JEWISH WORLD

JEWISH WORLD • AUGUST 11-17, 2023 19 the difference. Hamas asserted that Palestine is aWakf land held in trust for all Muslims until Judgment Day and that no part of it can be ceded to Israel or any non-Muslim entity. It called for the liberation of Pales- tine through “holy jihad.” Opposed to Israel’s very exis- tence, Hamas had no time for peace talks in any form. It utterly rejected the first Oslo Accord agreement of 1993, appalled by the PLO’s rec- ognition of the State of Israel. It regarded Arafat as a traitor to the Palestinian cause. O n September 5, 1993, shortly after the Oslo terms were an- nounced, Hamas issued its Leaflet 102 condemning both the agree- ment and the PLO leadership: “We will therefore insist on wrecking this agreement, and continue the resistance struggle and our jihad against the occupation power… The leadership of Arafat carries the responsibility for destroying Palestinian society and for sowing the seeds of discord and division among Palestinians.” Hamas was unimpressed by the PA’s “play it long” policy of press- ing for recognition of a sovereign Palestine within the pre-1967 Six Day War boundaries, as the first stage in a strategy ultimately de- signed to gain control of the whole of Mandate Palestine. This strategy was, in fact, spelled out by Arafat in a secret meeting with top Arab diplomats in Stock- holm’s Grand Hotel on January 30, 1996: “We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem,” Arafat said, adding that the PLO plans “to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a pure- ly Palestinian State.” To win over world opinion to the Palestinian cause, Abbas – the suc- cessor of Arafat – has given lip ser- vice to the two-state solution, but it is anathema to Hamas because it would consolidate Israel’s position on what they regard as Palestinian soil. Equally, Hamas has rejected all the efforts by Abbas to gain inter- national recognition for a state of Palestine. In fact, rejectionism is Hamas’s uncompromising stance. It will have no truck with any step- by-step strategy. Armed struggle is its policy. Any temporary truce must yield positive results. This fundamental difference about the most effective route to reach their common objective lies at the heart of the perpetual Hamas-Fatah con- flict, but there are others. Both are engaged in a battle for the hearts and minds of the Palestinian population, and Hamas makes no secret of its as- piration to replace Fatah as the gov- erning body of the West Bank. Sometimes it chooses to acknowl- edge Abbas as Palestinian leader; sometimes it has refused to recog- nize him as PA president at all, on the grounds that his presidential mandate, granted in 2005, was for a four-year term that has long expired. Hamas has, moreover, consistent- ly attempted to undermine his PA ad- ministration by forming militant cells in the West Bank aimed at launching attacks on Israel. In this connection, it vehemently opposes the security co- ordination between the PA and Israel in the West Bank – Israel’s guarantee of continued PA control – which Ab- bas once described as “sacred.” To say there is a feeling of déjà vu about the announcement ema- nating from Ankara on July 26 is to say no more than the obvious. Wikipedia, in its online website “Fatah-Hamas reconciliation pro- cess,” lists no less than 15 separate efforts since 2005 to bring the two major Palestinian political group- ings together. Wikipedia chooses 2005 as its starting date because it was Israel’s pull-out from Gaza in August 2005 that initiated the process leading to Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip and its truly decisive break with Fatah. The Palestinian elections of 2006 rewarded Hamas with the largest share of seats. Abbas, representing the PLO – acknowledged to be “the sole representative of the Palestin- ian people” – attempted to form a unity government including Hamas. But when he asserted that his new government would be fully aligned with the requirements set out by the Quartet, Hamas pulled out. The Quartet, set up in 2002, com- prised the UN, the EU, the US, and Russia, and was mandated to helpme- diate Middle East peace negotiations. Their conditions required, among oth- ers, recognition of Israel and a com- mitment to nonviolence – neither of which accorded with Hamas’s beliefs or intentions. Hamas chose instead to seize power in the Gaza Strip by initi- ating an armed coup, which saw Fa- tah officials and fighters ejected amid gunfire, with many killed. History shows that the chasm be- tween the two organizations goes back to the very founding of Hamas, and that not one of the