Thoughts on Reorganizing the Hamas Problem

Thank you sir. This is certainly more food for thought.

why not trying a proven solution. That sounds reasonable.

Interesting idea. As long as we don’t get into a “hug a terrorist” posture and can find cool heads to negotiate with, it’s worth a try. If there’s a way, I’m confident George Mitchell will find it.

Good article, thanks for highlighting it. The idea could be useful, if we have counterparties in the US and Israel who are committed to a peaceful political process, as we had with Adams, Ahern, and Blair for the Northern Ireland Agreement. Remember, Blair had to face down considerable opposition among Unionists in the North; Ahern had to face domestic pressures when he changed the Irish constitution to facilitate the process; and certainly Adams had to manage to keep both constituencies of his on board, no easy task, and it showed his considerable strength as a leader and conflict resolution genius. The process was repeatedly delayed for years by the Unionists under David Trimble [who ironically won a Nobel Peace Prize for his obstructionism.]

I question Obama’s commitment to a change in foreign policy because of Rahm Emmanuel and Dennis Ross–neither of whom engender confidence in any real change with regard to the Middle East. I hope that Obama will prove me wrong; I just doubt that he will. And, sadly, I do not think that even George Mitchell can create progress in the context of Netanyahu as Israeli leader. That will take some serious “tough love” and Obama’s shown himself to be quite adept at slippery expedience and avoidance of taking a stand anywhere.

Judith Kipper, head of the Middle East programme at Washington’s Institute of World Affairs, said that Mitchell has the right credentials. What was needed, she said, was for the US to take a lead in introducing or imposing new ideas. About 90% of a peace agreement had been reached at the Taba talks in 2001.

“For the remainder, the US has to introduce ideas for both the Israelis and Palestinians. We are big and they are little. Tough love,” she said.

Mitchell is not afraid of speaking to the militants as well as to the diplomats, politicians and officials, as he demonstrated in Northern Ireland, and Kipper thinks he will have to do the same in the Middle East. “I think this administration will talk to Hamas directly or covertly shortly. I do not mean in the next week or two but in the next 18 months.”

We’ll see…

Good article, thanks for highlighting it. The idea could be useful, if we have counterparties in the US and Israel who are committed to a peaceful political process, as we had with Adams, Ahern, and Blair for the Northern Ireland Agreement. Remember, Blair had to face down considerable opposition among Unionists in the North; Ahern had to face domestic pressures when he changed the Irish constitution to facilitate the process; and certainly Adams had to manage to keep both constituencies of his on board, no easy task, and it showed his considerable strength as a leader and conflict resolution genius. The process was repeatedly delayed for years by the Unionists under David Trimble [who ironically won a Nobel Peace Prize for his obstructionism.]

What a very stange reading of the Northern Ireland situation. Blair did sweet FA except take the credit for the work of Major (who acually did face down Unionists – despite knowing that he may need them in Parliament and Mo Mowlam). So David Trimble, who pushed for peace, while his Party was being massacred at the polls as a result, was an “obstructionist” and not deservingof the nobel Peace Prize.

Wow. What a very one sided view of history you have.

I’ve loved George Mitchell since I read his & William Cohen’s book Men of Zeal about the Iran Contra hearings.

I’ve really wished since then that he would run for president.

I would be more inclined to believe that Mitchell is stronger than Obama thinks, and it will be Obama going along with Mitchell’s plan. And Mitchell will make it look like Obama’s directive. I’ve never felt like Mitchell was in it for fame and notoriety, but rather trying to do what’s right.

Yes, I’m a Geo-Mit bot.

Major?! Are you kidding? What are you, a Tory? Ha. Talk about one-sided views. Feh. John Major thought he could exclude Sinn Fein from the peace process altogether. Thankfully, he failed. It took Tony Blair, who committed to the process when he came into office. David Trimble delayed the negotiations for 4 years–he was a weak Unionist leader, who couldn’t keep his right-wing rump [Jeffrey Donaldson and the rest] on board. And, Trimble was tossed out as leader because he would neither commit to the peace process or fully represent his own party. Gerry Adams is still there…and the “process” is still unfolding today.

