Hamas are a sectarian mafia. So is the sectarian March 14th coalition in Lebanon , which is ridiculously considered pro-US even they're a collection of ex-syrian puppets, warlords trying to preserve their obsolete political role after Syria left. So are the Iraqi mercenaries "fatah el islam"m which according to a palestinian friend of mine were name that way to distort the fatah movement of Palestine. The fact that these mercenaries are al-qaeda related, sunnite extremeist, hired by the March 14 coalition in Lebanon (the current majority in power) to provoke a civil war in 2007, which they failed at, is described in "the redirection" (Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, March 5, 2007). This attempt at a civil war failed thanks to the campaign for secularism in politics and the end of religious segregation, by the Free Patriotic Movement in Lebanon. This movement campaigns for non-violence, an idea that they got even hezbollah to sign on, which prevented a civil war in 2007 when foreign mercenaries provoked that party through armed assaults. The sectarian agitators are foreign-backed and they have one role, whether it's in Lebanon, palestine, or Iraq, they destabilize countries and sabotage the constructive work of nationalist movements like the Free patriotic Movement in Lebanon. Fabricated civil wars seem like the new way of unformally colonizing countries. This keeps countries unstable and easy to exploit. In the case of Lebanon, exploitation means getting the corrupt Lebanese government to naturalize 400,000 palestinian refugees, even if this is economically suicidal to Lebanon. Much like decolonization movements 75 years ago, movements like the free patriotic movement in lebanon get vilified by the media. the reasons is that this movement denounces the exploitation of the Lebanese territory as well as fabricated sectarianism, and mentored ex-sectarian mafias to evolve and join the idea of modern citizenry and the democratic process. Part of this vilification is calling the movement that opposed sectarianism in lebanon (i.e. religious segregation), "pro-hezbollah".

Cayambe,

I think you raise two important issues that are worth addressing. First, that of Hamas' representativeness. A democratic victory, while important, does not necessarily legitimize a groups political ends. Hamas did indeed win a majority of Palestinian votes, but that never meant, even according to the Palestinian system, and I daresay what we hear about Palestinian public opinion, a legitimization of the group’s objective of perpetual armed struggle until Palestine is regained.

Also, it is up to the Palestinian Authority to define issues of peace, and the PA is led by Mahmoud Abbas. The PLO, not Hamas, is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians, and while Hamas would indeed like to control its decision-making, in its most benign form this reality means that Hamas, Fatah and the other Palestinian groups, most with different aims than Hamas, define the ultimate issue of peace and war with Israel, not Hamas alone on the basis of its election majority.

Second, and to clarify: I’m not saying don’t talk to Hamas as a matter of principle. I’m saying that unless there are agreed issues to talk about, talking becomes an empty gesture that may lead to a worse outcome than we have now. If Israel wants to talk peace, then Hamas will not want to talk peace, now or ever. If Israel wants to talk long-term truce, and in the process undermine all previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements, then by all means let both sides talk, but that will not advance the “peace process”, which is what everyone who recommends talking to Hamas is really after.

The notion that “one talks to ones enemies” is insufficient. Of course one talks to one’s enemies if both sides seek similar outcomes and feel they can arrive at an agreement. Talking is, in a way, bargaining. But talking on the basis of completely different objectives is to transform talking itself into a political end, and in this case it would only undermine Abbas and Fatah, give Iran and Syria a central role in the Palestinian conflict, and allow Hamas to impose a strategy of marginalizing its Palestinian adversaries and arming for a protracted armed conflict that, the movement feels, it could win in collaboration with Islamist allies elsewhere.

Michael Young,
You question the utility, the benefit, the wisdom of taking notice of Hamas by engaging in negotiations, even were there a subject you deemed worthy of negotiation. This quite misses the point, the reason for such a negotiation.

First, it is worth it to note that Hamas won the election fair and square. In other words, this is the group freely elected by Palestinians to govern and represent them. It has always disturbed me when we are unwilling to accept a democratic outcome just because we don't like it. One compelling reason for negotiating with Hamas is because they are the legitimate representative of the Palestinians. Incidentally, this does represent a perfectly rational choice. There is no question that Hamas has been both far more competent and far less corrupt in its administration of government than Fatah has been.

Second, Israel needs a true partner to negotiate with. That is not the same as an easy or compliant partner, but one who assiduously pursues its people's interests, and is capable of delivering on results. We know Fatah cannot deliver security, don't we? We know that Hamas can and has, don't we? Fatah may be a whole lot easier to lead by the nose, but that really does Israel no good at all. Legitimacy is just that, essential to the stickiness of any agreement, and not so difficult to recognize. It is not something you can spin.

