• 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

  • Commentary
    The Two Key Takeaways From Xi’s Egypt Visit

      Amr Hamzawy

  • Commentary
    The Drone Attack on Egypt and the Widening Middle East War

      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
    Leaving Russian-Speakers Without Representation Is a Risk for Latvia

    If the Russian-speaking community in Latvia cannot articulate their interests without being seen as disloyal, they could end up embracing a pro-Kremlin agenda.

      Sergejs Potapkins

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Putin Has Been a Hindrance, Not a Help, to United Russia’s Election Campaign

    Russia’s ruling party would have benefited from Putin appearing as its distant patron, but as an active frontman imposing his views on the public, he has done nothing but harm both the party’s election campaign and the ruling system overall.

      Andrey Pertsev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Ten Years After Karimov’s Death, How Much Has Uzbekistan Really Changed?

    In the tenth year of his presidency, President Mirziyoyev’s system is becoming even more personalized than that of his predecessor Karimov.

      Galiya Ibragimova

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    As It Turns 25, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Reflects the New World Order

    With the growth in points of friction between the great powers, organizations like the SCO will continue to play a role in the strategic adaptation of the smaller powers caught between them.

      Temur Umarov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    As a Former Defense Minister Revolts in Ukraine, Is Zelensky’s System Fracturing?

    The greater threat to Zelensky comes not from Fedorov alone, but from the convergence between the former defense minister’s political campaign and the anti-corruption investigations moving ever closer to the presidential administration.

      Balázs Jarábik

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.