Nowhere is the Northern Ireland analogy applied more vigorously than in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Above all, there has been much said about the need to 'engage' with those who we regard terrorists. If negotiations with the IRA led to the peace agreement in Northern Ireland, we are often told, Israel must be prepared to take the same approach with Hamas...agreement will mean an accommodation, not a victory of one side over another. Still less will it mean the annihilation of the "other". Where does Hamas stand on these matters? Will it accept a two state solution? Will it end violence? These are reasonable questions to ask. Failure to reply satisfactorily shows that it would be wrong to try to include them.
The preconditions for engagement are as clear for Hamas as they were for the IRA in the early 1990s. Hamas must be encouraged to take the same steps the IRA took towards the negotiating table. But this will be undermined if they feel they do it on their terms and continue to reject a compromise solution...
If there is one lesson to learn from the Northern Ireland experience it is that preconditions are crucial in ending violence and producing a settlement. Over generous flexibility is like giving sweets to a spoilt child in the hope that it will improve his behaviour - it usually results in worse actions. Our experience suggests that while some flexibility is desirable, there have to be clear principles and boundaries; a failure to recognise this runs the risk of learning the wrong lessons from the recent history of the province and fundamentally misunderstanding Ulster.
That was published on October 25, 2007 by member of Israel's flotilla investigation commission, David Trimble.
(Kippah tip: RC)
And see pages 34 and 36 here.
(Kippah tip: JH)
- - -
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment