Reading Meshal in Damascus

Khaled Meshal's comments to the New York Times provide a Rorschach test for those following Hamas:

On the two-state solution sought by the Americans, he said: "We are with a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce. This includes East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees." Asked what "long-term" meant, he said 10 years.

One way to read the comments is as a smokescreen. Between the word truce and the insistence on the right of return, Meshal's 'compromise' is just another way of expressing that he does not accept Israel (especially given his refusal elsewhere in the interview to recognize Israel, his "enemy"). Hamas will persevere and ultimately prevail.

A second way to see the comments is as a gradual evolution in the thinking inside Hamas. The truce is a politically expedient way to move from total rejection toward a genuine two-state solution. The phrasing helps Hamas save face politically and leaves some issues on the bargaining table rather than Hamas conceding on all points in advance.

Which understanding bears a closer connection with reality will help determine the prospects for President Obama, Mitchell, and the two-state solution in the next few years.