Hamas Isn't The IRA

I came across this piece in The Washington Post concerning the role of Hamas in Middle East peace talks or lack thereof. The headline reads, "Hamas Digs In, Dimming Hopes for Mideast Peace Talks."

Digging in? Dimming hopes?

Since when has Hamas been interested in peace with Israel? When has anyone been full of hope that Hamas would sit down and negotiate with Israel?

Perhaps one of the larger problems (in an ocean full of them) is the mindset of Middle East Envoy George Mitchell. The former Senate Majority Leader seems to be under the impression this is another Northern Ireland:

Mitchell faced a similar dilemma during the Northern Ireland peace process, when there was opposition to the inclusion of the Irish Republican Army in the peace talks and demands that the group disarm before becoming party to the discussions.

But as Mitchell and fellow peace envoy Richard Haass would later write, "it's hard to stop a war if you don't talk with those who are involved in it."

Let me state this as succinctly as possible. Hamas isn't the IRA. While the IRA engaged in terrorism they were a whole different creature from Hamas. The IRA's objective was to remove Britain from Northern Ireland to create a united Ireland. It did not seek to forcably replace Britain altogether much less supplant the Church of England. Whereas Hamas wants to kill Jews and seeks to take over Israel (as well as Gaza and the West Bank) and turn it into an Islamic caliphate. Somehow I don't think Hamas is merely content to rule Gaza.

It never ceases to amaze me how the George Mitchells and the liberal elites of this world cannot grasp these simple facts.

Note: In the midst of writing this post, I came across this article that appeared in The New York Times in August 2007 by Zion Evrony, Israel's Ambassador to Ireland. It is titled, "Hamas isn't the IRA":

Underlying my Irish friends' advice is the expectation that should Israel start a dialogue with Hamas, the latter will change its ideology, renounce terrorism, recognize Israel, stop all acts of violence, suicide bombings and Qassam rocket attacksand relinquish its weapons.

Such expectation is rooted in the assumption that when two parties with diametrically opposing views engage in a dialogue, the dynamic created changes the chemistry of the conflict, moderates the positions of both sides and makes a compromise possible. Although this theory may be valid in some cases, unfortunately it is not in the case of Hamas.

It is a shame that Mitchell does not seek Ambassador Evrony's wise counsel.