Why Melanie Phillips is So Wrong About Hamas

Having lived in Israel for the past 15 years and now being on a brief sabbatical in Washington DC, the name Melanie Phillips, apparently known in London, is unfamiliar to me. That lack of familiarity is, it seems, not mutual, as Ms Phillips saw fit to attack me on these pages last week as being "dangerous", "naive", and an "idiot". Her style is not mine and my response will address substance, rather than ugly personal slurs.

My apparent "crime" is to support engagement with Hamas as part of a strategy for enhancing a ceasefire, security in the region, and ultimately, to advance a peace process that can actually deliver the goods. In being "dangerous" -- presumably to Israel and perhaps also Anglo-Jewry -- I find myself in not bad company.

Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, ex-Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, previous West Bank Divisions Commander and Civil Administration head General Ilan Paz, Gaza Brigades Commander Colonel Shaul Arieli and ex-deputy National Security adviser Yisraela Oron are just a few of the "dangerous" types who support this approach. In private, in Hebrew, many current senior Israeli officials share the same view and Israel has, of course, directly and indirectly negotiated ceasefires and prisoner exchanges with Hamas in the past.

To clarify; neither myself, nor I imagine other advocates of engagement, are Hamas enthusiasts or sympathisers. Let’s call it the realist school of Zionism and contrast it with say, apocalyptic Zionism -- characterised by scare-mongering, paranoia, and "gewalt-style" hysteria.

Zionist realism accepted the 1948-9 ceasefire lines, preferred Begin’s peace with Egypt over settlements in the Sinai, and today recognises the need for agreed secure borders for Israel that end the occupation of about four million Palestinians. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recognises this in his current negotiations.

For apocalyptic Zionists, this is all chopped liver. Israel’s destiny for them is to live by the sword in perpetuity; generation after generation of warrior super-Jews fending off the invading hordes of Mohammedans. Great as a Hollywood epic, but less so as a lifestyle choice or an Israeli future with any hope on the horizon. For apocalyptic Zionists, settlements, occupation, economic blockade and humiliation are irrelevant. None of it matters. They will always hate us anyway. Genocide is always just around the corner. And there is never a real partner.

Feeding on fear and exploiting stereotypes, this view often finds more popularity in the diaspora than in Israel itself. Based on her article, Ms Phillips appears to belong in this camp. She is wrong, and her views should be rejected.

Israel can get beyond occupation, beyond its current predicament and on to a more stable, secure, and hopeful footing. First, we must recognise that al-Qaeda and the al-Qaeda copycat crew cannot be reasoned with. Their approach is to burn down the house and part of defeating them will be to isolate them. This requires smartening-up, not dumbing-down one’s understanding of political Islamists -- they are not all the same. A monolith of Islamo-fascists are not lurking at every turn.

There are political grievances out there that can and should be addressed, and that feed al-Qaedaism. It is worth trying to reach an accommodation with mainstream Islamists, including Hamas and the Muslim Brothers, who are in their own struggle with al-Qaeda and reject the latter’s nihilism.

Israel should continue to talk with the secular pragmatic nationalists of Fatah on a range of issues -- borders, security, Jerusalem, etc. But for an arrangement to deliver stability, security, and have broad legitimacy, Hamas should be brought inside the proverbial tent.

It may just be that my dispute with Ms Phillips is over who to talk to, who to make peace with, and to whom Israel must hand over the post-occupation territories. I suspect this is not the case -- that this is about realist versus apocalyptic Zionism. Victory for apocalyptic Zionism, whether in the British press, the institutions of Anglo-Jewry, or elsewhere, would be defeat for Israel.