Jan 09, 2009
The first response to word that Barack Obama is prepared to make contact - albeit low-level and clandestine - with Hamas should be caution.
For
one thing, the very act of revealing such a move can make it less
likely. If the Obama camp comes under heavy criticism from those
opposed to engagement with Hamas, it may be forced to deny it
countenanced the idea at all. Obama has been super-careful to say next
to nothing during the Gaza
crisis - and certainly nothing at odds with the Bush administration. He
would clearly not have chosen to make this policy shift public. (That
said, it's bound to be welcomed by those in the Muslim world who have
been angered by his virtual silence this last fortnight.)
Second,
even the limited opening to Hamas apparently under discussion in the
Obama circle is pretty conditional. It seems to be premised either on
Hamas taking a "decisive drubbing" in Gaza or on a reconciliation with
Fatah. Neither of those outcomes is guaranteed.
Nevertheless, those of us who have long believed that peace depends on engaging with all parties
to a conflict - and that peace is made with your enemies rather than
with your friends - have reason to be cheered by this news, tentative
as it is.
It suggests that Obama means to follow through on the
principle he articulated repeatedly in the 2008 election campaign: that
diplomacy is not some kind of reward for good behaviour, but rather an
essential component in any nation's toolkit. The US would never
foreswear the use of force to advance its vital interests, yet the Bush
administration did precisely that with diplomacy - denying itself that
essential tool when it came to the nations it consigned to outer
darkness: the axis of evil trio of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, along
with Syria and, of course, Hamas.
Obama promised to do things
differently, saying he would even speak to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if it
would help. The one group he seemed least keen to meet was Hamas,
placing clear and steep conditions on any dialogue. Indeed in April
2008 he slapped down former president Jimmy Carter
for meeting the Islamist movement. "We must not negotiate with a
terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction," Obama said. "We should
only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognise Israel's
right to exist and abide by past agreements."
If the latest
signals are to be believed, Obama is now ready to soften the edges of
those conditions. For those who believe that, whether we like it or
not, Hamas is now part of the Palestinian reality and that no peace can
ever come unless all the major players on both sides - Israeli and
Palestinian - are included, this is a small, unofficial, unconfirmed
but welcome move in the right direction.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
© 2023 The Guardian
Jonathan Freedland
Jonathan Freedland has been a columnist for the Guardian since 1997. He
served for four years as the Guardian's Washington correspondent and US
affairs remain a keen interest, along with British politics and the
Middle East
The first response to word that Barack Obama is prepared to make contact - albeit low-level and clandestine - with Hamas should be caution.
For
one thing, the very act of revealing such a move can make it less
likely. If the Obama camp comes under heavy criticism from those
opposed to engagement with Hamas, it may be forced to deny it
countenanced the idea at all. Obama has been super-careful to say next
to nothing during the Gaza
crisis - and certainly nothing at odds with the Bush administration. He
would clearly not have chosen to make this policy shift public. (That
said, it's bound to be welcomed by those in the Muslim world who have
been angered by his virtual silence this last fortnight.)
Second,
even the limited opening to Hamas apparently under discussion in the
Obama circle is pretty conditional. It seems to be premised either on
Hamas taking a "decisive drubbing" in Gaza or on a reconciliation with
Fatah. Neither of those outcomes is guaranteed.
Nevertheless, those of us who have long believed that peace depends on engaging with all parties
to a conflict - and that peace is made with your enemies rather than
with your friends - have reason to be cheered by this news, tentative
as it is.
It suggests that Obama means to follow through on the
principle he articulated repeatedly in the 2008 election campaign: that
diplomacy is not some kind of reward for good behaviour, but rather an
essential component in any nation's toolkit. The US would never
foreswear the use of force to advance its vital interests, yet the Bush
administration did precisely that with diplomacy - denying itself that
essential tool when it came to the nations it consigned to outer
darkness: the axis of evil trio of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, along
with Syria and, of course, Hamas.
Obama promised to do things
differently, saying he would even speak to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if it
would help. The one group he seemed least keen to meet was Hamas,
placing clear and steep conditions on any dialogue. Indeed in April
2008 he slapped down former president Jimmy Carter
for meeting the Islamist movement. "We must not negotiate with a
terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction," Obama said. "We should
only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognise Israel's
right to exist and abide by past agreements."
If the latest
signals are to be believed, Obama is now ready to soften the edges of
those conditions. For those who believe that, whether we like it or
not, Hamas is now part of the Palestinian reality and that no peace can
ever come unless all the major players on both sides - Israeli and
Palestinian - are included, this is a small, unofficial, unconfirmed
but welcome move in the right direction.
Jonathan Freedland
Jonathan Freedland has been a columnist for the Guardian since 1997. He
served for four years as the Guardian's Washington correspondent and US
affairs remain a keen interest, along with British politics and the
Middle East
The first response to word that Barack Obama is prepared to make contact - albeit low-level and clandestine - with Hamas should be caution.
For
one thing, the very act of revealing such a move can make it less
likely. If the Obama camp comes under heavy criticism from those
opposed to engagement with Hamas, it may be forced to deny it
countenanced the idea at all. Obama has been super-careful to say next
to nothing during the Gaza
crisis - and certainly nothing at odds with the Bush administration. He
would clearly not have chosen to make this policy shift public. (That
said, it's bound to be welcomed by those in the Muslim world who have
been angered by his virtual silence this last fortnight.)
Second,
even the limited opening to Hamas apparently under discussion in the
Obama circle is pretty conditional. It seems to be premised either on
Hamas taking a "decisive drubbing" in Gaza or on a reconciliation with
Fatah. Neither of those outcomes is guaranteed.
Nevertheless, those of us who have long believed that peace depends on engaging with all parties
to a conflict - and that peace is made with your enemies rather than
with your friends - have reason to be cheered by this news, tentative
as it is.
It suggests that Obama means to follow through on the
principle he articulated repeatedly in the 2008 election campaign: that
diplomacy is not some kind of reward for good behaviour, but rather an
essential component in any nation's toolkit. The US would never
foreswear the use of force to advance its vital interests, yet the Bush
administration did precisely that with diplomacy - denying itself that
essential tool when it came to the nations it consigned to outer
darkness: the axis of evil trio of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, along
with Syria and, of course, Hamas.
Obama promised to do things
differently, saying he would even speak to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if it
would help. The one group he seemed least keen to meet was Hamas,
placing clear and steep conditions on any dialogue. Indeed in April
2008 he slapped down former president Jimmy Carter
for meeting the Islamist movement. "We must not negotiate with a
terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction," Obama said. "We should
only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognise Israel's
right to exist and abide by past agreements."
If the latest
signals are to be believed, Obama is now ready to soften the edges of
those conditions. For those who believe that, whether we like it or
not, Hamas is now part of the Palestinian reality and that no peace can
ever come unless all the major players on both sides - Israeli and
Palestinian - are included, this is a small, unofficial, unconfirmed
but welcome move in the right direction.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.