In his weekly Canadian Jewish News media analysis column “According to Reports,” Paul Michaels, CIC Director of Communications, commends the Globe and Mail for taking an editorial stance against Hamas.
Given the extent and the intensity of the international condemnation of Israel following Israel's botched May 31 seizure of the Mavi Marmara, it was almost inevitable that a sober re-adjustment would take place.
The Globe and Mail lead editorial of June 22 provided a model of the latter (even though the paper had previously maintained a moderately critical position about Israel's mistakes).
The June 22 editorial made the paper's position clear in the opening paragraph: "Having welcomed Israel's pledge to immediately ease the blockade of goods into Hamas-ruled Gaza, the Quartet of Mid-east peacemakers on Monday warned that the current situation in Gaza is 'unsustainable and unacceptable and not in the interests of anyone concerned.' It is a fine sentiment, but there remains an immutable obstacle to any lasting relief to the Gaza predicament. It is not Israel. It is Hamas."
While the Globe welcomed changes that Israel made to the long list of goods that will be allowed into Gaza for the benefit of the civilians there, the paper was firm about the need for Israel to maintain an embargo on any materiel that Hamas could use for warfare including "dual-use construction supplies."
The paper was also firm about the nature of Hamas, and how Israel should react to it. It commented that "Israel cannot afford to relax its guard against a group that is dedicated to the purpose of wiping it off the map. It cannot deal with the Hamas government, negotiating sensible accommodations with give-and-take."
This might be read as a response to analysts both in the West and in Israel who've been arguing recently that, for pragmatic reasons, Israel should reach out and talk to Hamas. These analysts, however, while raising expectations of what Israel should do, fail to make any demands of Hamas even though the Quartet (the United Nation, European Union, Russia and the United States) years ago set out conditions for Hamas to meet if it is to be considered a responsible negotiating partner: renounce violence, accept existing Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements, and accept Israel's right to exist.
Hamas refuses to comply. Although some of its leaders have appeared occasionally, if inconsistently, to favour the notion of a long-term truce with Israel, even along a supposed “two-state” idea, Hamas' conditions for such an arrangement – including the “right of return” of Palestinians – still entail the elimination of Israel as the Jewish state.
It is no wonder then that the Globe was unequivocal in its depiction of Gaza's rulers: "Hamas has established a terrorist statelet, which harbours a range of extreme Islamist factions, and is a client of theocratic Iran." It was equally unequivocal when it stated that as long as Hamas remains Hamas — that is, refuses to conform to international demands mentioned above – it will remain "the immutable obstacle" to peaceful co-existence between Israelis and Gazans.
While the Globe has not been shy about criticizing certain Israeli policies from time to time, its position on Hamas has been consistent.
What was a greater surprise was the New York Times' editorial on the Middle East, which also appeared on June 22. The Times has not been as consistently firm as the Globe about Gaza's Islamic rulers. Even in this latest editorial, the Times refers to Hamas as a "militant" group.
Still, the paper called on Israel to focus international attention and pressure on Hamas "which continues to rocket Israeli cities and refuses to accept Israel's right to exist." The Times wrote that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "has rightly refused to abandon the sea blockade of Gaza" as long as this prevents Hamas from acquiring weapons and rockets. (The paper commended modifications to Israel's blockade policy that directly affects Gaza's civilians.)
What remains to be explored in media circles is what Egypt's responsibilities should be, given its own border with Gaza. Contrary to common wisdom that views, as hidden, the 500-800 "smuggling" tunnels running between Gaza and Egypt at the border town of Rafah, the traffic of goods is quite out in the open. But Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak keeps insisting that the onus for the delivery of humanitarian aid remain solely Israel's responsibility. Egypt's effort to maintain the fiction that Israel is the "occupying" power of Gaza is worthy of critical examination.
/cijainfo
@CIJAinfo