Scott MacLeod has seen the future and the future includes Hamas. How does he know this? Because he recalls how well depending on Yasser Arafat and Fatah worked to create peace.
The conference also highlighted a conundrum that always seems to be at the heart of the Palestinian problem–a representative of the Palestinian people, Hamas, was not included in the meeting whose agenda was the rebuilding of a territory that Hamas governs. It reminds me of the 1991 Madrid peace conference, a commendable meeting in many respects, but one in which the international community under U.S. pressure effectively excluded the representatives of the Palestinian people, the PLO. The reason then as now, of course, is that these particular organizations participated in violence and terrorism and therefore had no place at a table set for those representing the community of respectable nations.
That would be a sensible argument to make if life were that black and white. As it turns out, the Israeli government itself took the initiative to hold secret negotiations with the PLO after Madrid and eventually officially recognized the group when it signed the Oslo peace accords in 1993. I suspect sooner or later, Hamas will be part of the dialogue, too.
Perhaps a few contrary memories will serve to jog his memory.
Yes, Israel eventually dealt with Yasser Arafat, but to portray that as some sort of unqualified success is disingenuous. Arafat was never committed to peace. He was committed to terror. He was committed to receiving foreign aid. And he was committed to a jet setting lifestyle. But Arafat never made peace with Israel. He never abandoned terror. Now his apologists may offer all sorts of excuses, but in the end, if he had wanted to make peace, there’d be a Palestinian state by now. His enablers could always find excuses for his failure to make peace, but they always assumed good faith on Arafat’s part that was never demonstrated.
So what does this tell us about Hamas? Barry Rubin has it correct:
Perhaps it is true that peace can only be made with enemies, but this is only true regarding those who no longer want to be enemies. This does not apply in the case of Hamas. In fact, the stronger Hamas becomes – empowered by well-meaning, but no less destructive bystanders such as the signatories to this week’s letter in the Times, urging talks with Hamas – the further away will be any chance for peace in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
What was true about Arafat then – that he wanted to continue being Israel’s enemy – is true about Hamas now as Rubin demonstrates.
MacLeod concludes:
The road to peace, and even the path to rebuilding Gaza, which was left in utter devastation during the last war with Israel, will be a long and difficult one. But if peace is truly the goal, it’s going to require a seat for all parties at the table.
Utter devastation? Please. Peace requires that all the parties be committed to peace. What MacLeod is advocating is the continuation of terror against Israel by Hamas from an improved position, which was what happened when an unreformed Fatah was deemed necessary for peace. More than fifteen years after Oslo MacLeod doesn’t even have an excuse of ignorance. Instead of excusing Fatah, he’ll excuse Hamas.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
So is this the most anti-Israel issue of Time or what?