The Christian Science Monitor joins the growing list of media outlets who are blinding themselves to the facts of Hamas, and insisting that there are signs of “moderation.” The article focuses on how Hamas is “moderating,” and yet, they supply zero evidence that Hamas members are changing their minds. The signs? Polls that say palestinians want a negotiated settlement. The prison statement from Fatah and Hamas that called for a state within the 1967 (read: 1949 armistice line) borders. And the author disingenuously quotes Ismail Haniyeh’s advisor as a moderating voice:
Today, however, it sometimes is difficult to pinpoint Hamas policy. Hamas politicians who say Israel has no place in the Islamic Middle East are vying with voices that sound far more moderate and cooperative, such as Ahmed Yousef, the prime minister’s senior political adviser.
“If the people decide that they want recognition [of Israel] tomorrow, OK. We’ll do it and we’ll have a referendum to see if people agree,” says Mr. Yousef, an adviser to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah who lived for some 20 years in the US and maintains close ties there. “Those people’s opinions are really being considered,” he says of the prisoners’ document.
Other Hamas members, however, were quick to shed doubt on the prisoners’ platform indicating support for a two-state solution. Government spokesman Ghazi Hamad says many prisoners were totally unaware of the draft. “Nobody spoke about two states in this document,” he says, “but it speaks of a general solution accepting the 1967 borders,” or the creation of a Palestinian state including the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem, “and we support that.”
It is only difficult to pinpoint Hamas policy if you are a member of the gullible media. Because the leaders of Hamas have stated quite clearly, and repeatedly, that they will never recognize Israel, never negotiate with Israel, and never have peace with Israel. In fact, one week before this article was published, Hamas reissued the three no’s:
Hamas leader Khaled Meshal said Thursday that Hamas and Fatah should unite and fight Israel rather than fighting each other.
Speaking at the end of a two-day conference in Qatar, Meshal, who is based in Damascus, said Hamas could close ranks with Fatah on the platform of “liberating Palestine, not recognizing Israel and adopting the path of jihad [holy war] and resistance.â€
The eeriest — and most telling — quote of the CSM article is in the final paragraph. I’m pretty sure it contains a typo, because it makes no sense unless you change “less” to “let”.
“We are in favor of any steps towards establishing a Palestinian state in the borders of 1967,” says Mr. Bardawil. “When Israel stops its dream of a state from the Nile to the Euphrates, we will stop our dream of Haifa and Yaffa and Acco,” cities along Israel’s coast which had large Arab populations before 1948, and still have sizable Arab minorities. “Give us the land of 1967 and less us dream for the next 100 years.”
Because if you change that word in the last sentence, it reads:
“Give us the land of 1967 and let us dream for the next 100 years.”
In other words, they’ll take the state — for now — and continue to work for Israel’s destruction. Which is what many of us have been saying all along. Not that you can tell from the media reports on Hamas. What’s that saying? There is none so blind as will not see?
Get your eyesight checked, journos.
What part of NO does the CSM not understand?
The Arabs could have had the 1949 borders (less Jerusalem) immediately after the Six-Day War when Israel proposed that in exchange for real peace. The Arab countries ALL rejected it in favor of a continued attempt at genocide.
As for that “Nile to Euphrates” nonsense it is an ancient Arab propaganda lie. Israel never had any imperial ambitions, the Israelis only wanted to be left to live in peace, something the Arabs have never allowed them. In this lie we see the Arabs’ projection onto the Israelis of their own vicious ambitions.
But they had all that before 1967. Why did they not support it then? But that would have been very undiplomatic to ask, no?
Of course maybe he is referring to a Palestinian state that includes the GS, WB & EJ along with SE (something else) which we shall not mention, as well!
I hope this is not a great surprise to anybody. The CSM has been fanatically hostile to Israel for decades.
The article is total bullshit, and it starts with the headline:
The use of the word ‘moderate’ to describe the various flavors of Palestinian Arab-sponsored genocide against the Jewish nation is automatic disqualification from serious journalism.
At least the CSM cleared that up with the very first word. If they keep that up they can publish an entire edition on a 3 x 5 index card.
#3 Gary Rosen
Correct. I first noticed the CSM when I was in High School (at the public library) back in 1970 and was struck buy its visceral hostility towards the Jewish State 9along with Time and Newsweek Magazines as well as Life Magazine – but that is another story). Their correspondent one John K. Cooley, was particularly bad.
Joel, are you familiar with Helena Cobban’s columns in the CSM? She wrote one a couple of years ago laying out an argument why Israel should be subsumed into a ‘one-state solution’. This, in addition to the flat-out lies, distortions, and terror-appeasement she normally serves up.
Joel,
I certainly don’t want to defend Time or Newsweek, but my feeling has been that the CSM has gone significantly beyond even the usual MSM bashing of Israel and apologies for Palestinian terrorism.
6 Lil Mamzer
Yes I am aware of Helena Cobban’s Tony Judt like final solution for the Jewish problem of nationhood.
7 Gary Rosen
The CSM reminds me of those “mainstream” Protestant churches who want to divest from Israel. Say what you want about evangelicals at least they are not for de facto genocide of the Jews of Israel.