We need to engage with Hamas
JVL Introduction
Gershon Baskin has long argued the importance of engaging with Hamas and has long been in direct communication with Hamas members.
Whether we like it or not, he stresses, Hamas is here to stay. It is part of Palestinian society, and even if it eventually falls out of power, it will remain part of the Palestinian political arena.
But he also stresses that Hamas today is not the same Hamas of 1988.
There are possibilities of negotiation and engagement with Hamas which Baskin sees as crucial to breaking the logjam in the conflict.
Simply dismissing Hamas as “terrorist” entrenches the existing stalemate, and refuses to recognise that Hamas is a pragmatic organisation, quite capable of reaching understandings for a long-term ceasefire.
This article was originally published by the Jerusalem Post on Thu 19 Jan 2023. Read the original here.
We have to look at Hamas differently than we did in 1988 - opinion
How a private meeting between officials could have changed the entire outcome of an Israeli’s relationship with Hamas.
Loading article text…
Baskin is largely ignored by the left. Because his writing style is dire? Because he is so self-absorbed? Because he is still, at heart, an anguished liberal Zionist? Whichever, or whatever. . . this is a very brave article, written in a much more ‘mainstream’ publication than Haaretz, so will get a much broader audience. We should take him seriously and spread his work around. He is writing for that huge Jewish constituency on which we make no impact whatsoever.
I agree with Naomi – this is a brave initiative, especially at the moment. However, Baskin is also confused. He says: “Israel’s policy of keeping a weakened Hamas in power and an illegitimate Palestinian Authority in Ramallah has enabled Israel and the world to claim that there is no Palestinian partner for peace” and he’s quite right.
But the effect of this in practice is that no conceivable Israeli government is going to negogotiate with Hamas, because they need Hamas to justify their policies. Peace is the last thing they want.
The only real gamechanger would be if Hamas was prepared to state publicly that they were willing to enter into negotiations with Israel on a ceasefire and some sort of medium-term compromise, but that’s highly improbable as well. So, he will remain a lonely voice in the wilderness.
Hamas have promised 10 year ceasefire in the past, but this was ignored by Israel…
We need to return to the question of Palestinian elections, after they were cancelled in 2021 because there hasn’t been any true test since 2005/6, to see who represents who and what the state of Palestinian democratic aspirations, not least the development of a new generation of Palestinian leaders and thinkers. I was really surprised to see the results of CPRC Research survey of Dec 2022 which showed 81% thought Fatah corrupt (which was predictable) but that 69% thought this of Hamas as well. This must surely sound warning bells to Hamas and pose the question as to the nature and complexity of current Palestinian political aspirations. Also very interested in Gershon’s article above about the experience of ordinary Palestinians living under Hamas rule. We need to give political Islam the respect it deserves and to encourage dialogue at all levels. Discuss.
Almost all terrorist organisations are very pragmatic – look at Chomsky’s long piece* of the late 1980s incontrovertibly showing that the two greatest terrorist organisations in the world (terrorist by the received criterion – eg shooting down/hijacking/kidnapping civilians, notably on civilian aircraft) are the US and Israel.
*Republished I think in “Blaming the Victim”, eds Said/Finkelstein or some such.
Hamas is not my favorite Muslim organisation but ruling out the possibility of change and negotiation does nothing good. If elements within Hamas are militant then the appalling behaviour of Israel can only stoke hatred and militancy. Even Gandhi , whilst expressing a clear preference for non-violence, conceded that where an aggressor uses violence then violence is an appropriate response and certainly preferential to cowardice and capitulation.