But yes, it is too late for this go around. We were stupid, Israel was stupid, we persuaded too many others to be as stupid. Who knows, maybe Israel will let Barghouti out of jail next time so Hamas actually has some competition among the Palestinians.

The Mecca Accord does not mention recognition of Israel, despite what one of the commentators here claims. As for Hamas' accepting a ceasefire, and the comment thrown in quoting Avnery along these lines, no one denies this. Hamas' strategy is predicated on imposing a mutual ceasefire with Israel, which would allow the movement time to rearm, overcome its Palestinian rivals, and train for a successful armed struggle. A truce is actually an essential part of the Hamas strategy. Oddly enough, a long-term truce is also what the former Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, proposed to the Palestinians.

Will Oy petition his AIPAC to put the squeeze on the American Taxpayer's congress for over 50 years and come up with $150 billion for 50 years and 2 or 3 billion a year to give to the Palestinians like it its being given to Israel?

Its typical to talk about how industrious and hard working the Isrealis are who number about 5/6 million while the whole continent of Africa , thats the WHOLE continent of Africa receives less than half a billion dollars and then turn around and claim that people in Africa are starving.

Any time one or a group of individuals are treated better than others resentments and antagonism occur. American jews should know and understand that issue as well as the black population of the USA since not too long ago both were denied equal participation in the "white" America'a world from school, colleges, clubs, etc,.

Simple, get all the Arab/Muslims and other hate mongers to try building something positive instead of spewing hate. As more articles are finally showing, using Nazi like brain-washing, fakes like the Protocols, television shows glorifying maryters, etc, etc, etc, and they'll raise another generation to hate.

Israel leaves Gaza, two choices. Start building a state, create the infra-structure of a state, use the resources left behind to create more jobs, for more farming, etc. Or use the resources to build rockets to send into Israel, wreck the resources left behind, and then seek pity against the absent "occupiers".
We know which course was taken, and as long as that mind-set exists, there can be no peace and no change.

Overall a foolish and inaccurate comment. Hammas has observed unilateral cease-fires with Israel, and has accepted the Mecca proposal that includes recognition of Israel.

jzede: The Irgun were shunned and marginalised not made into national heroes? Surely you jest. As I recall a couple of them became Prime Ministers! That is a very odd way to shun and marginalize.

Great article Mr. Young. Thanks for writing it.

The Irgun were shunned and marginalised not made into national heroes. If only the Palestinians had such courage and morals.

Where was Mr Ted Baines when the Irgun Zvai Lumi and Stern Gangs admittedly "terrorising" the native Palestinian Arab population in 1948. One of the leaders of such gangs in time became Prime Minister of Israel.

The one point that seems to evade those sitting behind mahogany desks in air conditioned offices is that nomatter what one calls or thinks of the Palestinians THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS WHETHER ONE LIKES IT OR NOT. THEY HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT AS THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES ISRAELIS, HINDUS, BULGARIANS, POLES OR WHAT EVER. TO THEIR OWN PLOT OF LAND.

As far as Mr. Young's commentary he writes as an "anglophile" telling the native population what to do and the population he mixes in in Lebanon in all probability use the dual languages of french and arabic to express their disdain for those who only speak arabic.

Anyone seriously wanting to resolve in a peaceful manner the issues in that part of the world must talk with everyone on an equal and a respectful manner. If Beguin can become Prime Minister so can the head of Hamas.

The days when the likes of a Baines or a Young dictating how they are superior and know the best way to deal with the natives are gone for ever.

The West must always engage terrorist organizations and countries like Hamas, Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in a dialog. What must differentiate this dialog from one with non-terrorists is that terrorists must be told" Your time is up. The only choice for you is death. Sooner or later we will kill you."

Having a dialog does not imply that we must offer them eternal and loving friendship.

Many Muslims, with the silent and not-so-silent support of the majority of Muslims, want to kill us. We have no choice but to be proactive and wipe out Hamas, Al Qaeda, the mullahs of Iran etc and some of those that support these terrorists.

If Muslims have no reticence about converting us to Islam why should we not make it our prime target to make Mecca the second most holy city of Christiandom.

Hi World Guardian (previous commentator)

I think some clarification are due following your quotations.

First Uri Avneri is a political figure with a very clear agenda (extreme left). that by itself does not indicate that what he is claiming is not true, but that he has an agenda that he is trying to promote, thus the comment on Hammas offer and Israel military response are more personal interpretation rather then collection of facts.

The facts are:

Hammas offered a cease fire. in response to questions on the cease fire nature a few clarifications were made by the local leadership and the leadership sitting in Syria:
* Hammas will not initiate violence against civilians
* Hammas is promising long term cease fire, but maintain is target to work for the elimination of Israel, and may opt out from the long term cease fire if found fit.
*Hammas is not responsible in any way to other Palestinians organizations that will not see them self obligated to the cease fire and will not act to stop them.

