By Bruce S. Ticker in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
“It is the latest example of Israel’s inability to say yes,” writes Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada in a New York Times op-ed this past Monday.
How does it feel? Israelis no doubt learned this “inability” from the Arabs, who refused to “say yes” for the last 78 years.
Shehada, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, strings together conditions suggesting that Hamas is serious about honoring President Trump’s road map to peace.
His theory is possible, but historically it is almost impossible to accept. Hamas and much of the Arab world has sought the destruction of modern Israel since it was created in 1948. Arabs consistently refused to compromise in 2000 even when then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak handed Arab leader Yasser Arafat plans for a proposed Palestinian state in 2000, which Arafat ignored.
If Hamas abides by Trump’s peace plan, they will need to abandon their dream of eliminating Israel. The end of dedication or a cynical pretense? Your guess is as good as mine.
Israel has repeatedly broadcast its intention to destroy Hamas since Oct. 7, 2023, when terrorists from Gaza swept in and raped, burned, mutilated and massacred 1,200 Israelis in southern Israel. Does Hamas expect Israel to carry out its threat?
As Shehada explains it, all armed Arab groups would decommission their heavy weapons, give up security control in Gaza, end its governance of Gaza and accept the deployment of an international stabilization force. Israel would halt airstrikes, pull out its troops and permit the reconstruction of Gaza.
The reaction of these parties? Israel says it will withdraw once Hamas gives up its weapons. Hamas says it will turn in its weapons once Israel withdraws.
“One sign Hamas might be serious about giving up its weapons is that…it and other armed groups have apparently not fired a rocket at Israel since the original cease-fire took effect in October,” Shehada states. “This unusual holding back could very well indicate that Hamas has no better cards left to play. Armed resistance in Gaza has reached its limit and has exhausted the rationales that sustained it.”
This was not armed resistance. They were committing brazen acts of war before, during and after Oct. 7. The rationales sustaining it are supposed to be eternal. Israel’s end was a permanent goal. They need no cards. Any Hamas member who genuinely considers giving up is betraying their commitment. What kind of radicals are these?
As early as 2020, Shehada writes, deputy Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri said, “Armed resistance failed to create change. The resistance presented heroic examples and fought honorable wars, but the blockade wasn’t broken, the political reality didn’t change and none of the land was liberated.”
We should expect the average thug to look at it this way, but not a dedicated fanatic. Maybe al-Arouri broke under Israel’s pressure, or maybe he hopes Hamas will one day regroup.
Shehada adds, “Some Hamas officials have suggested openly and privately that Oct. 7 was a strategic mistake and that they failed to take into consideration the severity of Israel’s reaction” – a reference to Israel’s relentless bombing of Gaza.
Recognizing that Oct. 7 was “a strategic mistake” is the thinking of a reasonable person. If they have become reasonable, they are nonetheless betraying their commitment. Or they expect that it will take more time than projected to demolish Israel.
His last argument: “(They) have been looking for a face-saving way out, figures close to Hamas have told me. Hamas leaders like Khaled Meshaal have been sending the message that Gazans have done their part in contributing to the Palestinian cause and paid the heaviest price, and should now be allowed to recover and heal.”
Really. Does the average fanatic rest on his laurels?
Now do you feel more comfortable with Hamas after Shehada has sorted out the issues for us – in The New York Times?
*
Bruce S. Ticker is a Philadelphia-based columnist.