Obama Camp "Prepared To Talk To Hamas," Says the Guardian

According to a new report from the Guardian, sources confirm that the incoming Obama administration plans to 'open a channel of communication' with Hamas, thereby rejecting the Bush policy of shunning key Middle East political groups on the premise that the the United States 'does not talk to terrorists.' Needless to say, this report from a very reputable news source comes at a time of unprecedented crisis in U.S. foreign policy -- a crisis brought on by the total lack of diplomatic engagement with the Middle East crisis by the outgoing administration.

Given the significance and timing of this news, it is worth pausing for a moment to consider what is meant and what is not meant by 'talk to Hamas' in this situation.

Open Talk of Future Secret "Talk"

The Guardian reports the following:

The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon President 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 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 in his administration,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. (link)

Notice the strange contradictions in this description--productive contradictions. First, the revelation is that the Obama camp plans to initiate 'clandestine' talks with Hamas. In other words, the leak is bringing to light diplomatic activity that will be secret in the future. But if we know about it now...it is not really secret. This brings us to a second point: that the 'talk' between the Obama administration will probably not see the light of day until Hamas agrees first to certain principles. This leads us to the third, point: the Obama administration feels it needs to negotiate with Hamas one-on-one, prior to stepping into a role as mediator for talks between Hamas and Israel.

Let me just sum that up: (1) secret talks in the future that are already not-secret, that will likely lead to (2) negotiations with Hamas about accepting key principles, which will in turn likely lead to (3) the Obama administration stepping into the light as a mediator between Hamas and Israel.

"Talk" Means Hamas Recognized As Legit Political Party

Another quote from the Guardian article refers to a growing sense on Capital Hill:

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.

Now, to put this in a broader narrative context, what 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.' Both Republicans and Democrats seem to have accepted this frame shift, according to the Guardian.

In other words, when 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.

Setting Up The Term 'Talk' As A Pressure Point

At this point, it is worth looking ahead a bit to imagine what the Israel/Palestine debate may look like a month from now.

Very likely, the Guardian article signals that the term 'talk' will emerge as a pressure point for both sides. The Israeli government will be pressured to stand down for good on military strikes, border closings, grid shut downs, and other means of tightening the screws on Palestinian populations. At the same time, the emphasis on 'talk' as a way forward will likely be used to very strongly pressure Hamas to abandon its use of succeeding "generations" of missiles to address their own political concerns in the region.

Likewise, the emphasis on 'talk' will carry forward a new framework of international 'engagement' with Palestinian needs. This will likely mean that the Obama administration will push for a broader discussion about international aid to Gaza for infrastructure, healthcare, education, and so forth.

And so, the 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.

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. As a result, the Obama administration's shift of the framework through which the U.S. government approaches the Middle East will carry forward one of the fundamental grievances vis-a-vis U.S.-Israel relations.

Conclusion: Shift to 'Talk' Will Be A Significant Moral Change To U.S. Foreign Policy

By way of conclusion, it is worth going over one point: The Obama administration's emphasis on 'talk' with Hamas will bring a significant moral shift in U.S. policy--but it will not do away with some of the core grievances vis-a-vis U.S. Israel relations.

Let me repeat that: A positive change in the general moral basis of the U.S. government will, nonetheless, carry forward some major issues that divide this country on Middle East policy.

At some point, therefore, the Obama administration will need to step up beyond the change created by the shift in foreign policy and offer a larger view on how Americans should see ourselves in relation to key problems abroad. 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.

(cross posted from Frameshop)

Comments

[WildBill]

Responding to the report from The Guardian, Mr. Obama's chief national security spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said, "The President-elect has repeatedly stated that he believes that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction, and that we should not deal with them until they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by past agreements. The President-elect's repeated statements are accurate. This unsourced story is not." This statement was released on the 9th.

[Karma7]

In any talks with Hamas, Obama should not advocate or support Bush"s counter-productive and failed policies.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200706/28/eng20070628_388298.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians-egypt

Vanity Fair reported how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever. ¦. the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush.
¦. David Wurmser, the avowed neoconservative, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney"s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007 - ¦ accuses the Bush administration of "engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory." ¦.
Wurmser believes that Bush is a hypocrite. "There is a stunning disconnect between the president"s call for Middle East democracy and this policy," he told Vanity Fair¦..."
http://www.poligazette.com/2008/03/03/vanity-fair-bush-provoked-palestinian-civil-war/

[WaelFromStPaul]

The Truth about The Middle East

Start with the funny,
Here is Jon Stewart making fun of the media coverage. It is actually funny

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213380&title=Strip-Maul

Finally somebody is telling the truth. Here is Bob Simon 0f 60 minutes on Charlie rose. The good stuff starts after about 6 minutes. Bob gives the real reason there is no peace in the Middle East.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9900
I agree with Bob Simon's analysis. I hope his dire predictions are wrong.

Here is a Good article from Newsweek

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177716

Here is why every American Government has given blind support to Israel

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

Here is the book by the professors from Harvard and Chicago

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724

And here is a reminder of how Israel pushed the Us into the war in Iraq, This is an article from 2002 (before the war)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/18/world/main519037.shtml


There is probably too much information in this e mail. You may want to save it for the weekend.