Leave it to a Brit to think Unionist is the sole perspective that counts.

As if on cue!

See what I mean about needing sincere counterparties to a negotiation process? Tough love will be needed indeed. It will have to come from the US. The settlements continue to expand, a clear violation by Israel.

Peace Recedes as Israeli Settlements Expand

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/luban.php?articleid=14158

Well, as I said, we shall see where Obama stands on the Middle East. I have the utmost admiration for George Mitchell; for that reason, I would hate to see him used up in a waste of time at the end of his illustrious and successful career. Obama should take care not to allow Mitchell to be undermined by the Israelis.

Rightists in Israel predict dismal fate for Obama envoy’s efforts

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=1059534

From CAIN, one of the best sites for the history of the Northern Ireland political landscape:

The Frameworks document marked the limit of early progress. The slim majority held by the British Prime Minister, John Major, removed momentum from the peace process.

[...]

In May 1997 the Labour Party leader Tony Blair took power with a massive parliamentary majority. He quickly set about drawing Sinn Féin into the political process. By mid-June, the demand for decommissioning prior to Sinn Féin’s entry into talks was dropped. The IRA declared another ceasefire on 20 July 1997, and Sinn Féin entered the talks on 9 September. Throughout the negotiations Unionists refused to engage directly with Sinn Féin, converting them into Dayton-like proximity talks. Reports of splits and dissension within both the IRA and Sinn Féin underlined growing nervousness among republicans. There was also dissatisfaction within David Trimble’s UUP. Four of the its ten MPs made a public call for the party to leave the talks. [The were obstructionists and delayed the process for years].

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/darby03.htm#move

See Also:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/cash.htm

Read through the headlines, and you will see that the process is still unfolding today, more than 20 years after the secret Gerry Adams, John Hume talks started the entire peace process in the late 80s.

http://www.nuzhound.com/index.php

I read an interesting essay by Gerry Adams on the guardian’s website. He pretty much says the same thing about pitting one faction against the other, we win, you lose:

“Moreover, if any renewed effort in the Middle East to reach an agreement is reduced by either side to a tactical game of winners and losers, in which the object is to use the negotiation process to inflict defeats, then it will not work. It will simply be a repeat of past mistakes and lost opportunities.

In a peace process, the goal must be an inclusive agreement that is acceptable to all sides, is doable, deliverable and sustainable. That means enemies and opponents creating space for each other. It means engaging in real conversations and seeking real solutions. It means accepting that dialogue is crucial and that means recognising the right of the Palestinian people to choose their own leaders, their own representatives.

The Israeli government and other governments have to talk to Hamas.”

Full article is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/27/middleeast-gerryadams-georgemitchell

Of course, the comment section is all over the place with opinions on the essay. But there’s no doubt Adams has a good deal respect for George Mitchell, while recognizing the inherent roadblocks.

Thanks Peggy Sue! Great article by Adams. Obama would do well to heed Adams’ advice. He knows full well that it is a complicated process to get all parties on board and the timing is often critical, and he knows full well that there will be setbacks [often created deliberately--like Omagh] which provide easy excuses for obstructionists to undermine any peace process. For that reason, all parties must be included in negotiations, and everyone must be committed to finding a political resolution to the conflict.

Conor O’Clery has some thoughts about Mitchell as Middle East Envoy, too…

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/ireland/090123/can-george-mitchell-bring-his-irish-luck-the-middle-east

Thanks back, mountainaires. The general take on Mitchell is he is indeed the man for the job. We can only hope Irish winds are at his back. Tough assignment!

Funny that the picture of Mitchell is during the MLB steriod disaster. Mitchell couldn’t even effectively investigate steroid abuse in baseball, yet he’s going to help solve the problem in the middle east. Give me a fricking break!

