Washington Post: Mr. Zahar and Mr. Carter

[BobbyVan]

Mr. Zahar and Mr. Carter
The former president, on what he says is a road to peace, embraces Hamas terrorists.

Thursday, April 17, 2008; A22

ON THE OPPOSITE page today we publish an article by the "foreign minister" of Hamas, Mahmoud al-Zahar, that drips with hatred for Israel, and with praise for former president Jimmy Carter. We believe Mr. Zahar's words are worth publishing because they provide some clarity about the group he helps to lead, a group that Mr. Carter contends is worthy of being included in the Middle East peace process. Mr. Carter himself is holding what appears to be a series of meetings with Hamas leaders during a tour of the Middle East. He met one militant in the West Bank town of Ramallah on Tuesday and was reportedly planning to meet Mr. Zahar in Cairo today before traveling to Damascus for an appointment with Khaled Meshal, Hamas's top leader.

Mr. Zahar lauds Mr. Carter for the "welcome tonic" of saying that no peace process can succeed "unless we are sitting at the negotiating table and without any preconditions." Yet Mr. Zahar has his own preconditions: Before any peace process can "take even its first tiny step," he says, Israel must withdraw to the 1967 borders and evacuate Jerusalem while preparing for the "return of millions of refugees." In fact, as Mr. Zahar makes clear, Hamas is not at all interested in a negotiated peace with the Jewish state, whose existence it refuses to accept: "Our fight to redress the material crimes of 1948 is scarcely begun," he concludes.

In that fight, no act of terrorism is out of bounds for the Hamas leader, who endorses the group's recent ambush of Israeli civilians working at a fuel depot that supplies Gaza. The "total war" of which he speaks was initiated and has been sustained by Hamas itself through its deliberate targeting of civilians, such as the residents of the Israeli town of Sderot, who suffer daily rocket attacks.

These facts would hardly need restating were it not for actors such as Mr. Carter, who portray Hamas as rational and reasonable. Hamas is "perfectly willing" for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas "to represent them in all direct negotiations with the Israelis, and they also maintain that they will accept any agreement that he brokers with the Israelis" provided a referendum is held on it, the former president told the newspaper Haaretz. Compare that claim with Mr. Zahar's own words on the opposite page. In fact, Mr. Zahar has called Mr. Abbas "a traitor" for negotiating with Israel -- a label that is, in the Palestinian context, an incitement to murder.

Mr. Carter justifies his meetings with familiar arguments about the value of dialogue with enemies. But he misses the point. Contacts between enemies can be useful: Israel is legendary for such negotiations, and even now it is engaged in back-channel bargaining with Hamas through Egypt. But it is one thing to communicate pragmatically, and quite another to publicly and unconditionally grant recognition and political sanction to a leader or a group that advocates terrorism, mass murder or the extinction of another state. That is what Mr. Carter is doing by lending what is left of his prestige to an avowed terrorist such as Khaled Meshal -- or Mahmoud al-Zahar.

[TooBigaTent]

1. The Post's bias shows in their not using the customary honorific for former PRESIDENT Carter.

It is easy to see that if today's Post was around in 1972-74, we would never have heard of Watergate.

[bushmeister0]

2. What about former Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy, Ya'akov Perry and Likudnik Shaul Mofaz

who all say Israel should negotiate with Hamas. Are they all traitors, too?

From Tough Dove:

"In a new interview, former Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy (a Sharon appointee) makes the case once again for the view that Israel's current policy towards Hamas and the PA is failing and should be replaced by a more realistic strategy.

Halevy: 'Israel has been successful in inflicting very serious losses upon Hamas in both Gaza and the West Bank and this has certainly had an effect on Hamas, who are now trying to get a 'cease fire.' But this has not cowed them into submission and into accepting the three-point diktat that the international community has presented to them: to recognize Israel's right to exist; to honor all previous commitments of the Palestinian Authority; and to prevent all acts of violence against Israel and Israelis. The last two conditions are, without doubt, sine qua non. The first demands an a priori renunciation of ideology before contact is made. Such a demand has never been made before either to an Arab state or to the Palestinian Liberation Organization/Fatah. There is logic in the Hamas' position that ideological 'conversion' is the endgame and not the first move in a negotiation.'"

From post April 13

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x208144

And, btw, what of those "residents of the Israeli town of Sderot, who suffer daily rocket attacks."

According to the Economist exactly one Israeli has been killed by those daily rocket attacks scine May of 07. In that time Israel has killed "350 Gazans since June, among them more than 100 civilians and children."

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10808635

And, you say "it is one thing to communicate pragmatically, and quite another to publicly and unconditionally grant recognition and political sanction to a leader or a group that advocates terrorism, mass murder or the extinction of another state. That is what Mr. Carter is doing by lending what is left of his prestige to an avowed terrorist such as Khaled Meshal -- or Mahmoud al-Zahar."

Who knows if all this public thrashing and snubbing of Carter by the Israelis is really all just for show. Israel has enjoyed decades of peace with Egypt because of the herculain efforts of Mr. Carter, that can't have been fogotten. Olmert can't be seen to be dealing with Hamas, obviously, but there's something in the wind. Carter may have been bringing a message to Hamas from the Israelis, who knows? Both side's positions are getting neither of them anywhere. Israel's only option, besides reinvading Gaza and occupying it again, is to maintain the status quo, which in untenable. The same goes for Hamas. Maybe, a little gentle nudging by Carter, who incidently looks more credible in the eyes of Hamas by being snubbed so publicly by Israel, might be able to get something going. If not, it was worth a try anyway.

And he's already done more for Gilad Shalit than Olmert has in the past two years.