Stephen Crabb has bravely dissented from a report from the Commons' International Development that calls for direct talks with the terrorists of Hamas. ConservativeHome congratulates him on his dissent and publishes this explanation from the MP for Preseli Pembrokeshire:
Hamas is a violent and ruthless offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. Rejection and destruction of Israel is a core element of its rock hard ideology. In its twenty years of existence it has established a menacing track record in carrying out terrorist atrocities. It also provides cover for groups like Islamic Jihad to carry out their own attacks, especially at times when Hamas agrees to a ceasefire.
It was a Hamas crew that pulled off the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit in June 2006 (still being held) which precipitated another round of fighting between Israel and Palestinians that summer. Unsurprisingly, Hamas receives hundreds of millions of dollars each year from the Iranian government – some of which is used to fund a programme of ‘hate education’ among Palestinian children.
But, whether we like it or not, Hamas now runs Gaza.
It surprised many by winning the 2006 elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council over a corrupt Fatah and, following the collapse of the Government of National Unity, seized control of Gaza in a bloody shoot-out with Fatah security forces. They won at the ballot-box and then showed they had the muscle in Gaza City. More than a third of all the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories now live under the rule of Hamas.
The response of the international community has been to isolate Hamas diplomatically and economically while trying to find ways to ensure that the Palestinian people are not made to suffer. Israel, which faces daily Qassam rocket attacks from inside Gaza, has gone further by trying to physically isolate Hamas through a painful blockade which has reduced to a trickle the flow of goods going into Gaza.
In a rare show of international unity, the Quartet of the US, EU, Russia and the UN laid down three principles which Hamas should accept before it is brought into the negotiating tent: rejection of violence, recognition of Israel, and respect for previous Israel-Palestinian peace agreements. This consensus is creaking.
When I asked Tony Blair, the Quartet’s Special Representative in the Occupied Territories, if he believes a peace deal can be struck which does not include Hamas he more or less held to the Quartet line in his reply. But he is thought to question the wisdom of the strategy and is coming under huge pressure to come out in favour of formal talks with Hamas even though Hamas rejects the Quartet principles.
The House of Commons International Development Committee has today followed the Foreign Affairs Committee in advocating positive engagement with Hamas. Aside from the fact that it is not the role of the IDC to venture into foreign policy issues, its conclusion about Hamas is as wrong-headed and dangerous as that of the Foreign Affairs Committee. But, unlike the Foreign Affairs report, the IDC recommendation was not unanimous.