Fair and Balanced

I scanned over James Kirchick complaining about The Nation's editorial on Gaza, but then I saw the mighty Alterman also complaining so I went and read it and while I agree with some of what they say, this is pretty misleading:

It is commonly argued that negotiations are impossible because Hamas will not recognize Israel and is bent on its destruction. But Hamas leaders have repeatedly stated that they can live with a two-state settlement, or at the very least a long-term hudna (truce). Both Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and his political adviser, Ahmed Yousef, have made this point in op-eds in the past month.

Yousef's job, clearly, in the op-eds in question was to frame the Hamas line in a manner as congenial as possible to a Western audience. Nevertheless, his op-ed here is silent on the issue of recognition of Israel, but does defy Hamas' critics "to demonstrate one instance in which Hamas' military structure has struck against any force outside the theater of the occupation." Given that Hamas certainly has attacked Israel proper, this raises the question of what's meant by "occupation" in the list of Hamas demands as "the end of occupation; the release of political prisoners; the right of return for all Palestinians; and freedom to be a nation equal among nations, secure in its own borders and at peace."

All that is to say nothing of the issue of a "right of return for all Palestinians" which isn't consistent with any conventional understanding of a two-state solution.

Comments

Of course the real question is what is in it for the Nation? Do they support any of the non-killing-Israeli policies of Hamas? Stoning gays for instance? I doubt it. Executing rape victims? I don't see it. So why would they hand over their editorial page to, essentially, lie for Fascists? They don't simply persistently ignore what Hamas has to say and wants, but deliberately obscure it. They are, in short, lying and they know it. A Hudna is not a peace treaty and "long term", presumably, means as long as it takes for Hamas to destroy Israel. So why do they do it? Do they hate Jews that much or just the West in general?

Posted by HeiGou | June 25, 2007 3:45 PM

HeiGou is reliably a source for every shopworn wingnut smear in the book. Progressives hate Bush more than bin Laden. The Nation hates Jews, or perhaps the entire West. And on and on and on in the same vein. Someone please wake me up when he has something interesting to say.

Posted by Steve | June 25, 2007 3:53 PM

Does "they" include Alterman, HeiGou? He writes for those Jew-hating barbarians, you know.

Posted by sniflheim | June 25, 2007 3:53 PM

Posted by Steve | June 25, 2007 3:53 PM:"HeiGou is reliably a source for every shopworn wingnut smear in the book. Progressives hate Bush more than bin Laden. The Nation hates Jews, or perhaps the entire West. And on and on and on in the same vein. Someone please wake me up when he has something interesting to say."

Well I do my best. My question remains - everything Hamas wants (except perhaps relating to Israel) is something you'd think the Nation utterly abhors. So why give them the editorial page? They are the David Duke of the Muslim world. He too demands justice for Palestine. I doubt he will get a column any time soon.

Posted by sniflheim | June 25, 2007 3:53 PM:"Does "they" include Alterman, HeiGou? He writes for those Jew-hating barbarians, you know."

Really? How interesting. I don't know. What has he written for them lately?

And yet the question remains - why did the Nation give them space and hence credibility?

Posted by HeiGou | June 25, 2007 3:57 PM

It is the wrong test. The only legitimate test is whether Hamas is going to continue to take up arms against Israel.

If Democracy means anything then the people have a right to elect a government that makes whatever territorial claims they beleive to be valid. The issue should not be what Hams beleive or claim, it is what they do to pursue those objectives.

The UK government has never had a problem talking to the Irish or Spanish governments despite their claims to UK territories. It refused to speak to the IRA while the IRA was planting bombs.

There is also a not so curious piece of doublespeak here. What exactly does 'recgonizing the state of Israel mean'. Does it mean recognising the existence of the state of Israel or the legitimacy of its borders and constitution?

Clearly Hamas recognizes the fact that the state of Israel exists. The issue is what constitution and borders of the state are recognized.

In particular is Hamas required to recognize Israel as 'a Jewish state'? I suspect that this is the real issue. Should Mandela have been required to recognize South Africa as a 'white state' or Ghandi recognize the Raj as a 'British state'?

