Your paragraph that starts "There were, however, signs that Hamas might be softening its opposition to two states" is... wow. Tendentious is the word. Hamas offered Israel vague words in exchange for a full Israeli retreat, and your reaction is "Israel could have embraced this."
You noted that Zahar offered a truce if Israel withdraws from 100% of land taken in 1967, as if this was a sign of moderation. How many times does he have to say that any Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders is just a phase? Please give me a number. memri.org/tv/hamas-leade…
Zahar gets frustrated when people think his acceptance of a state on the pre-1967 lines is a concession. I would too! "We say that we will establish a state on any inch of land that is liberated, but without relinquishing a single inch of Palestine." memri.org/tv/hamas-leade…
Last year, Zahar said "removing the Jews from the land they occupied in 1948 is an immutable principle." And: "Our position is: Palestine in its entirety, and not a grain of soil less." Your view is that this was avoidable if Israel embraced him in 2006? memri.org/tv/hamas-offic…
Zahar in '10: "This is our plan for this stage – to liberate the West Bank & Gaza, without recognizing Israel’s right to a single inch of land, and without giving up the Right of Return for a single Palestinian refugee." Should have embraced Zahar in '06! memri.org/tv/hamas-leade…
Zahar gave a nice speech in 2010. If you read between the lines, you can see that he might be softening his opposition to two states. memri.org/tv/hamas-leade…
Newsweek asked Zahar in 2005 if engaging Hamas could moderate Hamas. Zahar laughed – he has a sense of humor – at the EU's efforts to engage Hamas and said "I don't trust the term 'moderate.' We are already moderate." Why is it so hard to understand him? newsweek.com/mahmoud-zahar-…
