Hamas Delivers Peace Letter to President Obama: Read full text of letter here

Hamas Delivers Peace Letter to President Obama
by Medea Benjamin
Common Dreams.org
June 4, 2009

The Hamas government in Gaza reached out to President Obama on the occasion of his visit to the Middle East, announcing that Hamas was willing to talk to all parties “on the basis of mutual respect and without preconditions.” CODEPINK cofounder Medea Benjamin, who carried the letter out from Gaza, said that the letter represented a significant development and an effort by Hamas to present a new face to the Western world. “While Osama bin Laden used the occasion of President Obama’s visit to deliver a scathing attack, Hamas reached out to a feminist U.S. peace group to deliver a letter to Obama urging dialogue, mutual respect and adherence to international law,” said Medea Benjamin.

The letter was signed by Ahmed Yusef, Deputy Foreign Minister and hand-delivered to Benjamin, who was in Gaza headed a 66-person delegation representing 10 nations. Benjamin and representatives of CODEPINK are delivering the letter to the U.S. Embassy in Cairo today, June 4, during Obama’s visit to Egypt.

The text of the letter is below.

-------------------------------------------------

His Excellency President Barack Obama,
President of the United States of America.
June 3rd 2009

Dear Mr. President,

We welcome your visit to the Arab world and your administration’s initiative to bridge differences with the Arab-Muslim world.

One long-standing source of tension between the United States and this part of the world has been the failure to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict.

It is therefore unfortunate that you will not visit Gaza during your trip to the Middle East and that neither your Secretary of State nor George Mitchell have come to hear our point of view.

We have received numerous visits recently from people of widely varied backgrounds: U.S. Congressional representatives, European parliamentarians, the U.N.-appointed Goldstone commission, and grassroots delegations such as those organized by the U.S. peace group CODEPINK.

It is essential for you to visit Gaza. We have recently passed through a brutal 22-day Israeli attack. Amnesty International observed that the death and destruction Gaza suffered during the invasion could not have happened without U.S.-supplied weapons and U.S.-taxpayers’ money.

Human Rights Watch has documented that the white phosphorus Israel dropped on a school, hospital, United Nations warehouse and civilian neighborhoods in Gaza was manufactured in the United States. Human Rights Watch concluded that Israel’s use of this white phosphorus was a war crime.

Shouldn’t you see first-hand how Israel used your arms and spent your money?

Before becoming president you were a distinguished professor of law. The U.S. government has also said that it wants to foster the rule of law in the Arab-Muslim world.

The International Court of Justice stated in July 2004 that the whole of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are occupied Palestinian territories designated for Palestinian self-determination, and that the Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal.


Not one of the 15 judges sitting on the highest judicial body in the world dissented from these principles.

The main human rights organizations in the world, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have issued position papers supporting the right of the Palestinian refugees to return and compensation.

Each year in the United Nations General Assembly nearly every country in the world has supported these principles for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Every year the Arab League puts forth a peace proposal based on these principles for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Leading human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch have also stated that Israel’s siege of Gaza is a form of collective punishment and therefore illegal under international law.

We in the Hamas Government are committed to pursuing a just resolution to the conflict not in contradiction with the international community and enlightened opinion as expressed in the International Court of Justice, the United Nations General Assembly, and leading human rights organizations. We are prepared to engage all parties on the basis of mutual respect and without preconditions.

However, our constituency needs to see a comprehensive paradigm shift that not only commences with lifting the siege on Gaza and halts all settlement building and expansion but develops into a policy of evenhandedness based on the very international law and norms we are prodded into adhering to.

Again, we welcome you to Gaza which would allow you to see firsthand our ground zero. Furthermore, it would enhance the US position; enabling you to speak with new credibility and authority in dealing with all the parties.

Very Truly Yours,
Dr. Ahmed Yousef
Deputy of the Foreign Affairs Ministry
Former Senior Political Advisor
to Prime Minister Ismael Hanniya


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/04

is not moved.

