• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • 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 Egypt’s and other middle powers’ involvement in regional security in the Middle East, particularly through collective diplomacy and multilateral conflict resolution

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    The Myriad Problems With the Iran Ceasefire
      • Andrew Leber
      • Eric Lob
      • +1

      Amr Hamzawy, Andrew Leber, Eric Lob, …

  • Article
    Amid Iran War, Gulf Countries Slow the Pace of Reforms
      • Sarah Yerkes

      Sarah Yerkes, Amr Hamzawy

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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Who Is Responsible for the Demise of the Russian Internet?

    The Russian state has opted for complete ideological control of the internet and is prepared to bear the associated costs.

      Maria Kolomychenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is Opposition to Online Restrictions an Inflection Point for the Russian Regime?

    After four years of war, there is no one who can stand up to the security establishment, and President Vladimir Putin is increasingly passive. 

      Tatiana Stanovaya

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What’s Having More Impact on Russian Oil Export Revenues: Ukrainian Strikes or Rising Prices?

    Although Ukrainian strikes have led to a noticeable decline in the physical volume of Russian oil exports, the rise in prices has more than made up for it.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle East

    The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is Frustration With Armenia’s Pashinyan Enough to Bring the Pro-Russia Opposition to Power?

    It’s true that many Armenians would vote for anyone just to be rid of Pashinyan, whom they blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-Russia opposition is unlikely to be able to channel that frustration into an electoral victory.

      Mikayel Zolyan

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.