Decision ‘08

An Existence Defined by Opposition

It seems to me rather obvious that if your entire existence is based on the principle of opposition, you give all the power to the entity you are opposing. That’s one lesson today’s Democratic party cannot seem to grasp. Nowhere is the principle more definitely expressed, though, than with the Palestinian obsession with Israel.

Indeed, it’s a not-so-secret dirty little secret that Arab nations will not allow the Palestinians any more comfort or aid than the bare minimum, because they desperately need opposition to Israel to hang onto power. Thus, we are treated to such exercises in absurdity as this self-negating interview with the prime minister of Hamas:

Do you accept the Oslo agreement signed by Yasser Arafat?

Israel has stopped completely committing itself to Oslo.

I am not asking about Israel. Are you, as the new Palestinian prime minister, committed to Oslo?

How do you want me not to pay attention or care about what Israel says? Oslo stated that a Palestinian state would be established by 1999. Where is this Palestinian state? Has Oslo given the right to Israel to reoccupy the West Bank, to build the wall and expand the settlements, and to Judaize Jerusalem and make it totally Jewish?

Has Israel been given the right to disrupt the work on the port and airport in Gaza? Has Oslo given them the right to besiege Gaza and to stop all tax refunds from the Palestinian Authority?

So you will not abide by past agreements made by the Palestinians and Israel?

I have not said that. I have said that Israel . . .

But you are not the prime minister of Israel. Will you abide by past agreements made by the Palestinian governments and Israel?

We will review all agreements and abide by those that are in the interest of the Palestinian people.

What agreements will you honor?

The ones that will guarantee the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital with 1967 borders — as well as agreements that would release prisoners.

Would Hamas recognize Israel if it were to withdraw to the ‘67 borders?

If Israel withdraws to the ‘67 borders, then we will establish a peace in stages.

What does that mean?

Number one: We will establish a situation of stability and calm which will bring safety for our people — what Sheikh [Ahmed] Yassin [a Hamas founder] called a long-term hudna .

Does a peace in stages means[sic] the ultimate obliteration of the Jewish people?

We do not have any feelings of animosity toward Jews. We do not wish to throw them into the sea. All we seek is to be given our land back, not to harm anybody.

Do you recognize Israel’s right to exist?

The answer is to let Israel say it will recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release the prisoners and recognize the rights of the refugees to return to Israel. Hamas will have a position if this occurs.

So will you extend the present ceasefire?

I will not say yes or no. The problem is with Israel. If Israel gives us a quiet period and stops its incursions and the assassinations, then we will be able to convince our people to continue with a state of quiet.

…Will you recognize Israel?

If Israel declares that it will give the Palestinian people a state and give them back all their rights, then we are ready to recognize them.

Israel does not have a charter calling for the destruction of the Palestinian state.

Our only position will be declared once Israel recognizes our right to exist.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accepted a two-state solution as did President Bush. What do you say about the two-state solution?

It all starts with Israel.

‘Israel’ occurs 40 times in the course of the interview…but more importantly, it almost always occurs as an entity of action: Israel must do this, Israel must do that. One can sense the reluctance of the prime minister to commit to any action (other than reaction) whatsover from the side of Hamas; the agent of change, in almost every instance, is Israel.

Prime Minister Sharon turns 78 today, in his coma; he was wise enough to see the future before his untimely illness. Israel must continue to unilaterally disengage, and secure its borders. The failure of the peace process does not lie with Israel or the Americans or even the Europeans; the peace process is dead because there is no good faith partner to negotiate with. The above interview excerpt shows the folly of attempting to deal with Hamas.

The best way to honor the memory of Sharon would be to complete what he started…

2 Responses to “An Existence Defined by Opposition”

1 Clint Says:
February 26th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Sometimes reality leaves the satirists with no room to embellish.
2 megapotamus Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
It is much easier to unite in opposition than in proposition. The Bush era Democrats know this well. But of course even when opposition succeeds and turfs out the Bad Guys, still we must have some propositions to proceed from That is where Kerry failed though not much of a rap on him for that. He had unified the anti-war vote but that was and is a gaggle of philosophically contradicting views that makes a menacing but unsteady monolith. Yes, Sharon was right. Let the Pals make their own way, if they can. Let the tickbird live without the hippo. They are now led by popularly elected leaders. There was always little doubt that Hamas spoke for the Pali polity. Now there is none. Clarity is always a good thing for the long term. It can pinch for a good while in the short, however.