Engaging the Enemy?

In the wake of the Palestinian crisis in Gaza, a suicide bombing occurred in Israel, killing one (the numbers of Israeli casualties in the overall conflict is very very disproportionate to the Palestinian, remember that). It reminded me of an article I had previously read which could have easily predicted this kind of retribution even after gains had been made in peace talks.

I really love this article from The Economist. Its about Israel, and the rest of the world, can't keep pushing Hamas, and how we need to be more creative in making it a more peaceful party instead of encouraging its extremists (I know, they sound like the same exact thing).

The point is, we're living in an age where a lot of these organizations who have been labelled as terrorist actually have a very blurry line between extremism and okay-ness. Hamas is a great example because not does it have members who call for the destruction of Israel, but it also provides social services for its people, not all of whom agree with those violent perspectives.

Islamist seems like a really ambiguous word to me, the media has given it this extremist connotation, but as someone who is studying a variety of Islamic thinkers and movements, it feels like a very benign word. In any case, Islamist ideologies, whatever they are, are not going to simply disappear by arresting its proponents, killing its footsoldiers, and then delivering happy meals with American flags. They are something at the very core of the fight over who gets to define national, ethnic, and religious identities. Unfortunately, because of political conditions, the violent ideologies are gaining more ground. Like the article says, they can't be defeated or ignored, but there may be some virtue in embracing it to an extent.

The key requirement is that Hamas be judged by its deeds rather than its declaratory words. Some within Hamas think only of Israel's destruction; for more, it remains their long-term ambition. But opinion polls say that most Palestinians, including a good half of the 44% who voted for Hamas at the last election, accept a two-state solution. The way to bring Hamas on board is not to isolate it, which may make it stronger and more intransigent, but to entice it with measures of at least temporary respite that have a better chance, over time, of making it embrace the reality of a predominantly Jewish state next to a Palestinian one.

Hamas cannot expect a free pass to respectability. Its leaders cannot prevaricate over diplomacy for ever; ditching their anti-Semitic charter would help too. But insisting that Hamas recognises Israel outright before it can be deemed worthy of any kind of co-operation is pointless. It simply won't happen. Leaving an angry group of Islamists outside any deal that Israel makes with other Palestinians is bound, in the end, to undermine Israel's own long-term security. That is at least one lesson to come out of the Gaza fiasco.

I've said before I want there to be a one pluralistic state solution, but in the very likely event of that not happening, a two state solution is just fine. As One Voice will tell you, that is what the majority of people, on both sides, want.