innumerable attempts to bring them together has succeeded. PA-Hamas unity would become a reality on the day that the self-styled “State of Palestine” for- feits its standing in the UN by turn- ing jihadist, or that Hamas decides to support the two-state solution and recognize that Israel has a legitimate place in the Middle East. Neville Taylor is the Middle East correspondent for Eurasia Review. Unity continued from page 4 PA-Hamas unity would become a reality on the day the PA becomes jihadist or Hamas supports the two state-solution. Hamas ghter celebrating its rout over the Fatah in June 2007. The terror group has controlled Gaza since then. Dvar continued from page 7 ways. And so Maimonides con- cludes his Guide for the Perplexed, written at the end of his life, with a citation from Jeremiah: “Thus says the Lord: But only in this should one glory if he wishes to glory: Learn about and come to know Me. I am the Lord who does lovingkindness, justice and righ- teous compassion on earth. Only in these do I delight, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 9:22,23). From this perspective, only a religion which teaches love of ev- ery human being, which demands a system of righteousness and morality, and which preaches a world of peace, can take its right- ful place as a religion of ethical monotheism. Islam, for example, has enriched the world with ar- chitectural and decorative mas- terpieces, glorious poetry, mathe- matical genius, and philosophical writings influenced by Aristotle. And certainly the Kalami and Sufi interpretations of the Koran, which present jihad as a spiritual struggle, place Islam alongside Judaism and Christianity as a worthy vehicle and noble model for ethical monotheism. Tragical- ly, however, jihadism, spawned from Saudi Arabia’s brand of Wahhabi Islam, is the antithesis of ethical monotheism. George Weigel, a Catholic theo- logian and distinguished Senior Fellow at the Ethical and Public Policy Center in Washington D.C., cites a definition of jihadism in his compelling study Faith, Reason and the War against Jihadism : “It is the religiously inspired ideology which teaches that it is the moral obligation of Muslims to employ whatever means are necessary to compel the world’s submission to Islam.” He also analyzes the the- ology of Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), who stressed that God’s one-ness demands universal fealty, that the very existence of a non-Muslim constitutes a threat to the success of Islam and therefore of God, and so such an individual must be converted or killed. And other re- ligions and modern secularism are not merely mistaken but are evil, “filth to be expunged.” The goal is Global Jihad. Such a perverted “theology” only transmutes true Sufi Moslem monotheism into hateful Wahabi mono-Satanism. The enemy of the free world is not Islam, but jihadism. Let me return to our Biblical passage regarding the idolatrous city. An army hell-bent upon the destruction of innocent people, whose only sin is to believe dif- ferently than they do, enters the category of “…the one who is coming to kill you must be first killed by you.” One cannot love the good without hating the evil, “good” defined as the protection of the innocent and “evil” as the destruction of the innocent. The only justification for taking a life is in order to protect innocent lives – when taking a life is not only permitted but mandatory if that is the only way to save some- one’s life. Hence the Bible refers to the destruction of the murder- ous inhabitants of such a city as an act committed for the sake of righteousness. Just imagine the world today if the United States had not committed its forces to help fight Nazi Germany! But even the most justified of wars wreaks havoc, collateral damage can never be complete- ly prevented, and the soul of one who takes even a guilty human life must become in some way inured to the inestimable value of human life. Hence some of our Sages determine that such a city’s destruction had never been decreed, that the Bible is speaking in theory only. Certainly all oth- er possibilities must be exhausted before taking such a final step of destroying a city. Nevertheless, the Biblical ac- count – well aware of the moral and ethical ambiguities involved –guarantees that those who fight rank evil will not thereby lose their inner sense of compassion for the suffering of innocent indi- viduals or their overarching rev- erence for life. To the contrary, he who is compassionate towards those perpetrating cruelty will end up being cruel towards those who are compassionate. Shlomo Riskin is chief rabbi of Efrat, Israel.