Today, when the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority has decided to take Hamas as a partner, governments around the world are tending to ignore the goals of the terrorist organization Hamas, and they would prefer that Israel do the same. A goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. That means that if Israel cooperates with Hamas, it is cooperating in plans for its own destruction.
An example of ignoring the real plans of a foe happened at Munich, when Britain's Chamberlain sought to appease Hitler's Germany by giving it a part of Czechoslavakia. "Peace in our time!" exulted Chamberlain, having gotten a piece of paper from Hitler. But Hitler's goal was not peace, it was conquest of much of the world. Receiving a key piece of Czechoslovakia allowed an easier conquest of the rest of Czechoslovakia, and convinced the Nazi German generals that Hitler seemed to know what he was doing, that he was on a successful path. It paved the way -- not for peace, but for the continued aggression that resulted in World War II.
A more recent example was provided by Israel's "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip. Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon forcibly removed some 9 thousand Jews who were living and working and raising families in Jewish towns in the Gaza Strip. He also removed Israeli soldiers from there. The newspaper The New York Times, in an editorial, exulted over their version of Chamberlain's "peace in our time". There has never been a better chance for peace, they enthused, leading readers to believe that this was the dawn of peace. What Israel got in return was the massive escalation of rocket fire into Israel, with thousands of rockets being fired into Israel. What Israel got was witnessing the election of the terrorist organization Hamas into the Palestinian government. The New York Times did not understand that the goal of a large segment of the Palestinian population was the destruction of Israel. In effect, the Palestinian Arabs' grievance was infinite, and no concessions by Israel could appease their grievance. Israeli concessions merely provided evidence of Israel's weakness, and showed them that the path of terrorism was a productive path for their goals. The New York Times made the mistake of overlooking the real popular goal of large segments of the Palestinian Arab population, and overlooked the fact that the grievance was infinite and unappeasable. Instead they apparently thought that the goal consisted of the excuse of the moment, the complaint about occupation by Israel, and The Times overlooked the real goal -- getting rid of Israel. Also, The Times, in their editorial, did not include a word about security matters, including the fact that the decreased security posed new dangers for Israel. So sure were they of their false assumptions that they did not even give any consideration to the possibility that they might be wrong. So they saw no need to even mention security. So they steered people to believe in the very opposite of the truth, seeing the evacuation of the Jews as a step toward peace when it was actually a step toward more violence against Israel, via the thousands of rockets fired at Israel.
Today there can be no doubt about the goal of Hamas to destroy Israel. Its own founding document makes that very clear. Now controlling the Gaza Strip, Hamas has indoctrinated the population of the Gaza Strip to have that goal of destroying Israel as their own goal. As Mahmud Abbas bows out of the picture in Judea and Samaria, Hamas will eventually come to dominate Arab areas of Judea and Samaria as well, and they will convert the vast majority of the rest of the Palestinian Arabs to their goal of destroying Israel. That is not the path to peace, but to endless war against Israel. Hamas has ties to the most militantly anti-Israel state of the region, which is Iran, and it will continue to receive more and more arms from Iran. Israel needs to prepare for defending itself against a stronger Iranian-Hamas rocket and terrorist presence in both the Gaza Strip and soon in Judea-Samaria.
For Israel to ignore Hamas' goals would be suicidal, and would be very unfortunate for Israel, inviting disaster. Just as Chamberlain's ignoring of Hitler's goals was self-delusionary and disastrous. It was disastrous not only for Britain but for all of the participants in World War II. It would add folly to tragedy to continue to make the same mistake of ignoring a foe's goals.
