Posts
Time to Talk to Hamas?
By MJ Rosenberg / March 27, 2007
Yesterday's Ha'aretz features a piece by the highly respected Israeli reporter, Gideon Levy.
Levy says that it's time for Secretary Rice, the United Nations Secretary-General, the Europeans and everybody else who travels to the Mideast on peace missions to end their boycott of Hamas.
He argues that the Palestinians elected a government — after the US insisted on fair and free elections — and now, if we are serious, we need to live with the consequences. We can't move toward a resolution if we don't engage all the parties — at least according to Levy.
This is, of course, an argument that would be considered shocking here. But in Israel, where one can write or say whatever one wants on this issue, this piece won't shock anybody. But here it's a different story.
This is a piece worth discussing whether you agree with it or not.
POST A COMMENT
I have two questions:
1. MJ, you make a very good case that talking with your enemy makes good sense, then you say you don’t favor talks with Hamas. Why not?
2. On the one hand, we have the Hamas charter speaking about destroying Israel, as unlikely an event as one can imagine. On the other hand, we have Israel’s consistent, relentless, deliberate violence against Palestinians. Why are so many more upset about the conceptual sociocide than the actual one?
confounding and frustrating about this line of thinking is that believing that it is possible to negotiate with Hamas isn't by any means a new or creative solution. So rather than concentrating on trying to convince the Israelis to negotiate with those bent on their destruction, why doesn't the international community (and so-called "peace advocates") find creative ways in which to support truly moderate Arab leaders? But rather, we would like to make excuses for the pure horror of suicide bombings and of a society that teaches its children to offer themselves up as martyrs. Such an opinion from the western world (that we can't expect more from the Arab world) truly shows a level of disgusting paternalistic chauvenism.
Hamas' charter is based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Perhaps that is reason enough? Or maybe because their philosophy is mysogonistic, violent extremism at its worst? And because they believe Jews are apes and pigs? And because they inculcate their children to blow up Jews? You know, just throwing a few reasons out there.
Funny but the isolation policy actually does seem to work (from a strictly Israel point of view, of course). Protected borders and the breaking down of settlements has increased security. Not for lack of trying on the Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Fatah side though; merely that over the last year Israel has been quite effective in thwarting such attacks.
I just don’t get what the fear is about talking to Hamas. Yes, some of them may have been involved in terrible, violent acts, but refusing to talk to them does not make those acts go away, and if anything it makes them more likely to continue. Its like a little child who says “I wont talk to you anymore” after someone steals his/her toy. It sure doesn’t get the toy back.
Right now, Hamas is just as happy to have Abbas do the speaking with the Israelis, but the day that anyone from Hamas wants to sit down and talk to an Israeli or US official about serious issues of peace and security, Israel and the US better sit down right next to them and start chatting.
There is a popularly elected government, doesn't necessarily mean that it is worthy of being brought to the negotiating table. To MJ's point, the US did negotiate with Stalin and Mao (this in and of itself is not proof that it was valid). However, I would point out that neither the Soviet Union nor China ever put forth official doctrine (or actively worked for) that called for the destruction of the United States. There is a big difference. Thus why recognition (true, explicitly stated recognition) is absolutely vital before any serious engagement.Â
We are not even talking about '67 borders here, which is supported by the vast majority of Israelis and I would dare say worldwide. There is the Israeli perspective that accepts the legitimacy of a Palestinian state. The other side has yet to do the same. Just as in the 70s there was no consensus amongst Israeli policymakers or populace–thus making it impossible to negotiate with, say, Golda Meir on such a subject– that there was the right to a Palestinian state, the same still exists within the PA (one need look no further than the school textbooks used to inculcate another generation of rejectionism and shaheeds).
Perhaps more than anything else, Israelis have learned the lessons from the disintegration of Oslo, and how it was merely another ploy to launch war rather than promote co-existance.
As much as we might hate it, the Hamas government has a certain degree of legitimacy based on it having been popularly elected. And as long as Israel refuses to engage with them, they prevent the process of moderation that commentators had predicted. Hamas loses part of its extreme stance by engaging in negotiations as much as Israel loses some of its hard-line rejection of a government that accepts violence. And lo and behold, when an alternative to violence appears to advance the inescapable cause of Palestinian nationalism, less of the population will be inclined to accept violence, given the inevitable collateral damage to their homes, lives, and communities.