Bush has effectively killed the two state solution. The only viable outcomes now are to continue war or a single state in which all occupants are recognized as equal citizens. Hamas will clearly settle for this, but Likud and the backers of Israel will not. Hamas will settle for it because they know that they will achieve their other goals under an equal constitution soon enough.

To recognize all citizens as equal would require the end of 'the right of return' for anyone who can show some form of Jewish ancestry, regardless of not living in the region for a milenia or so. That is realy at the heart of the demand for recognition of Israel and it is an absolutely indefensible demand.

For actual citizens of Israel it would mean giving up the right to push Palestinians around, to refuse them building permits, to take their land to build settlements. In other words nothing that the vast majority of Israelis would actually regret losing. For the ultras of course it would mean the end of the idea of Israel as an exclusively Jewish state, again, nothing that the vast majority would not miss.

Israel is living on borrowed time here. Back in the 1980s memories of the holocaust were still strong. And even if the USSR persecuted all its citizens equally, the West was willing to recognize the right to emigrate to Israel, particularly anti-semitic opponents of communism who prefered Jews in Israel to Jews emigrating to their country.

Today the West does not automatically assume that every opponent of Israel is an anti-Semite and memories of the fiasco in Iraq are much more recent than the Holocaust. The GOP has to find a scapegoat for their fiasco, they are currently using the stabbed in the back theory, if that does not work they will blame Israel.

Posted by PHB | June 25, 2007 3:59 PM

Are you trying to say you think Hamas ghost-wrote the editorial page?

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 25, 2007 4:01 PM

Matt,

What continues to amaze me about you, and many American pundits, is that even when you've made enormous strides in the right direction of understanding the conflict, you still can not get over the fact that thinking of the terms of the peace process is always contingent solely on American and Israeli expectations and demands.

Never is it considered that perhaps the Palestinians are human beings, too, and therefore have some rights and stuff, and we have to make sure that any peace deal guarantees them their inalienable rights in order for it to be a good deal.

It's much more important of course, to think of what would please an Israeli government hostage to a right-wing rabid electorate that views the West Bank as its god-given right, and what would please an American administration grovelling to the Israelis.

This is the Dennis Ross school of Conflict Perpetuation that can be summarised thus:

1- I am the mediator
2- I like Israel
3- Any deal has to please Israel and its needs
4- I set these needs, because of (1) I am the mediator, and (2) I like Israel
5- I offer this to the Palestinians, if they don't like it, it's because they are criminal terrorists. It's definitely not because the offer stinks, because the offer is great. Because I say so. And I am the mediator.
6- Blame it all on Arafat
7- Write a book, make millions, preach to the world about making peace
8- Wait for Democrats to win in '08 and then start the process all over again

Had this moron paused to think that Palestinians are humans, too, and therefore ahve the same needs as Israel, he might;'ve offered a good deal, and we might have peace today.

Posted by saifedean | June 25, 2007 4:11 PM

A cease-fire is not a peace treaty.

Logic 101.

Posted by David | June 25, 2007 4:26 PM

A cease-fire is not a peace treaty. Logic 101.

You're missing a couple extra premises and a conclusion, Mr. Logician.

Posted by Christmas | June 25, 2007 4:38 PM

There seem to be some in Hamas who want a 100-year ceasefire, counting on God to take care of business somehow either during or after that.

While there are Palestinians who still want to destroy Israel altogether, a more common line seems to be that "recognition" should be mutual, and that Arafat made a diplomatic mistake agreeing to recognize Israel before Israel recognized Palestinians' right to a state.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | June 25, 2007 4:40 PM

You make a very simple mistake with the Hamas offer of a Cease Fire (Or, as they term it, a Hudna). You should go back to your history and read up on the way these sorts of truces were used (and understood) by medieval states, because that's how Hamas looks at them.

In those cases, both Christian and Islamic states would find religious justification for breaking a truce if it suited their needs and/or desires. Hamas' offer of a Cease Fire is not a deal we want to take. It's simply a long slow surrender, and Hamas will cheerfully break any such truce if and when it makes military sense to do so.

Posted by James Robertson | June 25, 2007 4:47 PM

It's simply a long slow surrender, and Hamas will cheerfully break any such truce if and when it makes military sense to do so.

