Clinton keeps the pressure on Hamas

Posted By Christian Brose Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 9:47 PM Share

By Christian Brose

Asked today whether the Obama administration plans to engage with Hamas, Secretary Clinton answered pretty categorically that things aren't changing:

[W]e have a very clear policy toward Hamas, and Hamas knows the conditions that have been set forth. They must renounce violence. They must recognize Israel. And they must agree to abide by prior agreements that were entered into by the Palestinian Authority.

We are just at the beginning of this deep and consistent engagement that we are part of, that Senator Mitchell is leading for our Administration, but our conditions with respect to Hamas have not and will not change. It is our hope that the work that needs to be done to move the parties toward an effort to settle many of the disputes that they currently confront will be effective. But Hamas knows that it must stop the rocket fire into Israel. There were rockets yesterday, there were rockets this morning. And it is very difficult to ask any nation to do anything other than defend itself in the wake of that kind of consistent attack.

For now, I'd say that pretty decisively quiets talk in Europe, recently by Javier Solana and Tony Blair, that the West should extend an olive branch to Hamas. This, in additon to Afghanistan, could signal a rough road ahead for the transatlantic alliance. And keeping Europe onboard may require a lot of diplomatic pushing and shoving. But it's the right position to take.

Kudos to Secretary Clinton.

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

BRETT

9:16 AM ET

February 4, 2009

Why is it the right position

Why is it the right position to take? It completely ignores the reality on the ground, which is that Hamas is in charge of the Gaza Strip for the foreseable future (and since Abbas will never agree to a peace plan unless it includes the whole of what is to become Palestine, that means any real peace plans at this time are in suspended animation). I'm sure it pleases Israel, but that's a given.

I mean, seriously, take a look at those conditions:

1. They must renounce violence

A nice idea in theory, but in practice, Hamas doesn't trust Israel to keep its word on any type of truce, and Israel certainly hasn't allowed anything so trivial as a 6-month truce from carrying out things like assassination attempts on the Hamas leadership as well as a blockade.

What that means is that you are running up a very steep hill for this condition. Hamas is a militant organization, and that means that they are going to be very, very reluctant to "renounce violence", particularly if that involves giving up their right to perceived self-defense and a tool to pressure the Israelis. Making this a condition to be met even before negotiations start is idiotic on the US's part, which is no doubt why it is being ignored in practice (notice how Israel and Hamas are negotiating on this issue via Egypt).

2.They must recognize Israel.

Hamas has made it clear that, at best, this is going to be their "trump card" - they're holding out on it for some major concessions. Making full recognition of Israel one of the preliminary conditions is idiotic unless they also get some major promises from Israel, like the PLO got back in the early 1990s.

3.And they must agree to abide by prior agreements that were entered into by the Palestinian Authority.

You mean the ones negotiated by Fatah? Don't make me laugh. Considering that Israel has only shown respect for the PA when it suited them (they certainly didn't show much respect for it or its legitimacy after Hamas emerged as the strongest party in its elections), Hamas is going to have to be won over on all of these conditions. Making them a preliminary requirement is idiotic.

As I mentioned, this announcement by Clinton no doubt pleases Israel. Whether it pleases the Palestinians is another question.

 

KACKERMANN

10:21 AM ET

February 4, 2009

I agree to all that , and...

anyone who has ever stood on the side of justice knows what is owed to the Palestinians and what should happen to Israel.

 

KACKERMANN

10:07 AM ET

February 4, 2009

The right position?

Is that because it's worked so well.

Israel can't deal with Hamas, just as they couldn't deal with Fatah, just as they couldn't deal with the PLO.

I don't think Israel deals very well. I notice they haven't found any peace since they existed, and I noticed they keep stealing land that is not theirs.

I noticed they are getting less and less secure and are making more and more enemies.

If their goal is to fail, then they are succeeding. you figure what that means in the end.

 

STARING IN DISBELIEF

3:51 PM ET

February 5, 2009

You guys are all crazy...

Hamas is not the kind of political entity that will ever deliver the kind of government the ordinary Palestinian needs to achieve a decent society. They are a criminal gang feeding on the Israel Derangement Syndrome that Islam enabled and Arafat nurtured for 40 years. While Israel has sinned in its policies, the moral divide between them and Hamas is gigantic (as the vast majority of sentient observers in this country can attest, hence Israel's popular support here). Cripes, they actually gave back Gaza and look at the Hobbesian Nightmare that has resulted. The Gazan Pali's are ruled by animals and no amount of your ridiculous moral equivalence blindness will change the fact that Israel deserves our support based on this alone.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More