This reminds me of something George Galloway said about Ahmedinejad, though it’s not an easy comparison. Ahmedinejad was not democratically elected, Hamas was, which means any effort in diplomacy has to begin with the assumption of their legitimacy as a voice for the Palestinians, even if we have to condemn their violent means. I’m not sure I would agree that Hamas is the solution or that a unity government is a bad thing. The division of the Palestinians has been a disaster. And terrorism has not helped the Palestinian people any more than rolling over and dying has helped them. Where I do agree with Galloway is that a two-state solution is no longer viable given all that they’ve lost in land and resources. The only way forward is a secular state of Israel for all people of all faiths and ethnicities.

Salman, I am reluctantly coming to the same conclusion re. a two-state solution.
***
Johnston,
The decision by one state to recognise another government is a completely unfettered political prerogative, and may ultimately be determined on ideological grounds. So, that they were democratically elected, doesn’t matter. In the diplomatic context, we can’t really gloss over the armed wing of Hamas: to confer legal personality on a political entity that engages in terrorism (in the international law sense rather than as a pejorative term), undermines the obligation of states to resist errant members of the international community through, at the very least, non-recognition of their legal status. This isn’t a new, or uniquely Western norm. So that problem is more damaging than maybe you want to accept.
****************************
I think, also, in comparing Hamas to Israel, you’re comparing apples to oranges. While there may be parallels of culpability, that’s technically (though not morally) irrelevant. Israel’s actions, however unacceptable, have the legal status of state activity. So to that extent, to say that if Israel is recognised, then so should Hamas be, doesn’t work. Obviously this is morally irrelevant, but politically and legally, it constrains what other states can do in response. It can’t be glossed over.
*********************************
Whose fault the lack of a peace deal is, is something historians can decide. Suffice it to say, again, we can’t ignore the issues that prevent meaningful negotiation. The Elephant in the Room remains the question of mutual recognition. Yet the paradox that this creates, is both sides mutually renouncing their title to what they both claim to be legitimately their’s. And yet no state has ever negtiated its territorial integrity before requiring recognition as a prerequisite. The practical reasons for that insistence are obvious: it gives both sides the guarantee of the legal personality and rights of a state, in dealing with the other. To me that’s a virtually intractable issue for both sides, and probably not just wilful intransigence. Thats aid, I’ve found Israel’s policy with the settlement issue to be deeply disappointing. The lack of initiative from successive Israel governments in the last ten or so has also been bewildering.
******************************
The conditions for a workable, independent Palestinian state are obvious — a territory, economic, military and political independence. But the creation of states is never taken on lightly, especially in such a fraught context. The spectre of unintended consequences must dominate considerations on whether to give a territory the legal personality of a state. So, yeah, Hamas’s conditions for peace are well and good, possibly justifiable; but they may not be practical in their totality.
*********************************
On Operation Cast Lead, I’ve always been uncomfortable with the comparison of fatalities. It’s morally irrelevant, and a somewhat repugnant way of fixing culpability. Yet Cast Lead brings to the fore, again, the circularity inherent here. Gaza’s not a state: a technical, but relevant point, because it makes it virtually impossible for the international community to accuse Israel of aggressive military conduct when Gaza is (whether we like it or not) still part of Israeli territory, and within its military jurisdiction, and when the argument of ‘self-defence’ is available to the Israeli government. I’m not taking an ideological stance or trying to justify Israel. But I wonder how far we can fairly blame the international community for ‘not doing more’ with these constraints.
*****************************
Eventually, they’ll have to engage officially with Hamas. But historically, that’s always required as a prelude, a gesture of renunciation of at least some of the claims of both parties. Hamas may well be the backbone of any Palestinian polity, but we’re just back to the problem we started with: Hamas may be Palestine, but Palestine as a state, does not exist. However compelling the moral arguments are, the cart remains in front of the horse.

Of course Israel should recongise the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinians – and that means recognising and negotiating with Hamas. But if,as you suggest hamas is Palestine – then the Palestinians are in even more shtukh.

Don’t forget the role that Israel played in supporting Sheikh Yassin, founder of Hamas, as a counterweight to the secular PLO. they didn’t realise then how successful that strategy would be in undermining the borader palestinian movement.

And while no doubt Hamas in not a monolithic movement, alongside its social role, religious fundamentalism is very much part of its make up.

When Israel has a political foe that sees the conflict in religious terms it can marginalise its own internal opposition. So if Hamas is the answer we may be asking the wrong question.

