This weekend the Globe and Mail carried two articles about Hamas. The first, drawing on interviews with figures within the organization, says early on that:
Throughout the conversations, it became clear that Hamas's covenant, its refusal to recognize Israel and its use of violence may be insurmountable hurdles to engagement and, ultimately, to a lasting peace. And while the group's leadership has shown its willingness to renounce violence for specific periods of time and honour its commitments, its rhetoric concerning Israeli civilian casualties remains deeply disturbing.
The article later amply confirms the 'rejectionist' stance of Hamas towards Israel. None of those interviewed, it reports, deviated from the Hamas covenant, which specifies:
> All of Palestine (including modern-day Israel) is deemed to be an Islamic waqf (land protected for religious purposes).
> It is the duty of Muslims to wage jihad to regain possession of all of Palestine.
> Not only must Israel not be recognized, it must be "obliterated."
And there is quotation from those interviewed to back this up. A nuance emerges, however, towards the end. This is that Hamas could settle for a state based on the 1967 borders, but that its non-recognition of Israel is a way of refusing to accept the legitimacy of what happened to the Palestians with Israel's creation.
It is easy to see a distinction here that would make a peace settlement possible while not requiring of the Palestinians that they assent to a view of the past history which they neither share nor feel they should be obliged to share as a precondition to peace. That distinction is: the Palestinian leadership, as part of a peace settlement, recognizes Israel in the diplomatic and legal sense of recognition; at the same time, they (and anyone else who wants to) continues to hold to whatever interpretation of history they choose. No one, after all, whether for the sake of a peace settlement or for any other reason, may properly dictate what others must think. So it all depends what is meant by Hamas leaders when they talk of being willing to 'accept a state with the borders of 1967' (my emphasis). Does this acceptance include recognition of Israel in the diplomatic and legal sense? Or, put another way, would the refusal by the Palestinians to 'renounce our beliefs and feelings... by recognizing Israel' exclude even that practical type of recognition?
The second Globe and Mail piece is about fundamentalists who 'believe Hamas is deviating from the Islamic path'.