Incoming Obama Administration May be Willing to Initiate "Low-Level" Talks with Hamas

by Damozel | According to The Guardian, at least three incoming officials in the Obama Administration say that Obama is willing to talk with Hamas.  Such a policy is supported by Obama's choice for Middle East envoy, Richard Haass, who has been a diplomat under Bush 41 and 43.  (The Guardian)  

I don't understand why there are any objections to this.  It isn't as if Bush's policies have exactly gone a long way toward bringing peace to Israel or the Middle East generally.  I can't understand the people who think that the best way to address failed policies is to do more of the same, only more so.  Isn't that meant to be a marker for insanity?  And apparently even some Republicans are coming round to the idea that a change of policy is going to be required. 

At any rate, the article makes it fairly clear that Obama has no intention of seeming through this willingness to talk to give legitimacy to Hamas.  According to The Guardian:

There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive. (The Guardian)

Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown thinks that Obama's willingness to engage Hamas at all would be conditioned on their sustaining "a real, almost decisive drubbing" at the hands of Israel.   Aaron David Miller, "a former state department adviser on the Middle East, said:

"Unless he is prepared to adopt a policy that is tougher, fairer and smarter than both of his predecessors you might as well hang a closed-for-the-season sign on any chance of America playing an effective role in defusing the current crisis or the broader crisis," he said. (The Guardian)

Yes indeed, a little common sense and some degree of recognition that listening the enemy is the only way to overcome them effectively and over the haul would be a welcome change.  The Bush administration's gross oversimplifications haven't exactly made the world a safer place, either for us or for Israel.

At HuffPost Jeffrey Feldman discusses the oddity of the way those who spoke to The Guardian  framed the goal:  the low level or "clandestine" talks with Hamas they predicted aren't clandestine if everyone knows that they will or may occur.   Feldman muses:

[W]hat seems to be happening in Congress is that the 'War on Terror' approach to Hamas has failed, the Obama transition team accepts that, and they are pushing for an approach whereby the U.S. attempts to normalize relations with groups hitherto defined as 'terrorists.'...

[W]hen the Bush era Congress talked about the big concept of 'lasting peace' in the Middle East, it began by pushing certain groups into the category 'terrorist' such that military strikes could be pushed as the solution to them. 'Defeating the terrorists' was the general formula for Bush-era 'long term peace' in the Middle East. If what the Guardian reports is true--that formula has changed, and everybody on the Hill, as well as abroad, knows it. That also means that Hamas and Israel know it, too....

[T]he framework for discussion on the Middle East that we can expect by mid-2009, starting with the emphasis on 'talk' to Hamas, will be economic--which makes sense given the current state of affairs. But rather than the economic emphasis we saw from the Bush administration in Iraq (e.g., destroy...in order to build a free market society), the Obama administration will likely emphasis the building of networks and partnerships on a global scale to Gaza and the territories--the global flow of support flowing to Gaza as a result of diplomatic channels being opening. (Huff Post)

He  infers from all this that Obama intends to keep the same level of support going to Israel for the foreseeable future.  (Huff Post) 

For Israel, it is likely that this emphasis will--for better or for worse--bring a re-dedication from the Obama administration to the current levels of support from the United States. In the short run, it is very unlikely that normalized relations with Hamas--whether in 3, 6, or 18 months--will bring with it some kind of broad re-conceptualization of the aid package to Israel....

In a sense, that is the debate triggered by the current crisis in Gaza--a debate not only about what is and is not the use of violence in the name of national defense, but about who we are as a Americans in the face of such violence. That debate is one that the Obama administration has not yet stepped up to shape, but time will tell.

FDL discusses the worsening conditions in Gaza here.  " The UN Security Council has just voted for an immediate cease-fire, Condi Rice speaking for the U.S. abstained."  (FDL)

Jackson Diehl, who presumably doesn't have any relatives on either side in Gaza, says:

Israel's military campaign in the Gaza Strip is failing, but there may be a silver lining. The war against Hamas is proving -- once again -- that the Middle East's extremist movements cannot be eliminated by military means.  (WaPo; emphasis added)

Not that I disagree with the last, since any ordinary detached observer (which excludes both Israel and Hamas and anyone with any emotional attachment to the issues) must have known this in advance.  

Likewise, common sense, a basic understanding of human nature, and the lessons of history lend support to Diehl's conclusions.  First, he discusses why things appear not to be going as the Israelis anticipated:

The trap that Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni have created for themselves lies not just in Hamas's ability to withdraw its fighters and rockets into mosques, schools and densely populated neighborhoods, where they could probably survive weeks of bloody fighting or go underground. The larger fallacy is the persistent conceit among Israeli leaders that Hamas can somehow be wiped out by economic strangulation or force of arms.

Unlike al-Qaeda, Hamas is not merely a terrorist organization but a social and political movement with considerable support. Its ideology, however repugnant to Israel and the West, is shared by a considerable slice of the population in every Arab country from Morocco to Iraq. Because it is extremist, it thrives on war, the suffering it inflicts on Palestinians, and the anger generated by the endless, graphic and one-sided coverage of the Middle East's satellite television channels. Every day this war continues, Hamas grows politically stronger, as do its allies in other countries and its sponsor, Iran.

And he points out their only real hope of a long term end to Hamas's influence:

Though Israel must defend its citizens against rockets and suicide bombings, the only means of defeating Hamas are political. Palestinians, who have no history of attraction to religious fundamentalism, have to be persuaded to choose more moderate leaders, such as the secular Fatah. In the meantime, Hamas's existence must be tolerated, and it should be encouraged to channel its ambitions into politics rather than military activity. That means, yes, elections -- like those Hamas won in 2006, when it took control of the Palestinian legislature. ( WaPo)

Right wing bloggers---who don't care about (1) common sense; (2) the motives or humanity of our designated and self-designated enemies; or (3) the differences between one terrorist organization and another; and who are indifferent to, or unaware of,t the lessons of history---react predictably here. 

RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS

Don't Back Down on Jobs, President Obama

Enron's Jeff Skilling: Convictions Upheld but Sentence Likely to be Lowered

What Does Obama Have in Mind for Social Security?

Sanjay Gupta is Obama's Pick for Surgeon General; Some Progressives (Including this One) Greet the Choice Without Enthusiasm and With Mild Grumbling

Eleven Gay Bars Targeted in Seattle Ricin Scare