The Guardian announces today, rather breathless from excitement, that Obama will initiate talks with Hamas. Although if you read their own article carefully, it's hardly clear how much this will be new:
"You could do something through the Europeans. You could invent a structure that is multilateral. It is going to be hard for the neocons to swallow," he said. "I think it is going to happen."
But one Middle East expert close to the transition team said: "It is highly unlikely that they will be public about it."
The gloating is fine; everybody needs a good gloat now and then. The substance is more important. Israel has long been talking with Hamas through intermediaries, primarily the Egyptians; the Guardian fails to note that the group which stands to lose the most from a political rehabilitation of Hamas is Abu Mazen's government, a move Obama may be wary of taking even if it would make the Guardian happy.
I have no problem with the Americans hearing directly from Hamas how Hamas sees the world. After all, assuming they start talking, they're going to have to talk about something. If they stick to global warming and economic measures for stimulating the economy, who cares? Once they approach the subject of Hamas living with Israel, what exactly will they talk about? A Hamas demand that Israel disband all its settlements in Gaza as a confidence building measure, perhaps? More likely, the American interlocutors may find Hamas is the problem, not Israel. Amir Taheri reminds why.
taken from : Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment