To Talk or Not to Talk Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

There has been a lot of debate recently about whether or not there can be any progress on the peace process without engagement with Hamas.  Thus far the debate has been primarily talk or don’t talk.  But the interesting conversation as far as I’m concerned is about how to talk. 

Ghaith al-Omari writing at Middle East Progress and Brian Katulis posting on the Wonk Room lay out the potential pitfalls of direct engagement with Hamas.  Omari writes:

In any engagement, Hamas—like any rational political actor—will seek to maximize its benefits and minimize its costs. It will use any international dialogue it can achieve to send one overriding message to its local, regional and global constituencies alike: namely, that it can maintain its positions regarding the peace process, Israel and the use of violence, while at the same time gaining international legitimacy. It will argue that it provides at least as many benefits as its secular opponents, without making any compromises. Engaging Hamas without the terms of engagement being clear and without it first paying the political price of admission to the international club—particularly by accepting the two-state solution and disarming—amounts to a political free lunch

I think this makes sense.  Direct engagement by either Israel or the U.S. on full comprehensive peace talks with Hamas completely undermines Fatah and Abbas and sends the signal that Hamas can gain the domestic political benefits of refusing to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, while at the same time being considered a credible international political actor.  At the end, the result would be more an empowerment of Hamas then an opportunity to moderate it.

Still, there is the practical problem of the current violence, which undermines the peace process and causes many to suffer.  Omari argues that through the Egyptians or another Arab state acting as an intermediary a ceasefire with Hamas can be arranged that results in a reduction in violence and greater mobility for Palestinians in and out of Gaza.

He then recommends going ahead more aggressively with the Annapolis process.  This means Israel needs to get serious about a settlement freeze.  And Fatah needs to get serious about building credible and less corrupt long-term institutions that gain greater support from the Palestinian people.  Meanwhile, Israel and the United States also need to do everything they can to empower effective moderates inside the West Bank and Gaza, but not be seen as working too closely with them, which only serves to discredit these actors domestically.  Over time, progress on this front, and the Palestinian Authority’s ability to deliver would discredit Hamas’ hardline views, forcing it to either moderate its positions and come to the negotiating table or risk losing political support.

Instinctively, as progressives, we view talking directly to those we disagree with as a low-cost pragmatic approach to solving problems or at least looking for areas of possible agreement.  But in this case, as opposed to Iran for example, there is a real cost.  In the case of Iran, outside of the institutions of the Iranian state, there aren’t any credible powerbrokers.  So, the choice is either to engage in talks on common issues of concern or to just continue down the current path of antagonism.  But in the case of the Palestinians there are two alternatives and it’s important to take into account the internal political impact that directly engaging Hamas in long-term peace negotiations, without forcing it to first make the politically difficult compromise of recognizing Israel and renouncing violence, would have on Fatah.

Comments

[gregorbkny]

You go to the bargaining table with the opponents you have, not the ones you wish you have.

Also, isn't the reason there is your distinction between the Iran and Palestine situation that Israel has denied the possiblity of a Palestinian state, therefore they are all non-state actors on the Palestinian side.

[Dan Kervick]

This idiotic conflict in the itchy crotch of the world has been a giant waste of the world's time for decades. It's not going to end until Europe, the US and other members of the international community simply dictate the terms of the final settlement, and then suspend all trade and economic assistance with both sides until they both accept the deal. Otherwise, it's just going to be more fighting for decades, accompanied by empty blather about nonexistent "peace processes".

I really have little compassion, empathy, outrage or even intellectual curiosity left when it comes to the interminable Israeli-Palestinian farce. My fantasy preference would be to see all of the Palestinians relocate to other Arab countries, and all of the Israelis relocate to the United States, so they can both give that patch of dirt a rest. Otherwise, perhaps the rest of the world can find some way of divesting itself from all concern with those assholes, and of getting on with our business.