The right to exist
NOTE ABOUT THIS POST: My pal Phan in Olympia, WA, in the U.S., has written a stunning analysis of Hamas’ position towards Israel, on the fly in an email to some folks on a list and it’s worth far more people seeing. I’ve combining his words (everything in this post that’s not in italics) with some images from Gaza that can be found at the Support Gaza application on Facebook.
I’ve seen some of these images around and they constitute hauntingly good photojournalism that seek to get as close as can be possible to capturing the scale and savagery of the devestation of Gaza. Phan’s text was in response to a discussion about dealing with agitated individuals harping on about the desire to wipe Gaza off the map.
“The whole ‘right to exist’ argument is a canard
to avoid bilateral negotiations.”
Phan writes:
It is ridiculous to continuously refer to the Hamas charter of 1988 in order to detemine Hamas’ stances in 2008.
In 1988, Israel did not accept a 2-state solution. In 1988, the US did not accept a 2-state solution. However, in 1988, the PLO was calling for a 2-state solution, but in 1988, the PLO was not considered a legitimate negotiating party. In 1988, there was no Oslo. In 1988, official IDF policy was to “break the bones” of Palestinian nonviolent demonstrators. In 1988, Israel was just beginning to learn that there really were Palestinians.
Since then, as it has become more apparent that Palestinians were willing to recognize Israel’s “right to exist” (whatever that means), the question has been modified from “Do you support Israel’s right to exist?” to “Do you support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state?” And if Palestinians concede to that (which will require accepting that Palestinians will always be second-class citizens in Israel, and there will be no acknowledgement of the Right to Return), then the question will probably change to something even more convoluted, like “Do you support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with a cherry on top?” Meanwhile, Israel will make no concessions, using the “right to exist” question as a requirement prior to any negotiations.
It is important to stress that the whole “right to exist” argument is a canard to avoid bilateral negotiations. Israel already exists, regardless of whether Hamas recognizes it. Hamas is incapable of destroying Israel. If you tally the number of rockets and mortar shells fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel, you will find that each rocket or mortar shell has a 0.2 to 0.3% chance of killing someone. At the rate in which Hamas and other militant groups been launching projectiles, it would take 1,925,000 years and 2,750,000,000 rockets and mortar shells to kill all the Jews in Israel. That’s assuming that Israel’s Jewish population doesn’t increase. And of course we would need to factor in the limited range of the projectiles, which would require Israel’s non-growing Jewish population to all congregate in the western Negev by the year 1927008 CE, give or take a few years.*
In other words, this “right to exist” argument is a distraction from a possible practical solution to the conflict. It’s Israel’s way of saying, “I won’t negotiate with you until you agree to all my terms.” If that’s the case, what is there to negotiate?
“Right to exist” is an abstraction. Israel doesn’t even accept Israel’s own right to exist, since it can’t make up its mind where its territorial borders are. Just take a look at the path of the West Bank wall—they must have taken a wrong turn in Albuquerque or something. And look at Israeli maps and Israeli textbooks.
Israel and the US never recognized Hamas’ win in the 2006 Palestinian democratic elections, and have since then sought to undermine Hamas’ role as a governing authority by arming and training Fatah to defeat Hamas, by imposing a siege on the 1.5 million people living in the Gaza Strip, and now by waging a one-sided war against Hamas along with destroying Gaza’s civil infrastructure and population.
If they really want to “moderate” Hamas, they should give Hamas reasons to moderate.
We should not accept the parameters of discourse established by our opponents (AIPAC talking points, for example). If we were speaking their language, we wouldn’t be talking about peace and justice but engaging in mind-numbing sophistry. Most “pro-Israel” arguments are non sequiturs, and they need to be acknowledged as such. We will not negotiate with Hamas until they recognize that Pepsi is the choice of a new generation.
Okay, all that aside, if you’re still looking for proof that Hamas’ positions are a lot more nuanced and a lot more flexible than how its opponents want to portray it, you can find some info here:
http://www.palestinejournal.net/gaza/Jennifer_Loewenstein_Hamas_Leadership_QUOTES.htm
http://www.palestinejournal.net/gaza/maria-jose-lera_hamas-quotes.htm
But you know, there will always be some smartass who, after you give them mountains of incontrovertible evidence, will act like they didn’t hear a thing you said, and then quip, “But what about the Hamas charter?” – as if that’s some sort of zinger.
* (Forgive my quick and sloppy math)
Thanks Phan! – d3
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear – one, of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of un-reason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men; Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were – for the moment – unpopular.”