Ha! If you’ve intended to make a point, I think you failed. But, I think George Mitchell would probably have a good laugh at your attempt.

Mitchell knows what conflict resolution is all about; he’s not an investigator, he’s a diplomat–and a damn good one.

I question Obama’s commitment to a change in foreign policy because of Rahm Emmanuel and Dennis Ross–neither of whom engender confidence in any real change with regard to the Middle East. I hope that Obama will prove me wrong; I just doubt that he will. And, sadly, I do not think that even George Mitchell can create progress in the context of Netanyahu as Israeli leader. That will take some serious “tough love” and Obama’s shown himself to be quite adept at slippery expedience and avoidance of taking a stand anywhere.

I agree.

At this point, nothing will get done until the greater motivations of the Israeli neocons are recognized, and addressed.

Perhaps they’re not really interested in peace.

Sometimes, it’s my impression Israel is delibreatly creating problems, perhaps a part of a greater, misguided agenda. (I try to look at Israel military actions since it’s inception, part of determining pattern).

If that is true, it must be defined, and within the context of the ME, addressed.

THEN they can worry about Hamas.

Another problem I see with some of the American diplomats is a mistaken sense Palestine represents a type of second class peoples. This must be eradicated before any truly progressive talks can occur, bais must be accounted for to produce workable, long term policy.

It is my opinion that Israel does have a greater strategy, and in fact, Israeli leaders over the decades have either stated it outright, or alluded to it, time and again: Israel wants to create “FACTS ON THE GROUND” so that it eventually occupies all of the land; then it will force the Palestinians to leave. It is a long-term strategy of ethnic cleansing.

In fact, settlement expansion has been the conscious policy of every Israeli government since 1967 — Labor, Likud, and Kadima alike. If you don’t believe me, just read Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar’s Lords of the Land; Gershom Gorenberg’s Accidental Empire, Neve Gordon’s Israel’s Occupation, or retired IDF general Shlomo Gazit’s Trapped Fools. Thus far, Ehud Barak is the only Israeli leader to make a serious effort to negotiate a two-state solution, and even his best offer at Camp David fell well short of a viable two-state proposal.

And when Oslo collapsed, Friedman’s columns helped spread the false claim that PLO leader Yasser Arafat had turned down a great deal and was solely responsible for the failure, a myth that undermined the peace camp in Israel and reinforced the political dynamics that Friedman now blames for the current impasse.
Friedman also fails to mention the role that the United States has played in bringing this situation about. What was the United States doing while all those settlers were moving into the West Bank? The answer: we were helping pay for it, by continuing to give Israel billions of dollars of aid each year.

Of course U.S. officials told the Israeli government that it couldn’t spend our aid in the West Bank, but money is fungible and generous U.S. support inevitably freed up resources that Israel could then spend spend on the settlements, on the land-grabbing separation fence, or on the IDF forces assigned to protect the settlers themselves.

Although it was the official policy of every President since Lyndon Johnson to oppose the construction of settlements, none of them put any serious pressure on Israel to stop. The first President Bush briefly withheld some loan guarantees in 1992 over this issue, but the guarantees were authorized a few months later and settlement construction continued apace.

The number of settlers more than doubled during the Oslo period (1993-2001), yet former U.S. negotiator Aaron David Miller recently reported that:

In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can’t recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity — including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions — does to the peacemaking process.”

Israel has added another 70,000 settlers since 2001, and the Bush administration never took any serious action to stop them. The question you might ask yourself is: why not?

[Thomas] Friedman is right that Palestinian rejectionists are a big problem too. The difference is that the United States has never hesitated to turn the screws on them. Persistent U.S. pressure helped persuade Arafat and the PLO to recognize Israel, which paved the way for the Oslo Accords in 1993. Back then, Hamas had only about 15 percent support in the Palestinian community.

