Report: Obama administration prepared to talk to Hamas

"The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush's doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say.

The move to open contacts with Hamas, which could be initiated through the US intelligence services, would represent a definitive break with the Bush presidency's ostracising of the group. The state department has designated Hamas a terrorist organisation, and in 2006 Congress passed a law banning US financial aid to the group.

The Guardian has spoken to three people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp. . . .

Another potential contender for a foreign policy role in the Obama administration suggested that the president-elect would not be bound by the Bush doctrine of isolating Hamas.

"This is going to be an administration that is committed to negotiating with critical parties on critical issues," the source said."

Comments

Submitted by thirusuj on January 9, 2009 - 3:51pm.

If this really happens, it would definitely bring in a positive result.

Submitted by M. Spector on January 9, 2009 - 7:34pm.

Anyone who imagines this is some kind of breakthrough is crazy.

All Obama wants to talk to Hamas about is the terms of their surrender.

Submitted by Unionist on January 9, 2009 - 7:40pm.

That's correct. It's the same crap as Obama's willingness to talk to Cuba. He wants to open channels for Miami subsersives to gain influence there.

Why would anyone see any hope in such stories, when Obama has never uttered a critical word about ongoing Israeli war crimes?

Submitted by Frustrated Mess on January 9, 2009 - 7:52pm.

I posted a link to this in another thread but I think it recognizes the direction of Obama's policy:

Quote:

It is instructive that when Ross accompanied Obama to the Middle East last spring, he sat in on a meeting the future president had with the man he may well have to deal with as the next Israeli prime minister: the hard-line Netanyahu. According to an account given to me by Netanyahu's national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, the irrepressible Bibi lectured Obama on how the problem of Iran must be solved first. Then, and only then, could the Israeli-Palestinian issue be addressed. Obama did not agree with this "sequencing," but he knows that the best course is to try to grapple with all these interrelated issues at the same time, and with America front and center at the negotiating table. Ross is also aware that one of the flaws of the Clinton approach was not to have done a more thorough job in bringing the Arab leaders in the region into the process sooner, applying more pressure on Arafat in 2000 to accept what was clearly the best deal he was ever going to get from the Israelis for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Michael Hirsch, Newsweek

In other words, nothing changes but packaging.

Submitted by KenS on January 10, 2009 - 7:37am.

It does ratchet down somewhat the degree of licence Israel feels it has in Gaza.

Nothing less than the end of effectively unconditional support for Israel is going to really work.

But Hamas is not going to surrender and the realists know that. Israel is going to have to pull back out of Gaza just like it did Lebanon, and will face a very strengthened Hamas.

If you are in Gaza, it matters that Israel has that much less rope in how long it holds Gaza under full scale attack.

This is also yet another step in the international credibility Hamas is gaining. That has long term impact in Gaza, for Hamas' long term international support, and with Israel [regardless they won't admitt it].

I'd say about the last nail in the coffin of Israel's attempt to isolate Hamas.

Submitted by Hoodeet on January 10, 2009 - 10:39am.

An interesting op ed by Jackson Diehl, which summarizes a number of important points: www.washingtonpost.com

January 9 2009