EU-DIGEST - special edition

This Sunday morning, while flipping around channels on my TV looking for a news channel, I ran into the Doha Debates, a news special from the BBC World News. It was featuring Dr. Mahmoud Al Zahar, a senior leader of Hamas. The presentation had just started and could certainly be classified as an open public debate, which is most unusual for the Middle East.

The Doha debates are modeled after Oxford Union debates where the the host Tim Sebastian usually presents a motion to the audience, two speakers argue for it, two argue against it, then Sebastian and the audience get the speakers to elaborate on their arguments by asking them questions. In the end, the audience votes to pass or defeat the motion. Over the last four academic years, the Doha Debates have brought academics, government officials, policy experts and religious and cultural figures to Doha the capital of Qatar to debate issues of relevance to the Arab and Islamic worlds.

This particular debate with Dr. Al Zahar was an open discussion whereby there was no initial motion presented to the audience.

For the first 20-odd minutes, Tim Sebastian, whose interview style, refered to by a newspaper as "a marriage of the dramatic pump-uppery of a fight announcer with the dogged persistence of a prosecutor cross-examining a stubborn witness", battered Zahar with a variety of accusations. These included: that rocket attacks by Hamas violate human rights, Hamas kills indiscriminately, Hamas tortures and executes hospital patients, Hamas smuggles weapons illegally, and questions like : "you don’t care who you kill, do you? Are you saying you’re not responsible for your actions? Are you serious about getting a truce? Will Hamas ever recognise Israel? Are you saying two wrongs make a right?"

However, the more interesting part of the discussion began when questioning was handed over to the audience. These questions were mainly in three broad categories: hagiographic pro-Hamas questions, specific policy-orientated questions and broad questions of theory and approach.

In this second part of the debate Dr. Mahmoud Al Zahar was continuously confronted by several members of the audience - including Palestinian students - who told him that violence against civilians was un-Islamic and that "an eye for an eye" was no way to achieve peace. Dr. Al Zahar, a surgeon and foreign minister in the short-lived Hamas government, who kept his composure remarkably well throughout the debate, replied that nobody in Hamas was happy at what was happening. He said that the group had offered "an open hand" to Fatah to sit down and negotiate a peace deal. He noted however that no peace agreement with Fatah or Israel was likely until George Bush leaves the White House. Dr. Al Zahar said: "I think under the present US Administration peace will not be achieved," he said. "They are not looking for peace." Dr. Al Zahar also added that Hamas is hoping that the new US Administration would be neutral and balanced.

"Point blank: what will it take for peace with Israel?", asked one young man, with frustration in his voice. "What exactly are you looking for? If they go back to the 1967 border, will that be it? I’m confused." This imaginary question should not be answered, replied Dr. Al Zahar. Moderator Tim Sebastian then cut in, and said annoyed. "How can anyone negotiate with you if you won’t say what you want?" "That’s what you should be asking the Israelis", shot back Dr. Al Zahar.

Asked if Hamas was a terrorist organization Dr. Al Zahar turned the question back to the audience by asking them if anyone could give him a proper definition of a terrorist or what the difference was between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. He noted that if Hamas was considered a terrorist organization Mr. Jimmy Carter would not be speaking to them.

Someone asked Dr. Al Zahar about the US presidential election. He expressed no preference, but expects that McCain will win because America will not vote for a black man or woman to be president. Another man asked moderator Tim Sebastian if he ever had been asking these same hard questions to Israelis as well and if he thought there is a bias towards Israel? "I don’t think so", replied Tim Sebastian, "at least not in our organization".

Dr. Al-Zahar was born in 1945. At the age of 26, he graduated from the Cairo University Faculty of Medicine and five years later he got his Masters Degree in General Surgery from Ain Shams University, Cairo. He then became the adviser to the Palestinian Health Minister, and helped create the Palestinian Medical Society and was one of the primary founders of the Islamic University in Gaza in 1978. Dr. Al-Zahar has four children with his wife Summaya, including their first son, Khaled born in 1974, and a daughter Rima born in 1983.

Instrumental to the creation of Hamas in 1987, Dr. Al Zahar has remained a senior official and spokesperson for the Group.

Dr. Al Zahar survived an Israeli assassination attempt in September 2003 when two US made F-16s dropped a bomb on his home in Gaza, killing his eldest son Khaled. Dr Al Zahar was in the garden at the time and escaped with a leg wound. Hussam, another son of Dr. Al Zahar was killed by Israeli airstrikes on January 15 of this year.

In December 1992, Dr. Al Zahhar, his brother Fadel and Rantissi were among more than 400 Islamic activists deported by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to South Lebanon. They were allowed to return to Gaza a year later while 18 activists, including his brother, remained in Lebanon.

The Doha debates are not only refreshing to watch, but also a prime example of how free speech works within the context of democracy. Compliments to Dr. Mahmoud Al Zahar for coming to the debate and staying cool while facing a pretty hostile crowd...and an aggressive moderator. Who knows, maybe one day the Doha Debates can also bring Ben Laden to the table for a debate. Dr. Benjamin Franklin once said, "the pen is mightier than the sword." In this case we can say, "dialog is mightier than the sword".

For more news with a European twist click on this link

While many politicians are willing to engage with "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea, they draw the line at terrorists, who are seen as intrinsically ruthless and radical. That's why "I will not negotiate with terrorists" is a refrain heard across the political spectrum – and why Jimmy Carter took such flak recently for visiting with Hamas.

But this knee-jerk rejection of negotiation with radicals is deeply misguided and likely to do more harm than good. The smart question is not whether to talk to terrorists, but, instead, which terrorists to talk to and how to talk to them. Many nonstate militants are weak and peripheral; they can be quickly squashed or contained without any need for negotiation. For instance, violent left-wing groups such as the Red Brigades in Italy and Weather Underground in the US were eliminated in the 1970s without negotiation.

But some terrorist and insurgent groups are very powerful. They are embedded in robust social networks, generate revenues from areas under their control, and have enough military power to impose serious costs on governments. They cannot be easily crushed, nor can they be wished away.Negotiations and cease-fire talks, or their offer, should be seen as one of a range of tools for overcoming militancy. Indeed, there are three good strategic reasons to talk to these kinds of armed organizations.

For the complete report from the Christian Science Monitor click on this link