"Hamas Comes Out of Hiding"; By Paul McGeough; A21
"Over the long term, Hamas accepts the concept of two states in the Levant, which arguably puts Mr. Mishal’s terrorist movement closer to Washington than Netanyahu is — he now proposes only 'economic peace' between Jews and Palestinians," writes Paul McGeough.
This assessment is pure fabrication, one that can be made only by being excessively literal in one's understanding of the statements at hand. What this assertion reveals, however, is a distorted- need I say Orwellian? - perspective, in which PM Benjamin Netanyahu is the barrier to an agreement and Hamas leader Khalid Mishal, its gatekeeper.
To conclude, the editorial is more theatrical than it is social scientific. McGeough tries to reduce the impasse in Israeli-Palestinian discourse to the "personal enmity" between Netanyahu and Mishal. Let not this "enmity...swamp the more pressing complexities of the Middle East crisis," he implores condescendingly. The author should not permit Shakespeare to shape his understanding of Israel's predicament.
Personal enmity aside, Hamas' very existence and Syria's support for it keeps peace at bay.
Posts
Abes, you rightfully hone on the most ludicrous statement in this rather silly and revisionist op-ed.
ReplyDeleteThe author seems to willfully disregard Hamas' use of two discourses - an extreme line for its own citizens and a more "moderate" one for the West. It's amazing how the author can say that Hamas is more dedicated to a two-state peace than Netanyahu when it unequivocally declares its intention to destroy Israel.
Then again though, the Times can't help but place the "Onus on Israel."
And of course, Israel is responsible for the extremism of Hamas because of its failed attempt to assassinate Mishal. Otherwise I'm sure Hamas would be singing kumbaya by the bonfire. The Palestinians are never held accountable for their self-developed extremism.