In the background behind the kidnapped soldier saga is the fact that Hamas seems to have more or less agreed to recognize Israel. This is huge if it is sincere, but that is a very, very big if.
If you're talking about the Prisoner's Document, think again. Go read it, and do NOT rely on the news commentary, which can be hazardous to your understanding.
The Prisoner's Document is an exercise in diplomatic ambiguity. It lays claim to 'territories occupied in 67' but not claim to 'territories occupied in 48'. However, no mention of Israel, no recognition of Israel, no declaration that the demand for a state in WB, Gaza and Jerusalem represents final demands. There is support for continued resistance (=terror), demand for 'right of return' (to Israel, not just Palestine), etc. In short, Hamas can go back to its base and say they have given nothing up, except a short term commitment not to attack inside the Green Line short term.
Of course, day after they signed even this, they attacked inside Israel. Khalid abu Toameh of the Jpost says there is a split between Hamas in Gaza, which would like to try to govern, and Hamas in Syria, which is under orders to stay more hardline; they did the attack & kidnap. But that attack took weeks to plan - it's hard to believe that the locals didn't get wind of it. |