These are the clarifications provided by the hammas leaders to Arab news media.

lets value them for what they say and do. not what someone wish they were doing.

Michael Young is one of the Middle East's most insightful and astute commentators today. From his desk in Beirut he has observed the Syrian, Iranian and Hizbullah attempts to strangle democratic yearnings in Lebanon. Heed his words on Hamas. He knows of what he writes.

More from Avnery:

THE ISRAELI strategic aim in Gaza is not to put an end to the Qassams. It would still be the same if not a single Qassam fell on Israel.

The real aim is to break the Palestinians, which means breaking Hamas.

The method is simple, even primitive: to tighten the blockade on land, on sea and in the air, until the situation in the Strip becomes absolutely intolerable.

The total stoppage of supplies, except the very minimum necessary to prevent starvation, has reduced life to an inhuman level. There are effectively no imports or exports, economic life has ground to a standstill, the cost of living has risen sky-high. The supply of fuel has already been reduced by half, and is planned to sink even lower. The water supply can be cut at will.

The Israeli army conducts daily incursions, employing tanks and armored bulldozers, in order to nibble at the margins of the inhabited areas and draw the Palestinian fighters into a face to face confrontation. Every day, from five to ten Palestinian fighters are being killed, together with some civilians. Every day, inhabitants are being abducted in order to extract information from them. The declared purpose is attrition, to harry and wear down, and perhaps also to prepare for the re-conquest of the Strip.

The [Israeli] army chiefs hope that by tightening all these screws they can push the local population to rise up against Hamas and the other fighting organizations. All Palestinian opposition to the occupation will collapse. The entire Palestinian people will raise their hands in surrender and submit to the mercies of the occupation, which will be able to do as it pleases - expropriate lands, enlarge settlements, set up walls and roadblocks, slice up the West Bank into a series of semi-autonomous enclaves.

In this Israeli plan, the job reserved for the Palestinian Authority is to act as subcontractors for Israeli security, in return for a stream of money that will safeguard its control of the enclaves.

At the end of this phase of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Palestinian people are supposed to be cut to pieces and helpless in face of the Israeli expansion. The historic clash between the unstoppable force (the Zionist enterprise) and the immovable object (the Palestinian population) will end with the crushing of Palestinian opposition.

IN ORDER to succeed in this, a sophisticated diplomatic game must be played. Under no circumstances may the support of the international community be lost. On the contrary, the entire world, led by the US and EU, must support Israel and look upon its actions as a just struggle against Palestinian terrorism, itself an integral part of "international terrorism".

-- CAN ONE REALLY EXPECT HAMAS TO RECOGNIZE THE PERPATRATOTS OF THESE ACTS as if they REPRESENTED AN "INTERNATIONALLY LEGITAMATE REGIME"?

This is what the Israeli Writer Uri Avnery wrote on 22 DEC 2007:

Help! A Cease Fire!

FORGET THE Qassams. Forget the mortar shells. They are nothing compared with what Hamas launched at us this week:

The chief of the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Haniyeh, has approached an Israeli newspaper and proposed a cease-fire. No more Qassams, no more mortars, no suicide bombings, no Israeli military incursions into the Strip, no "targeted liquidations" of leaders. A total cease-fire. And not only in the Gaza Strip, but in the West Bank, too.

The military leadership exploded in anger. Who does he think he is, that bastard? That he can stop us with such dirty tricks?

THIS IS the second time within a few days that an attempt has been made to thwart our war plans."

Does Michael Young read Avnery. Perhaps he should, to balance his bias.

The next to last sentence says it all from a Palestinian perspective. Israel has given the Palestinians who are willing to negotiate, nothing. So, why is it implausible from the Palestinian perspective to seek engagement with Hamas? In fact without talking to Hamas, we are giving it more clout in the territories than it would ever have if we were to acknowledge its position. Furthermore, we are a nation that talks about the spread of democracy in the Middle East. Yet, we do not recognize a democratically elected government formed by Hamas and have undercut any attempts by Fatah and Hamas to unite. Our allies in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan have been limited in their attempts to reconcile the internal Palestinian political problems because of our influence.

This is the old stiff upper lip...divide and rule.

Mr.Young is entitled to his opinion. And those who VOTED for HAMAS made their choice known legally and democratically.

By chossing to side and support Israel to the tune of $150 billion for over 50 years that too was a choice. If the Lebanese had any backbone they would on a yearly basis demand from the UN Security Council that the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon be rapatriated to their homes and properties.asap

The Lebamese governments have also made their choices. The presumtpion in that part of the world that the main decisions are still made in London, Paris, and Washington may be true for a few die hard anglo-philes but the realities are that the main populace is sick and tired of the puppets that presume to speak and represent them.

