Earlier this week came the news that a bipartisan group of 8 former government officials were urging the Bush administration to include talks with Syria and Hamas. Joe Klein calls the effort “creative.” The letter (cited here via The Washington Note) includes:
• We commend the administration for its decision to invite Syria to the conference; it should be followed by genuine engagement.Â
A breakthrough on this track could profoundly alter the regional landscape. At a minimum, the conference should launch Israeli-Syrian talks under international auspices.
• As to Hamas, we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organization is far preferable to its isolation; it could be conducted, for example, by the UN and Quartet Middle East envoys.
Promoting a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza would be a good starting point.
Â
Well, maybe Hamas and Syria don’t want dialogue.
Consider the news today:
Hamas’ top leaders in Gaza and Syria warned the moderate Palestinian president Friday not to “fall into the trap” of an upcoming U.S.-sponsored peace conference with Israel.
Ismail Haniyeh, who was deposed as Palestinian prime minister after Hamas violently seized Gaza in June, urged President Mahmoud Abbas to mend his rift with the Islamic militant group and criticized him for planning to attend the peace conference next month.Â
“Don’t fall into the trap of the coming conference. Don’t make new compromises on Jerusalem, on our sovereignty,” Haniyeh said, speaking to thousands of cheering supporters for the Muslim Eid al-Fitr holiday.
Â
and Assad?
Adding to the pessimism already surrounding the upcoming summit, Syrian President Bashar Assad announced on Thursday that his country would not participate in November’s conference in Annapolis, the Jerusalem Post reported.Assad said the conference would not answer any of his demands, his biggest being that Israel hand over the Golan Heights, a strategically vital plateau that Israel won in the 1967 war.
Â
How can you engage parties who don’t wish to be engaged?
Crossposted at Soccer Dad.
Interesting post — those who don’t want engagement will eventually be compelled by the majorities in most of these places that do. But you’re right that it’s a messy situation.
I vote for “creative” but then again, I’m helping along with others to push the idea.
Congrats on your blog which I like a lot from a quick read.
All the best,
Steve Clemons
The Washington Note
Hamas repeatedly has made it clear, every single chance it gets, that it has absolutely no intention whatsoever of deviatiing from the goal stated explicitly in its charter of annihilating Jews and Israel. Given this incontrovertible fact, there are three explanations for the behavior of this group of “former government officials”:
1) They are drooling, self-deluded morons.
2) They share Hamas’ goal.
3) Both 1) and 2).
With the membership of Scowcroft and Brzezinski in this group, I vote for 3).
“Given this incontrovertible fact, there are three explanations for the behavior of this group of “former government officialsâ€:”
They are being paid by the Saudis to try and get the ball into the other court.
Steve Clemons writes:
“Interesting post — those who don’t want engagement will eventually be compelled by the majorities in most of these places that do.”
What does that mean?
The majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas. What kind of “engagement” do you think they want with Israel?
Do you really believe there is a majority of Syrians who want to live in peace with Israel? And even if there were, how does engaging (read: appeasing) Assad bring a real peace any closer?
I have been following your writing for a while, Mr. Clemons, and you are no friend of Israel, in my opinion. Your pieces always make Israel the bad actor in the her struggle with totalitarian, Islamist, and terrorist regimes. Why is that?
The people who favor “engagement” or appeasement of Hamas, Syria, etc. do not seem to attend to what those actors actually say or do, but project onto them their own ideas. Thus many people are convinced that Syria is willing to make peace with Israel despite decades of refusal by Syria’s thuggish rulers to do that. Similarly with the various Palestinian Arab groups. Hardly anybody pays any attention to what Hamas’ leaders actually say, they just assume that Hamas’ leaders agree with them.
As for the ordinary Arabs they have been pickled in demagoguery and taught hatred for decades. They will demand genocide, which is exactly what their rulers want them to say, for it accords with their own preferences. “See, we can’t make peace,” the rulers will tell us, “the masses won’t let us.” Those rulers have made quite sure that such demands are what the masses will make.
There is no progress to be made right now towards peace. Let the Arabs fester in their fever for a while longer. Let us see if halfway decent consensual government can take hold in Iraq and, if we can find the stones to force it, in a Lebanon that has been freed of Syrian fascist domination. If so progress can probably be made in the future, when Arabs have come to realize that if they leave Israel alone then Israel will be no danger or threat to them.
When the Paletinian Arabs have been chastened by a cut off of money from outside, forcing them to work for a living rather than live as parasites on the ourside world, then thay may be willing to make peace. Right now they are preparing for war, as are Iran (and its puppets) and Syria. There is no peace in the offing, no matter how attractive the delusions of American diplomats and Israeli politicians may be.