Hamas prefers peace to war but will nonetheless resume armed resistance if Israel opts to continue regular attacks on Gaza, senior Hamas leader Ahmad Yousef explained.
The official, who serves as an advisor to Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on foreign affairs, said that the current ceasefire between the Islamic movement and Israel was for the benefit of Palestinians in the Strip, but that Hamas reserved the right to defend them.
"We were firing rockets when the Israelis carried out aggression, or incursions against us," Yousef said. "Now, for the most part they have stopped the daily aggression. That’s why we’re not firing rockets. But if the Israelis start their aggression again and their incursions, yes, the Palestinians will defend themselves with whatever weapons they have in their hands."
In this second half of a two-part, extended conversation at his home in Gaza town of Rafah, Yousef also told Ma’an that Hamas is “crystal clear” in its acceptance of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, but rejected the idea that it had become more moderate.
He touched on the movement's past, present, and future relations with the West, and said that while he did not believe President Mahmoud Abbas’ negotiations with the Israeli government would succeed, he still holds out hope for a negotiated peace settlement.
Ma'an: In March you wrote a letter to President Obama that was delivered by the CODEPINK delegation to the US Embassy in Cairo. Did you receive a response?
Ahmad Yousef: We received, you could say, a verbal response from some people. You know, America accepting the letter, this is a positive sign. To respond to the letter, that’s another story.
We sent maybe four letters to Mr Obama … The first one I sent as deputy foreign minister. But we sent another two letters under the prime minister through different channels. I think Mr Obama at least understands where we stand regarding a peaceful settlement to the conflict and what we really want, for the United States to be an honest broker. We explained, from our side, what we expect from the new administration, and that we are optimistic about what Obama can do to be different from the Bush administration.
Have they give you a signal that there is going to be a change in US policy?
There is something positive but we are not going to talk about it.
When President Carter was here [in Gaza] he consulted with the US State Department before he came. Is there anything you can say about any messages he may have relayed?
Mr Carter is respected worldwide – he is well respected in the world community. And to us we do respect him. And we consider him something like a real American conscience. […]
There have been a number of meetings over the last nine months between European officials and Hamas. Is this a sign that the movement is gaining more acceptance?
There have been some people who came to get security information, and people who are serious about learning where we stand, as Hamas, what is our perspective regarding a peaceful settlement. Some people believe they [Europe] were unfair when they did not engage Hamas when we won the election, that it’s against their Western values not to talk to Hamas. […]
If they really would like to be the mediator and put an end to the conflict they should talk to all parties. The same thing happened in Northern Ireland. The Americans mediated between Britain and the IRA. Why not? The IRA was also on the terrorist list. If they really want to achieve peace and end the suffering of the people, why not talk to Hamas?
How do you respond to the charge that in reaching out to the international community, you are compromising your values and becoming more moderate?
Those people are the victims of the Israeli propaganda machine, always demonizing Hamas, stigmatizing the Islamists as terrorists and radicals. But when the people who come and see and talk to us they find that there are hundreds of Hamas people who graduated from Western universities, from America, from Germany, from Britain, from Ireland.
But there is an image, a stereotype that Israel has created about Hamas, that we are devils or something like this. They try to depict us as Al-Qaeda or Taliban or something like this, closed-minded people. But when the people come and talk to them it’s easy to put a human face on Hamas, because you are talking about people who are rational and very open-minded, very receptive. I keep telling people, we are Erdogan, we are not Taliban, or Al-Qaeda.
So you do not think there has been a change in Hamas’ political positions.
Hamas has always demonstrated political flexibility. This is due to the nature of the organization and not because of Western pressure. In the past, Hamas was a social movement empowering the masses with the message of Islam and its comprehensiveness. At the same time it became necessary to defend and liberate the Palestinian people from occupation. Now as the movement still holds steadfast to its ideology and principals, it has transitioned into a movement involved in good governance. Islam is still its guiding principle and resistance is still necessary for the liberation of our people. All these aspects are well balanced in our movement on our terms.
Our political platform is clear in the sense that we will accept peaceful resolutions that liberate our people from occupation. That has never changed, however, the Israelis have never seriously engaged the Palestinians on that basis and that is why the world has witnessed the natural resistance to Israeli aggression. We will not wait for the Israelis to define us or the world to marginalize us. Our political positions cater to the interests of the Palestinian people. They are the aggrieved party and they are our constituency.
At this stage our political position is driven by the absolute right to be free from occupation. When we have achieved that goal and our own state we can then talk about other issues including historic Palestine and the refugees’ right of return. Our political platform is consistent on the willingness to sit down and discuss such things at a negotiating table. However, we will not relinquish our right to resistance.
