Hamas and Syria
Al-Akhbar Management
The future of Hamas can be read through the past of Fatah. There are so many similarities between the two movements.
It can be maintained that both Fatah and Hamas supervised the creation of repressive and mismanaged mini-police, non-states in the West Bank and Gaza respectively.
The political rhetoric of Hamas – like Fatah – started being clear and categorical and has become vague, ambiguous, and convoluted. We really don’t know now whether Hamas stands for recognition of Israel or not, or whether it wants to have peace with Israel (hudna or no hudna) or not, or whether Hamas will accept a state on the West Bank and Gaza territories only.
It is safe to say that Hamas is characterized with the political opportunism that long characterized the Fatah movement.
But Hamas is the birth child of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that movement has been steeped in the art of political opportunism and in the vulgar political rhetoric. The Muslim Brotherhood has vomited vile anti-Jewish speeches and statements over the years and its founder, Hassan al-Banna, may have been the first Arab to threaten to “throw Jews into the sea” (the statement has been deliberately falsely attributed by Zionist propagandists to Ahmad Shuqayri and other PLO leaders), as cited in Al-Musawwar magazine from 1948.
Yet, the Muslim Brotherhood today sends reassurances to Israel and the US about its respect for the Egyptian peace treaty with Israel. The new Egyptian president mentioned Palestine not once in his inaugural speeches but managed to send many peace gestures to Israel.
Hamas is now doing a dance toward the Syrian regime. The organization has been a close ally – if not client – of the Syrian regime for long years and yet now its wants to pretend that its years of alliance with the Syrian regime never ever happened.
Hamas wants to have it both ways: it wants to take the easy road by waiting the Syrian crisis out, hoping that it would inflict little political damage on its fortunes.
To the Syrian opposition, Hamas can claim that it did not support the Syrian regime and that its leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, once made a generic and general statement about support for the Syrian people. This is the claim of support for the Syrian uprising by Hamas.
For the Syrian regime, Hamas can note that it has not made explicit statements against the Syrian regime and that it has not expressed any support for any of the armed opposition groups inside Syria.
Hamas wishes that the Syrian crisis would end so that it can easily pick the side of the victor. It has been waiting for all those months hoping for an early outcome. The prolongation of the crisis has meant that Hamas can prefer to be mostly silent.
But the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in several Arab countries has made Hamas more obligated to pay homage to the mother organization. Mahmoud al-Zahhar even cast a ballot in the Egyptian election.
But if Hamas wants to identify with the Syrian opposition and its armed groups – in the event that its side wins, it should say so and it should state that clearly. But if Hamas were to do that, it would be obligated to explain and justify its long years of support for the Syrian regime.
And if Hamas wants to identify with the Syrian regime – in the event it succeeded in crushing opposition in the country – Hamas would be obligated to explain to the regime its months-long silence on Syria.
The position of Hamas vis-à-vis the Syrian crises reeks of political opportunism. Al-Quds Al-Arabi even cited Khaled Meshal as stating that he would abandon the Iranian sponsor if another financial backer can be found.
Hamas has been sending delegations to GCC countries but Saudi Arabia has rebuffed repeated requests by Hamas for meetings with Saudi officials. Saudi Arabia has been requesting that Hamas cut off ties with Iran.
It is likely that Hamas will maintain its policy of wait-and-stay-silent on Syria until a victor emerges. Only then will Hamas resume its tone of staunch support for the Syrian regime, or it will manufacture a new tone of support for its enemies. It all depends on the outcome.
Reddit
Comments
My fake condolences on the demise of your Assadi regime, something Bashar and his father specialised in, "iqtul al-qateel wamshee bi-janaztu", like Hafez did with Kamal Jumblat and he personally "consoled" his son, or what Bashar did with Hamza al-Khatib's father and uncle.
Sectarian Abu Umar just cannot get it -I really would pity him were he not supporting the worst foes of Arabs and Muslims out of his sectarianism
And yes, Abu Umar supports not just American tanks, but any who raids on them, providing it is good for his sectarian POV.
