President Bush's lofty goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rapidly slipping away. Last week's rocket attacks by Hamas reached into the Israeli port city of Ashkelon, prompting an Israeli incursion into Gaza. Unknown Palestinian gunmen retaliated today in an attack on a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem, killing at least seven. The escalation temporarily halted negotiations between Palestinian President Abu Mazen and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. In an effort to resurrect peace talks, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered a minor concession to Abu Mazen: Israel will consider a cease-fire with Hamas. If peace talks resume, the United States and Israel should recognize the post-Annapolis conference pitfalls and shift towards a policy of engagement with Hamas.
The isolation strategy implemented by Israel and the United States days after Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative elections has proved ineffective and inflamed intra-Palestinian relations. The logic behind the strategy was that negotiations with Abu Mazen's Fatah faction would eventually lead to a peace agreement, drastically improving life in the West Bank. Gazans would oust Hamas, in order to raise their standard of living to that of their brothers in the West Bank. However, peace talks are fragile and probably will not lead to a deal anytime in the near future, as both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have publicly declared. The current strategy must be overhauled, in order to prevent further escalation from last week's events.
Eli Moyal, mayor of the Israeli town Sderot, has faced daily rocket barrages from Hamas. As violence began to escalate some weeks ago, he suggested talking with Hamas. "I would say to Hamas, let's have a ceasefire, let's stop the rockets for the next 10 years and we will see what happens.” This is a view shared by many in Israel. Indeed, a Haaretz poll taken last month found that 64 percent of Israeli's favor “direct talks with Hamas.”
In an interview with Mother Jones, Former Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy explained his reasoning for opening dialogue with Hamas. “[I]t makes sense to approach a possible initial understanding including Hamas—but not exclusively Hamas—at a time when they are still asking for one. No side will gain from a flare up leading to Israel re-entering the Gaza strip in strength to undo the ill-fated unilateral disengagement of 2005.” [Halevy's statement was made as Israel was signaling an invasion of Gaza]
Indeed, as Halevy explains, opening dialogue with Hamas could work to moderate the militant group. “Such a strategy of indirect proximity engagement, whilst covering our flanks, offers the prospects of lowering the temperature in the region, easing constraints, and opening up real possibilities of social and economic progress.”
Here in the United States, former Secretary of State Colin Powell openly spoke more than a year ago that the Quartet should engage Hamas. In a radio interview he stated, “I don't think you can just cast them [Hamas] into outer darkness and try to find a solution to the problems of the region without taking to account the standing that Hamas has in the Palestinian community.” Additionally, former National Security Advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group Lee Hamilton, Adviser to President Kennedy Ted Sorenson, and former Federal Reserve Chief Paul Vocker among others, wrote a letter to President Bush and Condoleezza Rice urging them to open talks with Hamas just as the Annapolis Conference convened. “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.”
Engagement would present an opportunity for Fatah and Hamas to repair their relationship and build an internationally backed unity government. The Bush Administration need not be reminded of the importance of political reconciliation when building a state. Promoting a civil war, which essentially is what the isolation strategy dictates, might create a political environment not unlike Iraq.
The first step towards political reconciliation is to identify an Arab government that would be viewed as an honest broker. Current events recently placed Egypt into prominence to act in such a role. When Gazans rushed into Egypt for much needed food and supplies, an opportunity presented itself. Egypt met with Hamas and Fatah, but re-sealed the border without sitting down both parties. Thus, an opportunity for reconciliation was dashed.
Saudi Arabia successfully mediated talks between Hamas and Fatah last year. Through the insistence of Israel and the United States, Saudi Arabia should take up a similar role once again. Along with Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States should also take notice of Yemen's recent efforts. Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh launched an initiative last week aimed at restoring the situation in the Gaza Strip. He has called for early elections that would result in a legitimate national unity government, thus bridging the divide between Fatah and Hamas.
Critics may argue that Hamas cannot be engaged because their ideology depends upon the destruction of Israel. However, the United States often held talks with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. The arch-realist Richard Nixon sat down with megalomaniac Mao Tse-Dung. Furthermore, critics can look into Palestinian history. The PLO, whose ranks were filled by Fatah members, was committed to the destruction of Israel in their constitution. Yet those same members later recognized Israel and for years have actively engaged in peace talks with Israel.
For all their fulminating, Hamas has members who seek peace and wish to moderate their party. Dr. Ahmad Yousuf, an adviser to Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh, wrote an open letter to Condoleezza Rice requesting the United States engage Hamas. “Many people make the mistake of presuming that we have some ideological aversion to making peace. Quite the opposite; we have consistently offered dialogue with the U.S. and the E.U. to try and resolve the very issues that you are trying to deal with in Annapolis.” These voices of moderation within the party would be bolstered by an engagement strategy.
The stakes could not be any higher. If Israel does not seek a cease-fire with Hamas and conducts another invasion, they run the risk of uniting Fatah and Hamas through armed struggle and perhaps sow the seeds for a third intifada. Conversely, engaging Hamas and pushing for a unity government would marginalize radicals and provide an environment much more stable for Israel's security. The United States and Israel must alter the isolation strategy, or President Bush's quixotic vision will soon be unattainable.
Jeff Dexter is a research analyst and writer for a security consulting firm in Washington, DC. He is co-editor of the US Diplomacy blog and can be reached at fpa.usdiplomacy@gmail.com
Photo courtesy of Tarafirma