Political analysts: Mishaal’s speech is “strategic”

Political analysts: Mishaal’s speech is “strategic”

Arab political analysts in the Lebanese capital Beirut have hailed Thursday the speech of Khalid Mishaal, head of Hamas”s political bureau, and described it as strategic, important, and comprehensive that touched all aspects of the Palestinian issue.


According to the analysts, Mishaal succeeded in delineating the vision of his Movement on the Palestinian, regional, and international developments in which he smartly replied to the speeches of US president Barack Obama, and Israeli premier Binyamin Netanyahu.


Indeed, the speech [of Mishaal] has covered all political developments as far as the Palestinian issue is concerned; and he cleverly replied to the speeches of Obama and Netanyahu, and obviously exhibited the national constants of the Palestinian people”, said Majid Azzam, the general-director of the Middle east center for journalism and media, in an interview with the PIC.


According to Azzam, Mishaal stressed the point that the Palestinian people were supporting a just political settlement in the region that would give them and retrieve their usurped legal rights, in addition to the message he implicitly sent to US president in the context of the his speech that the change in the United States wasn’t the result of Obama”s new language, but it was prompted by the steadfastness and the exemplary resistance of the Palestinian people. 


He added that Mishaal”s speech proved that the Movement was indeed open to political initiatives provided they take the legal rights of the Palestinian people as top priority.


For his part, political researcher Muin Manna”a of the Zaituna centre in Beirut described Mishaal”s speech as “strategic”, and that it explained the action the Palestinian people need from the Arabs in reaction to Obama and Netanyahu speeches.


A language that the world understands:

Meanwhile, the London-based Palestinian political analyst Dr. Ibrahim Hamami underlined that Mishaal”s speech was very clear, and it left no room for those trying to fishing in muddy water.


He pointed out that Mishaal explained the minimum level that the Palestinian people would accept for a political settlement, asserting that the speech has pushed sponsors of the “futile” negotiations to the corner, and smartly rebounded Netanyahu”s heresies.


I” am not exaggerating if I say that the speech was a high-profile political lesson that founded for a new political stage, and cut the way before those attempting to fish in muddy water; so, I wonder if the world would positively receive and deal with that message of Mishaal, or it would remain biased to Israel?”, Hamami underscored.


He also slammed Fatah leaders and figures of the Ramallah-based PA for describing Mishaa”s speech as “replication” to Fatah and the PLO stands, explaining that the gap was very big between Hamas”s vision, which is based on accepting an independent, sovereign, and viable Palestinian state within the borders of the 4th of June 1967 but without abandoning the Palestinian people”s legal rights in the rest of the occupied Palestinian land; and the vision of Fatah and the PLO that is based on accepting the same state coupled with dropping all other Palestinian legal rights including the RoR among other legal rights.


Clear message: 

In the same context, the chief editor of the Gaza-based Palestine newspaper Mustafa Al-Sawwaf pointed out that Mishaal”s speech carries only one interpretation, and that it stressed the fact that salvation of the Arab and Muslim Ummah was in the hand of the Arab and Muslim peoples and not in the hand of the USA, stressing that Muslims and Arabs weren’t in need for lessons from Obama in human values, justice, freedom, mercy, and equality simply because Arabs and Muslims were the ones who founded and established for such values many centuries ago.


Sawwaf also hailed Mishaal for categorically and out-rightly rejecting the speech and conditions of Netanyahu as he welcomed Mishaa”l emphasis on the right of the Palestinian people to resist the occupation of their country as France, USA, and Vietnam among other countries in the world had did when they fell under occupation.