Thanks.

This is AWESOME NEWS!!!!!

I'm very encouraged!

I think the contrast between how these two bodies are approaching Obama speaks volumes as to who is the more honest broker in today's climate.

Isn't it sad when a "terrorist organization" is more diplomatic towards us than one of our ostensible nation-state allies that we have been giving our $$$ to for years?

Right-wingers are still selling that snake oil to anyone who will listen.

It's worked for, what, 50 years now?

It's a conscious, tactical decision to use that snake oil to quell dissent. It's entirely immoral, but it's hard to argue that it's not smart, considering how well it's worked.

Seriously, just about the absolute worst thing to tell anyone these days is that they're a hateful bigot, and that goes double for us liberals. It's particularly useful against us, which is rather convenient because we're exactly the same people that would otherwise speak up about these human rights atrocities going on in the occupied territories. They're using our own sensibilities against us.

Make no mistake - there's nothing dumb about it. That implies that they're not doing it on purpose, which they absolutely are.

And Hamas is no better than Likud. Alas. Anyone who thinks they are is simply uninformed.

It's basically a demand that he visit Gaza (which he won't), denounce Israel (which he won't) and recognize Palestinians' right of return (which he won't). It's a list of impossible preconditions. Basically, this is Hamas saying, "shove your speech up your ass" in diplomatese.

I liked what Obama said regarding Israel/Palestine, a LOT. But neither side seems willing or able to reach any meaningful agreement.

But it's not.

You have to start somewhere.

No where do I see a statement that Israel should not exist.

I certainly hope not.

You seem to have pegged me as an apologist for Israeli occupation. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that this letter isn't some heart-melty love note to Obama or a major step toward peace. K?

If not, where are Palestinians suppose to return to .... Birmingham, Alabama?

I mean, they are called Palestinians are they not?

So who is against Palestinians returning to their homeland Palestine, outside of right-wingnuts and why?

"Right of return" means the Palestinians get to return--to Israel. Frankly, I can see it--that's where they used to live. But seriously, nobody in the US gov't is ever going to support that.

You are being intentionally obtuse. Right of return means that they would get to return to the newly created Palestinian state, not Israel.

They were evicted from Israel. Where else could they "return" to?

The Palestinian right of return is a political position or principle asserting that Palestinian refugees, both first-generation refugees and their descendants, have a right to return to the homes and villages they left or which they were forced to leave in the former British Mandate of Palestine (currently Israel and Palestinian territories), as a result of the 1948 Palestine War and the 1967 Six-Day war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return

That's the point.

we could have been done with this a lot quicker. Why do people feel the need to be so evasive? That's what I meant by "intentionally obtuse" in the first place.

I didn't mean to be evasive - just poorly communicated. The stance against right of return is typically inclusive of having refugees return even to a newly formed nation.

I read it as a citation of a third party supporting Hamas' position.

Maybe it should be a point that they negotiate? You know... when they start... negotiating...

From: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v3n06/NGOsPromotePalestinianPositionOnRefugeesPart1.htm

From the Amnesty International open letter to W
"the right to return applies not just to those who were directly expelled and their immediate families, but also to those of their descendants who have maintained what the Human Rights Committee defines as having 'close and enduring connections' with the area. The organization supports the right of exiles to return to their own homes or the vicinity of their own homes, where this is feasible. Exiles who choose not to return are entitled to compensation for lost property and those returning should also be compensated for lost property. The rights of innocent third parties, who may be living in the homes or on the lands of the exiles, should also be taken into account."

Seems to me that a lifting of the seige of Gaza, cessation of and removal of illegal settlers/settlements... and maybe some negotiation over reparations/return rights... there's something to negotiate.

is specific to those Palestinians and their descendents who fled/were forced from their homes in Israel in the Nakba in 1948.

