The New York Times reports:
According to the account of Mr. Aubin de La Messuzière, however, his Hamas interlocutors told him nothing that they had not repeatedly stated in public. "They assured me that they were ready to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, which amounts to an indirect recognition of Israel," he said. Hamas, however, has always said that such a Palestinian state could be established only if Israel pulled out of all land occupied in 1967, a step Israel is not prepared to take. Hamas would not recognize the state of Israel in perpetuity, allowing only the idea of living side by side with it for 10 to 15 years, in a hudna, or truce.
In a conflict that has lasted so long, it is rare that we are graced with a new euphemism such as "indirect recognition." As the Times, to its credit, points out, what Hamas is actually offering is what non-diplomats refer to as a "truce," which Hamas would use to arm itself and prepare its fighters for an all out war with Israel under more favorable conditions. So why this new phrase then? Surely no one would deny that Hamas recognizes Israel's existence--they aren't shooting rockets into the ether. What they do not recognize is Israel's right to exist. Thus the beauty of indirect recognition, which allows us to pretend that Hamas isn't plotting to exterminate the Jews on the other side of the fence while simultaneously demonstrating the awesome power of diplomacy. Peace in our time!