Fair and Balanced

I scanned over James Kirchick complaining about The Nation's editorial on Gaza, but then I saw the mighty Alterman also complaining so I went and read it and while I agree with some of what they say, this is pretty misleading:

It is commonly argued that negotiations are impossible because Hamas will not recognize Israel and is bent on its destruction. But Hamas leaders have repeatedly stated that they can live with a two-state settlement, or at the very least a long-term hudna (truce). Both Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and his political adviser, Ahmed Yousef, have made this point in op-eds in the past month.

Yousef's job, clearly, in the op-eds in question was to frame the Hamas line in a manner as congenial as possible to a Western audience. Nevertheless, his op-ed here is silent on the issue of recognition of Israel, but does defy Hamas' critics "to demonstrate one instance in which Hamas' military structure has struck against any force outside the theater of the occupation." Given that Hamas certainly has attacked Israel proper, this raises the question of what's meant by "occupation" in the list of Hamas demands as "the end of occupation; the release of political prisoners; the right of return for all Palestinians; and freedom to be a nation equal among nations, secure in its own borders and at peace."

All that is to say nothing of the issue of a "right of return for all Palestinians" which isn't consistent with any conventional understanding of a two-state solution.