And Cali, given that I have even defended you on certain times in the past, I would expect a degree of respect in return. It was clearly lacking there.

the right of return is defined by Palestinians and the U.N. as referring to the right of Palestinians to return to their homes in Israel.

They view it a bit differently, apparently, but as far as they see it, the right of return is just allowing any refugees back into the area that would be the newly formed Palestine. And the argument against it is that Israel doesn't want millions of Palestinians suddenly on their border, potentially wanting to wipe out Israel. Perhaps the organizations I've worked with are a bit more comprehensive than what is sometimes strictly meant.

get the two state solution and then the independent Palestinian state would have the right to legislation whatever immigration rules they want?

of right to return is to the places they or their ancestors were forced to leave - and that in many cases is in Israel proper.

It is not lack of respect to say that you are wrong when everything I have ever read says you are. They are not speaking of returning to the portion of 1948 Palestine that will become the Palestinian state. If they were, why would they ultimately - when there are two states - need Israel's permission to do so.

Under current conditions I'd be surprised if you could find 10 Palestinians who even want to visit Israel under its current right-wing regime.

But, if a genuine peace agreement is reached and Palestinians secure a peaceful and prosperous homeland I don't think there would be any problem with Palestinians going to Israel or Palestine to live and work if that's how "right of return" will be defined under a mutual agreement.

And I have no problem whatsoever with Palestinians having the right to return to Palestine once it becomes a totally free and independent state.

The point is that this issue is a non-starter. Israel will never agree to it and America certainly won't push it. I personally feel that the expulsion of Palestinians from their own land was a crime, and that Israel is basically an illegal state, but no moreso than America with regard to our indigenous tribes. The point is, Israel isn't going away, and they will never accept right of return. I can't say I really blame Hamas for insisting on it, but at the same time it's just not going to happen.

an illegal state using that criteria. The original Celts likely didn't think of part of their land an England - (Angle land)

And it's because they fear that a critical mass of Palestinians in Gaza might someday overthrow Israel. So rather than be friendly neighbors, they're rather just destroy them.

I think that's the crux of the matter.

There wasn't any "demand" that he visit Gaza, there was an invitation... which contained an implication that, as long as Americans are paying for Israeli bombs, maybe he'd like to see how much bang we were getting for our buck... so to speak. It also didn't demand that he "denounce Israel", it merely suggested that, as a former professor of Law, he might want to consider international laws (which the international court has unanymously judged Israel to be in violation of) when arbitrating a peace... and the demand that he "recognize Palestinians' right of return" also folds in nicely with those judgements by the international courts.

It's not a set of "impossible preconditions" unless that's the point you're trying to get to by spinning the contents of the letter.

The letter is a civil toned reminder of the harsh realities in Gaza, and the international court's judgements on the actions and actors that have led to those harsh realities. The fact that the tone of the letter remains at least ostensibly civil does provide a starting point... but also carries implication that the Palestinians have reached a point where they've already surrendered/given up about all that they can give up... and thus asking them to make further gestures is like trying to squeeze money from a turnip, so to speak.

It seems like a first step toward a possible agreement. And passing the letter to a feminist peace organization is also a wonderfully "terrorist Hamas"-stereotype busting gesture...

I'm not an Israel supporter by a longshot. But, because I pointed out that this letter wasn't the olive branch it was being made out to be, everyone's assuming I'm some Likud member. Of course the case Hamas makes in this letter is a good one--in reality, the case that Israel has repeatedly broken international law and are guilty of human rights abuses is rock solid, not even debatable. Of course, Hamas is also guilty of much, but my point, when I call these things "impossible," is not that they aren't fair, but that they are impossible. It is impossible that Obama will endorse right of return, whether it's wrong or right. Hamas knows that as well as anyone.

And as the negotiation progresses... you cede the impossible, and settle for what is worthwhile... if that's offered at some point.

Or you continue to lob rockets at any hamlet within range...

