighting.
True peace can only be attained by returning the
Palestinians to their homeland and returning the Zionist aggressors to the
countries from where they have come.” Ibrahim Ghawshah, Head of Hamas in Gaza, Keyhan (Tehran), October 31,
1992.
March 1994: “Hamas believes that the new situation will be more dangerous for
the Palestinians than the occupation, but through justification of the
occupation through these Agreements this will create many problems for the
Palestinians. What will become of the millions of Palestinians abroad and of
the hundreds of thousands of deportees? What will become of our rights over
Palestine? Arafat and his colleagues must answer all these questions. Hamas
will continue to resist the Israelis’ presence by all means.
This is no peace process. It is an
agreement between the PLO and Israel. The occupation will be more legal from
the international viewpoint. Israel will be the dominant force and the center
of authority in Tel Aviv, and will give us Palestinians the right to self-control.
That is what autonomy means; the same as the Kurds in Iraq. The central
government – the master of the land – will give self-determination to a
minority national group. With the signing of this Agreement, Arafat is saying
that Israel is the master of all Palestine and that it is giving us the
opportunity to set up an autonomous entity. This is the most dangerous point in
the Agreement signed in the so-called peace talks.” Mahmud al-Zahhar, Hamas
Gaza leader, La Vanguardia
(Barcelona), March 6, 1994.
September 1994: “Arafat cannot let the ill-fated Oslo Agreement’s anniversary
pass without furnishing fresh evidence of his breaking ranks with our
Palestinian people to join our criminal Zionist enemy’s camp at the expense of
their rights and aspirations. On the first annual anniversary of the demeaning
13 September 1993 Oslo Accord, the second signing marks a new link in the chain
of concessions and capitulation that builds on the giveaways yielded to the
enemy in Oslo, Washington, Paris, and Cairo. Our guileful enemy…persists in
humiliating the flimsy Arafat authority and robbing it of the basic trappings
of sovereignty so Arafat and his authority may remain a cheap tool to advance
the Zionist objective of controlling the Arab region.
Hamas condemns the signing of the
Oslo Declaration and reiterates its rejection of all the homeland-selling
agreements signed with the occupying enemy. None of these agreements has any
binding force on our Palestinian people or represents them in any way.” Hamas
publication, al-Majd
(Amman), September 19, 1994.
April 1995: “Arafat now stands at a historic, national, and religious turning
point. He either continues to carry out the instructions and dictates of the
Zionists – represented by Rabin, Peres, and Christopher – or returns to the
moment of truth, sides with his own people, and frees himself from these
pressures. Hamas does not seek authority
and does not want a piece of the pie or any position. It wants to continue its
historic jihad by keeping the torch of jihad and intifadah lit continuously.
Hence, wise men and honest people are called on to intervene immediately to
convince the Palestinian Authority to clear the road for those mujahidin to
continue their long march.” Ibrahim Ghawshah, text from Amman Al-Dustur in Arabic, April
11, 1995, p. 29; quoted in Daily
Report, FBIS-NESA, April 13, 1995, p. 4.
March 1996: “First, we are not concerned with the peace process. Hamas, the
opposition factions, and the majority of the Palestinian people oppose this
process in its current form. This process ignores all the sacrifices of the Palestinian
people, relinquishes all inalienable Palestinian rights for which we have long
struggled, and perpetuates the existence of the Zionist enemy on our land and
soil.
We are not dropping armed action from our options, but we were eager not
to shed Palestinian blood and not to fan the flames of a civil war among the
Palestinians in the self-rule areas.
Military and martyrdom action is a
natural thing in our strategy and plan to liberate our land. I repeat that the
peace process, the Israeli concept of it, does not concern us. The proposed
peace seeks to impose hegemony over a weak, surrendered party. Perhaps Hamas
would understand the peace process, but the current settlement conflicts with
the most basic idea of justice.” Mustafa al-Liddawi, Hamas representative in
Beirut, text from Beirut al-Nahar,
March 9, 1996, p. 7; quoted in Daily
Report, FBIS-NESA, March 13, 1996, pp. 23-24.
October 1996: “Our daily life is becoming increasingly worse. I have always
argued that our people gained nothing through the Oslo Agreements. Before, at
least our people were united, whereas now they have been divided between PLO
followers, those who believe in the Islamic movements and opposition, and a
third neutral group hoping to feather their nest with the illusion of peace.
