Can ignoring Hamas lead to Israeli-Palestinian peace?
Hamas, the Islamist movement that controls Gaza, is being ignored in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Some think that's a big mistake.
(Page 2 of 2)
Earlier this month, the group took credit for the killing of four Israelis in the West Bank.Skip to next paragraph
2011 Reflections: Suddenly, a new era in the Middle East
2011 Reflections: the end of a landmark year for Latin America
2011 Reflections: Africa rises, taking charge of its affairs
How the 'Year of the Protester' played out in Europe
In Prague, a tale of communism past
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The situation between Hamas, Fatah, Israel, and the US creates a stark contrast with the Northern Ireland talks.
In that instance, the Republican factions, most crucially the nonviolent Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) then derided by the British government and Northern Irish Unionists as terrorists, had spent four years creating a unified negotiating front, however uneasy.
The British had back-channel talks of their own going on with Sinn Fein before the talks. In 1994, President Clinton invited Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to Washington at Mitchell's urging and over staunch British objections. Why? Mitchell then argued that it would give a man then considered a terrorist by Britain the stature with his own people to eventually negotiate a peace.
"While the Northern Ireland analogy of an eventual IRA/Sinn Fein acceptance of ceasefire and democratic rules of the game is true, they were certainly never asked to recognize the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's union with the British mainland as a precondition for entering talks," Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator now director of the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation, wrote earlier this month. "As for Hamas, they can largely relax, watch the PA leadership squirm, and clip the political coupons. No incentive has been created for Hamas to OK this new peace process; in fact quite the opposite. Their spoiler role is being encouraged."
Mitchell also frequently highlights the darkness-before-the-dawn nature of international peace talks, referring to the Northern Ireland example on more than one occasion recently as "700 days of failure and one day of success."
Unfortunately, the specific conditions in Israel and Palestine are far less auspicious for peace than those that prevailed in Ireland 14 years ago.
"In Northern Ireland the British had played for many years a game of divide and rule, playing off the so-called moderate nationalists against the extremists. What changed with Mitchell and the Clinton administration is they really supported a broad nationalist front in Ireland," says Mr. Abunimah. "Now, it's exactly the opposite. You have Mitchell, Tony Blair and the Americans working to divide the Palestinians."
He says that the both US and Israeli policy is to keep Fatah (which recognizes Israel's right to exist) and Hamas separated. That, he says, is a compelling reason to doubt a meaningful outcome from current talks.
Hamas itself has occasionally struck a conciliatory tone. It offered a long-term cease-fire with Israel a few years ago and, Abunimah says, has signaled a willingness to walk a political path. But it has conditions, too. Most seriously, it demands the "right of return" to Israel and the Palestinian Territories for millions of Palestinian refugees now living in other countries. For now, however, it's hard to imagine Hamas backing down from its position and for the US and Israel to approach opening any dialog with the other Palestinians in Gaza.