Security and Recognition: Israeli Red Herrings

… Israel believes that Hamas' victory is dangerous, not so much because of the “violence issue” or non-recognition of Israel (which Israel utilises for propaganda purposes) but rather because with Hamas in government, Israel would not be able to force the PA into succumbing to Israeli blackmailing tactics.

… Israel wants a weak Palestinian partner that can be easily bullied into submission, a partner that would accept functional arrangements here and there, one that would more or less accept an enhanced and less harsh Israeli occupation, instead of genuine liberation from a nefarious and dehumanising colonialism, all in return for vague commitments to a Palestinian state without known borders and, indeed, without substance.

Hamas will not be that kind of partner and will insist on total and absolute Israeli withdrawal from the 1967 territories, including East Jerusalem. This is Israel's real concern, not Hamas’ armed resistance and refusal to recognise Israel.

This is why Israel will seek to use every possible red herring or distraction to evade the crux of the matter; namely the need to adopt a strategic decision to give up the stolen land and spoils of the 1967 War.

Khaled Amayeh, “The problem is Israel, not Hamas,” Al-Ahram, 2-8 February, 2006.

“We now say that if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, there could be peace and security in the region and agreements between the sides until the international community finds a way to solve everybody's problems.”

“Truce would be long-term but limited, because there's a Palestinian reality the international community must deal with. There are those kicked out of their land in 1948, the international community must find a solution for those people.”

Khaled Meshaal said on Wednesday.

“‘Long-term truce’ possible only if Israel retreats: Hamas leader,” AFP, 2/08/06.