The National Authority’s corruption undermines all economic and social plans.
Gaza is full of policemen and “mukhabarts” (secret agents). Everything is in [President]
Arafat’s hands.” Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahhar, Hamas leader, as quoted in
Barcelona La Vanguardia
in Spanish, October 10, 1996; quoted in Daily
Report, FBIS-NESA, October 10, 1996.
February 1999: “First, the
suspension of the Wye River Agreement was the result of Israeli differences
over the implementation of the Agreement. It has also been due to the expansion
of the circle of extremism inside the Zionist entity and facilitated the
rejection of an agreement such as the Wye River Agreement, which benefits, and
was essentially tailored in accordance with, Israeli interests. In spite of this
Zionist procrastination, the PA merely waits and watches and this certainly
confirms its incapacity and that it is captive and forcibly linked to the
internal Israeli political bandwagon and to US pressures. Third, regardless of
which political side wins in Israel – whether the Likud, Labor, or so-called
centrists – extremism would prevail.
Furthermore, the stands of the main
parties on the major final status issues such as Jerusalem, the settlements,
borders, refugees, and other difficult and complicated issues are similar to
great extent. Thus, we conclude that it would be a kind of delusion to pin any
optimism or hopes on the outcome of the Israeli elections. Instead of wasting
another year of fumbling and waiting, therefore, the PA should look for new
options, reconsider its rash positions on negotiations, and be biased in favor
of our people and their aspirations and options.”
April 2006: “Hamas has serious reservations about the [Arab] initiative since
it involves acceptance of two states, Palestine and Israel. Hamas rejects this
because it means recognition of Israel.” Hamas Political Bureau Head Mousa Abu
Marzouq, al-Ayyam,
September 18, 2006.
May 2008: “Now more than ever I tell you – we will never recognize Israel…
We will form the Palestinian state on all of Palestine’s territories and the
sun of liberty will burn the Zionists. To them I say – you will lose. You will
leave and we will keep hounding you. The blood of our slain sons will haunt you
forever.” Remarks by Mahmoud al-Zahhar Senior Hamas leader, May 14,
2008.
August 2010: “Independent decision-making is defended by the gun. It is formed
in the battlefield, and it reflects the will of the people. As for the
negotiations, they will make you subservient to the American decisions, and to
Israeli pressure and threats. …There is no legitimacy to Palestinian-Israeli
negotiations, whether direct or indirect. Those negotiations derive their
coerced legitimacy from the Americans and the Israeli pressure. As for the Arab
endorsement [of direct negotiations] it is worthless. The Arab endorsement does
not bestow legitimacy upon these negotiations, because this endorsement was
imposed upon the Arabs, but that does not stem from their free will.” Hamas
Leader Khaled Meshal, Al-Jazeera
TV, August 2, 2010; taken from MEMRI.
May 2014: “Hamas will never recognize Israel. This is a red line that
cannot be crossed. We would have spared ourselves seven years of misery under
the siege and two wars in 2008 and 2012 had we wanted to recognize Israel. …The
al-Qassam Brigades’ weaponry is of national importance to confront the
occupation. Hamas’ position in this regard is clear, and it will not allow any
tampering with the brigades’ armament, under any circumstances, because it is a
strategic asset for all Palestinians. In contrast, the Quartet negotiations
require that violence be renounced, which, in effect, means that the al-Qassam
weapons must be decommissioned. But this is unacceptable, and Hamas will reject
it outright.” Remarks by Mousa Abu Marzouq,Deputy Chairman of Hamas’ Political
Bureau, as posted by Adnan Abu Amer, May 5, 2014.
Note on sources: This collection of remarks made by Hamas officials, their
representatives, or spokesmen was taken from a variety of sources. Going back
to the 1990s, some of the material here was translated from various languages
by the US Department of Commerce’s Foreign Broadcast Information Service. Other
items were collected from authoritative Arab sources; others were read on the
internet. Obviously, this list of remarks is not exhaustive, but it is
representative. They are all indicative of the uncompromising beliefs and
fierce ideology held by Hamas adherents.
No comments:
Post a Comment