Talking to the "Enemy"
Preconditions are almost always designed to forestall further developments. You lay out the conditions that you know will keep the other side from coming to the table, but you get the luxury of a rationale for not engaging the "enemy" in conversation.
Such is the case with US relationships with such entities as Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. In a NY Times op-ed piece entitled "Middle East Reality Check," Roger Cohen notes that the British have decided that facts on the ground require them to begin talking to Hezbollah. The US policy, however, is to refrain from recognizing both Hezbollah and Hamas. Both are deemed terrorist organizations, but such determinations are to narrow. Both have governmental and societal roles that go beyond the label of terrorists. The British seem ready to recognize such a reality. But are we?
Our conversations with Hamas are hampered by preconditions, one of which is their "recognition of Israel's right to exist." Cohen suggests that while this might be preferable, it might not be essential. After all, there is a difference of opinion within Israeli political thought as to whether the Palestinians have a right to exist as a state of their own. Indeed, it seems as if the continued development and support of the expanding settlements is designed to prevent such a thing from happening.
Although the Obama administration is making important strides, there has been little sign of boldness yet. Is it not time for some boldness?
Such is the case with US relationships with such entities as Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. In a NY Times op-ed piece entitled "Middle East Reality Check," Roger Cohen notes that the British have decided that facts on the ground require them to begin talking to Hezbollah. The US policy, however, is to refrain from recognizing both Hezbollah and Hamas. Both are deemed terrorist organizations, but such determinations are to narrow. Both have governmental and societal roles that go beyond the label of terrorists. The British seem ready to recognize such a reality. But are we?
Our conversations with Hamas are hampered by preconditions, one of which is their "recognition of Israel's right to exist." Cohen suggests that while this might be preferable, it might not be essential. After all, there is a difference of opinion within Israeli political thought as to whether the Palestinians have a right to exist as a state of their own. Indeed, it seems as if the continued development and support of the expanding settlements is designed to prevent such a thing from happening.
Although the Obama administration is making important strides, there has been little sign of boldness yet. Is it not time for some boldness?
Comments
Israelis have the right to exist. Would that be a rational, reasonable precondition? I am seriously wondering what would satisfy the Palestinians and liberals in America enough to move towards real peace in the Middle East. Both sides have problems that need to be dealt with, but as I recall, when the IDF forcefully displaced Israelis in Gaza a few years ago, protecting Palestinian teens from attacks against Israeli extremists in the process, the only thanks they got was Gaza being used as a launching site for rockets into the general population of Israel. And yet, Israel is simply supposed to apologize for not understanding the terrorists enough and surrender more land? What kind of solution, exactly, would you like to see? The annihilation of the Jews in Israel? The dissolving of the Israeli nation? Is this the liberal compassion and mercy I keep reading about? I am just wondering. It seems that liberals are long on whining and complaining, but short on solutions that result in actual peace being achieved. Gimme your plan and let's analyse it.