On 27April 2008, I wrote an article titled “Hamas follows in the PLO’s footsteps”. This is a continuation of the same article, in which I said that Hamas’s actions and steps towards Israel are not radically different to the steps taken by the PLO, which ended up selling the Palestinian cause and pawning inalienable national rights.
The main premise in that 2008 article was that it seemed as if Hamas, in its political and diplomatic actions, was no different than the first actions taken by Fatah in the early 1970s. It also seemed that Hamas was not responding to the pressures in the form of initiatives, which would confuse the other side, but in the manner expected by the other side. I listed the following points as evidence of the similarity in political actions between the PLO and Hamas:
For a start, the PLO made a proposal in 1970 for a secular democratic state as a solution for the Palestinian cause. Hamas made initiatives and proposals before it participated in the elections, beginning with the truce with Israel (and now it is focusing on the truce initiative once again).
In 1974, the PLO said that it would accept the establishment of a Palestinian state on any part of Palestine that is liberated, while Hamas has reiterated that it would accept the establishment of a Palestinian state on the territories occupied in 1967 with no conditions.
Third, the PLO said in its amended, or repealed, charter that it considers the Arabs to be a part of the struggle against Israel but, in reality, the PLO accepted the Arabs as mediators between the organisation and Israel. Hamas’s charter is no different in mobilising the Arabs and Muslims, but also accepts them as mediators between the movement and Israel.
The PLO was also concerned with proving to the world that it is not a terrorist organisation and that its goal was to achieve justice. Hamas is doing the same and it is busy acquitting itself from terrorism charges.
In the beginning, the PLO was against direct and indirect negotiations with Israel, but then it agreed to indirect negotiations, and ultimately agreed to direct negotiations. Hamas is now engaged in indirect negotiations with Israel by means of several mediators, mainly the Egyptian government.
Finally, Hamas says that its political actions are a tactic and do not reflect its work strategy, and that is what the PLO has said on many occasions.
Hamas’s head of political bureau meetings
Khaled Meshaal’s meeting with the Saudi Arabian leadership was a major indicator of the political approach adopted by Hamas, especially since Saudi Arabia had proposed the Fez initiative in 1982. This was the foundation for the treacherous Arab initiative introduced in Beirut in 2002.
We know that Saudi Arabia possesses a lot of money and that Hamas is in dire need of funds. The Saudis can provide financial assistance, but they do not dare to send money without the approval of America and Israel. It also wouldn’t dare to send even one bullet to support the resistance in Gaza. Saudi Arabia has consented to meetings with Israeli officials in order to coordinate and plot against Iran. The resistance in Gaza needs money, but its need for weapons is greater; however, Saudi Arabia will not redirect its planes from Yemen to occupied Palestine to avenge the death of baby Ali Dawabsheh. Meshaal’s visit to Saudi Arabia itself is scary, because it means that Hamas has accepted the Arab brokers who have always pawned the Palestinian issue.
What is worse than the visit to Saudi Arabia was Meshaal’s meeting with the tarnished British politician Tony Blair whose hands are stained with the blood of Arabs and Muslims. Blair is hostile towards Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians and Iranians and is one of the biggest supporters of Israel. He always describes the Arab resistance movements in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq as “terrorists”. Meeting with Blair is a disgrace and an unforgivable sin. He is the one who incited against Iraq and his soldiers helped America to destroy the country.
We, the Palestinian people, should take a stand against Britain and all past, present and future British officials. Britain is ultimately responsible for our suffering, displacement, torture and the death of our children, and has supported the Zionists and their hostile and criminal state. Israel is still prosecuting surviving Nazis on an international level while we are still being trampled under the feet of the British who continue to commit crimes against us.
The new pawnbroker
A Turkish official said on Monday that a truce between Hamas and Israel is about to be announced. I do not think the Turks would say anything that they weren’t certain of and it seems that they have also stolen the ways of the pawnbroker from the Arab regimes. Officials in Ankara speak out against the blockade of Gaza, but they have not cut their economic, trade and diplomatic ties with Israel; and just like the Arab governments, they have not provided a single bullet to the resistance in Gaza. Turkey is the new broker who is pawning the Palestinian cause in favour of Israel.
Just to be clear, Israel will never agree to opening an airport or seaport for Gaza without any security arrangements. This means that Hamas, if you believe the details reported by the media, is required to be the new Palestinian guardian over the State of Israel. It seems that it is not enough to have half of us Palestinians acting as treacherous agents of Israel, we must all turn against ourselves for the benefit of our enemy.
The question that we now ask the Palestinian resistance in Gaza is simple: What are you doing? Will Hamas provide the new protective security forces that will persecute the Palestinian fighters or will it maintain and preserve its national and religious values? The question for Islamic Jihad is, will you jump on the bandwagon or will you stand firm? It is worth noting that you allowed a supporter of the Oslo Accords to represent the resistance at the Cairo negotiations held after the 2014 Israeli offensive.
Translated from Arabi21, 18 August, 2015.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.