Which would be never. It's a face saving exercise, that doesn't demand that Palestinians uniquely in history formally assent to having their real estate, property, bank accounts and personal property seized as part of a racist pogram.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 25, 2007 5:01 PM

Well, Hamas is so powerful now because Israel has stonewalled and undermined more moderate elements in the Palestinian community. So now you have to deal with Hamas as serious representatives of the Palestinian people, or at least a major sector of them. You negotiate with the enemy you have, not the one you wish you had. Unless of course you don't want to genuinely negotiate at all and your actions are all in fact designed to avoid negotiation.

Posted by mq | June 25, 2007 5:49 PM

Hamas: Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.

Yup, looks promising. Maybe just a couple of more op-ed pieces and Israel will negotiate.

Posted by Jenkins | June 25, 2007 6:17 PM

Hamas has repeatedly implied but refused to state outright recognition of Israel, explaining that Israel has made no parallel statement about Palestine. The unilateral condemnation of Hamas in the setting of a brutal, near genocidal Israeli military occupation of the Palestinians while perpetrating acts and threats of terrorism along with other crimes against humanity as an integral part of control of the population is disingenuous. Hamas has repeatedly said it wants to negotiate a peaceful settlement. What is there to lose by treating their offers as if they were in good faith? It is revealing and disgraceful that Israel has not responded to the offers made years ago (and not rescinded) by all of the Arab countries and the Palestinian leaders to fulfill all of the conditions which the Israeli leaders claim to want in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories. The murderous overthrow of the results of the free and fair democratically elected Hamas government by the US and Israel is also revealing in terms of the lack of good faith conduct and their true priorities. The Israeli people and American people want peace and for this madness to stop. It is time for regime change in both of our countries, replacing the governments with officials who will respect democracy, the will of the people, the truth, the rule of law, the universal norms of civilization, human rights and simple decency. Its time to expose disingenuous rhetoric every time it is uttered. Enough JK
PS: The right of return is still international law and like the Geneva Conventions it has not become quaint.

Posted by JK | June 25, 2007 6:27 PM

What Matthew says. The current Hamas position seems to be that they might be able to negotiate terms through which they temporarily agree to forego incursions into Israel's pre-1967 borders (but refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the state), while reserving the right to do so in the future, in exchange for more permanent concessions on the Israeli side. That, of course, is a nonstarter-- one could imagine a mutual exchange of NONPERMANENT promises, i.e., an actual cease fire agreement whereby Israel agrees to stop attacks into Hamas-held territory and Hamas agrees to stop acts of aggression against Israel, but that's not a "2 state solution"; that's just a cessation of active hostilities while maintaining a state of war.

That said, the one thing I would mention is that it doesn't make sense for Israel to refuse to talk to Hamas at all; that just allows Hamas to hunker back in its stance of refusing to recognize Israel and doesn't give them any incentive at all to moderate their position. If I were Olmert, I would authorize talks with Hamas as well as Fatah; but the principle would be that either Hamas can talk temporary cease-fire or it can talk final status, but there isn't going to be an exchange of final status on the Israeli side for temporary cease-fire on the Hamas side.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 25, 2007 6:43 PM

Kudos to M J Rosenberg of TPM Cafe for his outstandingly insightful article mentioned in the Alterman blog.

If all Americans were made aware of the incredibly destrucive influence that a small cadre of Washington neocons have had for the past few years, their influence would have been curtailed and the Israeli - Palestinian peace process would certainly have advanced.

As long as these malignant creatures are able to sabotage any peace overtures, there is no hope for the ME disaster to be resolved.

Posted by chet | June 25, 2007 6:50 PM

but that's not a "2 state solution"; that's just a cessation of active hostilities while maintaining a state of war.

So what? What's the downside if it holds up?

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 25, 2007 7:00 PM

Re PHB

The Arabs best chance to eliminate the State of Israel was in 1948. They loused it up and they're not going to get another such opportunity.

Re JK

Mr. JKs' accusation of near genocide against the Palestinians by Israel is a god damn fucking lie. If Mr. JK wants to see how the Arabs handle terrorist actions, look no farther then the 1982 attack on the city of Hama by Hafaz Assads' armed forces. In two days of indiscriminate shelling, 20,000 people were killed. The State of Israel hasn't come within shouting distance of that number in some 40 years and at the present rate of attrition, will not come within shouting distance of that figure in another 40 years. But of course, Arabs killed by other Arabs don't count with the JKs of the world.

Re saifedean

It never ceases to amaze me as to the moronic nature of assholes like Mr. saifedean. Dennis Ross toiled for 12 years under two administrations to achieve a Palestinian State and his reward is to be attacked by antisemites like Mr. saifedean on the one hand for not demanding that the State of Israel agree to go out of business and the extreme right wing Christian Zionists on the other hand for failure to support the Kahanists in Israel who want an Eichmann solution for the Palestinian problem. As always, the guy in the middle always gets the flack.

Posted by SLC | June 25, 2007 7:17 PM

slc thinks Dennis Ross worked for 12 years to create a Palestinian state. good one, slc, goit any bridges for sale?

Until the Israeli's recognize the Palestinians right to exist, until the Israeli's renounce terrorism against the Palestinian people, and until Israel withdraws from their colonies to internationally-recognized borders, there will be no peace. The rest of the world will continue to find the apartheid regime abhorrent, more and more unions and working people and intellectuals will climb on the boycott wagon, and Israel will continue to be isolated and dependent on billions in arms welfare from the US.

what a shame. saifedean, you are right, Ross and Indyk will once again be in charge once a D takes thre white house, and nothing will change.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | June 25, 2007 7:43 PM

Let me see if I have this straight, so that I could live in Alterman/Yglesias land:

Bush I tried for four years to negotiate a Palestinian/Israeli peace. The result was continued conflict. This proves that James Baker is an anti-semite.

Clinton tried for eight years to negotiate a Palestinian/Israeli peace. The result was continued conflict. This proves that Marty Peretz is an idiot.

Bush II hasn't tried particularly to negotiate a Palestinian/Israeli peace. The result is continued conflict. This proves that Bush is evil, and that there will be peace if we elect a Democratic president.

Posted by y81 | June 25, 2007 7:53 PM

When Clinton tried to negotiate a peace, the result wasn't continued conflict. The conflict cooled down for a while, negotiations continued, and eventually the ascension of Abbas during Bush's term provided a wonderful opportunity for peace. Unfortunately, Bush II blew that opportunity.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 25, 2007 8:43 PM

Re mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari

I suggest that Ms. al-jafaari don her chador and retire to the ladies room. That will be the style of women in the Gaza strip before long.

Posted by SLC | June 25, 2007 9:19 PM

The Nation editorial was a tad overoptimistic, but you are working a little too hard in the other direction, Matt. The fact is that Hamas has made repeated statements about a possible long-term truce with Israel, long before the recent op-eds. Maybe that's just for show, but it's worth exploring. After all, as of 1988, Israel's Labor Party was still forswearing any contact, let alone discussions, with the PLO, which was allegedly unalterably committed to the destruction of Israel, etc. Oslo happened only 5 years later.

And you really can't read too much into that "theater of occupation" remark. Israel is, after all, the occupier, and it's right next door. And, while it may not be wise or productive, armed resistance (though not attacks on civilians) is certainly a justifiable reaction to a harsh and exploitive occupation.

Posted by Tony Greco | June 25, 2007 9:37 PM

All that is to say nothing of the issue of a "right of return for all Palestinians" which isn't consistent with any conventional understanding of a two-state solution.

That's the problem of the "conventional understanding", not the problem of the people asking for the right to return.

Posted by Freddie | June 25, 2007 9:40 PM

First of all, Hamas idea of a truce is not "cessation of hostilities while we try negotiations". It's much more "the other side ceases all hostile and defensive measures while we engage in whatever hostile acts we want to". The most recent self declared truces between Hamas and Israel have all featured shelling of Israeli towns (Sderot is the main one) even though an official truce is in effect. And of course, there's nothing for Hamas to claim those hostile acts are performed by militants over whom it has no real control. In that, they would simply be repeating what Arafat did for years.
And Abbas after him. Although the claim coming from Abbas at least has a good deal of truth in it.

As for Israel recognizing the right of a Palestinian state--if a man comes to kill you, why give him bullets for his gun?

