A wee bit of pragmatism?

Khaled Meshal has granted the NYT an interview. It is, apparently, the first time in a year that he has spoken to the American press. He used this opportunity to point out a few things. First, the Hamas would stop firing rockets at Israel. Second that Hamas would be happy to have a state in the '67 boundaries (meaning Egyptian Gaza and the Jordanian West Bank). Also Hamas would not recognize Israel, but would be open to a 10 year truce.

For an organization that has been hell bent on the destruction of Israel for the last 30 years, that comes as a refreshing bit of pragmatism. But why? Could it be that Hamas feels like it might get left out in the cold if Obama manages to court the Syrians? Or what happens if the Iranians decide to get friendly (or less hostile) with the new administration? Could Hamas, the least important of Iran's clients get kicked to the curb? If so, how could Hamas forestall such a development? By doing a little outreach on its own? Of course with the current downturn the economies of Iran and Syria might not have as much room for foreign largess as they used to when oil (I know Syria doesn't have any) was $147 a barrel.

Another possible explanation is that Hamas is shrewdly playing off the fact that the new Israeli government is shaping up to be even more rejectionist than Hamas. Is Meshal trying to demonstrate to Obama that Hamas is the more rational and reasonable party to the conflict? It seems a tall order from the people who perfected the art of suicide bombing. However, when you get placed in a line up with Avigdor "Yvette" Lieberman you might have a chance.

Most interesting to me was this line "After all, the firing is a method, not a goal." Methods and goals? Is the leader of Hamas reading management theory? Is Covey available in Arabic?