WK

[BiggerBiggerPicture]

The best hope to break the media manoply in the issue is this kind of blogging. Thi sis why Obama can be bold in his approach to resolve the Middle East conflict sinc ehe can find his support here.

[Karma7]

The Truth about The Middle East is also found in photographic reminder s of what American taxpayers are funding; which I've never seen on CNN or major tv news programs.

see http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2008/12/29/gaza-massacre-slideshow/

[kimleehan]

The Guardian says they spoke to three people with knowledge of discussions in the Obama camp. So whos the three neo-cons with knowledge of discussions? Let me try to guess Rush, Hannity, maybe Lieberman, who knows? All I can say for sure is that theres just as many people who don't want the U.S. to talk with Hamas as there are who do.

[SiberianRat]

Why would the 3 you mention have knowledge of anything related to Obama? I hope the report is right and he does want to--it's the first step in securing true peace in the region.

[kimleehan]

I read the article from Guardian, and they said they spoke to three people with knowledge of discussions in the Obama camp, but the guardian was quick to point out that there is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas. So who are the three that are spreading rumors that Obama is approving talks with Hamas?I don't know, I was just throwing some names out there, maybe I should'nt have but I did. I don't know if Obama is approving of talks or not, I was just asking who the three were.If it was those three, than the reason would be to turn popular opinion against Obama and the democrates. Thanks.

[angler]

As the writer says, the crisis in Gaza will generate a debate as to who we are as Americans.

This has been needed for a long time and will be healthy for us. It will offer an opportunity for the stranglehold that the Israel lobby has on the U.S. Congress and our main stream media to be broken, to the betterment of the American people. It may be the only good thing to emerge from the catastrophe that is now unfolding in Gaza.

[SiberianRat]

Right on, angler. We need to make sure though that we actively work to remove this stranglehold--it won't go away by itself. I agree though that the dialog happening now is valuable and productive. It may just be the beginning of a change of identity from a warring nation to a peacemaking nation.

[MagisterLudi]

Statement from Hamas leader:
Al Jazeera: Under what conditions will Hamas agree a ceasefire with Israel?
Abu Marzouq: We have three conditions for any peace initiative coming from any state.
First, the aggression of the Israelis should stop. All of the gates should be opened, including the gate of Rafah between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. Finally, Israel has to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.
We are not saying we will stop firing rockets from the Gaza Strip to Israel - we are only talking about stopping the aggression from the Israelis against the civilian population in the Gaza Strip."

Lemme repeat that last condition:
"We are not saying we will stop firing rockets from the Gaza Strip to Israel - we are only talking about stopping the aggression from the Israelis against the civilian population in the Gaza Strip."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200918155333111890.html

This is PRECISELY why most of world' countries oppose Hamas and their religious fanaticism.
And those Gazans who voted for Hamas share the blame. Just like Germans in 1933 election.

[SiberianRat]

Also from the same interview:

What exactly would you consider to be "victory" for Hamas?

A victory for Hamas would mean the Israelis did not accomplish their objectives.

If they can't stop rockets from coming into Israel, that means they failed.

But the real reason for Israel's aggression is to change the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip - they have been thinking about this since Hamas won the elections - it is not because of the rockets.

They failed to lead the people in an uprising against Hamas in the Gaza Strip with their economic embargo.

They tried to push Fatah to stand and fight Hamas, but we defeated them in the Gaza Strip, so the Israelis have taken action themselves.

And remember, the Treaty of Versailles paved the way for Hitler (i.e., the allied powers set up the scene), just as Israel's actions paved the way for Hamas. Nobody learns from history.

[Michale32086]

"We are not saying we will stop firing rockets from the Gaza Strip to Israel - we are only talking about stopping the aggression from the Israelis against the civilian population in the Gaza Strip."

Michale.....

[Karma7]

Fanatics are those people of any faith, color, persuasion or political belief who maintain that the end, whatever end, justifies all the means, including the bloody means. It seems me, considering that as a criterion, that ultra-far right, fundamentalist segments in Israeli, American and Arab societies certainly all fit that description. No society is immune to fanaticism.

Is there a cure?

The acclaimed author, Amos Oz, founder of Peace Now, who grew up in war-torn Jerusalaem and witnessed firsthand the poisonous consequences of fanaticism, thinks so.

In his book, How to Cure a Fanatic, Oz argues that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a war of religion or cultures or traditions, but rather a real estate dispute--

Oz emphasizes the importance of imagination in learning to define and respect other's space, and analyzes the twisted historical roots that have led to Middle East violence. He advocates an equivalent of the Marshall Plan aimed at preventing poverty and despair in the region, "¦ building homes for hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who have been rotting in camps for almost sixty years now."

I think fanaticism could be cured if national leaders conducted peace conferences ithe way astute businessmen discuss real estate values. They would not advocate illegal occupation of property already owned and settled by others for centuries, or try to destroy them, but work out a business plan that would be economically beneficial to all concerned.

[cindyfromfalls]

the definition of insanity is to do something over and over the same way while expecting different results.....I knew that Obama would bring sanity back to government!

