Hamas says it will not go to war for Iran

[wat0n]

Hamas says it will not go to war for Iran

By Samia Nakhoul and Michael Stott

GAZA | Thu May 10, 2012 7:22pm BST

(Reuters) - The Islamist movement Hamas will not let itself be dragged into a war against Israel if it attacks the nuclear facilities of Hamas ally Iran, Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh said on Thursday.

"Hamas is a Palestinian movement that acts within the Palestinian arena and it carries out its political and field actions in a way that suits the interests of the Palestinian people," he said at his headquarters in the enclave.

"Iran did not ask anything from us and we think Iran is not in need of us," the prime minister of the Hamas government told Reuters in an interview.

Israel has repeatedly said it rules out no option in its determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.

"The Israeli threats are declared and they are not in need of analysis. But I think such an issue would have grave consequences on the entire region," the 48-year-old Hamas leader said. "I cannot predict the scenarios but a battle of this kind would have repercussions for the region."

Israel says it would have to reckon with potential attacks from the south by Iranian-supported Hamas and from the north by the Tehran-backed Hezbollah army in Lebanon, if it came to war with Iran. Israel says both groups possess stockpiles of rockets supplied by Iran and accuses both of practising terrorism.

Haniyeh said the grand coalition formed this week by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which gives him an unassailable majority in parliament, had been established for internal reasons but could also have "external motives".

"On the external level there is no doubt that it was an attempt to absorb the big changes that have taken place in the region - the so-called Arab Spring - and maybe a preparation for several issues," he said.

Asked if Iran might be one of the issues, he said: "Maybe."

HUNGER STRIKERS

Haniyeh said the current hunger strike by hundreds of Palestinians in Israeli prisons was a test of Israel's commitment to universal humanitarian principles which must be recognised. He warned that the death of any prisoner would have "negative repercussions", but did not elaborate.

"I do not wish that any prisoner in Israeli jails is martyred and so I demand that they implement international law in respect to the prisoners, who should be regarded as prisoners of war," he said.

Palestinian human rights groups say up to 2,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails have been refusing food since April 17. Two have been on hunger strike for some 70 days and are said to be in serious condition.

"They are simple demands, humanitarian demands, such as ending solitary confinement, family visits, more television channels," the Hamas leader said.

Israel, he said, must keep the promises it made when captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was released by Hamas last October after more than five years in confinement, in exchange for the liberation of some 900 Palestinians jailed by Israel.

The Islamic Jihad movement in Gaza, which has often exempted itself from the tacit truce agreements Hamas has made with Israel, has said it will escalate violence if a prisoner dies.

"We had a meeting with the leadership of the Islamic Jihad and they have confirmed that any negative development in the issue of prisoners would be discussed among the national front and in a meeting for factions," Haniyeh said. "They will not take a unilateral action outside of a national consensus."

RECONCILIATION

Wearing a sober grey suit to complement his carefully trimmed grey beard, the Hamas leader was measured in his responses as he was interviewed in a salon of his office suite.

He displayed an amused irony over the effort to mend the internal split in the Palestinian national movement.

"It's not dead. But it's not moving," he laughed.

Hamas and the Fatah movement led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have curbed the overt hostility that divided them for years, after fighters of the Islamist movement drove the secular Fatah militia out of Gaza in 2007.

But true reconciliation has eluded them.

"We have gone a long way to reach a Palestinian-Palestinian agreement but there are some external and internal obstacles," Haniyeh said, citing United States and Israeli pressure on Abbas not to make any partnership with a movement shunned in the West as a terrorist organisation.

Internally, he said, some factions in Abbas's Palestinian Authority - which administers the West Bank - were dragging their heels because they benefited from the division.

Haniyeh said the Palestinian cause had been "the biggest beneficiary" of the Arab Spring revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

The reconciliation accord of 2011 was brokered with Egypt's mediation, as was the prisoner swap for Shalit, he noted.

"Governments that had close ties with the Israelis at the expense of Palestinian rights have gone," he said. "Respect for the Palestinian cause among Arab people has been restored."

"Arab nations are increasingly embracing the concerns of the Palestinian people in regard to Jerusalem, prisoners and the (Israeli) blockade on Gaza," he said.

Benefits so far from neighbouring Egypt may have been few, but they would come in time "when political life settles" and a new president, parliament and government were in power.

