The article I linked to flat out says that the British Government were in talks with the IRA before both ceasefires.
No, it doesn't:
In August 1994, the Provisional IRA announced a "complete cessation of military operations". This was the culmination of several years of negotiations between the Republican leadership, led by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, various figures in the local political parties, the Irish government and British government. It was informed by the view that neither the UK forces, nor the IRA could win the conflict and that greater progress towards Republican objectives might be achieved by negotiation.
It says the British Government were in talks with the legitimate political movement and its leaders. The IRA was not included. Even in the quote concerning 1996-7, it acknowledges that the IRA bombing campaign may have been used as leverage, but Sinn Fein and the politicians were the only ones the UK negotiated with.
And I flat out refuse to accept that distinction as being in any way meaningful given that Hamas is both.
I think this comment is what makes it pointless trying to continue this conversation. If you really believe this distinction is so important that you can't make analogies with Northern Ireland, I give up.
In one sentence you make a statement that acknowledges that the situation is markedly different as Hamas fills two roles, and then you say that that distinction is not important when it comes to drawing analogies. Both of which ignore what I've been saying.
Hamas is, first and foremost, a terrorist entity bent on the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic theocracy. It was politically elected once, and has since seized power. It ceased to be a legitimate political movement the moment it took power by force, and it no longer commands the support of a majority of the citizens of Gaza (if, indeed, it ever did).
In the Irish situation, the UK government effectively marginalized and ignored the bombers, and negotiated with the political movement. They were two separate entities with two separate philosophies on resolving the conflict. In Gaza, that isn't possible - to negotiate with, and give concessions to, Hamas in order to get a ceasefire in the first place is to give in to armed extortion. That's a fundamentally different reality than what the UK faced with Ireland.
This is why Israel should not begin negotiations with Hamas until there is an unconditional ceasefire in place. Conversely, they should begin negotiations with the PA as the government of the West Bank immediately.
I agree that continuing further appears to be pointless, however, if you are unwilling to acknowledge the fundamental differences at play in the circumstances. Just the history used as justification for the IRA versus Hamas is immensely different, nevermind the political realities of the present.
