Israel must reconsider its strategy against Hamas

Before a truce between Hamas and Israel brought an apparent halt to fighting on November 21, 2012,  political commentators around the world decided to solve Israel’s problem with Hamas. Most of these essays seem to borrow from the same political inventory: they acknowledged Israel’s right to defend herself; they questioned Israel’s use of force; they implied that Israel does not yet understand that Hamas is a much stronger adversary than Israel believes; and they ended calling for a ceasefire, so both sides could get back to their real business—peace talks.

Almost all the essays suggested that Israel cannot continue to oppose Hamas. Their proof is the on-going violence. As long as Israel continues to reject Hamas, they argued, the violence will continue.

The force of their argument focused on Israel. Even if Israel has the right to defend herself, they all seemed to claim, she nonetheless carries the sole responsibility for the current problem. Peace depends upon Israel, not Hamas.

This concept is attractive. It is popular. But it’s false.

Most everyone in the West—including those who brokered this latest truce—do not show evidence that they have taken a serious look at Hamas. Instead, they create a kind of moral and political equivalence between Israel and Hamas, as if the two adversaries have been cut from the same mould promoting equally the same goal—self-determination for their people. The premise is simple: just as Jews in Israel want to live in peace, Arabs in Gaza want to live in peace. Arab and Jewish goals are equal. The only problem is, Israel refuses to acknowledge this equality.

This is, possibly, where the ‘apartheid’ accusation gains credibility. If we posit that Israel refuses to recognize Hamas as an equal because Israel is racist—and apartheid in nature—then we can understand Israel’s motivation for rejecting Hamas.

If Israel reconsidered its racism, there could be peace.

But that’s not true. It’s a false accusation. First of all, Hamas and Israel do not share mutual ideals. They do not share a mutual goal (self-government). They do not share a mutual desire for peace.

In fact, if you read the Hamas Charter, you would know that the problem in this conflict is not Israel.

Hamas does not seek peace. According to their Charter, they have another goal.

The document is available online. Do a Google search for, ‘Hamas Charter.’ (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp) Read it. Then re-read some of the essays suggesting that Israel ‘re-consider’ its strategy with Hamas. You might see those essays in a new light; and that light will not flatter the essayist.

Once you read the Charter, you’ll understand what Hamas wants—and why.

The first thing you notice about the Hamas Charter is that it is not political in nature. It is religious. Very religious. Any politics within the document are explicitly shaped by Islamic ideology.

In Hamas, Israel does not find a political adversary or potential partner. It finds a religious enemy.

Through its Charter, Hamas commits to a religious ideal whose sole goal is to remove the Zionist entity from all of Palestine (today’s Israel) and to establish Islamic rule.

The Charter states explicitly that there can be peace in Palestine (today’s Israel) only when Islamic rule reigns.

The Charter quotes the Prophet of Islam calling to kill Jews (Article Seven); and to make certain that we understand the Hamas world-view, the document declares clearly that  “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad [holy war]. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time” (Article Thirteen); “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam obliterates it” (the opening).

Essayists don’t mention these declarations. Instead, they want to know why Israel doesn’t want peace.

The Hamas Charter is filled with information. It tells you all you need to know about Hamas’ attitudes:  Leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism is high treason (Article Thirty-Two); Zionists are invaders (Article Seven); Palestine must be liberated through holy war (Article Fifteen); Jews/Zionists are Nazis (Article Twenty, Thirty-One and Thirty-Two); the Jews have usurped Palestine (Article Fifteen); the Palestinian problem is a religious problem—and should be dealt with on this basis (Article Thirteen).

In case a Western essayist does not understand the Jew-as-Zionist, he can learn from the Charter that Zionists aim to undermine societies, destroy values and annihilate Islam; Zionists are “behind the drug trade and alcoholism so as to facilitate [Zionist] control and expansion (Article Twenty-Eight)”.

Essayists don’t mention these beliefs when discussing peace for Israel.

Essayists want Israel to reconsider her approach to Hamas. Hamas is an official terror organization. Each rocket Hamas fires at Israeli civilians is a war crime. They use human shields. Their Charter calls for the killing of Jews. Their solution to the ‘Palestinian problem’ is a religious holy war against the Jew.

What exactly is Israel supposed to ‘reconsider’?