Action Alerts > CJME Alert #22

Misleading editorial on "Hamas victory is strike against peace"
Write to Kansas City Letters to the Editor

The Issue:

Write the Kansas City Star to correct the misleading information in the January 27 Kansas City Star editorial on the Palestinian elections.

Information and quotes from the Star editorial and responses to the misleading information:

The editorial suggests cutting off diplomatic and economic ties with the Palestinian government because of the results of the elections.

  • The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation is a good source for information on the Palestinian elections. The US Campaign says Palestinians should be congratulated, not admonished and threatened with diplomatic isolation and a cut off of aid, for conducting a free and fair, competitive, multi-party legislative election under harsh conditions of Israeli military occupation and besiegement, restrictions on their freedom of movement and ability to campaign freely, and other human rights violations.    
  • The United States professes to promote democracy abroad.  Supporting democracy means supporting the results of free and fair elections as an expression of the self-determination of the people who cast ballots, even when the United States and its allies are not pleased with the outcome.
  • There are indications that Hamas’ participation in the political process is having a moderating influence on its policies.  Recently, Hamas has observed a PA-brokered cease-fire and pledged to maintain it as long as Israel does likewise, raised the possibility of accepting a two-state solution, and removed calls for the destruction of Israel from its election platform.  If the United States were to boycott, sanction, or cut off aid to a Hamas-led PA, it could reverse this trend and exacerbate tensions. 

“Israel had recently withdrawn from Gaza, handing the Palestinians a golden opportunity to show what they could do on their own.”

  • Although Israel dismantled its illegal settlements and military bases in the Gaza Strip, it still maintains a full-scale sea, air, and land siege of the territory. Gaza will remain an open-air prison under Israeli control, preventing Palestinians from exercising their right to freedom of movement and from engaging in economic activity. Under these conditions, Israel will still in effect be occupying the Gaza Strip, according to international law. While Israel "disengages" from Gaza, it will continue construction of the illegal Wall in the West Bank, expand illegal settlements there, and confine the Palestinians to ever shrinking parcels of land.

“Interest in further peace efforts had shuffled the Israeli political scene.”

  • No meaningful talks have occurred since Taba in 2001. The US-based Roadmap to Peace is meant to build mutual trust and steps towards a resolution, Israeli leaders such as Dov Weinglass, PM Sharon’s top advisor, have indicated the Roadmap has reached a dead-end. He said the Gaza disengagement plan “supplied the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.” He continues: “(as a result) you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem.” Statements such as these indicate Israel is not interested in a full negotiations, leading to a withdrawal from Palestinian Territories and settlement of the key status issues.

  • The Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is another good source for information on the Palestinian elections, especially on negotiations with Israel.

    From the JVP newsletter: Israel and the US would do well to put the onus on Hamas to negotiate by accepting the Beirut Declaration of 2002 as a basis for resuming negotiations. This would force the issue of recognition and negotiation and would really turn the heat up on Hamas to sit down and negotiate a deal. It could prove a turning point, but it is not going to happen.

    The Secretary-General of the Arab League flatly stated that Hamas “must” negotiate with Israel and abide by the Beirut declarations of 2002. Based on a Saudi peace proposal, the Arab League in 2002 offered full peace and fully normal relations between Israel and each of the member states of the League in exchange for complete withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967, the establishment of a Palestinian state on those lands in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital and “Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.” Israel completely ignored this offer. While there are points Israel would not accept whole cloth, there is no discernable reason that this offer could not be the basis for serious, short-term negotiations aimed at a permanent settlement of the conflict.

“The United Nations offered them a state of their own six decades ago but other Arabs blocked its establishment.”

  • The Partition Plan was neither just nor fair. It granted 55 percent of Palestine to the Jews, who at that time comprised only 30 percent of the population, and who owned a mere 6 percent of the land. Within this Jewish state were to have been 407,000 Palestinian Arabs. The Arab state was to comprise only the remaining 34 percent of the land. The major reason the Palestinians rejected the partition resolution was on the grounds of its lack of fairness: it proposed to give the minority population an exclusive and hegemonic right to the majority of the land.

"Compared with its blood-soaked past, Hamas has followed a more restrained course in the last year. But it must do much more before it can be seen as a serious negotiating partner by the countries that have the power to make or break Palestinian aspirations."

  • The Star editorial writers should recall that Israel’s own history before statehood was preceded by a UN partition plan and an anti-Arab terror campaign led by Israeli military groups, Irgun and Stern Gang, including former Israeli prime minister Menachim Begin. This history indicates involvement in terror campaigns don’t eliminate parties from leading nations or recognition by the UN.

Send letters to letters@kcstar.com . Please let us know if you write to the Star.

BACKGROUND:
[1] “Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections: Questions you need answered,” Jewish Voice for Peace, http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_292.shtml#q8
[2] “The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation Welcomes the Victory of Palestinian Democracy,” http://endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=1171
[3] “Gallup Palestinian Survey Reveals Broad Discontent With Status Quo,” Gallup Pol, January 27, 2006  http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=21163
 
What You Can Do:

1. Write a letter to the Kansas City Star correcting many misleading or false statements in the editorial. If you choose to use the talking points above, adapt the information to your own words. Letters should be kept to 150 words in length.

Kansas City Star -- E-mail: letters@kcstar.com

2. Send an email to info@cjme.org and let us know that you wrote or called to the KC Star on this issue.
Hamas victory is strike against peace (editorial in Kansas City Star, January 27, 2006)

(KC Star requires registration to read this online) http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/13721357.htm

Prospects for a free and independent Palestine have just disappeared from the radar screen. In a terrible fit of irresponsibility, voters on the West Bank and Gaza have turned their embryonic government over to fanatics who thrive on chaos and violence.

The stated goal of the Hamas organization is Israel’s destruction. The group preaches hatred, scorns peace talks and proudly claims responsibility for many atrocities.

Moderate Palestinians and governments in Europe, the United States and Israel are horrified. They are now figuring out how to respond to the group’s victory in parliamentary elections.

The response from the international community should be harsh. At a minimum, it should include an immediate freeze on financial support and adamant refusal to deal with anyone with clear ties to terrorism.

The last point is crucial. Rewarding terror will encourage more of it.

President Bush responded quickly to the dismal election news with an appropriate warning: “If your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you’re not a partner in peace, and we are interested in peace.”

It is true that the Palestinians have much to be angry about. The United Nations offered them a state of their own six decades ago but other Arabs blocked its establishment.

A reckless Arab military adventure in 1967 left the West Bank and Gaza in Israel’s hands, and the subsequent decades of occupation have been difficult. Decades of inept Palestinian leadership have taken their toll as well. In recent years the corruption and incompetence of the Fatah organization left many people in despair.

Yet some of the Palestinians’ troubles were self-inflicted. While complaining about corruption, for example, many continued to support the man who was most responsible for it — Yasser Arafat — right up until his death in late 2004.

As the Palestinians went to the polls this week, however, their situation was far from hopeless.

Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, is a responsible moderate who had gained international respect and support. Israel had recently withdrawn from Gaza, handing the Palestinians a golden opportunity to show what they could do on their own.

Interest in further peace efforts had shuffled the Israeli political scene. Washington remained committed to eventual establishment of an independent Palestinian nation.

But in handing Hamas a big parliamentary majority this week, Palestinian voters put their lives and hopes in great jeopardy.

Compared with its blood-soaked past, Hamas has followed a more restrained course in the last year. But it must do much more before it can be seen as a serious negotiating partner by the countries that have the power to make or break Palestinian aspirations.

The Palestinians as a whole have not been considered by the world as accountable for the outrages of Hamas. But that is about to change.

So now that Palestinian voters have had their election-day temper tantrum, they had better sober up quickly and start figuring out how to keep their new political leaders from dragging them over the cliff.