Progressives need to do everything they can to discourage further Palestinian division, and strengthen a renewed united Palestinian movement that can challenge the continued dispossession and oppression meted out by the Israeli state.

Tendai,

You say that “Israel’s actions, however unacceptable, have the legal status of state activity. So to that extent, to say that if Israel is recognised, then so should Hamas be, doesn’t work.”

Israel’s actions do indeed have the “legal status of state activity” for many things. But not in this instance. Its actions are illegal and thus the Israeli State’s activity is not legal.

“The decision by one state to recognise another government is a completely unfettered political prerogative, and may ultimately be determined on ideological grounds.” Again, this is true. However, you cannot expect to reach peace without recognising Hamas. This was the point.

“Whose fault the lack of a peace deal is, is something historians can decide.” Perhaps we could refer to Noam Chomsky, the world’s greatest intellectual, who has made it quite clear that any hindrance to the peace process is mostly Israel’s fault.

“The Elephant in the Room remains the question of mutual recognition. Yet the paradox that this creates, is both sides mutually renouncing their title to what they both claim to be legitimately their’s. And yet no state has ever negtiated its territorial integrity before requiring recognition as a prerequisite.” False. Hamas has said it will recognise Israel once Israel obides by the Security Council resolutions passed against it, such as UNSCR 242 (if you’re into legalities, these are laws which Israel is constantly breaking). The only thing Hamas won’t recognise is that Israel is a “Jewish State”. It is my belief that no one should in fact recognise it as such, given that what Israel means by this is that only Jews are welcome in it i.e., a racist state.

“I’ve found Israel’s policy with the settlement issue to be deeply disappointing.” Only “disappointing”?

“But the creation of states is never taken on lightly, especially in such a fraught context. The spectre of unintended consequences must dominate considerations on whether to give a territory the legal personality of a state.” They went ahead with Israel and look what happened.

On the casualties caused in Operation Cast Lead you’ve claimed that “it’s morally irrelevant”. I simply don’t follow this point.

“Gaza’s not a state: a technical, but relevant point, because it makes it virtually impossible for the international community to accuse Israel of aggressive military conduct when Gaza is (whether we like it or not) still part of Israeli territory, and within its military jurisdiction”. In which case, if Gaza is part of the Israeli state (which it both is and isn’t) then this is what people usually refer to as genocide. The idea that you could even claim that whether Gaza is a state or not (that this is an issue in reference to Operation Cast Lead) is frankly, disturbing.

As for your conclusion, that is precisely the problem.

Tim,
**
>>>Its actions are illegal and thus the Israeli State’s activity is not legal.<<>>“I’ve found Israel’s policy with the settlement issue to be deeply disappointing.” Only “disappointing”?<<>>“But the creation of states is never taken on lightly, especially in such a fraught context. The spectre of unintended consequences must dominate considerations on whether to give a territory the legal personality of a state.” They went ahead with Israel and look what happened.<<>>On the casualties caused in Operation Cast Lead you’ve claimed that “it’s morally irrelevant”. I simply don’t follow this point.<<>>“Gaza’s not a state: a technical, but relevant point, because it makes it virtually impossible for the international community to accuse Israel of aggressive military conduct when Gaza is (whether we like it or not) still part of Israeli territory, and within its military jurisdiction”. In which case, if Gaza is part of the Israeli state (which it both is and isn’t) then this is what people usually refer to as genocide. The idea that you could even claim that whether Gaza is a state or not (that this is an issue in reference to Operation Cast Lead) is frankly, disturbing.<<
Now I remember why I rarely bother disussing this. State the obstacles and the context, and you're a monster, or a 'Zionist'. Genocide is not a synonym for "mass casualties of the underdog", whatever 'people' say. War crimes on the other hand is a much more accurate description. But genocide doesn't properly describe the situation here, and you're using it emotively/rhetorically, which isn't a helpful way to discuss this. To take me to task for bringing Gaza's legal personality into the analysis, is something I take exception to. The reason I raised it was not to say "well Gaza isn't a state so Israel can do whatever they want". It was to isolate one of the grave difficulties in bringing Israel LEGALLY to account under international law. In raising that, the issue was to warn against expecting too much from that sphere, in terms of holding Israel to account.
**
As a studnt of law, I perhaps take it for granted that official actors are severely constrained by the stuff they sign up to. Whenever this point is made with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, people just think "yeah ok, whatever", then continue their rants and tirades. Worse, people think you're trying a moral/ideological justification, when laws tend to have little to do with moral justification. The politics are inherently ideological, which is fine, and to be expected. But in deciding what can be done immedately, I think one has to take more than ideology into account. The legal aspects are at least one way of carving away some of the ideological excesses in the expectations of both sides.

