Analysis: Engaging 'negotiable terrorism'

WASHINGTON, April 21 (UPI) -- Defying U.S. and Israeli warnings, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met twice over the weekend with Khaled Mashaal, the Damascus-based leader of Hamas, and his deputy, Moussa Abu Marzouk, hoping to convince the Palestinian Islamist movement to renege on violence. The United States and Israel consider the two Hamas leaders to be terrorists responsible for attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians in the ongoing Middle East conflict.

The Bush administration and the Israeli government opposed Carter's initiative on the grounds terrorism must not be rewarded by treating its representatives as legitimate interlocutors in peaceful negotiations.

The principle is a noble one; terrorism should not and must not be rewarded. The harsh reality is quite different. Analyzing recent Middle East history reveals a very different picture. The unfortunate truth demonstrates great contradictions between the official stance adopted by governments -- that of not negotiating with terrorists -- and the facts revealing that terrorism seems to have paid dividends.

A few examples: The Algerian struggle for independence from France resorted to the use of terrorist acts, forcing France to grant the Algerians full independence. Algeria was not a colony but was considered an integral part of French territory.

In Israel's fight for independence from British-mandated Palestine, groups such as the Irgun were labeled terrorists by the British; that did not prevent one of its leaders, Menachem Begin, from becoming prime minister.

The question may be raised as to whether the Palestinians would have gotten as far as they have, politically, had they not resorted to the use of terrorism. Following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, tens of thousands of Palestinians were parked in refugee camps set up by the United Nations and strewn across the Middle East. Anyone with an ounce of foresight who has spent more than a few minutes -- let alone several years -- in one of these wretched camps could realize they were ideal breeding grounds for extremism (read: terrorism).

Calls to settle the Palestinian issue went unheeded. Israeli leaders until recently refused to admit the existence of such a thing as a Palestinian people. The international community chose largely to ignore the problem, wishing it would simply go away. But it didn't. Instead, the Palestinians took their problem to the international community by exporting terrorism to Europe. Although they did not invent airline hijackings, the Palestinian resistance certainly took it to new heights to bring attention and international recognition to their cause.

Would the Palestinians have ever been able to establish the basis of what hopefully will be a legitimate state in the West Bank and Gaza had it not been for the struggle begun by the Palestine Liberation Organization and the subgroups it spawned, and their use of violence? Would the world have ever given the question of Palestine a second thought had guerrillas of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine not hijacked three Western airliners to the Jordanian Desert in September 1970?

Would Israel have ever conceded in allowing the PLO leadership, including its archenemy Yasser Arafat, to enter the Palestinian territories were it not for the intifada?

The list of terrorist attacks is indeed a long one. It is quite understandable from an Israeli perspective that Carter's meeting with the Hamas leadership is seen negatively. Hamas, after all, continues to call for the destruction of Israel, refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. However, the PLO adopted the same stance until not very long ago. It was through negotiations -- not through violence -- that the PLO and the Palestinian Authority leadership were convinced to alter their charter and their stance regarding Israel, made to recognize the right of Israel to exist and accept engagement with Israel in peaceful dialogue.

Though Israel says it does not engage terrorists in negotiations, the Israelis have been involved in talks, albeit via Egypt's good grace, with Hamas for the liberation of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured and detained by Hamas.

Similarly, the United States, which also says it won't negotiate with terrorists, has managed to make peace with Sunni groups in Iraq who until just a few months ago were fighting alongside al-Qaida against U.S. forces.

The pertinent question at this point should not be whether one engages in dialogue with terrorists in the hope of bringing a peaceful resolution to a longstanding violent conflict. Rather the challenge should be how to prevent terrorism from developing and flourishing in the first place. That should be the major preoccupation of all governments. And if any leader, past or present, can contribute toward a peaceful resolution, no matter how small that contribution may be, that action should be encouraged and not censured. A distinction must be made between "negotiable terrorism" such as with Hamas, where a peaceful resolution is still possible, and "non-negotiable terrorism" such as al-Qaida, with whom there can be no dialogue.

Carter, a recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for his role in bringing together Egypt and Israel and prodding them along to a peace treaty signed in 1978, believes that without the participation of Hamas there can be no peace in the Middle East. Ignoring Hamas, now in full control of the Gaza Strip, will only lead to further acts of terrorism.

Given these facts, and in efforts to avoid further acts of terrorism, would it therefore not make more sense to engage in negotiations with those considered enemies (and yes, terrorists), rather than unavoidably ending up doing so years down the road, only at that time with a much thicker trail of blood leading the way to the negotiating table?

--

Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times.