Hamas and its truce with Israel is an accord of complexities, as Rasha Saad discovers In the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat Mashari Al-Zaydi questioned if there were any social or ideological slogans not contaminated by political calculations at some point during the process that led to a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. Citing the case of Hamas, Al-Zaydi wrote that from the beginning Hamas suggested it was "different from and superior to the stupidity of Palestinian freedom movements that deal with the cause from a worldly perspective in contrast to Hamas which deals with matters from a celestial standpoint and with a pure soul." After the Oslo agreements, Al-Zaydi explains, Hamas played the role of the armed opponent that stood against any agreement or negotiation reached by the Palestinian Authority with the Israelis, accusing Yasser Arafat's associates of being traitors and guardians of Israeli security. Not long after its victory in the legislative elections in January 2006 and its assumption of the premiership alongside President Mahmoud Abbas, who supports negotiations and peace with Israel, Al-Zaydi continues, Hamas executed a coup and took over Gaza on the pretext of purity of the revolution. After a change in circumstances, Al-Zaydi maintains, Hamas now has real power in its hands and Ehud Olmert's government has shown determination to carry out a strong military strike against Hamas in Gaza. Hamas Interior Minister and strongman Said Siyam threatened Fatah after it launched missiles into Israeli settlements. "Those who sent rockets into Israel, who were formerly known as 'mujahideen' in the language of Hamas, are now harmful to national interests," wrote Al-Zaydi. But, asks Al-Zaydi, does this mean that the government of Hamas has taken over the role of Israel's guardian from Fatah? "The truth is that Hamas does not protect Israel just as Fatah never acted as Israel's guardian. These are smear campaigns aimed at embarrassing and tarnishing the opponent. It is historical common practice that political interests are prioritised before raising any slogans regardless of what they represent. The more that this or that party or state talk about slogans the more one should realise that this clamour merely conceals another movement that contradicts these slogans," maintains Al-Zaydi. Also in Asharq Al-Awsat Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashed commented on the missiles fired from Gaza last week, saying they were not intended to harm Israel but rather Hamas, that is determined not to breach the truce in an effort to please the Syrians. "Those who fired the missiles, including Fatah, wanted to spoil everything for Hamas in retaliation for Hamas's firing of missiles, which ruined their negotiations in the past and disrupted several previous truces." According to Al-Rashed, this truce has shown Hamas's true face in terms of the language it uses and the stances it has adopted. This in itself is sufficient for those who wish to take revenge. The Palestinians have heard and seen Hamas turn against everything for which it had made them suffer. For its part, Al-Rashed wrote, Hamas accuses of treason all those who tried to stop it from firing missiles and threatened those who tried to prevent it from sending its young men on military operations, most of which were a failure. As for Israel, it always retaliated. Every time Hamas fired a missile, Israel returned to Gaza to destroy, kill and turn the lives of Palestinian citizens into a living hell. Al-Rashed argues that Hamas deliberately did this in an effort to embarrass the PA, despite the fact that the PA had handed over the reins to Hamas and allowed it to lead the government after it won the elections, an unprecedented move in the Arab world. But instead of thanking Fatah, Hamas turned against it, caused division, kicked Fatah out and made itself the ruler of Gaza in the name of fighting Israel. "Now, Hamas has received orders from Damascus to stop firing its missiles and not to harm the Israelis in order to facilitate Damascus's negotiations with the Israelis in Turkey and to improve its ties with France," insists Al-Rashed. Focussing on Iran and its nuclear crisis with the international community Elias Harfoush wrote in the London-based daily Al-Hayat that despite the diplomatic coating of Iran's late response to the offer made by the six major powers, the reply was nonetheless clear: Iran's policy towards the nuclear problem has not changed. It will not commit to any decision that leads to suspending uranium enrichment, not even temporarily (six weeks) in return for freezing any discussion of sanctions during the same period. "Hence, rather than responding to the technical aspect of the enrichment issue, the aspect which alarms the West since it is the practical evidence of Iranian intentions, Iran chose to resort to ideology. By this, it defends its position as an oppressed state which, by seeking nuclear and relevant technologies, is merely regaining its rights," wrote Harfoush. According to Harfoush, Tehran is adopting the policy of intimidating the US by suggesting the consequences of any military strike on Iran. Harfoush quoted Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, senior advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as saying that the forces of any government that would attack Iran will no longer have any security in our region or anywhere else and will no longer be safe, wherever they are. "This is the kind of rhetoric adopted by Iran's current leadership towards the world, a rhetoric that leaves room for one of two possible responses: giving in to Iran's demands, or confrontation despite its high cost," argues Harfoush. Walid Choucair commented in Al-Hayat on the significance of Nasrallah's latest speech on the occasion of the return of prisoners. Choucair wrote that Lebanese political circles had been waiting for Nasrallah's reaction to the positive statements issued by his opponents in the majority. This was initiated by Future Movement leader MP Saad Al-Hariri who called upon the Lebanese to consider a swap of prisoners an occasion for national unity. Similar statements followed from Prime Minister Fouad Al-Siniora, head of the Democratic Gathering Walid Jumblatt, former president Amine Gemayel, and leader of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea, each in his own way. Choucair wrote that while the majority of the Lebanese are eager for some form of normalisation in intra-Lebanese relations, the bickering parties are in need of mutual openness because all have grown tired. "After all, the only possible outcome of further escalation would be civil war, even if some have the delusion that they can use big slogans to conceal a sectarian nature," Choucair concludes.
