Talking with the “Enemy”
The armed Islamist movement Hamas is prepared to accept Israel as a neighbor if the Palestinian people approve the terms for peace, former president Jimmy Carter and the group’s exiled leadership said Monday following a visit to the region that included seven hours of negotiations…
…Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, said his trip had shown the value of negotiating with Hamas leaders, something Israel and the United States have refused to do.
“We do not believe that peace is likely, and we are certain that peace is not sustainable, unless a way is found to bring Hamas into the discussions in some way,” Carter said in an address to the Israeli Council on Foreign Relations before flying back to the United States. “The present strategy of excluding Hamas and excluding Syria is just not working.”
What does this tell us? Maybe Obama isn’t so wrong about his approach to foreign policy: America has to talk to its enemies. The least that Carter’s trip shows us is that meeting with our “enemies” won’t bring an end to the world; the most that Carter’s trip shows us is that it can be productive for us to meet with our “enemies.”
Perhaps Obama’s approach to foreign policy is, in fact, more enlightened than Clinton’s approach.
In all fairness, however, Obama “does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.” Additionally, the success of Carter’s visit and Hamas’ new statement is questionable, but what is the worst that can happen? Will there be more violence in the Middle East? Will their be more tension between Hamas and the Israel? No.
The chance for a positive outcome from meeting with an “enemy,” without question, outweighs the nonexistent problems that could result.
Perhaps Obama’s approach is not exactly as progressive as Carter’s, but it’s better than the hard line approach Clinton choose to embrace.