Posted by kishnevi | June 25, 2007 10:09 PM

All that is to say nothing of the issue of a "right of return for all Palestinians" which isn't consistent with any conventional understanding of a two-state solution.

As far as I'm concerned this amounts to a dispositive criticism of the "two-state solution", rather than a dispositive criticism of the Right of Return.

Why is it so important to you people that the world ratify the Israelis' ethnic cleansing and theft-at-gunpoint of Palestinian land? It's not gonna happen.

Posted by moron | June 25, 2007 10:12 PM

If they don't accept Israel (yet), then surely that means they would include Israel proper as part of the "occupation". Why would you expect anything different?

Of course, they might change their position, if negotiations were fruitful. You never know until you try. But until then, I wouldn't get caught up on semantics. Judge them by actions, not words.

Posted by graeme | June 25, 2007 10:45 PM

If they don't accept Israel (yet), then surely that means they would include Israel proper as part of the "occupation".

They are stuck in a trap. Hamas says Palestine is a Muslim trust, it's the Holy Land and God will be pissed at them for giving any of it away (which makes them the equivalent of the dispensationalists domestically or the religious nationalists in Israel). There really isn't any way to deliver on this however when you actually take power (the same goes for the other two players). That they are playing semantic games and looking for a way out (like calling "hudna"), makes them more rational than any of the Jewish Israeli or American Christian activists.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 25, 2007 11:25 PM

Jesus, I keep on telling people that the liberal left is grounded in reality, but this set of comments makes us (well, maybe I'm making unmerited assumptions about some of) sound like a caricature invented by by Instapundit or Powerline. What a craven exercise in apology for a party that is everything we are supposed to abhor! Sorry, guys, but imagining Hamas as an interlocutor for peace in the Middle East is a delusional fairy tale.

Posted by John W | June 26, 2007 12:27 AM

Whether people think they are a legit negotiating partner or not, the simple reality is that Hamas has the power to veto any peace agreement between Israel and Palestine. Better to have them at the negotiating table beforehand than to have them express their opinion in Israeli cafes and buses afterwards...

Posted by JB | June 26, 2007 12:37 AM

Far-right MK Benny Elon (National Union) said that Olmert's peace bid was doomed. "You can't make peace with gangsters, even those who are ostensibly cute and ostensibly nice," he told Israel Radio, in a reference to Abbas.

According to Alon, the recent internal bloodshed in Gaza proved that "the only difference between the gangsters of Hamas and the gangsters of Fatah is that the gangsters of Hamas shoot you in the kneecaps from the back, and the gangsters of Fatah shoot you in the kneecaps from the front."

Palestinian analysts said that the move was unlikely to significantly improve Abbas' standing among Palestinians, as only members of Abbas' Fatah were to be freed.

The prime minister had previously ruled out freeing Palestinian prisoners as long as Israel Defense Forces corporal Gilad Shalit remains in captivity in the Gaza Strip. Shalit's captors on Monday released an audio recording of the captive soldier speaking, to coincide with the date of his abduction a year ago.

The prime minister did not, however, announce that Israel would remove West Bank checkpoints. That step was halted due to IDF objections.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | June 26, 2007 1:02 AM

Posted by saifedean | June 25, 2007 4:11 PM:"Had this moron paused to think that Palestinians are humans, too, and therefore ahve the same needs as Israel, he might;'ve offered a good deal, and we might have peace today."

Well Palestinians might have the same needs as Israelis, (although I doubt it - few suicide bombers are trying to kill Palestinians) but Palestine does not have the same need as Israel. Israel is not trying to wipe out anyone. The Arabs are still trying less hard than they used to to wipe out Israel. That is a huge difference.

What makes you think there is a good deal to offer? Why would the Palestinians accept it? This is the Middle East. Everyone pushes every single advantage they have as far as it will go. This is not a region that does compromise. It does extermination. So why would the Palestinians accept half the cake when they can have it all?

Posted by Brian Ulrich | June 25, 2007 4:40 PM:"There seem to be some in Hamas who want a 100-year ceasefire, counting on God to take care of business somehow either during or after that."

