Islamists kill, and the UK wants to talk

This may sound implausible, but it is precisely what would have taken place on April 22 in the British Parliament, had a technical fault not intervened to prevent it. Khaled Meshaal, the Damascus-based head of Hamas' Political Bureau, was due to address an audience of British parliamentarians and field questions via video-link. To the great embarrassment of the organizers, this could not be established. The organizers included Labor MP Clare Short and Lord Alderdice, the latter also a board member of the British non-governmental organization Conflicts Forum, which, according to its website, aims to shift the debate on Islamism toward a "positive assertion of Islamist values and thinking."

The problem in this instance is not whether the United Kingdom should accept Hamas' (often contradictory) word about its willingness to accept the legitimacy of Israel, but that sections of the British government are prepared to afford Hamas a courtesy which would never be extended to other organizations behaving in the same way. It is clear that by agreeing to take part in this discussion, Meshaal sought some sort of international legitimacy, and many were willing to grant him this without requesting anything in return. The minimal requirement for any official engagement of Hamas by the UK should be that the movement change its Charter and officially renounce all attacks against civilians.

According to the invitation for the event, "most serious commentators now believe that there can be no peace in the Middle East without talking to Hamas." This brings into question how we are meant to define peace in the region. A final peace on most people's terms would revolve around a two-state solution, with both sides putting an end to violence and Israel pulling out of its remaining settlements and allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. However, on Hamas' terms, again according to its Charter, final peace effectively means no Israel and the creation of an Islamic state that would serve as a base from which to reconquer "Muslim lands."

Hamas has repeatedly refused to alter its Charter. In fact, while the technicians were fiddling with the wires in a desperate attempt to achieve the video link-up with Damascus, Lord Alderdice was asked if Meshaal was planning to announce a renunciation of violence in his address. The response was ominous, with Alderdice suggesting that people were "foolish" if they came expecting Meshaal to abandon violence.

Assuming that a two-state solution is the best outcome for a peaceful future between Palestinians and Israelis, the question then becomes whether Hamas is the obvious partner in the pursuit of this. There is much evidence to suggest that it is not. For example, take this statement in 2007 by a leading member of the movement, Sheikh Ahmad Bahr, who was then the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council:

"Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one ... defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them."

Khaled Meshaal recently told The New York Times that Hamas "accepted the national accords for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders." On the face of it, this was a welcome shift away from the movement's former positions. However, was it really enough? Meshaal once again repeated that Hamas refused to amend its Charter, which calls for Israel's destruction and includes statements like this one:

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time ..."

It is often argued that too much importance is placed on the Charter and that Hamas' actions prove it is not dogmatically devoted to its every word. Meshaal himself has asked that the world "watch what we do, not what we say". However, considering what an impact it would have for the movement to renounce its Charter, particularly in the way it would alter the international community's perception of Hamas, it is worrying, and significant, that it still refuses to do so, bolstering the argument that Hamas' claims to support peace are tactical and temporary.

If anyone were to take Meshaal up on his request and watch what Hamas "does" or "has done" (casting aside for a moment its suicide bombings and rocket attacks), they could take a look at a Human Rights Watch report released last week cataloging acts of torture and extra-judicial killings carried out by the Hamas security services against its own citizens. According to the report:

"During the chaos of Israel's offensive [against the Gaza Strip] ... Hamas security forces or masked gunmen believed to be with Hamas extra-judicially executed 18 people ... Masked gunmen also beat and maimed by shooting dozens of Hamas' political opponents ..."

There is a lot that Hamas needs to change before it can be considered a legitimate interlocutor. In the continuing refusal of many people in the UK to demand anything of the movement, the message to other organizations deliberately targeting civilians is clear: If you continue to kill innocents and refuse to denounce violence and violent rhetoric, you will markedly increase your chances of getting exactly what you want.

Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens is a research fellow for the Westminster-based think-tank, the Centre for Social Cohesion. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.