Skip to main content

Worth reading: interview with a Hamas spokesman

I'm waiting to see if any of the MSM pickes this up from Al Jazeera.

I suspect the heavy pro-Israel spin would be, Why dignify terrorists by listening to them? We've said what they need to do to re-establish a cease-fire.

And I'm certainly not enamored with Hamas or any other Islamist organization.

But the process of negotiating a cease-fire rather than dictating surrender terms begins with--as they say--a frank exchange of views.

So here are two snippets from an interview with Hamas spokesman Abu Marzouq, the first on a cease-fire, the second on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:

excerpt one

Al Jazeera: Under what conditions will Hamas agree a ceasefire with Israel?

Abu Marzouq: We have three conditions for any peace initiative coming from any state.

First, the aggression of the Israelis should stop. All of the gates should be opened, including the gate of Rafah between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. Finally, Israel has to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.

We are not saying we will stop firing rockets from the Gaza Strip to Israel - we are only talking about stopping the aggression from the Israelis against the civilian population in the Gaza Strip.

When others talk about a ceasefire, they are saying all military operations should stop.

But we are sending a message [by firing rockets]: "We will not surrender. We have to fight the Israelis and we will win this battle."

We know we are going to lose a lot of people from our side, but we are going to win, inshallah.


excerpt two:

Has Hamas had any contact with the administration of Barack Obama, the US president-elect?

No, we haven't had any direct contact.

Do you have any expectations regarding the approach of Hillary Clinton, the US nominee-designate for the post of US secretary of state?

We cannot evaluate something that lies in the future.

We know that in the US senate, Hillary Clinton's vote was always with Israel, but maybe there will be some differences when she becomes secretary of state.


The rest of the interview is worth reading, even if only in a know-your-enemy way.

[I do have to admit that I'm waiting for somebody to parse that we haven't had any direct contact with Obama line. I suspect it is either a translation artifact, or Marzouq trying to send signals that Hamas would love such contact. Yet what's interesting is that, unlike recent comments from Al Qaeda's number two, the Hamas spokesman seems to be going out of his way to come across as neutral on the new administration.]

Comments

Delaware Watch said…
"We are not saying we will stop firing rockets from the Gaza Strip to Israel - we are only talking about stopping the aggression from the Israelis against the civilian population in the Gaza Strip."

Unless I'm reading this wrong, that's hypocritical since the rockets fired from Gaza tend to effect the Israeli civilian population the most. It sounds like he's saying, "Israel should stop firing on our non-combatants, but we'll continue to fire on theirs."
Dana
I don't disagree with you. But in some ways it is almost the mirror image of the Israeli position.

I posted this primarily because I'm tired of the otherwise complete embargo on primary source news on Hamas.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...