Top US Officials Urge Dialogue With Hamas

by: Bryan Bender and Farah Stockman  |  The Boston Globe

Top US Officials Urge Dialogue With Hamas
President Barack Obama and Economic Recovery Advisory Board Chairman Paul Volcker. Volker and other senior advisers are recommending talks with Hamas. (Photo: Reuters Pictures)

    Washington - Nine former senior US officials and one current adviser are urging the Obama administration to talk with leaders of Hamas to determine whether the militant group can be persuaded to disarm and join a peaceful Palestinian government, a major departure from current US policy.

    The bipartisan group, which includes economic recovery adviser Paul A. Volcker and former national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, made the recommendation in a letter handed to Obama days before he took office, according to Scowcroft.

    The group is preparing to meet this weekend to decide when to release a report outlining a proposed US agenda for talks aimed at bringing all Palestinian factions into the Mid east peace process, according to Henry Siegman, the president of the US/Middle East Project, who brought the former officials together and said the White House promised the group an opportunity to make its case in person to Obama.

    Talking to Hamas, which the State Department has designated a terrorist organization, would mark a dramatic reversal for the US government. Longstanding US policy has stipulated that before engaging in any talks, Hamas must renounce violence, recognize Israel, and agree to all previous agreements signed by Palestinian negotiators.

    "I see no reason not to talk to Hamas," said Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush.

    Siegman said the letter, which was handed to Obama by Volcker but has not been made public, said the administration should "at least explore the possibility" that Hamas, which took control of the Palestinian territory of Gaza after elections in 2006, might be willing to transition into a purely political party and join with its rival, Fatah, which holds the Palestinian presidency in the West Bank.

    The White House did not respond immediately last night to requests for comment on the letter. Volcker was unavailable for comment.

    Both the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Israel in 1967. Since Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, Hamas, which stands for the Islamic Resistance Movement, has launched hundreds of rockets into southern Israeli cities and has taken credit for suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

    Last fall, Israel conducted a military offensive against Hamas in Gaza that resulted in thousands of Palestinian casualties.

    Siegman and Scowcroft said the letter urged Obama to formulate a clear American position on how the peace talks should proceed and what the specific goals should be.

    "The main gist is that you need to push hard on the Palestinian peace process," Scowcroft said in an interview. "Don't move it to end of your agenda and say you have too much to do. And the US needs to have a position, not just hold their coats while they sit down."

    Along with Scowcroft, Volcker, and Brzezinski, who was national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter, signatories included former House International Relations Committee chairman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat; former United Nations ambassador Thomas Pickering from the first Bush administration; former World Bank president James Wolfensohn; former US trade representative in the Ford administration Carla Hills; Theodore Sorensen, former special counsel to President John F. Kennedy; and former Republican senators Chuck Hagel and Nancy Kassebaum Baker.

    Meanwhile, other leading foreign policy officials in the United States and in Europe have been calling for deeper international engagement with Hamas.

    Michael Ancram, a Conservative Party member of the British Parliament, who has held several meetings with Hamas leaders over the past two years, is urging the British government to engage in "exploratory dialogue" with Hamas.

    "There is a chance of a process," Ancram said in an interview. "Either they deliver, in which you move forward, or they don't deliver, in which case nothing is lost."

    But many other Middle East specialists believe that meeting with Hamas would set a bad precedent of negotiating with terrorists and could also undermine more moderate Palestinian leaders, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Fatah party.

    Chuck Freilich, Israel's former deputy national security adviser, said in a recent interview that talks with Hamas would be a waste of time. "Maybe someday Hamas would moderate, but until then ... I don't think there is much to talk about," he said. "I think they [the Obama administration] are going to find very quickly that the reason the Bush administration didn't do anything for seven years was there wasn't anything to do."

    The recommendations in the letter will be laid out in more detail in the coming days, Siegman said, adding that the letter itself will not be released until the signatories have a chance to meet with the president.

    In the early days of his presidency, Obama has widened the scope of voices advising him on how to approach the Israel-Palestinian peace process, including reaching out to Arab-American groups.

    He has also named a special envoy, former senator George Mitchell of Maine, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and National Security Adviser James L. Jones - who served as special envoy to the Mideast in the second Bush administration - are all playing primary roles.

    Who will have Obama's ear among the many Middle East specialists remains a burning question.

    "Somebody is going to coordinate the emissaries and coordinators," Scowcroft said.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



A dialogue with the elected

A dialogue with the elected leaders of the Palestinian people always was the only way to a solution. Labeling Hamas (and Hizbollah) as terrorist organizations is simply a political move designed to encourage "malleable" leaders to take their place throughout the region. While the US pays lip service to the Palestinians it arms the other side and sits back while it watches the Palestinian population be decimated. When Hamas won the election the US engineered a Fatah coup that Hamas caught wind of and stopped in it's tracks, and the previous administration (and this one) called that a 'coup'. Until OUR attitudes change, and until the "other party" in this conflict engages in some restraint and good faith dialogue, the issue will not be resolved. So far, the governments with military power in the region seem to think that wiping the Palestinians out is the correct solution, and the Palestinian people realize this also. Is it any wonder that they "lash out" by the only means available to them?


Why not talk? Only to

Why not talk? Only to prevent the status quo from changing. Who doesn't want the status quo to change? Oh, of course, Israel, speaking through its former deputy national security adviser. I get it now.


Shouldn't the Globe at least

Shouldn't the Globe at least mention that Hamas recently won an internationally supervised election and then the west and Israel overturned the results? That would seem to be relevant background info.


Obama to speak to Hamas?

Obama to speak to Hamas? That is the most sensible thing I've heard in years. History has shown that in order to make progress and to stop unnecessary slaughter, sometimes it makes sense to talk to the "enemy". For example: Mau Mau and Jomo Kenyatta, Enosis and Makarios, IRA and Gerry Adams. It's all very well labelling Hamas as "terrorists" but in WW2 the Germans called RAF Bomber Command and the US Army Air Force "terrorists". Irgun zvai Leumi, midwife to the birth of Israel was a terrorist organisation. Some might have called Hancock and Adams "terrrorists". People in the NW territory of Pakistan no doubt call the operators of UAV aircraft terrorists. The relatives of civilians killed by air-strikes in Afghanistan might refer to the NATO pilots as terrorists.The term is relative. Of course the Israeli hawks will not welcome any talks with Hamas. They are content for the running sore to continue as long as they can carry on building their illegal settlements on the occupied West Bank.


Why is the elected

Why is the elected government of the Palestiians "the enemy"? Because it has responded to assassinations of by nowe probably a hundred of its leaders and an 18-month blockade act of war against Gazans and to Israel's provocations to end its unilateral ceasefire culminating in the bombing killings of six in Rafah Nov. 4th? Because it objects to the theft of Palestine and its real estate and Israel reneging o n its commitment to international law, to allow refugee return in 1948. Because it objects to Israel's despoilation of its water resource by so draining its aquifer that sea water has come i n? Etc. Etc.


Progress update? And I hate

Progress update? And I hate to sound so uninformed, but why do you suppose economic advisers are working on such a "minor" problem in an occupied "non-state"?