Great oxymoron
This week’s column by that arch-apologist for the terrorist group called Hamas reached new heights that only someone with the affront of Gershon Baskin could achieve (“Changing our position on Hamas,” January 19).
I do believe his final words produced a truly great oxymoron: “Hamas to demonstrate pragmatism.”
From experience the only change in our position should be one of even greater surveillance, as any future move they are likely to make will be far from pragmatic and more dangerous to our security should we in any way drop our guard.
Tel Aviv Gershon Baskin’s recommendation is a dangerous combination of self-aggrandizement and misleading assertions.
As proof of his own bona fides, he lauds his secret channel negotiations that led to the release of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Schalit. Eleven years after this disastrous exchange, he has yet to accept responsibility for the many former prisoners who returned to terrorism, nor for others who chose to murder Jews believing that, if captured, they eventually will be freed in another lopsided deal.
The recent release of a video of Avera Mengistu, heralded by Baskin as “a signal that Hamas is prepared to be more practical,” is actually proof of Hamas’s craven inhumanity, holding hostage for eight years a mentally unstable Israeli civilian (along with another civilian and the bodies of two soldiers) with no possible military significance.
Baskin says he is trying to negotiate a long-term ceasefire “that would include ending the Egyptian and Israeli military siege on Gaza and the threat of rockets launched at hundreds of thousands of Israelis.” This implied but erroneous moral equivalence reverses cause and effect. Israel’s fully justified embargo on arms reaching Gaza is the result (not the cause) of repeated rocket attacks on innocent civilians. A long-term ceasefire is entirely in the hands of Hamas without Baskin’s assistance. They need only to forswear further wanton bloodshed.
Baskin says that adherence to the most recent ceasefire is “evidence of how the responsibility of governing impacts Hamas’s [less ideological] decision-making.” It is much more likely that the current quiescence is a result of Israel’s deadly retaliation against Hamas members for repeated rocket attacks and attempted crossborder incursions. Hamas is simply not willing to incur any further losses at this time.
Baskin cites Gazans’ horrible suffering under the repressive Hamas regime and admits that the organization will not lay down its arms, stop producing its rockets, nor recognize Israel anytime soon. Even so, he recommends that Israel interact with the terrorist organization in order to work out a modus vivendi. (No doubt Baskin will offer to act as chief intermediary.)
This is a recipe for disaster. It would solidify Hamas’s rule in Gaza, dash Gazans’ hopes for better conditions, and lend legitimacy to Hamas as a leading Palestinian power. All this while the terror organization stockpiles its weapons for the next round of violence at a time of its choosing. EFRAIM COHEN Zichron Ya’acov