Unfortunately, the Oslo process failed to deliver a Palestinian state and the combination of Fatah’s corruption and Israel’s ever-expanding occupation made Hamas more and more popular over time. So when the United States insisted on elections in 2006, Hamas ended up winning.

Then Washington refused to recognize their victory and Israel imposed a crippling blockade on Gaza. The United States actively worked to destroy the Palestinian unity government and foolishly tried to sponsor a Fatah coup in Gaza, only to have Hamas move first and rout the Fatah forces, thereby solidifying its position.

The recent Israeli assault on Gaza — which the Bush administration backed and Congress voted overwhelmingly to endorse — has deepened these divisions even more.

To a considerable extent, therefore, the situation that [Thomas] Friedman now deplores is of our own making.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/26/its_easier_than_tom_friedman_thinks_a_realistic_middle_east_strategy

I can’t say I disagree.

Dude, I guarantee you that Mitchell will get nothing done.

I have major reservations.

I know some might quibble, but I think he lacks a certain repsect and sensitivity to the suffering of the Palestinian people.

GAZA is a crate, a virtual concentration camp, civilains (perhaps) fired upon, deliberately, as part of strategy.

Mitchell, like most in the US government, fails to understand the impact.

I accept that the peace process is still unfolding. I believe you should read the biography of Mo Mowlam. Her place in history was stolen by Blair. With regard to Major, who authorised the talks and who threw Paisley out of Downing Street, he lost the election, therefore losing his place in Irish history. I certainly do not accept your view of Trimble. It takes strength to give up power, even within your own Party for a greater good. One such similar person is De Klerk in South Africa.

However we digress, (by the way I am one of those strange Unionist Catholics). Ireland and SA are “solved” and time moves on. They now face their own difficulties, which are just as large. Israel is more difficult and not because of Israel. It will take the support and encouragement of American politicians to deliver Israel to a negotiated settlement. The last 8 years have made the situation worse not better as the Middle East is far more unstable.

Republicans kicked up a general hatred of Arab Muslims and continued to play that during the election “We send lots of our money to Countries that do not like us very much”. There are an awful lot of Americans who think we are still at War with Iraq and if they have changed their mind on who was behind 9/11 they would now say Iran. They think Gaza s an independent State able to cause significant damage to Israel. They do not realise the Gaza Strip is nothing more than a large open prison.

With an unstable Middle East, Israel is likely to go further to the right. That will not exactly help peace efforts.

Warren Christopher once said that diplomacy was the act of building a hall of dignity for your opponent to exit through or something to that effect. And he’s right. Everyone must come out a winner.

Do you honestly believe such a separation is possible (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLT773276)? Hamas is much more tightly linked, and the militia definitely respond to any complaints on the political front.

Is all you know about him the steroids investigation?

you know, maybe we should “hug a terrorist;” nothing would turn the palestinian people against Hamas faster than thinking that they’re buddy-buddy with the US. ha ha.

seriously, it really doesn’t make a rat’s ass worth of difference whether we “talk to” Hamas, or whatever. until they and the rest of the muslim world give up their goal of completely eliminating israel, nothing will improve there.

We do agree on the Middle East then. We do not agree on Trimble, but as you say, time moves on. I’m glad that Adams was the strong leader he was, because there were a great many setbacks to that process, and if he were not as strong as he was, he’d never have been able to keep the IRA on board. As for Mo Mowlam, she was one great lady, and I admired her immensely, and followed her closely. I was saddened at her illness and death, but she was a true honest warrior and deserves all the credit for her efforts. Great woman, Mo.

A Unionist and a Catholic…well, it takes all kinds. I’ll try not to hold your politics against you.

Of course, that could be the case [that Mitchell will not achieve anything much] in the Middle East. But, of course, since he achieved a huge amount in Northern Ireland, it goes without saying that any lack of achievement by Mitchell should not reflect on him, but on Obama’s lack of commitment to an honest effort, because of strong domestic pressures from the Israeli Lobby against it, and a lack of a committed partner for peace in Israel.