• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Amr Hamzawy"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Palestine",
    "Levant"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Formula for Engaging Hamas

The United States should establish direct talks with Hamas on how it can play a productive role in the peace process and gradually integrate into Palestinian political and security institutions.

Link Copied
By Amr Hamzawy
Published on Aug 16, 2009

Source: New York Times

Formula for Engaging HamasEarlier this summer, Ismail Haniya, the Hamas leader, declared: “If there is a real project that aims to resolve the Palestinian cause on establishing a Palestinian state on 1967 borders, under full Palestinian sovereignty, we will support it.”

 With Hamas willing to accept a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when will President Obama abandon the Bush doctrine of isolating Hamas? We usually hear Hamas’s resistance voice, which calls for the destruction of Israel. But we cannot ignore Hamas’s diplomatic voice, which has, over the years, voiced support for coexisting with Israel.
 
In 2003, Hamas stated it would renounce violence if the Israelis were “willing to fully withdraw from the 1967 occupied territories and they present a timetable for doing so.” In 2007, Hamas acknowledged that it is a “reality” that Israel exists and “a matter of fact” that it will continue to exist.
 
Till now, the U.S. has demanded that Hamas renounce violence, honor past agreements and recognize Israel’s right to exist — that is, give up all of its leverage before negotiations actually begin. That policy has failed.
 
The U.S. should put Hamas’s diplomatic voice to the test. Domestically, it may be too early for Mr. Obama to pursue direct talks in a public forum. Internationally, however, it may be too late for the more gradualist approach of indirect talks: Mr. Obama will squander a good deal of his prestige in the Arab world if he doesn’t make a departure from Bush administration policy soon.
 
Thus, the U.S. should establish direct talks on substantive issues in a public, multilateral forum. It could build off the two forums currently fostering talks with Hamas, one of European countries and another of Arab states. The talks should focus on how Hamas can play a productive role in the peace process and gradually integrate into Palestinian political and security institutions.
 
Otherwise, the U.S. must explain how further exclusion of Hamas could possibly advance the peace process.

About the Author

Amr Hamzawy

Director, Middle East Program

Amr Hamzawy is a senior fellow and the director of the Carnegie Middle East Program. His research and writings focus on governance in the Middle East and North Africa, social vulnerability, and the different roles of governments and civil societies in the region.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Iran Is Pushing Its Neighbors Toward the United States

      Amr Hamzawy

  • Paper
    U.S. Peace Mediation in the Middle East: Lessons for the Gaza Peace Plan
      • Sarah Yerkes

      Amr Hamzawy, Sarah Yerkes, Kathryn Selfe

Amr Hamzawy
Director, Middle East Program
Amr Hamzawy
Political ReformSecurityForeign PolicyPalestineLevant

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?

    Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Time to Merge the Commission and EEAS

    The EU is structurally incapable of reacting to today’s foreign policy crises. The union must fold the EEAS into the European Commission and create a security council better prepared to take action on the global stage.

      Stefan Lehne

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Russia’s Imperial Retreat Is Europe’s Strategic Opportunity

    The war in Ukraine is costing Russia its leverage overseas. Across the South Caucasus and Middle East, this presents an opportunity for Europe to pick up the pieces and claim its own sphere of influence.

      William Dixon, Maksym Beznosiuk

  • Research
    Planetary vs International Security: Economic Growth at the Crossroads

    Economic growth is at the heart of a dilemma between planetary and international security.

      Olivia Lazard

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe and the Arab Gulf Must Come Together

    The war in Iran proves the United States is now a destabilizing actor for Europe and the Arab Gulf. From protect their economies and energy supplies to safeguarding their territorial integrity, both regions have much to gain from forming a new kind of partnership together.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.