PS I hope that the very words "raid on American tanks" are not protected by law as being only to Abu Umar for use :) He sure is fond of them
He's still crying like a baby when Prince Sultan and Prince Nayef were dead. This is why he was so desperate to step up attacks on AbuKhalil. He claims that AbuKhalil has a "sectarian Shia background" but he never show such evidence. He claims that the Shias in Bahrain and Qatif were supporting Bashar but he never shows any one of the proof. This is how a desperate sectarian kid just want to argue for the sake of arguing, knowing that he will eventually lose.
" He claims that the Shias in Bahrain and Qatif were supporting Bashar but he never shows any one of the proof. This is how a desperate sectarian kid just want to argue for the sake of arguing, knowing that he will eventually lose."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mhsvgD7nyXc
Yes, I have no doubt that the majority of them support Bashar and when the Iraqi, Bahrani and Qatifi Shi'ites were hosted by Hafez al-Assad in the 80's, they didn't utter a word against him, and the Kuwaiti Shi'ite MPs are big supporters of Bashar,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me0it469nP4
so it isn't a stretch to say the others don't share the same feelings. The desperate one is the one who preaches "mumana'a"
but looks the other way when his allies come to power on American tanks and if you are so confident, why didn't Al-Manar or NBN dare host a single anti-Bashar figure while Al-Arabiyah and Al-Jazeera hosted hundreds of pro-Bashar figures? Let Al-Manar or NBN host me to debate "mumana'a" and you can bring your best propagandists like Rafiq Nasrallah or Nasir Qandeel and we will see who will lose.
.
Typical statement from the juhhaal of the "mumana'a", you oppose the Iranian agenda and Bashar, so by default, you must be a supporter of Aal-Su'ood. No, I didn't shed tears on the demise of the Abi Righals of Aal-Su'ood and the first people to oppose the treachery of Aal-Suood, King Abdul-Aziz and his collaboration with the British, were his fellow Najdis and members of his sect to the time of Gulf War I and II when dozens of Saudi ulama and shuyookh opposed and confronted the Saudi regime for it's treachery annd it's palace scholars who made pathetic excuses for its treachery annd thousands of them were thrown in jail to this day and there are hundreds of shuyookh, inside and outside of Saudi who share the same sectarian affiliation as the Saudi regime who condemned it's treachery. Is there a single official or shaykh from Amal, Hezbollah or Iran who condemned their allies who rode to power in American tanks in Afghanistan and Iraq and tooks billions from them? Did any of them condemn Chalabi and Hamid al-Bayati when they were cavorting with the Zionist Neocons and inciting them to attack Iraq? Did any of them condemn Iran for opening it's airspace for American warplanes to attack Afghanistan? No, this never happened, proving the double standards of the hypocritical Shi'ite sectarians, who didn't abide by their bogus standards of "mumana'a" which they preach. And yes I have no doubt that As'ad is influenced by his "Shi'ite sectarian background" and I brought lots of evidences which you seem to ignore, the biggest being Hezbollah's double standards on "mumana'a" and secretly approving of its allies riding American tanks into power.
"The Muslim Brotherhood has vomited vile anti-Jewish speeches and statements over the years and its founder, Hassan al-Banna, may have been the first Arab to threaten to “throw Jews into the sea” (the statement has been deliberately falsely attributed by Zionist propagandists to Ahmad Shuqayri and other PLO leaders), as cited in Al-Musawwar magazine from 1948."
What about the "vile anti-Jewish speeches" of Hezbollah and Iran? Are you going to condemn them too with the same vehemence? How about your own vomit and lies As'ad like your ranting:
http://angryarab.blogspot.ca/2009/09/saudi-celebration-of-ramadan-ii.html
a few years ago about Nabeel al-Awadi's series on the seerah as "Wahabi anti-semitism", so Ali ibn Abi Talib and Muhammad ibn Maslamah are "Wahabis" because they waged war on Khaybar and Ka'b al-Ashraf? Why don't you dare attack Ali ibn Abi Talib?
And if you engaging in guilt by association and accusations of sectarianism towards Hamas, and there is no doubt that they are sectarians, then what about the guilt by association of Hezbollah and its alliance with "thuwar Nato"?
Why? Are you crying that the Free Syrian Army in Syria just defeated and the rise of the death of Saudi rulers?
Post new comment