Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas meets with the UN envoy in his Gaza City office. (Maan Images)

Must a Native American recognise the right of the United States of America to exist?

Interesting question. The US was established by Europeans who invaded a continent that did not belong to them, eradicated most of the indigenous population (the "Red Indians") in a prolonged campaign of genocide, and exploited the labour of millions of slaves who had been brutally torn from their lives in Africa. Not to mention what is going on today. Must a Native-American — or indeed anybody at all — recognise the right of such a state to exist?

But nobody raises the question. The United States does not give a damn if anybody recognises its right to exist or not. It does not demand this from the countries with which it maintains relations.

Why? Because this is a ridiculous demand to start with.

OK, the United States is older than the state of Israel, as well as bigger and more powerful. But countries that are not superpowers do not demand this either. India, for example, is not expected to recognise Pakistan's "right to exist", in spite of the fact that Pakistan was established at the same time as Israel, and — like Israel — on an ethnic/religious basis.

So why is Hamas required to "recognise Israel's right to exist"?

When a state "recognises" another state, it is a formal recognition, the acknowledgement of an existing fact. It does not imply approval. The Soviet Union was not required to recognise the existence of the US as a capitalist state. On the contrary, Nikita Khrushchev promised in 1956 to "bury" it. The US certainly did not dream of recognising at any time the right of the Soviet Union to exist as a communist state.

So why is this weird demand addressed to the Palestinians? Why must they recognise the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state?

I am an Israeli patriot, and I do not feel that I need anybody's recognition of the right of my state to exist. If somebody is ready to make peace with me, within borders and on conditions agreed upon in negotiations, that is quite enough for me. I am prepared to leave the history, ideology and theology of the matter to the theologians, ideologues and historians.

Related stories Quality time The demands should be addressed to Israel Arab leaders must defend the unity government Hints of change in language of Hamas In the heart of Palestinian consensus

Perhaps after 60 years of the existence of Israel, and after we have become a regional power, we are still so unsure of ourselves that we crave for constant assurance of our right to exist — and of all people, from those that we have been oppressing for the last 40 years. Perhaps it is the mentality of the ghetto that is still so deeply ingrained in us.

But the demand addressed now to the Palestinian unity government is far from sincere. It has an ulterior political aim, indeed two: a) to convince the international community not to recognise the Palestinian government that is about to be set up, and b) to justify the refusal of the Israeli government to enter into peace negotiations with it.

The British call this a "red herring" — a smelly fish that a fugitive drags across the path in order to put the pursuing dogs off the trail.

When I was young, Jewish people in Palestine used to talk about our secret weapon: the Arab refusal. Every time somebody proposed some peace plan, we relied on the Arab side to say "no". True, the Zionist leadership was against any compromise that would have frozen the existing situation and halted the momentum of the Zionist enterprise of expansion and settlement. But the Zionist leaders used to say "yes" and "we extend our hand for peace" — and rely on the Arabs to scuttle the proposal.

That was successful for a hundred years, until Yasser Arafat changed the rules, recognised Israel and signed the Oslo Accords, which stipulated that the negotiations for the final borders between Israel and Palestine must be concluded not later than 1999. To this very day, those negotiations have not even started. Successive Israeli governments have prevented it because they were not ready under any circumstances to fix final borders. (The 2000 Camp David meeting was not a real negotiation — Ehud Barak convened it without any preparation, dictated his terms to the Palestinians and broke the dialogue off when they were refused.)

After the death of Arafat, the refusal became more and more difficult. Arafat was always described as a terrorist, cheat and liar. But Mahmoud Abbas was accepted by everybody as an honest person who truly wanted to achieve peace. Yet Ariel Sharon succeeded in avoiding any negotiations with him. The "unilateral separation" served this end. President Bush supported him with both hands.

Well, Sharon suffered his stroke, and Ehud Olmert took his place. And then something happened that caused great joy in Jerusalem: the Palestinians elected Hamas.

How wonderful! After all, both the US and Europe have designated Hamas as a terrorist organisation! Hamas is a part of the Shiite Axis of Evil! (They are not Shiites, but who cares!) Hamas does not recognise Israel! Hamas is trying to eliminate Abbas, the noble man of peace! It is clear that with such a gang there is no need, nor would it make any sense, to conduct negotiations about peace and borders.

And indeed, the US and their European satellites are boycotting the Palestinian government and starving the Palestinian population. They have set three conditions for lifting the blockade: a) that the Palestinian government and Hamas must recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist, b) they must stop "terrorism", and c) they must undertake to fulfil the agreements signed by the PLO.

On the face of it, that makes sense. In reality, none at all. Because all these conditions are completely one-sided:

1. The Palestinians must recognise the right of Israel to exist (without defining its borders, of course), but the Israeli government is not required to recognise the right of a Palestinian state to exist at all.

2. The Palestinians must put an end to "terrorism", but the Israeli government is not required to stop its military operations in the Palestinian territories and stop the building of settlements. The "roadmap" does indeed say so, but that has been completely ignored by everybody, including the Americans.

3. The Palestinians must undertake to fulfil the agreements, but no such undertaking is required from the Israeli government, which has broken almost all provision of the Oslo agreement. Among others: the opening of the "safe passages" between Gaza and the West Bank, the carrying out of the third "redeployment" (withdrawal from Palestinian territories), the treatment of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as one single territory, etc.

Since Hamas came to power, its leaders have understood the need to become more flexible. They are very sensitive to the mood of their people. The Palestinian population is longing for an end to the occupation and for a life of peace. Therefore, step by step, Hamas has come nearer to recognition of Israel. Their religious doctrine does not allow them to declare this publicly (Jewish fundamentalists too cling to the word of God "To your seed I have given this land") but it has been doing so indirectly. Little steps, but a big revolution.

Hamas has announced its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state bounded by the June 1967 borders — meaning: next to Israel and not in place of Israel. (This week, ex-minister Kadura Fares repeated that Hamas leader Khaled Mishaal has confirmed this.) Hamas has given Abbas a power of attorney to conduct the negotiations with Israel and has undertaken in advance to accept any agreement ratified in a referendum. Abbas, of course, clearly advocates the setting up of a Palestinian state next to Israel, across the Green Line. There is no doubt whatsoever that if such an agreement is achieved, the huge majority of the Palestinian population will vote for it.

In Jerusalem, worry has set in. If this goes on, the world might even get the impression that Hamas has changed, and then — God forbid — lift the economic blockade on the Palestinian people.

To read the full article please visit Gush Shalom's website.