For many in the UK, the nearest analogy
to the Israel-Hamas conflict that comes to mind is Britains’s 80-year struggle
against the Irish Republican Army (the IRA) and its offshoots. On and off, the UK endured nearly a century of
terrorist activity by people utterly ruthless in pursuit of their political
aims but, against all the odds, the conflict was finally brought to an end
through the attrition of the IRA’s military capability and a prolonged period
of negotiation.
The question that people of some
consequence in the UK are now asking repeatedly is, why cannot the same
approach be applied to the Israeli-Hamas struggle? Why will Israel not enter into discussion
with the political leaders of Hamas, just as the British government instituted direct
negotiations with the political leaders behind the IRA, and finally achieved a
settlement?
The question is easy to ask –
especially from the comparative tranquillity of the UK – and the list of those asking it in the
past few weeks is impressive. This, for example, is Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister:
“It is time for the Israeli
government to talk to the Hamas political leadership in Gaza. Israel’s refusal
to engage with President Mahmoud Abbas’s new unity government, because it
includes Hamas, must be reversed.” Then
comes the inevitable IRA comparison: “Modern
history teaches that you can’t shoot, occupy or besiege your way to lasting
security. Peace only ever flows from sustained and stubborn engagement. The
Queen shaking hands with Martin McGuinness two years ago reminded us that even
the most intractable conflicts can be resolved.” McGuinness was at one time second-in-command
of the IRA, and is now deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.
Then there’s Lord Ashdown, once leader of the Liberal Democratic party and subsequently international High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina from 2002 till
2006. "Neither
side can blast their way to victory,” he pronounced, “so there is only one way
to get peace now, and that is for the sides to sit down and start talking to
each other. Hamas has to be at the table. Who's firing the rockets? It's Hamas,
and so you have to talk to them... “
And the inevitable clincher: “We had to talk to the IRA, for goodness'
sake."
Or take blunt John Prescott, once deputy prime minister in Tony Blair’s Labour
government. “It was the same with the
IRA. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness may have been the leading lights of a
paramilitary group, but without their co-operation in a final settlement, we
wouldn’t have peace today in Northern Ireland.
The only way we’ll get a lasting peace in the Middle East is when Hamas
and Israel sit down and agree on a two-state solution. Hamas must stop firing rockets and accept
Israel’s right to exist. Israel must end the blockade that keeps the Gazans as
prisoners. Both must agree to a lasting ceasefire at the earliest opportunity.
If not, the West must intervene.”
Prescott’s piece is replete with “musts”, but devoid of
any indication of how they might come about.
When he says “Hamas must stop firing rockets and accept Israel’s right
to exist”, he is clearly unaware that the very raison d’être of the
organization, its only purpose, is to destroy Israel and kill Jews, whoever and
wherever they may be. Demanding that
Hamas “accept Israel’s right to exist,” is tantamount to asking Hamas to
disband.
On this, the
Hamas Charter is clear and
unequivocal. “Israel will…continue to exist until Islam obliterates
it.” To do so, Hamas “strives to raise
the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.” Article 13 declares: “There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by jihad. Initiatives, proposals and
international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.”
As
for Hamas’s genocidal purpose, Article 7 states: “The Day of Judgment will not
come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then the Jews will hide
behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there
is a Jew hiding behind me,
come and kill him.”
In short, Hamas is essentially nihilistic.
The IRA arose from a nationalism held so deeply that it
seemed to its extreme adherents to justify any action, however ruthless. In pursuit of its objective of an
independent Ireland, it was prepared to instigate and countenance acts of
bloodthirsty terrorism. Its belief in
its cause was so deeply-held that it perverted the morality that lay at the heart
of its Catholicism. But, in the final
analysis, Irish nationalism was rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is why, eventually, the IRA was prepared
to lay down its weapons. Indeed it had
been defeated, but the principles of compromise and even reconciliation that
are inherent in Christianity played a part in achieving the final détente.
Writing in 2010,
distinguished journalist Michael Weiss surveyed the long succession of steps leading from
the first formal talks back in 1993 between the British government and Sinn
Fein, the political arm of the IRA, to the decommissioning of the IRA’s weapons in 2005, leading to the
formal ending of the armed campaign in 2007.
“So what,” he
asks, “would the Hamas equivalent of this scenario look like? At the very
least, another devastating war with Israel would need to occur,
leaving the Islamists completely depleted and certainly not in sole
administrative control of Gaza. Israeli intelligence operatives would
thoroughly penetrate Hamas' command structure, so as to be able to predict and
pre-empt almost every rocket fired into Ashkelon or Sderot, or every attack on
settlers in the West Bank. Hamas would then have to concede that its strategic
long-war doctrine of violent "resistance" and its dream of
establishing Greater Palestine was a fantasy." Only then, he surmises, if the analogy with the
IRA still held, would realistic dialogue with Hamas be started, leading to a
demilitarization of Gaza and a formal end to their “armed struggle” against
Israel. But as Michael Weiss himself is
the first to assert: “Hamas isn’t the IRA”.
This is the reality behind all those ill-informed calls
for Israel to sit down with Hamas and talk peace.
Published in the Jerusalem Post on-line, 10 August 2014:
http://www.jpost.com/Experts/Hamas-and-the-IRA-370648
Published in the Eurasia Review, 9 August 2014:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/09082014-hamas-ira-oped/
fundamental difference is IRA and GB was a family altercation (both christian denominations) and Israel and Palestinians two diametrically opposed faiths.
ReplyDelete