We'll see if Israel is willing to make any concessions to assure themselves that the rockets will stop being lobbed.

After all, they certainly enjoy a strategic advantage in any conflict scenario. All they need to continue wiping out the Palestinians is for any one of them to fire a rocket. Giving any single person the power to declare war for a nation almost guarantees war.

The real genius idea in Obama's speech is applying non-violent resistance techniques to the conflict. If the Palestinians were to mount a Gandhi-style resistance, I think they'd make swift progress. But it doesn't seem likely.

Another thing about right of return: Look at America's reaction to the idea that Muslim terrorists could even be moved to a supermax prison on our soil. Now consider the idea that Hamas members would literally be moving into your neighborhood. As I said, I don't think this is something Israelis will accept.

and engaged in a non-violent sit-down how do you think the Israel right would respond.

How about a series of non-violent and massive protests at Israel's borders?

I'm not sure I agree about a Gandhi style resistance's potential in the case of the Palestinians though. I get the impression that they're not integrated enough into Israeli society for it to generate the sort of popular will-changing power that is required to make it efficacious. I may be wrong, but I think Israel could just use the army that the US funds to push Palestinians out of sight... and thence out of mind. And Lord knows the US MSM wouldn't have a problem playing along with a media blackout ("No, I don't think that's a story that the public cares about... Why not do something about kittens?"...)

Likewise, I don't think a Gandhi-style non-violent resistance would've worked for Ireland. England seemed happy to let them starve during the potato famine... would they've done any differently in the face of a MLK-style resistance? Or would they have just assassinated an Irish MLK?
Has Israel already assassinated the Palestinian MLK/Gandhi? Shelled him/her? Accidentally killed him/her in an airstrike?

Granted that the return issue isn't likely to go over well... but there are certainly Palestinians that Mossad could clear of terrorist/ freedom fighter connections... and reparations for those who won't be allowed to return (rather than air strikes) might be a compromise that both sides could agree to at this point.

What the hell does Israel care about paying reparations, anyway? They'll get the money from the US...

Look at the issue of slavery reparations here.

As far as the non-violence thing, I'm not very serious about it. There is too much anger in this conflict for that to take hold. But just to point out that it was the Brits that Gandhi defeated. People grow weary of shooting people who aren't shooting back pretty fast, it's pretty distasteful. Imagine how different our history would be if MLK had encouraged blacks to take up arms against the gov't. A series of unprovoked slaughters is usually enough to sway public opinion--certainly more than "provoked" ones. In the end I bet the body count would be much lower to achieve the same end.

Palestinians are genuinely under the belief that the moment they lay down their arms, they will be totally eliminated. That may or may not be true, but it really doesn't matter - that's reality in their eyes.

To achieve a true peace, Israel is going to have to have a cease fire. And I don't mean a kind-of, sort-of cease fire where they may stop using tanks but continue to bulldoze homes, build settlements and conduct air strikes as they have in the past. I mean a TOTAL cease fire. And it has to be Israel to do it because frankly, only one side is even capable of annihilating the other, and it sure ain't the Palestinians that have the capacity.

And then they could pretend to be charitable. With US Dollars.

And yes, the issue of slavery reparations is very apt. Even more apt would be reparations to the Cherokee who applied for statehood, were decided in favor of by the Supreme Court... only to have President Jackson send in the army to force march them out to the deserts of Oklahoma. I'm not a bit unaware of the irony of the US speaking on this topic as if from a position of moral authority. (Ironic parenthetical... there is a perspective that I stumbled upon once upon a time, while trying to think about the Israel/Palestine issue from different perspectives, from which the behavior of Israel toward the Palestinians is just a modernized version in miniature of the behavior of the US toward the Native Americans... peace negotiations... which are broken without a thought... settlers taking land and killing and so on, who in turn scream about the awful violent behavior of those being killed/stolen from whenever they effect any sort of reprisals... etc.)

