I find communists funny because they continue to embrace an obviously failed political system that, invariably, stagnated at the stage of dictatorship of the proletariat and culminated in massive violations of human rights and, in most cases, democide. But I got a pleasant surprise from the CPUSA's People's Weekly World when they published this article today on their Web site, although I don't think the CPUSA intended to be quite as frank.
So here's the gist of the article. Khaled Meshaal, political leader of Hamas, currently domiciled in Syria, stated in an interview with the New York Times that he supports the two-state solution. I mean, that's what the headline and lead tell me, and I learned about that inverted pyramid thingy in my college journalism class. Right?
No, wrong.
Here's the linchpin in what Meshaal actually said:
"We are with a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce," Mr Meshaal said, defining long-term as 10 years.
Now, I don't have any problem with the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. I have for a long time advocated for complete Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian Territories. Nor do I defend the occupation of the West Bank or the siege of Gaza, the latter of which is itself an act of war.
But a truce isn't the same thing as a peace deal. And that means that, legally speaking, Israel still isn't bound to do anything.
That's the main problem with what Meshaal said. Not that he'd accept a state within the 1967 borders: That's something that most Palestinians and Israelis accept, at least in principle. The problem is this idea of a truce, rather than a peace deal. Because, after all, it does imply that, at some point, war could break out again.
I'm assuming (a bad idea, I know) that the word Meshaal used, if he spoke in Arabic, was hudna. The most famous hudna was the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (noting that Wikipedia is not always reliable), which, you'll note if you read the article, was merely a ceasefire and not a peace treaty. Ultimately, war between the Prophet Muhammad and the Quraishis resumed, culminating the Muslim conquest of Mecca.
It's probably worth noting here that Hamas is a fundamentalist Muslim political group. It's probably also worth nothing here that Yasir Arafat, secular though he was, once made reference to this hudna in how he intended to deal with Israel, which was to lull Israel into a false sense of security.
So that's what Hamas is offering. A ten-year truce, after which, it is not unfair to assume, anything goes.
The really sticky issue, though, is the legal one. Israel is bound by U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 to trade land for peace. Just to review, here's the resolution in full:
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement 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;
2. Affirms further the necessity
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
I bolded the key part. Israel agreed to this Resolution in the spirit of withdrawing from territory in exchange for "[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency." A truce or a cease-fire isn't "termination." It's a time-out.
Israel concluded peace agreement with Egypt and Jordan based on these principles. Despite Avigdor Lieberman's statements to the contrary, a peace with Syria will ultimately have to be based on this principle (and, yes, Syria will have to drop claims to any land it gained from Israel after the 1949 ceasefire).
By virtue of the Camp David Accords, the Arab League's declaration of the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and Jordan's renunciation of its annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the only people to whom the Palestinian Territories may be returned are the Palestinians. But here's the problem: Israel isn't required to return anything unless a peace treaty is promised in return.
There are many very wrong things about the occupation, including illegal things, like settlements, annexation of East Jerusalem, roadblocks, violation of civil and human rights, etc. The moral problems are much larger, in my opinion. But the legal issue is cut and dry: As long as the Palestinians refuse to sign a peace treaty, then Israel's occupation is legal, although the way they conduct it may not be.
(And yes, Virginia, I'm aware that Israel has not promised much, particularly under the last three administrations, but this diary isn't about that, OK?)
If Hamas wants political legitimacy and a viable state, then they need to get behind the Arab League's peace plan, at the very least, which affirms not just a truce in return to the 1967 borders, but peace, recognition, and normalization. Yes, there are problems with the Arab Peace Plan from the standpoint of both parties of the conflict, but it at least offers a realistic starting point for discussion.
But a truce is not. A truce is a stalling tactic at best.