Freelance journalist Antony Loewenstein spoke at a Socialist Worker public meeting last month on the topic of ‘Why the West Hates Hamas’. Antony is the author of the recently updated book, My Israel Question, which caused a sensation when it was published last year during the height of Israel’s disastrous war in Lebanon. Here is an edited version of his speech.

WHEN THE book came out last year, it was in August during the middle of Israel’s war in Lebanon. This was entirely coincidental of course. The issue of Hamas was part of this debate, having won the Palestinian election in January 2006. It was impossible at that stage to predict what would happen in the coming year.

What we now know is that in June this year Hamas took over Gaza. The western media described this as a coup. I would see it as a necessary act in rather unfortunate circumstances.

The issue of Hamas in the book was this: The western media has created a narrative around what Hamas is, as they have around Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

The narrative is that they are terrorist organisations that we cannot talk to or negotiate with. I note on that issue Associated Press ran a recent report that said the Committee of British lawmakers argued for Britain to construct a dialogue with these three organisations. The report says that these groups cannot be ignored.

So there are cracks appearing in the West.

Since the election of Hamas last year, there has been a tendency to believe that if the US and Israel take a hardline, maybe the EU’s policy will be different and more reasonable. The reality is that their policy has been virtually identical.

And yet cracks are appearing.

Another report from former British diplomats based in Beirut said that the EU would “rather be wrong with America than right alone.” So they won’t state their disagreements publicly, but they will go along with the US.

A few months ago I was in Syria, a few days after Hamas took over Gaza. I spoke to a journalist who works for Al-Hayat, a well-known Arabic-language paper, who regularly meets the leader of Hamas in Damascus.

He had seen him a few days before and asked him why Hamas had taken control. The journalist felt that this move would only serve to give the West an excuse to isolate Hamas even more. But the response was that Hamas had no choice—that they were pushed into a corner.

The Hamas representative did condemn some of the random violence meted out against civilians by some Hamas members.

But he suggested that Hamas would try to “takeover” the West Bank as well.

Now, at the moment, that seems unlikely because the US and Israel are pumping funds into Fatah as they did with the PLO years ago. But like the funding of the PLO, this new policy is destined to fail.

Failed policy

The interesting thing about the western position towards Hamas is the three conditions it wants to impose on the organisations. Firstly, it must recognise Israel’s right to exist. Secondly, it must renounce violence. And thirdly, it must recognise all previous deals between Israel and the Palestinians.

Let me briefly go through all three of those issues.

Firstly what does recognising Israel’s right to exist mean? An article in Le Monde recently said that during the Apartheid years in South Africa, it was never demanded of the ANC that is recognise White South African rule. Maybe some people demanded it, but it was not across-the-board and explicit. And we all know that Nelson Mandela was regarded as a terrorist by the West until not much more than 15 years ago.

More importantly, it is often forgotten that the sanctions movement against South Africa was only escalated in the final years of the regime. For most of its existence, most of the world did nothing.

One of the few countries that dealt with South Africa right until the end was Israel. The relationship between Israel and South Africa was very close, including the sharing of nuclear technology and perhaps even sympathy for their respective views on black South Africans and Palestinians.

No-one ever asks the question: what Israel are the Palestinians being asked to recognise? Is it the border of 1967 or the borders of 1948? No-one ever asks that ethnological question.

Secondly, on renouncing violence: There is no question that sections of Hamas have, over the years, engaged in terrorist actions against Israeli civilians. However, in the last few years, the Hamas leadership has continually opposed such attacks. But they have also said that Palestinians have a right to resist occupation, as they do under international law.

More importantly, they have also said that they are prepared to negotiate with Israel about moving back to the 1967 borders—something they would never have dreamed of saying a few years ago. This reality is ignored by the Western media.

The third issue is the recognition of past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. This is an insane demand. Many Palestinians know, and will tell you, that during the so-called peace process, the Oslo Years, the Israeli settlements [on Palestinian land] doubled in size.

The year after Palestinians saw Yasser Arafat, Yitzakh Rabin and Bill Clinton shaking hands on the White House lawns in 1993, talking about peace, settlements doubled in size.

Shifting position

This is partly why my own position has changed, particularly since My Israel Question was published last year. I talk about this in the new edition.

I reluctantly held a two-state position. Some of you of read the book may have disagreed with that, but that was my position.

My feeling at the time was the same as many people I talked to in Israel who believed in one-state but who said that there was no chance of achieving this before two states were established first. Politically this was impossible.

Gideon Levy, who is a great journalist in Israel, argued this to me.

My position has shifted. Two states have become impossible for two reasons. One of is demographic issue and the other is a geographic issue.

If one goes to the occupied territories today, you will find that nobody believes the occupation of the West Bank will end.

Olmert in the last few months has talked about what might happen. He has said that Israel might pull out of some West Bank settlements but not the major ones. But this is just talk.

The reality is that in the last 5 to 10 years in many parts of Palestine, Palestinians have started to outnumber Israeli Jews. So, by definition, Israel has become an apartheid state.

I remember when right-wing Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman was elected deputy leader a few months ago. Gideon Levy wrote a column that said all leftists should celebrate this because only when such extremists are elected to positions of power will the world wake up and say, ‘this is what Israel has become’.

I would argue that the world knows what’s going on, but chooses to ignore it.

My view of the conflict has changed. In the past I was asked by many people, ‘do you support the idea of sanctions’ on Israel academic or otherwise? My attitude at the time was no. I was not convinced that it would be effective. A lot of people who I respect also said it was a mistake.

My view of this has now changed. One could argue that this comes out of frustration, out of a feeling that we have run out of options. As many of you are aware, there have been moves in the UK by academics and journalists to impose sanctions on Israel.

I am told that there are people in Australia trying to do similar things.