[Michale32086]

I'll believe that Obama wants to "talk" to HAMAS when I hear it from Obama..

Michale.....

[ProudNeoCon]

""Talk" Means Hamas Recognized As Legit Political Party"

No it does not. Police talk to hostage takers to resolve the situation, it does not make hostage takers any more legit. All the talk means that Obama is smart enought to recognise that you shoudl talk to everyone and that the fact that you talk to people does nto mean you will never use the force against them.

"At the same time, the emphasis on 'talk' as a way forward will likely be used to very strongly pressure Hamas to abandon its use of succeeding "generations" of missiles to address their own political concerns in the region."

The main political concern of Hamas is existince of Israel and its inability to kill all Jews...

[Jazzcomedian]

Personally, I think this is a hopeless situation destined to be an eternal conflict. However, I'm for trying anything that makes sense at this point. After Northern Ireland reached a peace agreement, I thought that might be possible in the Middle East, but I think the hatred and religious fanaticism is far beyond that of Northern Ireland. Hamas's relgion absolutely refuses to accept a Jewish state, so good luck with trying to reason with them.

[SiberianRat]

It's not Hamas' religion, it's Hamas. 22 other Arab states have offered to recognize Israel if they end the illegal occupation.

[EGB]

Engagement is the only way to have peace in the region. Until now, the "safety" of Israel has depended on its overwhelming military might. That is, they can punish attackers so severely that further attacks would be deterred. This is clearly not sustainable. The problem is the intransigent refusal of Hamas (Iran) to recognize the existence of Jews and Israel as legitimate inhabitants of the region and Israel's confidence that military suppression of Hamas will work. Hamas' influence would be easily diminished if the condition of the Palestinians were to be improved. All in all, it sounds as if the leaked plan of engagement and investment could pay off. The starting point would be cessation of rocket attacks on Israel, closure of the tunnels and opening of crossings. Sounds a lot like the current proposals, doesn't it? Both sides are ignoring them. An alternative to war is badly needed, and it's not there yet. Perhaps the new plan will provide one. Let's hope so. I, for one, am tired of the repetitive arguments and the subsequent wars. Time for something new - for sure.

[worldwithoutus]

israel deserves peace hamas insures instability in the region.there religion dictates that any people who do not convert must be killed, same as al queda they dont want to live in peace they want to convert or kill we dont want to beleive its religous because it goes against american beleifs, ie seperation of chuch and state until this problem is adressed for what it is it can not be solved.

[SiberianRat]

"there [sic] religion dictates that any people who do not convert must be killed" I assume you mean Islam, and if so, that's absurd. It's not the religion that dictates it, it's the extremists who spew their interpretation of the religion, just like Christian, Jewish, and Hindu extremists. I lived in the Middle East for 5 years, didn't convert, and nobody killed me (or tried).

[Fein]

Your article's definitely correct, that American's aren't on board anymore with the lopsided relationship
with Israel. And the moral question of American's support for Israel is on point.

But you're statement "Hamas must be pressured to accept", without mentioning that that Israel will have to accept anything, and not addressing the root cause of the problem, the Israeli occupation, puts this article in the category of 'Israeli propaganda Lite'.

[SiberianRat]

Yes, Israel MUST follow international law and UN resolutions and end the illegal occupation immediately (back to the 1967 borders) and must comply with humanitarian law by ending the blockade. They can even build a wall if they want, around the whole country--as long as it's on THEIR side of the 1967 internationally recognized borders. The thing is that if they were to do this and Hamas still lobbed rockets over, Israel would have much more legal and moral ground to stand on.

[worldwithoutus]

only civilized nations follow law , if all people would do the same it would be a utopia

[PlaceboStudman]

It's about time someone took into consideration the wants, needs and desires of ALL the people involved in this issue. This is not an issue of religion, as some have claimed. This is an issue of power and the struggle to gain and maintain power. The only reason Hamas has been driven to the lengths of terrorism that they have taken is because of The West (and it's not just the USA but NATO as a whole) is only looking out for its own self interest (read:covering its @ss), If we had been taking into consideration the issues that the people of the region care about most, at the time of the original creation of Israel, then this issue would not be as deplorable and inexcuseable as it has become. We are now put into an all-or-nothing position. We have the responsibility to either go into full negotiations with Hamas full bore, whatever it takes, secret, private, or public doesn't matter. or remove ourself from the issue completely and let the people take care of the issues themself, which will inevitably lead to a war of attrition that no one wants to see.

[SiberianRat]

Good comment!

[JEP57]

I believe radical Islamists from any political group have a couple of ultimate goals: destroy Israel and worldwide jihad leading to a caliphate. You can't "talk" them out of this since it's based on their religious beliefs. Cease fire after cease fire, agreement after agreement, the underlying "problem" will always come back: Israel and the Jews "exist".

[baqad]

I believe its not about the existance of Israel but the the fact that the Palestinian issue has yet to be resolved 60 years after it was "created" by the west. Anyway believe you me once this nagging problem is resolved once and for all the "radicals" or however else you may wish to brand them would not have any more excuse to go and kill the "nfidels" or blow themselves up.