After the Blockade Fiasco, a New Approach to Hamas?

  • Share
  • Read Later
Hatem Moussa / AP

Blocked by the Israeli navy, Palestinian fishermen linger in the port of Gaza City on June 5, 2010

(2 of 2)

But if the flotilla showdown has prompted Western powers to call time on a policy of collective punishment that has clearly failed, it will require a rethink of the underlying boycott of Hamas. A number of diplomats long engaged in the Middle East have urged such a rethink over the past week. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, formerly Tony Blair's U.N. ambassador and then No. 2 man at the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, urged Western governments to engage with the organization. "Hamas are the enemy of Israel, but they do not have to be," he wrote in Britain's Guardian newspaper. "They preach violent resistance too readily, yet over the past 17 months they have been trying to control the militant groups intent on threatening Israel with rockets ... They are also the implacable opponents of [al-Qaeda]. They won a fair election in 2006 and claim to respect democracy ... I am convinced from my own direct experience that Hamas is prepared to establish and respect a long-term ceasefire so that the talking can start without the threat of violence, and that they would enter in good faith, if that were reciprocated, into negotiations to establish two states in the disputed territories, Israel and Palestine, with their own rights and responsibilities under international law."

While U.S. officials have said the flotilla debacle underscores the importance of progress in the peace talks Washington has initiated between the Israel government and Abbas, Greenstock warns that this process is doomed to fail on its present terms. "U.S. policy, based on a West Bank–only approach, is locked in a cul-de-sac if Gaza is left out of the equation, because majority Palestinian support will be lacking."

Greenstock's comments may reflect a growing consensus among some U.S. allies. More than a year ago, then British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that talking to Hamas was "the right thing to do," but that Egypt was best-placed for the job. Russia and Turkey have talked openly with the organization, and its Damascus-based leader, Khaled Meshal, claims that the U.S. is reaching out through back channels.

Even some Israelis with impeccable security credentials have called for a new approach to Hamas in the wake of the flotilla episode. Giora Eiland, who headed Israel's National Security Council under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and who was on Monday tapped by the current government to lead its inquiry into the flotilla clash, argued last week that Israel had — as a result of its antipathy to Hamas, as well as that of its allies, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority — missed an opportunity at the end of its military operation last year to conclude agreements with the organization on a cease-fire, a prisoner swap (to free captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit) and opening the border crossings with safeguards against arms smuggling. Instead of insisting that others refrain from talking to Hamas, Eiland said, Israel should encourage such dialogue aimed at drawing the organization into more stable security arrangements. "The way to press Hamas on various fronts (including the Gilad Shalit issue)," Eiland wrote, "is to talk to it, not to boycott it."

While Hamas has clearly demonstrated a readiness to cooperate on cease-fire arrangements and has been negotiating with Israel via German mediators on a prisoner exchange, any move toward greater engagement will require the organization to do more than sit back and watch its opponents squirm. There are clearly different, and sometimes contradictory, impulses at work in Hamas, with key leaders inching toward some form of acceptance of a two-state solution, but resistance remaining very much part of the movement's strategy. Nothing would do more to restore the Western-Israeli consensus on the blockade than a resumption of terrorism attacks from Gaza. On the other hand, if Hamas is willing, as some reports have suggested, to cooperate on a mechanism to reopen the border crossings while preventing weapons smuggling, it could hasten the onset of a new era of pragmatic engagement. Because what Greenstock, Eiland and others are arguing is that the West and Israel may make more progress by responding to Hamas' actions and readiness to keep the peace, rather than relying on its willingness to meet the three conditions demanded by the Bush Administration in 2006.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. Next