I doubt there is a single person in Hamas who wants a ceasefire at all. At best they will accept it for now because they cannot do much about it. But given their repeated claims that there is no difference between Gaza and Tel Aviv and that not a single inch of Palestine will ever be given up, it is reasonable to assume not one of them is willing to live in peace a second longer than they have to. They are not counting on God but on terrorism.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | June 25, 2007 4:40 PM:"that Arafat made a diplomatic mistake agreeing to recognize Israel before Israel recognized Palestinians' right to a state."

Israel has manifestly recognised the Palestinians' right to a state. The Fence is even a unilateral recognition of the minimum size it is going to be. The Fence makes no sense except in light of another state on the other side. Arafat's words were just words. Israel has never tried to wipe out a single Arab state. It does not want to and does not want to rule whatever is left. The Arabs on the other hand remain united by their desire to see Israel gone and they fully intend to rule over the ruins. See the difference in intent?

Posted by moron | June 25, 2007 10:12 PM:"As far as I'm concerned this amounts to a dispositive criticism of the "two-state solution", rather than a dispositive criticism of the Right of Return."

So you would prefer yet another Arab dictatorship across all of Palestine than a democracy in one part and a dictatorship in the other? Israel is not perfect, but there is no other solution that would involve the peaceful sharing of the Holy Sites of three religions, a productive economy, a free democratic society - indeed the freest Arabs in the world live in Israel. You think another Iran (but Sunni) is better?

Posted by moron | June 25, 2007 10:12 PM:"Why is it so important to you people that the world ratify the Israelis' ethnic cleansing and theft-at-gunpoint of Palestinian land? It's not gonna happen."

Because it happened. It happened a long time ago. It might have been wrong at the time, but that time is past. Children have been born. They have grown up. The number of people who are still alive who were affected by that disaster is tiny. Why would it be just to create another set of refugees? More ethnic cleansing? The children who have grown up in Israel know no other home. Why is it just to steal from them? And not, say, the Czechs or Pole or Turks or anyone else who has done worse recently? Give California back to the Mexicans? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Let it go.

Posted by graeme | June 25, 2007 10:45 PM:"Of course, they might change their position, if negotiations were fruitful. You never know until you try. But until then, I wouldn't get caught up on semantics. Judge them by actions, not words."

Their actions are rockets and suicide bombs. You *are* judging them by their words and not their actions. Perhaps they might change their position but there is no rational reason to think they will. Some terrorists need to be fought and preferably defeated. Not rewarded. Talking to them gives them a reward. Appeasement does not work.

Posted by HeiGou | June 26, 2007 4:25 AM

Does Israel recognize Hamas' right to exist?

Posted by Jim W | June 26, 2007 9:21 AM

Read the Wikipedia entry on Hamas, very interesting.

1)"However, various sources, among them United Press International,[86] Le Canard enchaîné, Bill Baar, Gérard Chaliand[87] and L'Humanité[88] have highlighted that Hamas' early growth — before its official founding and the creation of the military branch — had been supported by the Mossad as a "counterbalance to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)"."

Great going Mossad!

2)"The majority of Hamas funding comes from Saudi Arabia.[83][84] According to the U.S. State Dept,[25] Hamas is funded by Iran (led by a Shiite Islamic regime), Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states."

3)"The group devotes much of its estimated $70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network, running many relief and education programs, and funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. According to the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz "approximately 90 percent of the organization's work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities".[76] These programs are viewed variously as part of a sincere social development agenda, an integrated para-state policy, as propaganda and recruitment exercises, or both."

Posted by Peter K. | June 26, 2007 10:09 AM

John W.:

I doubt, in the end, that Hamas can be moved off of its position far enough to be a credible peace partner. But you never know until you try-- preemptively giving up because you think the other side is a bunch of terrorists is a recipe for never achieving peace.

Plus, one thing that clever peace negotiation tactics do is splinter groups like Hamas apart, because some of them may decide that dealing with Israel will get them more than terrorism will. In contrast, refusing to even talk to them is a good way of making them cohere and getting everyone behind their radical agenda.

I am not a Pollyanna about this. I realize there is a strong chance that talking to Hamas won't get Israel anything. But it won't cost Israel anything either.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 26, 2007 1:56 PM