And how do you real about radical Islam proclaiming Muslims are duty bound to kill all infidels? That's a bit more radical that turning their backs on somebody who marries outside of their religion, don't ya think? Note, for the purposes of this discussion, Hamas should be considered a radical Islamic terrorist group.
Religious extremism is found in each of the three major monotheistic traditions. In each of them we can obscene views about those outside the faith. Anyone who has spent time on the ground doing inter-religious work in the region knows this. Likewise it's easy to find within these religions a call to recognize the common humanity of all, the golden rule, the divine root of human existence, etc., which is why I'm not at all shy to say I'm religious myself. As for any argument that Islam is somehow more violent than Judaism or Christianity, such an argument must account for the reality that the world's
most well organized nonviolent fighting force was deeply Islamic.
People whose job it is to provide actual security to their people, and not sell newspapers or win elections, know that Hamas is not a one-dimensional organization. The former Mossad director Ephraim Halevy stated to the Israeli cabinet in 2008 "The Hamas leadership has recognized that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future. They are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967. . . . They know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game. They will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals."
The Harvard scholar Sara Roy is an expert on
Gaza and Hamas. She argues against analysis of Hamas that it is "an insular, one-dimensional and seemingly mindless entity dedicated solely to violence, terrorism and Israel’s destruction." She writes "While there can be no doubt that since its inception in 1987, Hamas has engaged in violence, armed struggle, and terrorism as the primary force behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, it is also a broad-based movement that has evolved into an increasingly complex, varied, and sophisticated organization engaged in a variety of societal activities vital to Palestinian life. Hamas’s evolution has been most dramatic with regard to its ideology, organizational structure, role in Palestinian society, and perceived goals--its limitations notwithstanding."
In sum, calling Hamas a "radical Islamic terrorist group" and leaving it at that is about has helpful as calling Begin and Shamir lifelong terrorists. They were both terrorists at one point. They were also Israeli Prime Ministers later on. Neither Hamas or these two men deserve to be reduced to caricatures.
My Israeli friend Gershon Baskin has negotiated at length with Hamas. Gershon is on the right in the photo below (his Palestinian friend Hanna Siniora is on the left), which I took in Jerusalem in 2005. He writes "Hamas has never agreed to a 2 state solution. Mashal has spoken about a Palestinian state in 1967 borders with no peace with Israel or recognition of Israel and continuing to maintain that all of Palestine from the river to the sea will become Palestine. For Hamas and for Mashal the occupation did not begin in 1967 it began in 1948 and that is what everyone in Hamas calls Sderot and Kiryat Gat and Tel Aviv settlements. When they talk about ending the occupation, they mean ending Israel." He adds "For the purpose of accuracy and integrity it must be noted that no Gov of Israel has ever agreed to a 2 states solution, not yet at least." He also notes "The Camp David proposal was never voted on by a Government of Israel, it was in a process of negotiations and it consisted of a very partially sovereign Palestinian state on 89% of the West Bank with 2 East West Israeli controlled corridors and Israeli control of all of the external borders -- a kind of sovereign cage, almost nothing in Jerusalem, and there were only 6 hours of discussions on refugees with no proposals at all. A largely unfinished process that both sides agreed to continue negotiating on. From the end of Camp David in July 2000 until Taba in January 2001 the parties held another 52 negotiating meetings. without reaching an agreement."
We must also note, Likud "
has *never* in its statements of principles, accepted a Palestinian State". Likud's platform puts it in black and white: "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river."
In sum, both Hamas and Likud take maximilalist positions, each wanting a state with borders that excludes the Other. But political reality, both on the ground and internationally, constrains their ideological visions. That is the reality that we who want peace must deal with too. Both sides have violent extremists who want to wipe each other out. Both sides have those who prefer to negotiate and ultimately coexist.
Gershon argues "There is only one solution to [this war] which has a good outcome for all of the peoples engaged and most of the leaders as well -- a political solution which deals with the security issues, the economic issues and the political issues. Palestine must be a free, economically viable state living in peace with its neighbors. A non-militarized Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Palestinian Jerusalem, with agreed security arrangements with Israel, negotiated and agreed borders, a fair agreed solution to the refugee problem, full mutual recognition of the two states for two peoples solution, with regional security accords, and recognition of Israel by its neighbors -- this is the solution which must emerge from this war. It starts with Israeli acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative as the basis of negotiations with the Palestinians and the Arab world."
I agree with Gershon, but I think the role of
religion and culture is also critical. The gap between the religious and those of a more secular bent on both sides can be vast.