If Hamas's ranks have grown, that means that there is a certain flexibility within its constituency. Now they may reject peace. In the past they did not, and in the future they may not.  The long-term strategic consequence of non-negotiation are far more dire than not negotiating when a generation of Palestinians will grow up having seen nothing but violence.
Yeah, you must be an anti-semite! Just kidding.
As far as I'm concerned, we need to change the definition of pro-Israel. If you support the status quo, you aren't. The good news is that most Israelis do not support it because they are desperate for a better life. The big status quo supporters tend to be in Five Towns and Teaneck! :-)Â
Yeah, let’s just keep doing what we’ve been doing. It’s been working wonderfully. Oh, wait, I must be an anti-semite for agreeing with 48% of Israel!
What happens is that Israel's negotiations with Hamas give it the veneer of legitimacy, the EU restarts aid funding and grants diplomatic recognition, and the next thing you know, the government is there to stay. but it hasn't changed.
at this point, any hopes for peace are delayed for decades, at best. and that means more innocents will die.Â
Israel and Hamas won't reach an agreement right now, so what's the point of trying when the strategic consequences are so dire?
It seems to me that you can prety much negotiate with anybody. The US negotiated with Stalin and Mao, the two biggest mass murderers in history.
Look if I want to sell you my house for $1m. And you say $500,000. We either agree on some figure in between or I walk.
Let's say Israel negotiates with Hamas. Israel says, "we live." Hamas says "you die." Israel walks out.
More likely is that Hamas says "'67 borders, no amendments." Israel says, "we need this and that." Hamas agrees or disagrees. No agreement, both sides walk.
How do you lose just by talking. I'm just asking. I do not favor talks with Hamas but we should discuss this.
This isn't an argument for the status quo by any means. Merely stating that it is important to realize that there are people (say, Hamas) whose fundamental, inherent goals make negotiation pointless and dangerous.
The Jordanians and Egyptians only came to the negotiating table once they realized that they could not defeat Israel militarily. The Palestinian leadership (and, sadly, a large chunk of its populace as well) has yet to come to such a realization.
Where do I suggest rewarding terrorists' behavior? I just put out a piece by an Israeli journalist that is worth reading.
I totally agree with you. Olmert should reward Abbas's moderation, starting with a prisoner exchange. On the other hand, how can he when Hamas still hasn't released Corooral Gilad Shalit?Â
MJ, you are right to argue that peace is impossible without a negotiated settlement, but it's not the only necessary condition for peace. now is clearly not the time. everything is just too hot right now.
regarding the status quo, you are right to say that we must work to improve the conditions, and that the methods of Olmert's coalition are clearly not working. but the underlying premise of your argument suggests that things could ONLY improve, and unfortunately, that is far from true. a stalemate is better than an all-out slaughter campaign.
granted, Palestinians are suffering and Jews are being held hostage on numerous fronts, but can you imagine how hopeless our predicament might look if we started rewarding terrorists for their behavior? Â
right now, Olmert isn't rewarding moderation. he could release a number of Jordanians still in Israeli prisons, as a reward to King Abdullah for being a cooperative ally in the region, but he's not doing so. and i believe Olmert's refusal to reward moderation is just as detrimental as your suggestion to reward terrorist behavior.Â
With all due respect, Rosenstock, you are arguing for a continuation of the status quo. More war. More dead. I am not in favor of dealing with Hamas now (or maybe ever) but I am not sure that the best thing for Israel is to keep putting up conditions. The Egyptians did not recognize Israel until the end of the negotiating process. Same with the Jordanians. It seems to me worth considering that the one condition that needs to be locked in stone is an end to terrorism and violence in all its forms. Isn't that what matters? Just asking .
This is typical left-wing nonsense. What about the three conditions? what about last week's terror attack? what about Haniya's call for violence?
I don't think there's anything useful that can be accomplished by talking to these guys; the only way the palestinians will ever prove they might be ready for a state is to throw these bums out.
It's easy to call for Israel to risk its future from washington; a bit tougher when you actually know the kind of people Israel's up against.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!