WORLD VIEW:Israel and Palestinians have much to learn from the solution to conflict in North
COMPARISON IS to the social sciences what experiments are to the natural ones. This maxim catches much that is useful in the two contrasting bodies of knowledge – even if the social sciences increasingly do experiments and the natural ones also compare.
Political conflicts lend themselves particularly well to comparison. A more peaceful Ireland in which a settlement is bedding down is sought out to illuminate both political analysis and policymaking the world over.
There is much to learn from understanding the similarities and differences with other conflicts, as research proceeds in Irish universities on how we compare to divided societies like Belgium, Spain, Bosnia, Cyprus, South Africa, Sri Lanka or the Philippines and inter-state conflicts in Macedonia, the African Great Lakes or Kashmir. This ongoing work adds substance to Irish foreign policy.
Nowhere is this more true than in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Comparisons are regularly made between the historical, religious, colonial and inter-state dynamics of the two conflicts and the methods needed to resolve or transform them.
Currently there is a strong solidarity movement developing in Ireland with the Palestinians caught up in Israel’s Gaza blockade, now focused on the relief ship, after the Israeli agents killed a Hamas leader in Dubai last January using Irish passports.
A better-informed and more engaged public opinion is making demands on Irish and EU policy to have the blockade lifted or to boycott Israel in retaliation. Ireland’s relatively strong support for the Palestinian position, reflected in Micheál Martin’s recent visit to Gaza, is found wanting by activists for failing to veto Israel joining the OECD or gaining from EuroMed initiatives.
Comparisons are also drawn between political players in the two conflicts. The Northern Ireland settlement includes Sinn Féin and the IRA despite their record of armed resistance to British rule. This has guaranteed its success because republicans have had the discipline to deliver their constituency to the peace process. The DUP and armed loyalist movements were also included. The British and Irish governments established their credentials as trustworthy sponsors of negotiations. The US was a crucial broker, exemplified by George Mitchell’s role.
The current indirect proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians led by Mahmoud Abbas are not expected to lead to a breakthrough. Conspicuously they do not include Hamas, despite that party having won the 2006 Palestinian Authority elections. Since then Hamas has been excluded from the peace process by the international quartet of the UN, US, the EU and Russia until it disavows terrorism, recognises Israel and accepts previous agreements. Efforts chaired by Egypt to reach agreement between Hamas and Fatah have failed. Despite polling evidence that it is losing support, Hamas retains control of Gaza after Israel’s devastating attack in January 2009. That fact makes it indispensable to any long-term settlement, its leaders insist.
A new book on Hamas was launched this week in Dublin and Belfast by its authors Beverley Milton-Edwards, a professor of politics at Queen’s University Belfast and Stephen Farrell, a Middle East correspondent with the New York Times. Based on extensive interviews with Hamas members and leaders, it is a compelling account of an organisation dismissed as a ruthless terrorist machine in much western commentary. This side of it should not be underestimated, given its record of killing 400 Israelis in 50 suicide bomb attacks from 2001-10.
The authors describe it also as a nationalist and religious movement with long-standing roots in Palestinian society based on decades of experience in building networks of mosques, charitable institutions, schools, kindergartens and other social welfare projects. Hamas is not in a hurry. It can afford to wait because it confidently expects to win in the long term.
Such a victory is what makes most Israelis say Hamas is an unacceptable partner in any peace process. Its 1988 founding covenant talks of how Jews were behind the French and communist revolutions and used secret societies to further Zionist interests; it seeks a complete end to the Jewish state and an independent Palestine in its place ruled in accordance with Islam.
Israeli officials say that unlike Sinn Féin, which wants to transfer Northern Ireland to the Republic, Hamas wants to eliminate Israel altogether. Its religious motivation distinguishes it qualitatively from Sinn Féin’s republicanism.
To the objection that this underestimates Hamas’s pragmatic side and its expressed willingness to reach a two-state solution based on a prolonged military truce, Israeli sceptics say such a movement cannot be trusted. Farrell says one should not expect international engagement with Hamas until it reaches a deal with Fatah and indicates a real willingness to compromise with Israel. Hamas decided to enter the political arena in 2000 (unlike Sinn Féin) to preserve the right of military resistance and because it feared Arafat had nearly reached an unacceptable settlement. Hamas was also astonished by its electoral victory in 2006.
So comparison reveals several differences between Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine. But the fundamental need for an inclusive settlement will continue to drive Irish perceptions of their similarity and the need for Hamas to be involved.