by Andrea Tucci,
Days after President Donald Trump unveiled his plan by emptying Gaza of Palestinians permanent, meanwhile US officials were engaging in talks with Hamas in Doha.
In the past It has been a sacred tenet of US policy never to talk at any level with Hamas, which it designated as a terrorist group in 1997. Certainly its implications in ripping up decades of settled US policy could be profound.
The mantra has been that the US “does not negotiate with terrorists”. Leaving aside the thorny question of who is a terrorist, this has been more honored in the breach than the observance. In 1995, then-President Bill Clinton met then-Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, despite his party’s association with the IRA was considered a terrorist organization at the time.
In Doha last month, as US hostage negotiator Adam Boehler engaged with Hamas face to face talks, In addition to a prisoner exchange, Hamas offered a five-to-10-year ceasefire, showing that these meetings were hardly limited in scope.
After these facts the Israeli leadership is seething, fearing a separate US policy on Hamas. Surely the Trump administration does not apologize: “We’re not an agent of Israel.”
Trump is supportive with Netanyahu, but by no means beholden to it. Trump’s agenda is “America First”.
Superficial analysis has often portrayed Trump as a pro-Israel-come-what-may-type,though Trump green lights Israel’s of Palestinians issue, he is far more capable than Biden of acting against Israeli wishes if it suits him.
Israeli leaders are certainly fretting about what Trump may do next. Will he agree to a deal with Hamas without their consent? Will he kickstart talks with Tehran without their agreement? Open a secret channel with Iran?
For all the criticism leveled at Trump, he deserves some praise for making one of the smarter US policy moves in ages, although this comes with a host of caveats. Trump wants to make deals and you do not do this by banning contact with one of the parties to a conflict.
So in the future with who would Trump not talk to? Negotiating with Hamas suggests he may also talk to Hezbollah or the Houthi is if he feels the circumstances demand it. Trump has indicated that talking to Iran, despite his “maximum pressure” policy, is not off the table.
What are Washington’s traditional allies to make of this? Countries such as Germany, France and the UK have steered well clear of contact with Hamas, adhering to the “Quartet principles”, which stipulate no contact with the group until the “Terrorist group” renounces violence, recognizes Israel and abides by all previous peace deals.
It is worth noting that Israel has not renounced violence, and has in fact escalated this with a massacre of thousand of innocent in Gaza. It not only rejects previous agreements like the Oslo Accords, but also opposes any move towards a Palestinian state.
Talking to “Terrorists” could end armed conflicts?
History teach that based on his experience in helping to resolve the Northern Ireland conflict, too often states shed a lot of blood, wasted huge amounts o treasure and time in avoiding talking to “such terrorist groups”, but always end up doing so eventually, so better to get straight away to that point.
Can this approach work also in the Middle East? Excluding Hamas has hardly reaped any obvious benefits. Parties such as Egypt and Qatar have been engaging with Hamas, while the US and European actors have had to rely on third parties to report back.
Engaging with Hamas does not equal an endorsement of Hamas. It is just a clear-eyed assessment that talking, even between the most hostile of parties, can yield some results and unlock unforeseen possibilities. History teach, and Trump this time could be right.
In any case trump’s agenda is “America First” sorry better, Trump First.
