(Guardian-UK) Adam Ingram - A year after the Gaza operation, Hamas still refuses to reconcile with Fatah, recognize Israel, renounce violence, accept previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements or release Cpl. Gilad Shalit, kidnapped from Israeli soil in June 2006. I have spent the last six months chairing a Labour Friends of Israel project that has sought answers to how Hamas' hold over Gaza can be loosened; how the humanitarian situation can be improved in a way that protects Israeli security; and ultimately, how we can move closer to a two-state solution. First, change in the right direction can only be brought about if we take a realistic view of what Hamas stands for. If it is to be engaged with and be part of the future - and it seems to me that we are a long way from that possibility - it is important that it is not allowed to hide behind a false profile. There are those across the political spectrum who consistently call for diplomatic engagement with Hamas, comparing it to the IRA, the South African ANC or even the Palestinian Fatah movement. However, all those movements had their roots in deep-seated nationalism. Crucially, Hamas has a strong religious and specifically political Islamist dimension, prohibiting it from making deals over the land it regards as holy and tasking it with imposing theocratic rule over the people of that land. We must therefore ask ourselves whether Hamas is capable of reform that is compatible with a negotiated peace. If not, we should be paying attention to any emerging factions that do recognize that peaceful engagement is the only way forward. In this context, the demand that a full renunciation of violence precede any political engagement over a two-state solution is essential for ensuring that Hamas does not reap the benefits of international recognition without abandoning its goal of destroying Israel. The writer is chair of the Labour Friends of Israel "Handling Hamas" project.
2010-03-05 08:16:51Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive