Commentary
Amr Hamzawy
{
"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.
By Amr Hamzawy
Published on Aug 16, 2009
Source: New York Times
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.
- Iran Is Pushing Its Neighbors Toward the United States
- U.S. Peace Mediation in the Middle East: Lessons for the Gaza Peace PlanPaper
Amr Hamzawy, Sarah Yerkes, Kathryn Selfe
Recent Work
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 Endowment for International Peace
- A Mission for Lebanon’s ArmyCommentary
While armed forces commander Rudolph Haykal’s caution is understandable, he is in a position to act, and must.
Michael Young
- A New Generation Takes Power in NepalArticle
The incoming government has swept Nepal’s election. The real work begins now.
Amish Raj Mulmi
- Operation Epic Fury and the International Law on the Use of ForcePaper
Assessing U.S. compliance with the international laws of war is essential at a time when these frameworks are already fraying.
Federica D’Alessandra
- Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria ConundrumCommentary
Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.
Vladimir Solovyov
- Japan’s Security Policy Is Still Caught Between the Alliance and Domestic RealityArticle
Japan’s response to U.S. pressure over Hormuz highlights a broader dilemma: How to preserve the alliance while remaining bound by legal limits, public opinion, and an Asia-centered security agenda. Tokyo gained diplomatic space through an alliance-embracing strategy, but only under conditions that may not endure.
Ryo Sahashi
