The New Nation - Internet Edition

Claude Salhani

FORMER US president Jimmy Carter set out to prove a point after meeting twice with Khaled Meshaal, the Damascus-based leader of Hamas, and his deputy, Moussa Abu Marzouk. Carter hoped to convince the Palestinian Islamist movement to renege on violence and to join the peace process.

The two Hamas leaders are considered terrorists by the United States and Israel and of being 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 that terrorism must not be rewarded by treating its representatives as legitimate interlocutors in peaceful negotiations. But in defying US and Israeli warnings against meeting with Hamas, Carter has demonstrated that there can be a difference between "negotiable" and "non-negotiable" terrorism. The principle of refusing to talk to terrorist groups is a noble one; this article should not be misunderstood as anything but a strong condemnation of terrorism and those who resort to its use. Terrorism should not and must not be rewarded.

Yet the harsh reality is quite different. 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: Israel's fight for independence from British mandated Palestine; groups such as the Irgun, were labelled terrorists by the British; that did not prevent one of its leaders, Menahem Begin, to become prime minister. And 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 realise they were ideal breeding grounds for extremism, read here 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. Except 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 began by the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the subgroups it spawned, and their use of violence?

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? 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 recognise Israel's right to exist. However, the Palestine Liberation Organisation had 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 recognise the right of Israel to exist; and accept to engage with Israel in peaceful dialogue.

And although 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, who also says it will not negotiate with terrorists, has managed to make peace with Sunni groups in Iraq who until just a few months ago were fighting alongside Al Qaeda against US forces.

The pertinent question should not be whether one engages or not with terrorists in the hope of bringing about 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 today.

And if any leader, past or present, can contribute towards 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 Qaeda, with whom there can be no dialogue.

Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times and a political analyst based in Washington