While the Rabbis in Israel can thank Bush for invading Iraq and demanding that he nuke Tehran just to make them safer the tendencies in the region given the changing power balances not to mention the exhorbitant costs to the American taxpayer to make a few special people in the ME happy cannot last forever.

Talking is definitely much cheaper than war and it is the first step in acknowledging the equality betwen the two sides. And what better way to begin the first steps to stop the hatred and the killings.

Mr. Young writes as if Britannia still rules the waves.

Sometimes, Sami, the news-analysis articles of yours, especially those reproduced in AsiaTimes, are so incisive, I feel compelled to applaus your understanding of West At other times, such as this one, your reasoning becomes so impaired by an excess of skepticism it borders on cynicism, that I ask myself: "Waht kind of nut is this guy?"

You write ".... Is that dependency where everyone wants to push the Palestinians?

Also, what do those engaging Hamas get in exchange for doing so? After all, Hamas would be rewarded by recognition; but what would it be willing to give up?"

Sami, everyone who is level-headed, at a personal level, or in terms of community involvement, or in terms of national security or geostrategic interest, wants a safe immediate neighbourhood. If you care geting along with the guy sitting next to you, even if you are bigger and older and richer, that does not necessarily mean you want to force him into dependency. There always are mutual benefits to be gained. When I engaged in On Faith blog discussions with extremist Islamophobes, the threat more than once came up about America bombing Mecca and Medina. That will never happen. Why? Because even very hard-nosed Game Theoretic analyses offer proof that, even in the direst of circumstances, the most mean-spirited hawk will refrain from annihilating his opponent because that means giving up forever the possibility of future mutually-beneficial exchange.

The issue of not recognising Israel's right to exist, whther coming fromn Iran or from Hamas, is only a bargaining position with not an iota of credibility more than the threat to bomb Mecca and Medina.

Next, you ask: ".. what do those engaging Hamas get in exchange for doing so?" They get the collaboration of the majority of the Palestinians. It was Hamas that won the 2006 elections, not Fatah. Haniyeh is willing to consider reconciliation in accordance with a well-defined process that safeguards the will of the majority that voted for Hamas in Janury 2006 and also recognises Abbas as the de facto President of the PA, the rest, including handing-over of Gaza to a unified authority and the modalities of mutual recognition (of Israel and Hamas as a legitimate, non-terrorist organisation representing of the Palestinians as a faction of a Governmen in exile) being subject to negotiation once these confidence-building principles are agreed.

What does Hamas give up? What do Iran and Syria get and what do they give up? What Hamas gives up is the right to stimulate Palestinians' feelings of frustration at the monstrous treatment dealt them by the Israelis. What does it bring to the table? A dynamic for regional stability and security that, without the synerts pacification efforts among the Palestinians, would never materialise. Ditto, mutatis mutandis, for what Iran and Syria would give up, would bring to the table, and would get in return.

I don't know if you were just trying to be the devil's advocate, but, if you were, here is my answer to the devil.

I agree with the above comment on the importance of talks to recognition. I'll take it one further: I disagree with Young's assertion that the US won't want to discuss peace in Israel with Syria and Iran at the table. While that may be strategically undesirable for the US to do, let's not forget that those countries have the same right to be party to those discussions as the US does. If we are going to say, Iran or Syria or some other country doesn't have the right to be at that table, what argument can you use to justify American presence? The US is CLEARLY on Israel's side, and isclearly the most powerful player at that table. Why not have the Palestinian interest represented? I don't think we are going to see closure to this issue until the countries that have an interest are either all invited to the table, or none of them are.

Very good article and it came from Lebanon. By the way Lebanon does not recognise Israel or has it made peace with her. Why not ??? If Jordan the PLO and Egypt did. You also unfortunately say Israel has not given any encouragement- well Israel gave the Palestinians recognition- she did not have too. She also offers a state - she did not have too. Just that this state is not ALL the Palestinians want to they see a glass half empty instead of half full. In this case 95% empty instead of 95% full.

What a foolish comment, albeit a very old and rusty British way of turning up one's nose. No wonder your lot lost all colonies, one after another.....

Talks are about understanding the other side of the table, both ways, save for some sort of advance mind reading or a crystal ball exercise.
You want to set Bushie preconditions of first recognise your adversary and capitulate, then talk (which means essentially, lose then play the game).

You fail to understand that when two sides sit at a table to talk, they are in fact recognising the other side as a party to an eventual deal. How can you have a deal before negotiation?