As for the non-violence MLK thing... I think the Israelis would have to let the Palestinians into the country before any "non-violence" can take place. And as for the Palestinians still in Israel... if they were to try to march I don't think they'd get very far.

Here's a counter-imaginary scenario. Imagine that the South Africans (semi-arbitrarily chosen) were providing the US with economic aid... and that aid was more than enough to pay for forced removal of all the black folk who associated with MLK? And what if there were a Land Border there in the South?... If the American Government could have, with dollars provided by some outside country, "pushed" the black folk out and over the border into... (say) Cuba... do you really think that MLK and non-violence would've had a chance?

If the North and the West weren't watching (and occasionally sending in the US Army to protect children going to school), do you really think that MLK would've had a chance?

And Gandhi was leading Indians in India. It would've been tough for the British to import/grow a population in India sufficient to re-settle and do crappy work for them if they deported/killed all the Indians.

Non-violent uprisings require a particular set of circumstances, it would appear, in order to have any hope of success.

The Indians in India and African Americans in America were economically integrated in the respective societies, and their boycotts were a huge part of the resistance. You might even say they were possible because the communities' level of political integration was far exceeded by their level of economic integration.

The Palestinians tried a similar tactic after the first intifada, and Israel responded by bringing in thousands of east Asians and Africans to do the menial labor Palestinians had been doing.

If England had thought of that, they might still have an empire...

solution which will be in the best interests of Palestine, Israel, the United States and the world.

We need to provide Israel with some military help so they can defend themselves and prevent the violent overthrow of their state by invading hordes of Muslims.

If Israel were only allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal and a modern state of the art military they could defend themselves from the thousands of WMD's raining down upon them.

The fact that Israel is a military superpower gives the terrorists permission to gnaw on their leg as long as they don't bite the whole leg off. Ok. Yeah.

... suggests the possibility that Israel might not be blameless in this situation.
You have to do some pretty shitty things to a person to get them to try to take on a military superpower with some random weapons that they manage to buy on the black market.

You know, like take their land, and shoot their parents, and bomb their schools while their children are in them... horrific shit. Hell, I don't think even Blackwater (Xe?) would be willing to take on the Israeli military for mere profit...

And the right-wing Israeli regime uses a sledge hammer against that fly .... they call it "collective punishment"

Gee....no mention of the reason their little precious Gaza was attacked in the letter.

Not one mention of stopping the daily barrage of missiles on Civilians.

They are only the victim.

Bullshit.

It is precious to Palestinians even if Israel has destroyed much of that lands infrastructure, killed thousands of civilians and controls all travel and commerce into and out of Gaza, bombarded refugee camps, etc.,

How long could stand up to and defy such savagery and terrorism without hitting your knees in total submission?

Could it be the missles?

Could it be the human bombers who walk into crowded cafes and blow up innocents?

The Palestinians worst enemy is Hamas.

Please, please, please, visit Gaza and talk to Hamas.

An agreement is at hand, I can feel it just from the vibes in this letter.

And, before anyone flames me, just answer me this:

If a native americans on a reservation in Nebraska started lobbing rockets into Omaha, do you think we'd just sit back and "try to reach a settlement or compromise"?

Not a very good analogy.

Check out what happened at Wounded Knee for a better appreciation for what Palestinians are experiencing.

So have "restless injuns" been threatening to lob rockets into Omaha?

Not a very good analogy.

Check out what happened at Wounded Knee I and Wounded Knee II for a better appreciation for what Palestinians are experiencing.

That's a much better and more accurate analogy.

to defend Israeli behavior?

I mean, haven't we all reached the point of acknowledgement that what the US did was essentially genocide?...

http://palestinian.ning.com/forum/topics/the-other-side-of-the-story The other side of the story">The other side of the story

http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/12/the-truth-about-those-hamas-rockets/">The Truth About Those Hamas Rockets

props to code pink