Well, put a comment in response, but it’s not showing up.

Tim,

>>>Its actions are illegal and thus the Israeli State’s activity is not legal.<<>>“I’ve found Israel’s policy with the settlement issue to be deeply disappointing.” Only “disappointing”?<<>>“But the creation of states is never taken on lightly, especially in such a fraught context. The spectre of unintended consequences must dominate considerations on whether to give a territory the legal personality of a state.” They went ahead with Israel and look what happened.<<>>On the casualties caused in Operation Cast Lead you’ve claimed that “it’s morally irrelevant”. I simply don’t follow this point.<<>>“Gaza’s not a state: a technical, but relevant point, because it makes it virtually impossible for the international community to accuse Israel of aggressive military conduct when Gaza is (whether we like it or not) still part of Israeli territory, and within its military jurisdiction”. In which case, if Gaza is part of the Israeli state (which it both is and isn’t) then this is what people usually refer to as genocide. The idea that you could even claim that whether Gaza is a state or not (that this is an issue in reference to Operation Cast Lead) is frankly, disturbing.<<
Now I remember why I rarely bother disussing this. State the obstacles and the context, and you're a monster, or a 'Zionist'. Genocide is not a synonym for "mass casualties of the underdog", whatever 'people' say. War crimes on the other hand is a much more accurate description. But genocide doesn't properly describe the situation here, and you're using it emotively/rhetorically, which isn't a helpful way to discuss this. To take me to task for bringing Gaza's legal personality into the analysis, is something I take exception to. The reason I raised it was not to say "well Gaza isn't a state so Israel can do whatever they want". It was to isolate one of the grave difficulties in bringing Israel LEGALLY to account under international law. In raising that, the issue was to warn against expecting too much from that sphere, in terms of holding Israel to account.
///
As a studnt of law, I perhaps take it for granted that official actors are severely constrained by the stuff they sign up to. Whenever this point is made with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, people just think "yeah ok, whatever", then continue their rants and tirades. Worse, people think you're trying a moral/ideological justification, when laws tend to have little to do with moral justification. The politics are inherently ideological, which is fine, and to be expected. But in deciding what can be done immedately, I think one has to take more than ideology into account. The legal aspects are at least one way of carving away some of the ideological excesses in the expectations of both sides.

If you click reply, that comment only gets sent to the person to whom it was in reply. It’s really very silly.

Tim,
**
>>>Its actions are illegal and thus the Israeli State’s activity is not legal.<<>>“I’ve found Israel’s policy with the settlement issue to be deeply disappointing.” Only “disappointing”?<<>>“But the creation of states is never taken on lightly, especially in such a fraught context. The spectre of unintended consequences must dominate considerations on whether to give a territory the legal personality of a state.” They went ahead with Israel and look what happened.<<>>On the casualties caused in Operation Cast Lead you’ve claimed that “it’s morally irrelevant”. I simply don’t follow this point.<<>>“Gaza’s not a state: a technical, but relevant point, because it makes it virtually impossible for the international community to accuse Israel of aggressive military conduct when Gaza is (whether we like it or not) still part of Israeli territory, and within its military jurisdiction”. In which case, if Gaza is part of the Israeli state (which it both is and isn’t) then this is what people usually refer to as genocide. The idea that you could even claim that whether Gaza is a state or not (that this is an issue in reference to Operation Cast Lead) is frankly, disturbing.<<
Now I remember why I rarely bother disussing this. State the obstacles and the context, and you're a monster, or a 'Zionist'. Genocide is not a synonym for "mass casualties of the underdog", whatever 'people' say. War crimes on the other hand is a much more accurate description. But genocide doesn't properly describe the situation here, and you're using it emotively/rhetorically, which isn't a helpful way to discuss this. To take me to task for bringing Gaza's legal personality into the analysis, is something I take exception to. The reason I raised it was not to say "well Gaza isn't a state so Israel can do whatever they want". It was to isolate one of the grave difficulties in bringing Israel LEGALLY to account under international law. In raising that, the issue was to warn against expecting too much from that sphere, in terms of holding Israel to account.
**
I'm not being wilfully legalistic, but we have to assess your charge of hypocrisy etc in context of how constrained official actors are by the stuff they sign up to. Whenever this point is made with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, people just think "yeah ok, whatever", then continue their rants and tirades. Worse, people think you're trying a moral/ideological justification, when laws tend to have little to do with moral justification. The politics are inherently ideological, which is fine, and to be expected. But in deciding what can be done immedately, I think one has to take more than ideology into account. The legal aspects are at least one way of carving away some of the ideological excesses in the expectations of both sides.

