Hamas are thoroughly unpleasant people—ideologically extreme and violent. They are, in other words, the sort of men who eventually rise to the surface of a community that has been generationally oppressed. Who else? If a people are deprived of a peaceful means of obtaining their liberty, then the hard men seize their opportunity.

A resulting tragedy may be that these are the men who must be dealt with if the oppression and its violent manifestations are to be resolved. We all remember the British eventually recognizing that if they ever wanted peace in Ireland, they would have to sit down with the IRA.

And Hamas deserves a hearing in a way the IRA did not. The IRA was never elected into office. Hamas was. In 2006, elections were held in the Palestinian territories to elect the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority. Hamas got 44 percent of the vote and 74 of the 132 seats. Fatah, its opponent, got 41 percent and 45 seats. An international observer delegation judged the elections to have been peaceful and well-administered.

A new government was formed by Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (recently assassinated by Israel). It didn’t last. The Islamist Hamas and the secular Fatah simply didn’t get along and turned to fighting each other. The upshot was Hamas ruling Gaza and Fatah ruling the West Bank and no elections since.

The West took Israel’s cue and refused to recognize Hamas. This was a mistake as even former British prime minister Tony Blair eventually realized. In 2017 he reflected “We were wrong to yield to Israeli pressure to impose an immediate boycott of Hamas after the Islamic faction won Palestinian elections in 2006.” He suggested the international community should have entered into a dialogue rather than isolate them. Israel continues to promote that isolation while going to great lengths to keep the Palestinians divided.

Blair’s sensible realization remains pertinent today. It is, however, difficult to dialogue with people you have labelled terrorists as most western nations, including Canada, have labelled Hamas.

Hamas, it should be noted, is a comprehensive organization. It has a military arm, which engages in terrorism, but it also has a political arm that won an election and has formed the government of Gaza for 18 years.

As for its use of terrorism, it is hardly alone. The fire and atomic bombings of Germany and Japan during WWII by allied forces were the greatest terrorist acts in history. And what is Israel’s use of “collective punishment” if not a form of state terrorism?

And if the Palestinians are to fight for their liberation, what else do they have to confront the best army in the region? As I have discussed in a previous post, they are reduced to using the weapon of the oppressed.

Arbitrarily categorizing groups such as Hamas as terrorist is as fruitless as it is hypocritical. As Tony Blair implied, excluding Hamas from talks has only delegitimized those members who might be more prepared to pursue diplomatic and political solutions while emboldening the extremists.

But can Hamas be negotiated with? Would there be any hope of a meaningful peace? Critics of the organization point out that their constitution dictated the destruction of Israel. However, in 2017 they revised their constitution. They presented a new document that says they will accept the 1967 borders as the basis for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of refugees to their homes.

It did not recognize the state of Israel. That puts it on a par with the attitude of the Israeli government which clearly has no intention of recognizing a Palestinian state. There is considerable distance between the two sides, and both would have to be pushed toward a deal, but there is potential.

If the relevant parties could negotiate with the political arm of the IRA to bring peace to Ireland, the relevant parties can negotiate with the political arm of Hamas to bring peace to Palestine. Indeed the Ireland deal—the Good Friday Agreement—long hailed as a model for ending conflict between opposing communities, could be used as a model for Palestine. Once described as “a masterclass in constructive ambiguity, allowing all sides to agree to disagree and maintain their opposing goals, albeit through peaceful means” it would seem to nicely fit the bill.

The Palestinians have been confined to refugee camps or otherwise subjected to Israeli whims for 75 years. How long should they be expected to tolerate an intolerable existence? Surely three generations is enough.