Even after all the destruction, you still have hope for a negotiated solution?
Of course. Why not? You know what happened in World War I and World War II – there were more than 50 million Europeans killed, and Americans, and their cities and towns were leveled to the ground. Now they have the European Union, and various kinds of economic and political cooperation, and common international relations.
You need some time to build confidence and repair the damage, but that’s part of real life.
What about the risk that Israel will expand settlements during negotiations? We all know what happened during Oslo.
The Israelis never had the intention to achieve peace with the Palestinians. The Israelis – their real intention is to usurp all the land of historic Palestine and kick the Palestinians out into the Arab world. This government, and all the Israeli governments, I don’t think any of them had a vision of peace with the Palestinians, and to let the Palestinians have their own independent and free state.
The Israelis - they’re buying time and they think every ten years they can kick some of the Palestinians off the land and occupy the land… making Jerusalem their eternal capital, squeezing the Palestinians, making it so there is no room for you, and you’re going to end up in Jordan. This is the strategic vision of the Israelis.
So how do you ensure that doesn’t happen?
When we accepted in principle a resolution based on 1967 borders our position has been clear to the world community that we, the Palestinians, are willing to achieve peace. If the world community rejects our people’s longstanding overture or is powerless to roll back Israeli aggression and intransigence, there will be global repercussions and the conflict will continue on an elevated scale.
This is the Holy Land – Jerusalem is in the hearts and minds of every Muslim all over the world. The Muslims will never forget Jerusalem - it’s in their daily prayer, and their daily supplication.
The conflict is not between Israel and the Palestinians. The conflict is between whatever the Israelis want to call themselves and the whole Muslim world. If they do not understand this, we will one day have all-out war, which will make it impossible for the Israelis to keep their state.
I’m not saying we’re going to wipe out all the Jews in the Holy Land – no. This is the land of all prophets. The Jews have the right to live there. The Christians and the Muslims have the right. The land was chosen by God to have all those faiths.
If the Israeli plan is to keep the land by force at the expense of its rightful owners they will not succeed. They will end up dismantling their state and bring unnecessary harm to their own people. But if they choose accommodation and agree to live with the Palestinians in this land that is going to be something everyone will accept. We never rejected the notion that Jews lived in the land of Palestine. Everybody has some rights to the land of Palestine, that’s why we say it’s the Holy Land.
Here, also, I can refer you to the CIA report Israel will fall in 20 years, that has cast doubt over Israel’s survival beyond the next two decades. Such a prediction is not in vain, it stems from Israeli oppression and aggression. Therefore, the consequences of Israeli actions are predictable.
How, exactly, is what you just described different from the strategy of negotiation pursued by Fatah?
One of the things we are not interested in doing is being a part of the negotiation, because we never felt the Israelis were serious about negotiation. Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] spent 15 years negotiating and achieving nothing. That’s where we are different. We are not going into minor details every time year after year, all the while observing how the land is being taken.
We have said to Abu Mazen, if you are going to have a serious negotiation, and you must bring the endgame. We need to look to the endgame. We need to see the results - if the Israelis accept a withdrawal to the 1967 borders or not. […]
Has Hamas been enforcing a ceasefire since the end of the war on Gaza?
We set priorities after the war. The first priority was to rebuild what has been destroyed. And we need to give the world community, also, a chance. We have the fact-finding commission and so forth. It’s not good from a strategic standpoint to give the Israelis the privilege to exploit the situation by claiming that the Palestinians are firing rockets on them.
We were firing rockets when the Israelis carried out aggression, or incursions against us. Now, for the most part they have stopped the daily aggression. That’s why we’re not firing rockets. But if the Israelis start their aggression again and their incursions, yes, the Palestinians will defend themselves with whatever weapons they have in their hands.
We have set the priorities. Now we have also the division. We hope that when we have a calm situation, we can reconcile the rift and give the Egyptians the time and the climate to work in that situation. We have also a new American administration. We need, also, to give them the chance to work while there is no escalation or something like this. And also the world community, to prove again that we had a unilateral ceasefire before but we were never rewarded for that. …
We hope this period of calm will encourage the donors to do something to rebuild Gaza. … If there is a situation when there are daily incursions and firing rockets, it’s not encouraging anyone to come to Gaza to do some work.
Do you think there will be another confrontation with Israel?
Yes. If the situation will continue like this, if the world community doesn’t do anything and also the occupation is still the same and the sanctions have not been lifted and Gaza is still under siege, then of course the people will resort to military resistance.
Front Page Features