What an appallingly revisionist account of Hamas’s grasp for power in Gaza.

Yes, they were originally elected by an incredibly slim majority of about 2%.

Then subsequently they launched a coup d’etat in Gaza
against Fatah, killing its members and even throwing some of them off of buildings, handcuffed.

“The purpose of Hamas’ creation was and still is to help the Palestinian people”

Er, no, the purpose of Hamas is to “liberate Palestine“, according to their leaders and their charter, and it is unclear if their welfare services are restricted at all to members, supporters, etc

Hamas are not some cuddly band of hard-done-by National liberationist, they are a right-wing genocidal antisemitic group, who believes that the French Revolution, etc was the product of Jews manipulation of events and history.

The author would do well to read the Hamas Charter, along with the various interviews conducted of the higher up leadership, and stop pushing out this revisionist nonsense.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

More facts, less revisionism.

Modernity,

Well one thing that surprises me in these discussions, is that even though these documents are often publicly available, they’re treated as though they’re the work of a US conspiracy. My reply to Tim got lost in the post somehow, and I can’t seem to retrieve it, but I despair of the unhelpful way that the radical left tends to engage with this issue. Psychologists have a concept known as “splitting”, which refers to a type of thinking that sees objects as either wholly bad, or wholly good. It’s an attitude one sees time and again on this issue, and why I rarely bother discussing it except to challenge factual inaccuracies.
*
PS: Tim, resolution 242 is routinely flouted by both sides, and is itself an exceedingly unclear document. It’s not even entirely clear if it’s binding or not. In short, it’s not exactly the best example of “Israel flouting international law”.

Indeed Tendai,

I think there are many worthwhile issues to be debated about the whole of the ME, and I wouldn’t to question people’s motives or grasp of reality, but I do feel that unless the basics (Hamas’s Charter, coup d’etat, etc) are understood and not revised then *anything* that comes after it won’t really deal with the issues.

If the basic ‘facts’ are stated wrongly then any analysis that flows from them will equally be flawed.

This is a very well trodden area of research and there is no need for such conspicuous errors, as shown the main article.

Incredibly immature, no doubt.

Modernity,

Hamas did not win a slim majority at all. Hamas received almost double the number of votes that Fatah did.

“They launched a coup d’etat against Fatah”. Would they have needed to if a coup d’etat had not been launched against them?

You claim that the purpose of Hamas is to “liberate Palestine”, and you draw a distinction between this and “helping the Palestinian people”. There is no difference. All Palestinians want to be liberated, just as you would if you were in their position.

It is not at all “unclear” if proposed welfare services are only for members. They have been clear that these services are for all Palestinians.

If you read interviews with those of the “higher up leadership”, (there is a recent interview with Khaled Meshaal, for example, in the New Statesman – interviewed by Ken Livingstone), you will realise that Hamas’ aims are based on international laws (this doesn’t make their means of doing so lawful, but it does draw a clear distinction between Israeli policy, which is in violation of international law i.e., expansion, and Hamas’ policy which is based on forcing Israel to obide by international law).

If any one needs “more facts, less revisionism” it’s you.

Tendai,

At no point have I said that the documents in question are a “US Conspiracy”.

Your “despair of the unhelpful way that the radical left tends to engage with this issue” may be quite well founded for many people on the left – but not in my case.

“Psychologists have a concept known as ‘splitting’, which refers to a type of thinking that sees objects as either wholly bad, or wholly good. It’s an attitude one sees time and again on this issue, and why I rarely bother discussing it except to challenge factual inaccuracies.”

I am concerned with a similar disorder. It’s called “being a dick”. But, in all seriousness, to attribute this to me is, in itself, insanity. I do not believe that Hamas is wholly good. I believe that no one is wholly good nor wholly bad. I think you’re suffering from an inability to grasp reality.

It is indeed “an attitude that one sees time and again on this issue”. Did it ever occur to you that this may be because that it is true?

