Hamas' chance

Star-Telegram | Editorials:

“Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections surprised and perhaps even dismayed Hamas, according to many observers. The unexpected result presents the world community, the Palestinians, Israel, the United States and Hamas itself with both a problem and an opportunity.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

This editorial captures well the total disarray that United States foreign policy is in. Problem or opportunity? Will electoral victory temper Hamas or embolden them still further? Did Palestinians elect Hamas because they support Hamas' terrorism or Hamas' social services? Should the US cut off negotiations and aid to the Palestinian Authority? There are no clear answers and no discernible strategy coming out of Washington. Only shock and confusion. All that's clear is that the US has lost all influence and the situation is in danger of spinning completely out of control. How in the world did we get to this sorry state?

Five years ago, President Bush came to office just months after President Clinton's Camp David summit with Barak and Arafat came tantalizingly close to a peace agreement but ultimately ended in failure. President Bush understandably blamed Yassir Arafat for intransigence and adopted a policy of benign neglect: “I've made some decisions on Israel. That's unpopular. I wouldn't deal with Arafat because I felt like he had let the former president down, and I don't think he's the kind of person that can lead toward a Palestinian state.”

The timing of 9/11 contributed to this change of focus, as America had to deal first with al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and then chose to deal with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict took a back seat, in part by design, in part because of a simple lack of bandwidth to do it all. The Bush administration believed that waiting for Yassir Arafat to pass from the scene would improve the outlook for peace. The Bush administration argued that the Iraq war would lead to a spread of democracy across the Middle East and further improve the outlook for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Instead, look what this foreign policy has achieved.

• The Taliban toppled, but Afghanistan restored to its historical state, more lawless than not.
• Al Qaeda hiding in the mountains of northwest Pakistan, turning the average Pakistanis against America as we lash out with rocket attacks that kill more civilians than terrorists.
• An emboldened neighbor in Iran led by a madman intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and wiping Israel off the face of the Earth.
• Elections in Iraq that, at best, will lead to an Islamic theocracy; at worst, civil war.
• And now, the first real consequence of democracy in the Arab world in history: the coming to power of Hamas

Every action undertaken by this Administration has worsened the chances of peace in the Middle East. And immediate, knee-jerk reactions to the Hamas victory promise to perpetuate the disastrous decision-making in Washington. President Bush said that Hamas must dissolve its armed wing and renounce threats against Israel. “If they don't, we won't deal with them.” What options does that leave us? War again? Given the overextension of our military in Iraq, this threat is hollow. So, what? The hard truth is that our current foreign policy has failed and left us with no good options.

There's only one sensible course forward. At the risk of provoking a knee-jerk rejection of it because of its source, I offer this advice voiced by President Bill Clinton: “One of the politically correct things in American politics is we just don't talk to some people that we don't like, particularly if they ever killed anybody in a way that we hate. I do think that if you've got enough self-confidence in who you are and what you believe in, you ought not to be scared to talk to anybody. You've got to find a way to at least open doors and I don't see how we can do it without more contact. Hamas might acquire a greater sense of responsibility, and as they do we have to be willing to act on that.” Good advice, that.