Transforming Terrorists: An Israeli Case Study

[Wordie]

Transforming Terrorists: An Israeli Case Study]
Grant F. Smith, Arab News

“Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can negate the use of terror as a means of battle.” — Lehi Motto

There is much hubbub over the potential for Hamas to enter as a significant player in the Palestinian government. Neoconservative pundits warn that this will put the “terror masters” in control of any future Palestinian state, leading to chaos and horror for Israel and the region.

The author thinks this conclusion isn't necessarily so, and points out that many of Israel’s founding fathers went through a similar transformation from terrorist to statesman.

The Lehi Group (short for “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”) was a self-described terrorist group fighting to evict the British from Palestine toward the formation of a Jewish state. It later became known as the Stern Gang after commander Avraham Stern.

Stern believed that Palestine’s Jewish population should fight the British rather than support them in World War II and even made independent contact with Nazis proposing alliance with Germany in exchange a Jewish state in Palestine.

...Pundits are simply not on solid historical ground when they insist that Hamas can’t follow a similar route of transformation, institutionalization and legitimization once territorial issues are finalized. The parallels of the Lehi and Hamas are haunting: Alliances with unsavory foreign countries, “ends justifies the means” approach to violence, and yes, terrorism. Hamas, like Lehi, has the popular backing to demand the same forgiveness, amnesty, support and forgiveness Lehi ultimately received not only from a new state but the rest of the world.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=76992&d=29&m=1&y=2006

[bemildred]

1. Oh good ....

:popcorn::popcorn:

[PATRICK]

2. Add necessity

Palestine has no oil, no great wealth, but it has huge territorial vulnerability and pressing internal needs that go far beyond any natural support for violence. Only our non-democratic ME Arab "allies" have the money to go along with some inclination to spend it on terrorism and disgruntled masses who know these toadies of the West are sitting on that money and their freedom. is someone going to build the Palestinians an armed services and WMD's to give them any leisure for hanky panky in the region?

No the capacity for transformation is a weak argument considering the overwhelming necessity and incapacity to be a player. It is more as simple as the Know-Nothing radicals in our own history who once they got elected were simply absorbed into the standard system, the radicalism and the movement itself dying on the vine. Our own radicals today are funded and empowered to do more than just be in the government. The absolute power corruption and the greed is destroying in less civilized, less democratic fashion the occuoied US system they had helped destroy. Hamas, on the other hand, is building up and needs to build up, not loot(as their predecessors did the Saudi largesse) or spend more Saudi funds on the simple obtaining of power. They got that, more terrorism would be spite on a shrinking allowance. Corruption and terrorism are both out despite all the pressures, or else the simple truth of the tightrope they find themselves on is that they can be toppled, have the rope cut or fumble off themselves. By anyone around or within them.

All the rant and fear talk to the contrary, Hamas is more likely to be tamed than the SinnFein/IRA had the latter ever succeeded, and Hamas has a worse record of violent acts. They realize in their new "victory" that they have a lot of enemies and not so friendly benefactors who will try to toss them out no matter what- and their sole defense ironically is a very vulnerable, but popular franchised democracy.

The real ongoing, unceasing relentless threat will always be against them. Who can they even talk to to share their anxiety? Chavez?

[pelsar]

3. so too was said of

iran (khomeni) and the taliban.....nor is hamas similar to the IRA nor the Hagana, or the other jewish underground groups-there is a very large cultural gap

[eyl]

4. There are several significant differences the author misses

In fact, his last sentence gets it exactly backward

Most importantly, Lehi was weak, not popular. It didn't have widespread popular support, and its activities were condemned - on moral grounds - by the Yishuv's leadership. While it's true that its leaders eventually became the leaders of Israel, that happened only after a very long time outside the government, and it became part of the political establishment in the first place only after being slapped down hard and disarmed.

This is not true of Hamas. It is currently ascendent in Palestinian political life; there is no group inside the Palestinan political culture with both the desire and the power to force Hamas to moderate, nor is Hamas likely to experience the lessons of a generation in the political hinterlands.

Second, while Lehi embraced terrorist tactics, it never did so with anywhere near the fervor Hamas has. In addition, Hamas' rationales for its violence are based on religion rather than just pragmatics. Taken together, these factors will make it much more difficult for Hamas to publicly renounce violence. In the case of Lehi, the passage of years made that easier.

Also, the author invokes a strwman here when he says

Pundits are simply not on solid historical ground when they insist that Hamas can’t follow a similar route of transformation, institutionalization and legitimization once territorial issues are finalized

I haven't seen anyone claim Hamas can't follow a route "of transformation, institutionalization and legitimization". Everything is possible. The critical question is will they do so, or what the probability of that is.

[bemildred]

5. The author does not suggest identity.

He points to certain similarities of method and attitude, with the aim of undercutting Israeli claims to moral and cultural superiority. In that, he seems effective. These are matters of degree, not of kind.

WRT Hamas, there is every reason to think that their future course will depend on events. The one thing that is really certain is that a hostile and belligerent attitude towards them will lead to more violence; Israeli violence, Palestinian violence. Belligerence is how we got here in the first place. It won't take us anywhere else.

[eyl]

6. The author suggests

that Hamas may transform in a similar fashion to Lehi. My point is that since their are significant differences between the two (and in fact he suggests that Hamas has the "popular backing to demand forgiveness", which is precisely to opposite of Lehi's situation) the analogy he's trying to make is based on a similarity which doesn't exist. So while you can make an argument that Hamas may moderate, the one the author is making isn't it.

[bemildred]

7. We must disagree.

I do not see that he arguing as you claim on the basis of any similarity of strength or weakness of the two groups. Rather not. But opinions will vary. Thank you for taking the time to explain your view.

Edit: It's probably worth mentioning that an obvious reason to think Hamas might moderate their position is that they have said so, and that they have maintained a cease fire of sorts for some time now. A more interesting question is whether they will act to restrain IJ and similar loons.