The absurd claim that it is not known whether 242 is “binding or not” is completely wrong. UN resolutions are always binding – that’s why they’re resolutions. If they weren’t, what would be the point?

Here is the first part of UNSCR 242:-

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; [i.e., 1967 war].
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

Clearly this calls on Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders.

Modernity,

Again, ridiculous.

I really have no idea what to say to Tendai and yourself. Is this ignorance voluntary? Is this refusal to understand by your own volition or are you genuinely stupid?

I’m assuming that you believe in democracy. Stating that Hamas won with 2% (wrong anyway), shouldn’t matter at all. The point is that they won.

Are you so heartless? How can you bare to look at yourself in the mirror after defending one of the world’s worst human rights violators and international criminals?

Tendai,

Israel suppresses the Palestinians’ freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of organisation, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and so on. It has also displaced millions of Palestinians and killed hundreds of thousands over the course of the past 60+ years. If this is not genocide, then what is it?

I’ve had enough of replying to yours and Modernity’s comments. I’ve said all that I can (within reason) to defend myself on the charges you’ve levelled against me. Whatever your reply it will only lead to a circular and repetitive argument. Let’s leave it there.

I wish you well on your quest for morality and intelligence.

By the way, you should both read Noam Chomsky’s “Fateful Triangle”. He’s only the world’s top intellectual. All his work is thoroughly researched and heavily referenced.

>>>I am concerned with a similar disorder. It’s called “being a dick”.<<>>Israel suppresses the Palestinians’ freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of organisation, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and so on. It has also displaced millions of Palestinians and killed hundreds of thousands over the course of the past 60+ years. If this is not genocide, then what is it?<<<
The definition of genocide simply looks NOTHING like that — grow up. As with the word 'terrorist' there are a multitude of definitions, but a hell of a lot more wrong definitions, and a settled core definition that that isn't really a matter of politics. Genocide is:
"…acts ***committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group***, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, ***calculated to bring about its physical destruction*** in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group"
**
And pelase shut up about Noam Chomsky. He's not 'the world's greatest intellectual' significant though his intellectual influence may be, and his comments on the mid-east are really nothing more than reflective of his biases. By all means, tell me he's the most important linguist of our time, but, like so many intellectuals, when he strays into politics, it's Sunday afternoon reading, and not much more.

Third estate, please fix your comments.

>>>I am concerned with a similar disorder. It’s called “being a dick”.<<<
Yup, I can see very well that that is your problem, but your malady doesn’t induce much sympathy. You argue like you’re in secondary school: ad hom, irrational, non-following arguments, selective ‘research’, and the tendency to ‘ipse dixit’ favourite authorities.
*
As for reoslution 242, I only spent a year studying the UN and construction of Resolutions. But without that still, it's clear that resolution 242 is a) conditional on Palestinian actions b) possibly non-binding. UN resolutions, especially when not binding, are not usually sources of law at all, they are recommendations.

>>>I am concerned with a similar disorder. It’s called “being a dick”.<<<
Yup, I can see very well that that is your problem, but your malady doesn’t induce much sympathy. You argue like you’re in secondary school: ad hom, irrational, non-following arguments, selective ‘research’, and the tendency to ‘ipse dixit’ favourite authorities.
*
As for reoslution 242, I only spent a year studying the UN and construction of Resolutions. But without that still, it's clear that resolution 242 is a) conditional on Palestinian actions b) possibly non-binding. UN resolutions, especially when not binding, are not usually sources of law at all, they are recommendations.

Appears not to have reproduced what I said in its entirety. Sorry to be a bother, but is there not a plugin or something to fix this problem (and why does it seem to only affect me)?

Tendai, sorry about that, the plug in was marking your posts as spam! Should be resolved now. Is it all there now?

Thanks Reuben — was getting a little frustrating. Sorry to be a pain.

PS: Just to be clear, if anybody thinks I’m being wilfully legalistic, I am not. But in dealing with the Arab-Israeli issue, there are some aspects of it where the legal context is of significant explanatory worth in analysing past and present actions and non-actions. To this extent, the legal context helps to carve away some of the ideological excesses that will obviously affect discussion on a topic like this. Moreover, in answering Tim’s original criticism (that, among other things, the West is doing nothing), the international law context becomes extremely irrelevant in considering what might be obstacles to the sort of action that Just people would like to see taken. So in mentioning these things, I’m not attempting a moral justification.