Refreshing Honesty from Hamas

With all the double-talk coming from terrorist organizations attempting to make themselves seem more legitimate, it is wonderfully refreshing when one still speaks openly about their violent and destructive intentions. 


Today (5/11/11) Hamas' Foreign Minister and co-founder Mahmoud az-Zahar said:


Hamas is willing to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, but will maintain its refusal to recognize Israel, since a formal recognition of Israel would "cancel the right of the next generations to liberate the lands."

Mahmoud az-Zahar

While there may be elements within Palestinian society - even a majority perhaps - who would accept a Palestinian State only in the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas is not one of them and a "unity" government with Hamas is not one either.


Hamas sees a two-state solution as a means towards a one-state solution and nothing more. When Zahar comes right out and says that true peace with Israel can never happen since it would "cancel the right of the next generations to liberate the lands," he is saying that Hamas can't accept peace because it would prevent them from destroying Israel. At least we know that he understands what peace means even if he doesn't want it.


The goal of Hamas is not the establishment of a Palestinian State, but rather the destruction of the Jewish State. It is in their charter, it is reflected in all of their actions, and their leaders declare this publicly.




Zahar did say something else that was actually quite prescient - for a member of Hamas or otherwise.


He also said that anyone who thinks that a Palestinian state would be accepted by the international community without it recognizing Israel first, "does not understand the (political) landscape."

A unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians will have no effect without negotiations with Israel. That is why their declaration in 1988 brought no change and there is no reason to think that one in 2011 would be any different.

Of course, Zahar is saying this to discourage the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel since it might actually be successful and cause Hamas to lose support for its campaign to destroy Israel, while I am pointing it out to emphasize the importance of negotiations and Israeli recognition of such a state. Who'd've thought I would agree with Hamas on something? Go figure.