Obama to talk to Hamas

[RedRalph]

from guardian

The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush's . .doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say.

The move to open contacts with Hamas, which could be initiated through the US intelligence services, would represent a definitive break with the Bush . .presidency's ostracising of the group. The state department has designated Hamas a terrorist organisation, and in 2006 . .Congress passed a law banning US financial aid to the group.

The Guardian has spoken to three . .people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp. 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. A tested course would be to start . .contacts through Hamas and the US intelligence services, similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s. Israel did not become aware of the contacts until much later.

A UN resolution was agreed last night at the UN, calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire between Hamas and Israeli forces in Gaza. The resolution was passed, though the US, represented by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, abstained.

Richard Haass, a diplomat under both Bush presidents who was named by a number of news organisations this week as Obama's choice for Middle East envoy, supports low-level contacts with Hamas provided there is a ceasefire in place and a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation emerges.

Another potential contender for a . .foreign policy role in the Obama administration suggested that the president-elect would not be bound by the Bush doctrine of isolating Hamas.

"This is going to be an administration that is committed to negotiating with . .critical parties on critical issues," the source said.

There are a number of options that would avoid a politically toxic scenario for Obama of seeming to give legitimacy to Hamas.

"Secret envoys, multilateral six-party talk-like approaches. The total isolation of Hamas that we promulgated under Bush is going to end," said Steve Clemons, the director of the American Strategy . .Programme at the New America . .Foundation. "You could do something through the Europeans. You could invent a structure that is multilateral. It is going to be hard for the neocons to swallow," he said. "I think it is going to happen."

But one Middle East expert close to the transition team said: "It is highly unlikely that they will be public about it."

The two weeks since Israel began its military campaign against Gaza have heightened anticipation about how Obama intends to deal with the Middle East. He adopted a strongly pro-Israel position during the election campaign, as did his erstwhile opponent and choice for secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. But it is widely thought Obama would adopt a more even-handed approach once he is president.

His main priority now, in the remaining days before his inauguration, is to ensure the crisis does not rob him of the chance to set his own foreign policy agenda, rather than merely react to events.

"We will be perceived to be weak and feckless if we are perceived to be on the margins, unable to persuade the Israelis, unable to work with the international community to end this," said Aaron David Miller, a former state department adviser on the Middle East.

"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.

Obama has defined himself in part by his willingness to talk to America's enemies. But the president-elect would be wary of being seen to give legitimacy to Hamas as a consequence of the war in Gaza.

Bruce Hoffman, a . .counterterrorism expert at George. .town University's school of foreign . .service, said it was unlikely that Obama would move to initiate contacts with Hamas unless the radical faction in Damascus was crippled by the conflict in Gaza. "This would really be dependent on Hamas's military wing having suffered a real, almost decisive, drubbing."

Even with such caveats, there is . .growing agreement, among Republicans as well as Democrats, on the need to engage Hamas to achieve a sustainable peace in the Middle East – even among Obama's close advisers. In an article published on Wednesday on the website Foreign Affairs, but apparently written before the fighting in Gaza, Haass, who is president of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote: "If the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas continues to hold and a Hamas-PA reconciliation emerges, the Obama administration should deal with the joint Palestinian leadership and authorise low-level contact between US officials and Hamas in Gaza." The article was written with Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel and an adviser to Hillary Clinton.

Obama has said repeatedly that . .restoring America's image in the world would rank among the top priorities of his administration, and there has been widespread praise for his choice of Clinton as secretary of state and Jim Jones, the former Marine Corps commandant, as his national security adviser.

He is expected to demonstrate that commitment to charting a new foreign policy within days when he is expected to name a roster of envoys to take charge of key foreign policy areas: Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, India-Pakistan, and North Korea.

Obama has frustrated and confused those who had been looking for a more evenhanded approach to the Israeli-. .Palestinian conflict by his refusal to make any substantive comment on Israel's . .military campaign on Gaza, nearly two weeks on.

He said on Wednesday: "We cannot be sending a message to the world that there are two different administrations conducting foreign policy.

"Until I take office, it would be . .imprudent of me to start sending out . .signals that somehow we are running . .foreign policy when I am not legally authorised to do so."

what do ye think?

 

[Verbose]

from guardian

what do ye think?

Can't hurt the situation at least.

The US desperately needs a new Middle East policy anyway, one that preferably works, which should then logically focus of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Must be hell for Obama to sit on his hands until GWB officially steps down, while looking at situations - the US economy, this conflict - go even further down the drain while he waits.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think some will react to this with: "Omgosh! Supporting terrorists! Change and hope you can believe in".

Obama has defined himself in part by his willingness to talk to America's enemies. But the president-elect would be wary of being seen to give legitimacy to Hamas as a consequence of the war in Gaza.

That's a thin line to thread, but it is important to include both parties if any viable solution is to be reached. However unlikely it may be. And no doubt more hyena material.

 

[jessiecat]

I think some will react to this with: "Omgosh! Supporting terrorists! Change and hope you can believe in". And no doubt more hyena material.

Shssssh. I think they're still busy ranting on the other thread. Maybe they haven't noticed this one, ......yet.

 

[Zarn]

Disagreeing with someone is ranting?

Hamas aims to kill civilians and terrorize them.

If this condition means we should set up negotitaions, then what other groups do we need to recognize?

 

[RedRalph]

Disagreeing with someone is ranting?

Hamas aims to kill civilians and terrorize them.

If this condition means we should set up negotitaions, then what other groups do we need to recognize?

The government of The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Zarn, do you see an alternative peaceful approach that involves completely ignoring Hamas?

 

[Camikaze]

If this condition means we should set up negotitaions, then what other groups do we need to recognize?

This comment seems to suggest that the best course of action would be to shut your eyes and pretend Hamas isn't there.

Unfortunately they are, and it cannot hurt to talk to them. You may say that they are nutcases who will not negotiate with their perceived devil, but that is a bit rich coming from a side that also refuses to negotiate.

Really, what is the worst that can come from negotiating with Hamas? Don't say that it gives them credibility as a legitimate organization and representative of the Palestinian people, as this was given to them by the elections which they won.

 

[jessiecat]

Disagreeing with someone is ranting?

Hamas aims to kill civilians and terrorize them.

If this condition means we should set up negotitaions, then what other groups do we need to recognize?

Was I referring to you? Yes, agreed. Hamas kills civilians and terrorizes them. Next point?

What is "this condition"? If you mean talking to terrorist groups through intelligence contacts, then yes.
Any problem with that? And who, except you, has even mentioned recognizing anybody yet?

 

[Zarn]

This comment seems to suggest that the best course of action would be to shut your eyes and pretend Hamas isn't there.

Unfortunately they are, and it cannot hurt to talk to them. You may say that they are nutcases who will not negotiate with their perceived devil, but that is a bit rich coming from a side that also refuses to negotiate.

Really, what is the worst that can come from negotiating with Hamas? Don't say that it gives them credibility as a legitimate organization and representative of the Palestinian people, as this was given to them by the elections which they won.

If you target civilians, today (even though it was still wrong, society was different during the world war era, although the US-Vietnam conflict was disgusting), then you are putting yourself in the catergory of a terrorist for good reason. The human species needs to advance its ethics the more it advances its technology and knowledge. If it does not, it will destroy itself. As a result, barbarity needs to be shunned. Communication means that barbarity is an acceptable approach. Elections do not change that the fact that such is barbarity.

 

[Camikaze]

Sure, that's a good ideology, but it doesn't solve the problem.

While I agree that Hamas are certainly not doing the right thing, the situation doesn't improve without negotiation and some form of communication.

Barbarity is everywhere in different forms, some more extreme than others, and our ethics can surely not be advanced by simply ignoring the perpetrators of it in word but not in retribution i.e. not negotiating but only fighting.

Also, I didn't mean that the election of Hamas makes their barbarity legitimate or excusable, or their barbarity a legitimate representation of the Palestinian people, but does make them a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. This is just as the election of George W. Bush didn't mean that the USA's barbarity at Abu Ghraib was legitimate of excusable, or their barbarity a legitimate representation of the American people, but does make Bush's administration the legitimate representative of the American people (for now).

 

[RedRalph]

As if there arent talks going on in the background. theres always talks going on in the background.

 

[jessiecat]

Let's see if I've got this straight, Zarn. Just so we understand you.

So we have to say to them, "Whatever your grievances are, we don't like your methods. So we won't talk to you and we don't care what your grievances are either. All we want to do is shut you up for good."

You really think that's going to solve all our problems and put an end to all the violence? By pretending there isn't anything at all we can put right. Sounds like the ostrich school of crisis management to me. Very helpful.

 

[Leonel]

Can't get worse. Heck he might even talk some sense into them!

 

[silver 2039]

Nothing is harmed by dialogue.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Obama has defined himself in part by his willingness to talk to America's enemies. But the president-elect would be wary of being seen to give legitimacy to Hamas as a consequence of the war in Gaza.

The problem with this is that Hamas already is the legitimately-elected government of the Palestinian Authority. They won, fair and square; it was the cleanest election in an Arab country since the last time Islamists won (Algeria, 1991). Had Israel and the West not starved the Hamas government of its income, then PA services would not have broken down, the Palestinian Civil War would never have happened, and the rockets would not be flying from Gaza. As it is, Hamas has been willing since 2006 to reconsider some of its extreme political positions in exchange for certain concessions. Israel insisted on making it the other way around, and look what happened.

Hamas aims to kill civilians and terrorize them.

This is a common misconception.

Hamas does not aim to kill anyone. For them, terrorism is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

The problem is that the Palestinians and Israelis are speaking different languages when it comes to violence. The Israelis see every rocket as an attempt to kill Israelis. I'm not going to deny that innocent civilians are killed--they are--but this is not how attacks on Israelis are understood by the Palestinians. For the Palestinians, the violence--especially the rocket attacks--is symbolic. It's their way of saying "F*ck off! F*ck off, will you! Leave this place! Or at least give us the least of our demands. And if you don't, well, I guess suffering our little stings will be part of the cost of doing business here." The Israelis don't get that. They don't realize that perfect security will remain impossible at least until peace is made, and that until a permanent settlement is reached, the Palestinians will remain restive.

In fairness, the Palestinians don't realize that the Israelis cannot see it the Palestinians' way; Israel is locked into the idea that the Palestinians are not sending any messages other than "we are trying to kill you all." The Palestinians don't see the Israeli view of their actions, so their actions (generally) make things worse for themselves.

 

[Phlegmak]

Diplomatic relations with one's enemies is always a good thing.

 

[Patroklos]

This comment seems to suggest that the best course of action would be to shut your eyes and pretend Hamas isn't there.

Is that what it suggests? It seems to me, and as current events will show, that it means opposing Hamas at every opportunity to include arms.

You really think that's going to solve all our problems and put an end to all the violence? By pretending there isn't anything at all we can put right. Sounds like the ostrich school of crisis management to me. Very helpful.

Far faster than " Your methods are disgusting and an afront to civilized society, but we are going to validate them and vindicate your decision to violate every law of war on the books. Oh yeah, all you other terrorists groups don't pay any attention, this TOTALLY won't work in your case."

Hamas does not aim to kill anyone. For them, terrorism is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

wait, wait, wait.

Diplomatic relations with one's enemies is always a good thing.

I will accept their leaders under a flag of truce in order for them to render their surrender at any time. Hell, I might even extend to them a courtesy they never do by not executing them afterwards.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

wait, wait, wait.

What's funny about it? It's true: if they felt it was possible to send their message without killing anyone, they wouldn't. But they don't feel it's possible (whether or not it is), so they engage in violence. Hamas does not exist to kill Israelis; it exists to establish a Palestinian state, with an Islamic flavor. This is what I was saying.

This doesn't excuse them, but it does explain them.

 

[Patroklos]

What's funny about it? It's true: if they felt it was possible to send their message without killing anyone, they wouldn't.

Besides being so completely ridiculous on its face, Hamas members obviously like killing Isreali civilians, you do understand what Hamas's message is, right?

Hamas does not exist to kill Israelis

Ummm, you might want to read their charter....