One immediate advantage from the toppling of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in 2011 was access to blockaded Gaza from the Egyptian Sinai via the Rafah crossing, he said.

"We hope that with the will of the Egyptian people and political stability in Egypt things will get better and the policies towards Palestine will also be improved," he said.

Asked if Hamas had abandoned armed struggle, Haniyeh replied: "Of course not."

Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation would continue "in all forms - popular resistance, political, diplomatic and military resistance".

Hamas does not recognise Israel, unlike Abbas, who told Reuters in an interview in his West Bank compound on Wednesday that he opposed armed struggle with the Jewish state.

Haniyeh refused to say if Hamas would recognise Israel.

"First of all does Israel recognise the Palestinian people's right to exist in a state and a political entity?" he said. "Let them first answer this question and then we will answer it."

He repeated that the Islamist movement was ready to conclude a truce with Israel which "could last for 10 years or more" in return for a state on lands occupied by Israel after the 1967 Middle East war.

But he said nothing of a comprehensive peace treaty, which Israel insists is the only way to end the 64-year-old Middle East conflict.

(Reporting by Nidal Almughrabi; Writing by Douglas Hamilton; Editing by Andrew Roche)

Source: Reuters

Interesting. Are the Arab revolutions a Sunni restoration that will mark a new stage in the Sunni-Shia cold war in which Sunni and Shia power in the Levant will be roughly evened out for Israel's advantage? If so, how should Israel conduct its policy? Is there a chance relations between Israel and Iran will roughly go back to how they were in the '80s (i.e. during the Iraq-Iran war)?

[Reffo]

Source: Reuters

Interesting. Are the Arab revolutions a Sunni restoration that will mark a new stage in the Sunni-Shia cold war in which Sunni and Shia power in the Levant will be roughly evened out for Israel's advantage? If so, how should Israel conduct its policy? Is there a chance relations between Israel and Iran will roughly go back to how they were in the '80s (i.e. during the Iraq-Iran war)?

No chance in the near future. When it comes to Israel, all Islamists, whether Sunni or Shia, Israel is the ultimate enemy. Israel is their neurosis and obsession. Why? Because unlike other perceived enemies, they still consider that they can gain ultimate victory over Israel.

When will their obsession with Israel end? When they will come to accept reality which is that victory over Israel is equivalent to suicide for the entire Arab world and their allies in the Middle East. Moreover that even their games of "adventure" of sticking pins and needles into Israel will turn out to be so expensive for themselves that they will no longer be willing to pay the price for it. Oh, even after that, they will hate Israel and Jews with a passion. It's just that a time will come when they will no longer be willing to act on that hatred ...

[wat0n]

No chance in the near future. When it comes to Israel, all Islamists, whether Sunni or Shia, Israel is the ultimate enemy. Israel is their neurosis and obsession. Why? Because unlike other perceived enemies, they still consider that they can gain ultimate victory over Israel.

When will their obsession with Israel end? When they will come to accept reality which is that victory over Israel is equivalent to suicide for the entire Arab world and their allies in the Middle East. Moreover that even their games of "adventure" of sticking pins and needles into Israel will turn out to be so expensive for themselves that they will no longer be willing to pay the price for it. Oh, even after that, they will hate Israel and Jews with a passion. It's just that a time will come when they will no longer be willing to act on that hatred ...

So you think that Iran has become more Islamist than right after its revolution?

I think the reason it has messed with Israel is because there have been no strong Sunni leaders or coalitions able to threaten them since the Gulf War, and because its allies are right next to Israel. But what would happen if Assad falls and there is an united Sunni front (Arab and Turkish) interested in asserting its power in the region? Wouldn't this mean that:

1) In the medium term (i.e. when the regional environment stabilizes) they would be very interested in containing Iranian influence in their domains?
2) In the longer term they would seek to impose their will in regional affairs and thus non Sunni, non-Arab/Turkish actors would be interested in balancing out this power?

If so, doesn't this mean Israel (and other smaller, weaker actors) might be interested in at least not fighting Iran and at the same time Iran would be interested in at least not fighting them? Would there be any possibility of cooperation in this context?

[Reffo]

So you think that Iran has become more Islamist than right after its revolution?

Yes. Iran is clearly a theocracy. And even if they turn to secularism there have been two generations who have been brain washed to hate Israel. That will not reverse overnight.

I think the reason it has messed with Israel is because there have been no strong Sunni leaders or coalitions able to threaten them since the Gulf War, and because its allies are right next to Israel

Even when Saddam WAS a threat to them, they held yearly rallies in which they chanted death to America, death to Israel. Sure, they used Israel in the arm deal which was a background hush hush deal of which ordinary Iranians were not told. But the national policy even then, was "death to Israel".

But what would happen if Assad falls and there is an united Sunni front (Arab and Turkish) interested in asserting its power in the region?

iran can handle any threats from it's Arab neighbours on it's own. It does not need Israel's help. They fought the Iraqi army to stand still. The only reason why they didn't actually defeat them and turned it to a rout was because Saddam resorted to the use of chemical weapons. And even then they only managed to get a draw with the Iranians.

Wouldn't this mean that:

1) In the medium term (i.e. when the regional environment stabilizes) they would be very interested in containing Iranian influence in their domains?
2) In the longer term they would seek to impose their will in regional affairs and thus non Sunni, non-Arab/Turkish actors would be interested in balancing out this power?

If so, doesn't this mean Israel (and other smaller, weaker actors) might be interested in at least not fighting Iran and at the same time Iran would be interested in at least not fighting them? Would there be any possibility of cooperation in this context?

I stand by what I said before. Certainly in the short term and probably the medium term, I suspect that all players in the Middle East would consider cooperation, let alone alliance, with Israel as the bottom of their priority. Sure, there will be all sorts of shifting alliances but Israel will always be at the bottom of the heap in such considerations for them. Just my opinion ...

The only way that would change would be if one of the players would face a national calamity. Then they would grasp at straws and would resort to becoming friendly with Israel. But it would not be a long lasting genuine intention. It would be similar to how Egypt is unravelling in front of our eyes. Like Egypt, they would be looking to distance themselves from Israel at the earliest opportunity.

[wat0n]

OK, but do you think there is a chance of a temporary cooperation between Israel and any (or both) of these Muslim (Sunni and Shia) blocs?

How should Israel react to internal Muslim conflicts? You think Israel should remain neutral (can it actually remain neutral?) or it should pick a side?

I think Israel should just support whichever side is losing, all covertly of course. But if this is the rule, I think Iran and Shias will eventually be on the losing side - demographics don't help them, at all. I think then that Israel and Iran will eventually have to cooperate (covertly), regardless of whichever rallies they may hold in their countries.

[Reffo]

OK, but do you think there is a chance of a temporary cooperation between Israel and any (or both) of these Muslim (Sunni and Shia) blocs?

Like I said, only if they face national calamity and are desperate. Otherwise their anti Israel psychosis takes over.

How should Israel react to internal Muslim conflicts? You think Israel should remain neutral (can it actually remain neutral?) or it should pick a side?

A really good question. My answer is that Israel should do whatever all others seem to be doing, particularly all others in the Middle East. Israel should pursue it's own self interest and forget about altruism.

I think Israel should just support whichever side is losing, all covertly of course. But if this is the rule, I think Iran and Shias will eventually be on the losing side - demographics don't help them, at all. I think then that Israel and Iran will eventually have to cooperate (covertly), regardless of whichever rallies they may hold in their countries.

see my answer above.

[Ziggy]

Excellent posts, Reffo!!

[Reffo]

Excellent posts, Reffo!!

Thank you Ziggy, I like your posts too

[wat0n]

A really good question. My answer is that Israel should do whatever all others seem to be doing, particularly all others in the Middle East. Israel should pursue it's own self interest and forget about altruism.

Well I also believe the same. But it begs the question if it is possible it may be in Israel's national interest to be in passable (not friendly) terms with Iran in the future or not. Because if it is, it would impact Israel's strategy now, particularly in regard with how to deal with Iran's nuclear program.

[Reffo]

Well I also believe the same. But it begs the question if it is possible it may be in Israel's national interest to be in passable (not friendly) terms with Iran in the future or not. Because if it is, it would impact Israel's strategy now, particularly in regard with how to deal with Iran's nuclear program.

It is in Israel's national interest to be on good terms with anyone. Not just Iran. But it is impossible to be on good terms with those who do not want to be on good terms.