Yes, you can "negotiate with terrorists"
"The Myth of appeasement"
A few of my subscribers have asked me for sources that prove that Hamas was financed by Mossad. As it turns out it’s not only Israel that gave the organisation “angel financing”, but it’s also Qatar that keeps it going, and there is, as usual, oil money involved.
There are accusations that Iran has been financing Hamas, and while it is definitely true that Tehran has supported the organisation in the past, supplied them with rockets, and even lauded its current terrorist attacks against Israel, Israel did clearly state that Iran was not involved in the current attacks. This fact has been confirmed by US Intelligence that show that Iranian leaders were surprised that the current attacks took place, Iran’s denial of being involved, and Hamas also saying that Iran had nothing to do with it.
It’s also worth noting that Iran and Hamas have not always been politically aligned and often drifted apart, like in 2012 when Iran seized support for Hamas, because of their refusal to give support to the Syrian government.
Let us not be fooled into a war with Iran on the basis of a falsehood as the United States was blindly led during the invasion of Iraq. Till today, there is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, no link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, 9/11, and for the Machiavellians, there was no strategic benefit for America to invade that country. It was all an “unprovoked invasion” that caused nothing more than the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.
The Middle East is complicated, and analysing the relations between countries require sensible diplomats that understand the politics and the culture of that region. It does not require 5min talking points on the TV News with “experts” that are clearly financed by the military industrial complex.
There is no good and bad guy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides have commited murder in the past, and yes there is an asymmetry where the Israelis are armed to the teeth, while the Palestinians are often defenseless when they are kicked out of their homes by a group of fanatical settlers.
But there is also a historical memory of the Holocaust and it will help if the nations of that region don’t use “anti-zionism” in their rhetoric or call for “the destruction of Israel”. Such language is bound to provoke a response in Washington, in particular because Americans, given that they were victorious in WW2, internalised the narrative that they should have acted earlier to save the Jews from Hitler’s Holocaust. The US-Israeli cultural ties are deep and The Political West is simply not going to let Israel go down without a fight, or accept any outcome that doesn’t recognize Israel as a sovereign state.
But I am glad to see that even former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, recent came out stating the obvious, i.e. that destroying Hamas is unrealistic and that it was a ridiculous move of Benjamin Netanyahu to fund Hamas, as a tactic, in the hope of undermining the negotiations with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation.
It will be clear that, above all, Netanyahu had a flawed strategy of keeping Hamas alive and kicking… so he could use them [Hamas] to weaken the Palestinian Authority so that no-one in the world could demand that we hold negotiations [with the Palestinians].
If you read the reflections of the British Generals who served in Northern Ireland, or speak to the men that served in the Apartheid Army, then they came to the same conclusion regarding the IRA or the ANC, as Ehud Barak concluded of Hamas: that you cannot “defeat terrorism” with more weapons.
As Robert Pape at the University of Chicago has shown, by analysing the largest database on terrorism, terrorists are motivated by the occupation of their homeland and not an uncompromising fanatical religion. Israel and the US cannot defeat the phenomenon using conventional armies. The idea that terrorist organisations are “uncompromising” and don’t have a strategic logic other than to “attack our freedoms” or to “destroy Israel” is a false meme that has been repeated in our culture. Every incident of violence is seen through the lens of The Second World War, a negotiator is Neville Chamberlain and his “appeaser” would like for Adolf Hitler to annex the Sudetenland.
Most modern conflicts do not end in absolute defeat, they rather end in territorial compromise and it’s worth noting that even the Munich Conference (that’s an exception to the rule), did result in a short lived peace, that tragically only delayed the invasion of Poland.
Even Winston Churchill, later in his Iron Curtain Speech, reflected that WW2 could have been prevented had there been negotiations.
Last time I saw it all coming and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her and we might all have been spared the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind. There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honored to-day; but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool.
We surely must not let that happen again.
Churchill advocated for a diplomatic course as The Cold War was starting, and I don’t think that anyone can accuse him of being an “appeaser” to fascism.
This can only be achieved by reaching now, in 1946, a good understanding on all points with Russia under the general authority of the United Nations Organization and by the maintenance of that good understanding through many peaceful years, by the world instrument, supported by the whole strength of the English-speaking world and all its connections. There is the solution which I respectfully offer to you in this Address to which I have given the title "The Sinews of Peace."
Terrorists are defeated through “negotiation” and yes, you can “negotiate with terrorists”. In fact Israel has negotiated with Hamas on numerous occasions in the past (and notably when they gave them money). Hamas has even taken a reasonable position in the past, that it will recognise Israel, if it respects the 1967 borders.
In a March 2008 interview, Khalid Mishal, head of Hamas’s political bureau, stated that “most Palestinian forces, including Hamas, accept a state on the 1967 borders.” In 2013, Ghazi Hamad, Hamas’ deputy foreign minister, reaffirmed this stance: “We agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, within the 1967 borders, and that this would include a solution to the refugee problem.”
Below are a few examples of countries that defeated terrorism through negotiations.
Britain defeated domestic terrorism in Northern Ireland through the Good Friday Agreement. The IRA’s support collapsed once ordinary people had a better voice in the political process.
South Africa defeated terrorism through the CODESA agreements and “the terrorist” turned out to be Nelson Mandela and the Archbishop Desmond Tutu. None of them were clean when the negotiation started.
Peru defeated “terrorisms” by handing title deeds to the peasants so they would be deterred from joining the Shining Path Movement.
Spain “defeated terrorism” by withdrawing its troops from Iraq and since then there hasn’t been an equivalent of the 2004 Madrid train bombings.
France and Spain defeated the Basque terrorists groups by engaging in a peace talk that led to the Abertzale commiting to the peace process.
Canada “defeated terrorism” by recognising the French language and enacting legislation that spoke to the social conditions that made the Front Libération du Quebec appealing. It’s worth quoting the French-Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau reflection at the time, because his conclusion is similar to what many critics of the Israel-Palestine conflict have said in the past.
The government has pledged that it will introduce legislation which deals not only with the symptoms but with the social causes which often underlie or serve as an excuse for crime and disorder.
There are numerous examples of how domestic terrorist groups have been defeated through negotiations and in particular by targeting the political and social economic conditions that make those groups attractive to a disgruntled youth. It’s not difficult to see why a young palestinian would find Hamas attractive. His grandparents were kicked of their land during the Nakba. He grew up all of his life in the largest open air prison in the world, the unemployment is around 50% in Gaza and every attempt at establishing a Palestinian State has been met with contempt by both the Israeli and US Authorities - even the so called “generous” and “unprecedented” offer that Ehud Barak made to Yasser Arafat.
I hope that my readers would understand that pointing this out doesn’t “justify terrorism” or condone the attack on Israeli Civilians. Neither does “defending Israel’s right to exist” justify Israel’s assault on the Palestinian Civilians that are now collectively punished in Gaza through numerous violations of the Geneva Convention, International Law, and by depriving the Palestinians of basic human decency.
Countries that work their problems out can defeat extremist movements only through sensible non-violent reforms. A policy of “absolute victory” is not only costly, but bound to blow up in our faces.
If Israel is truly “the only democracy in The Middle East“, then it is time that it enacts democratic reforms that speaks to the root cause of the conflict i.e. Israel’s refusal to respect basic human dignity and international law.
If Israel reduces their assaults on Gaza and if the US strong-arms both parties into negotiation, then this conflict can end, and both sides can win. It’s time that we, in The West, stop thinking we can “fight terrorism”, in particular if we aren’t prepared to stop funding it ourselves.
Below are a list of sources that point to the money that goes to groups like Hamas. The money came from Israel and Qatar (and notice that Iran is not the biggest donor - by far).
For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces
Wikileaks: Chief Amos Yadlin in 2007: “Israel would be happy if Hamas took over Gaza because IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state”, going on to downplay significance of Iran in Gaza “as long as they don't have a port.
Great post. Insightful and informative. Thanks.