Published: March 17, 2009
Middle East Times
BEIRUT -- From Gaza to the Dahieh (Hezbollah-controlled southern suburb of Beirut) a new fact seems to be emerging. Hamas and Hezbollah feel they are forced to abide by part of the international community conditions: Freezing violence while resiliently refusing to recognize Israel.
Hamas, which is part of a Palestinian national dialogue taking place in Cairo to form a unity government with Fatah, vowed it won't recognize Israel and won't abide by previous commitments made by either Fatah or the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) saying, nonetheless, it will only "respect" them. Putting respect versus abidance is merely a linguistic maneuver that, in essence, resembles Hamas's refusal of PLO commitments.
The PLO which agreed to the Oslo accords with Israel in 1993 had committed to recognize Israel and abandon militant struggle.
However, while Hamas is loud about not recognizing Israel, it is interesting to note that the Islamic movement warned Gaza residents last week that it will act against those responsible for the "ill-timed" rocket firing into Israel. Some Gazans, mainly from the Islamic Jihad movement, were reportedly arrested, questioned and forced to sign obligations not to carry out attacks and to notify "authorities" of those who do or give order to do so.
Hezbollah seems to be on the same page.
The party's secretary general said his movement would never recognize Israel, rejecting a U.S. precondition for dialogue with the group that Washington considers a terrorist organization.
Nasrallah was referring to new reports that the United States expressed readiness to conduct dialogue with Hezbollah provided that the movement recognizes Israel and abandons violence.
"We reject the American conditions.... Today, tomorrow and after 1,000 years and even until the end of time, as long as Hezbollah exists, it will never recognize Israel," Nasrallah said, days ago at a rally celebrating the birthday of the Prophet Mohammad.
But what about the other condition: abandoning violence? Nasrallah used general emotional terms in stating what resistance (synonym to violence in the U.S. political lingo) corresponds to his party.
"Resistance is not to be abandoned. It is our dignity, existence and the holiest of what we carry."
Notwithstanding, Hezbollah did not fire one rocket from south Lebanon or any other place into Israel since the military activities of the July 2006 war came to a halt. Even when some Katyusha projectiles were fired into Israel from Lebanon during the last Gaza war and right after, Hezbollah was always among the first parties to deny any connection to these incidents.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 ended the bloodiest fight between Hezbollah and Israel and it embraced the "unanimous decision by the government of Lebanon on August 7, 2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in south Lebanon...." Another International force of 15,000 officers was deployed changing the whole situation on the ground which Hezbollah managed to vest in for decades.
"Those who don't want to fight," Nasrallah added "should not legitimize Israel or concede defeat, because the coming generations will stand and fight."
Hence, akin to Hamas, Hezbollah realizes the facts on the ground and seems to have come to the same conclusion: While fighting was made so hard, "we" are not forced to bestow legitimacy on Israel. Contrary to that "we" will keep investing in the animosity till the facts on the ground change one day.
Does this mean accepting a long term "Hudna" (truce) is in the horizon?
Hamas has already done it before and the ongoing talks in Egypt tackled the duration of this hudna. Some leaders of Hamas expressed in the past the movement's readiness for a 30 years hudna as part of a negotiated settlement with Israel.
For Hezbollah it might be easier. Lebanon and Israel already signed an armistice agreement on March 23, 1949. The Lebanese government has already requested that "(t)he U.N., in cooperation with the relevant parties, will undertake the necessary measures to once again put into effect the Armistice Agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel in 1949, and to insure adherence to the provisions of that agreement, as well as to explore possible amendments to or development of said provisions, as necessary." This request was endorsed, among others, in the UNSCR 1701.
While Hezbollah has rarely displayed commitment to state regulations when it comes to its struggle with Israel, the concept "hudna" might adhere to some theological dimensions in its ideology and, hence, facilitate its acceptance. Hudna is the Islamic concept and framework which controls and advices the relation with the "enemies of Islam" in times of no war.
Hudna is not peace. True. But solving the problem in the Middle East in one shot is not reasonable as well. Nevertheless, the long term hudna, if materialized, might be an opportunity for moderates and rejectionists to try to change the facts on the ground and I'm sure the former have better answers to offer to their societies.
I don't recommend talking to either Hamas or Hezbollah. Both movements seem to have started to partly accept International conditions even before any talks have started.
Talking about this hudna should start with Syria and Iran as part of their essential commitments toward the international community. Strategies, programs and policies will be developed later to assure that moderation prevails.
--
Nadim Koteich is a political analyst and host of "Studio 24," a daily prime time news analysis show that airs on the pan-Arab Future News channel, headquartered in Beirut. His e-mail is nkoteich@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment