Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Last week, senior Hamas and the United States officials expressed to the media their mutual willingness to participate in Dialogue. The statements of Hamas Higher leader Musa Abu Marzuk and the Middle East Presidential Messenger Steve Vikof were most likely aimed to test the waters for future diplomatic move Soon Iran may be bad news for all concerned.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly shown his intention to end the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, which worsen his bigger plans to reconfigure global relations in the United States; And Hamas uses the opportunity to demonstrate during the termination of fire that he still controls gas and remains an important political group among the Palestinians.
In this context, the sudden inclination from the US and Hamas for “dialogue” should be taken seriously and carefully examined, because it is also possible in the best interest of all interested in the Middle East and beyond.
There is certainly a wide gap between the two actors: Washington was a deeply complicit in Israel's genocidal devastation in Gaza, while the movement of Hamas's resistance is regarded as a terrorist organization from much of the West. But that is why they have to meet, speak and accurately identify their positions of the other and the potential to go from militarism to a peacemaker. The continued termination of fire is the ability to start this process, which is why the completion of its three phases should now be the main priority.
Effective Israeli propaganda has long demonstrated Hamas in the West as a reckless and vicious terrorist group that wants to destroy Israel. The reality, however, is that Hamas has been a successful Palestinian national political organization, as it combines the three critical dynamics that most of the 14 million Palestinians in the world support: principled and sustainable resistance to the US Israeli colonization and subordination; political activism to create a national political program supported by all Palestinian factions; And pragmatism, which constantly explores how to safely resolve the conflict with Zionism.
Hamas's understanding and his positions does not mean to admit it formally, to perceive his views, or to refrain from criticizing his militancy, which usually reflects the global definition of admissible armed resistance against the occupation and occasionally corresponds to the definition of terrorism against civilians S
Like most liberation movements, Hamas simultaneously practices militarism, resistance, terrorism and political pragmatism. Recognizing and dividing these directions is the key to engaging the movement on the path to a peaceful resolution of the conflict with Israel – that is, if an Israeli government has ever emerged, which is really seeking a fair constant peace.
The US-Hamas dialogue can now clarify if they both seek peace. My lifelong interactions with the Palestinian leaders show that the most important but undervalued attribute of Hamas and the entire leadership of the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine is their long -standing desire to create a Palestinian state that lives peacefully with Israel within their borders by 1967, adjusted with mutual agreement.
Hamas officially, informally and repeatedly expressed this opinion, which was unanimously formalized in the Pan-Arabic Peace Offers of Israel since 2002. These positions were confirmed again last week in and interview By Senior Official Hamas Bazam Naim.
Peace resolution has never happened mainly because the hard Israeli leaders have constantly ignored these offers from Hamas and all other Palestinian groups.
Canadian scientist Colter Lower shows in his research how the American-Israeli challenge is the main obstacle since the 1970s to implement a consensus based on the International Law on Dying Conflict. As he wrote in 2023: “In January 1976, the Palestin Liberation Organization (PLO) proposed to negotiate the terms of this” bilateral “consensus. With Washington's support, Israel refused the good fide Palestinian proposal (…) Israeli-American rejections of bad faith is actually the main “obstacle to peace”. “
This rejection, together with the ruthless Israeli aggression, reflects the purpose of the Zionist-Israeli 1920 to expel as many Palestinians from its lands of the ancestors and to formalize exceptional Jewish sovereignty over the whole historical Palestine.
As the conflict has worsened and expanded throughout the region, from the Arab side, the conditions Hamas accepted remain on the table. They are difficult but realistic. They require Zionism to determine its borders and to end their colonial rage in the region, and the Palestinians officially accept the statehood of only 22 percent of the historical Palestine.
All agreements that have dropped the war in favor of peace are difficult and require strict changes in policy from all countries. The end of the regime of the South African apartheid and the US wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan are some examples of how difficult the peace can be – but also how vital they are.
If Vitcof and Abu Marzuk were talking about their respective governments, as I suspect they were, this is the time to move forward with the US-Hamas dialogue and ignore the wars around, especially in the US and Israel, who will try to stop this important Step in what is happening.
Each dialogue should avoid the errors of the Oslo process of 1993 and other peacekeeping attempts that replace endless talk sessions from both sides, while Israeli colonial extensions and annexes continued with explicit US support.
We need to work extraordinarily to take advantage of this opportunity, after expanding the wars and a lot of suffering, to transfer the entire Middle East from our catastrophic current path of militarism to a future joint existence between all countries.
The anger expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazee's editorial position.
