Huda Al Husseini, die prominente libanesische Kolumnistin, analysiert die Spaltung in der Hamas, die sich nach dem Gaza-Krieg auftut.
Sie setzt damit die extrem Hamas-kritische Berichterstattung der saudischen Tageszeitung Asharq Alawsat fort.
Al Hussein bezieht sich auf denselben Auftritt des Hamas-Politbürochefs Khaled Meschal beim Treffen arabischer Staaten in Doha, den ich hier vor einigen Tagen kommentiert habe.
(Zu den konkurrierenden Krisen-Gipfeln in der arabischen Welt und was sie über die Spaltung des arabischen Lagers aussagen, mehr bei Marc Lynch.)
In his speech broadcast on Saturday evening on Syrian state television, Khalid Mishal, the political leader of the Hamas movement, said that the [military] campaign against Gaza has dashed any hopes for peace. Yet many others say that the Hamas movement – along with the Hamas leadership itself that admits its rejection of the peace process – has played a key role in destroying any hopes for peace when it began suicide operations in April 1994. These operations were one of the main reasons behind the construction of the Israeli security wall [surrounding Gaza].
Mishal’s televised speech emulated [speeches delivered by] the leader of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Yet on Tuesday evening, through his sermon, Ismail Haniyeh appeared to be attempting to pull the rug from under Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi. In the middle of this sermon Haniyeh expressed his readiness to accept a ceasefire, [a position] contradicting Mishal who said that even though he was pained by the deaths of innocent civilians, conflict requires sacrifice.
Huda Al Husseini
Haniyeh’s speech revealed that there is a split within the Hamas leadership; this division began when Hamas sent two delegations [one representing the leadership in Damascus, another representing the Gazan leadership] to Cairo on Sunday, and sharp differences in their positions emerged. The head of the Egyptian intelligence service General Omar Suleiman revealed that conditions for a ceasefire agreement include the establishment of a system to prevent weapons and missiles from being smuggled into Gaza through the tunnels, and Hamas conducting political negotiation with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.
…
Iran believes that it can make Egypt yield and open the Rafah Crossing without setting conditions by [using] Hamas and the increasing number of Gaza’s victims. Syria wants to hold the Arab summit, regardless of who attends, to take the Palestinian initiative out of Egypt’s hands. Whilst Qatar, the go-between, embarrassed and ignored, is flirting with Syria, complying with Iran, and marketing Hamas, all due to its rivalry with Saudi Arabia. The Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister said the Israeli trade office in Doha would be closed when there is a collective Arab decision [to cut ties with Israel].
Iran and Syria both know that a Hamas defeat in Gaza will weaken their position with the new American administration and in the region in general. The majority of the Hamas leadership in Damascus are not free [to do as they please] as Iranian funding does not come without clauses. Haniyeh previously said, “Iran represents the strategic depth of the Palestinians,” while Mishal said, “Iran’s role in the future of Palestine should continue and increase,” and that now is the time for this [role] to be implemented, even if it costs thousands of lives.
…
Many countries in the world are demanding that Hamas relinquish its position of not recognizing Israel’s right to exist. Those who know Hamas say that it has not done this after witnessing the “Fatah” experience. Fatah signed the Oslo Accords which stated that they must recognize Israel’s [right to exist], but the result [of the Oslo Accords] was chaos and a divided state where people are not free to run their lives.
A source revealed to me that during meetings with the Hamas leadership, the source realized that [officially] recognizing Israel would come at the end of negotiations, not at the beginning. It gave the following example; if the former British Prime Ministers Tony Blair or John Major engaged in a dialogue with Sinn Fein and the IRA [and demanded they recognize British sovereignty] at the beginning of negotiations, they would not have achieved anything in Northern Ireland. When Blair spoke with the moderates there he did not achieve anything, but when he spoke with the militants on both the Protestant and Catholic sides, together they entered a successful peace process. People argue that the British had lived under the terror of IRA bombs for more than twenty years and yet never launched devastating air strikes on Northern Ireland.
…
There must be moderates in Hamas who are aware that any solution in the Middle East will require US intervention. Syria knows this and is waiting for the new [US] administration to re-establish communication with Israel. Syria “suspended” negotiations but did not say that it had ended them altogether. Iran also knows this, and is waiting for Obama’s arrival, and will greet him with a new Iranian president.