The Warped Mirror: Hamas is known for that

If it wasn't such a serious issue, it could be quite funny to read that, not long after spending hours with former President Carter talking about peace, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal declared in an interview on Al-Jazeera television that for his group, any cease-fire with Israel was just "a tactic in conducting the struggle... It is normal for any resistance that operates in its people's interest... to sometimes escalate, other times retreat a bit. ... The battle is to be run this way and Hamas is known for that." Well, Mashaal is right: Hamas is known for that; Hamas is also known for its charter, its vile anti-Semitism, and its often re-affirmed goal of "liberating" all the land west of the Jordan.

For his part, former president Jimmy Carter is known for his belief that no view is vile enough to deserve ostracism. As a Forward editorial put it: "During nearly three decades as a freelance apostle of peace, the man from Plains has built a record marked by grand gestures, modest accomplishments and a few big goofs that somehow fail to pierce his halo. In office and out, his actions have been driven by a desperate desire to do good and a misplaced confidence that his radiant good intentions could bring out the hidden good in others."

If Carter indeed hoped to "bring out the hidden good" in Hamas, he failed miserably. One illustration of Carter's failure came courtesy of Mahmoud al-Zahar, the "foreign minister" of Hamas: in a piece published in the Washington Post , Zahar praised Carter for bringing "honesty and pragmatism to the Middle East", and then he proceeded promptly to be honest enough himself to make clear that Hamas had no interest whatsoever in a negotiated peace. According to Zahar:
"A 'peace process' with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees."

As if to mock Carter even more, Hamas sent jeeps packed with explosives to attack the Kerem Shalom crossing that is used to transfer essential goods into Gaza just hours before Carter was meeting Khaled Mashaal in Damasus. And when Carter declared after his meeting that it was his understanding that "Hamas is prepared to accept Israel's right to 'live in peace' within 1967 borders", it didn't take long for Hamas leaders to come out to clarify that Carter had misunderstood them. 

At the same time, it was all too obvious that for its part, Hamas had understood Carter's message very well. The Forward editorial put it succinctly: "By reaching out to an international pariah, the ex-president unintentionally transmitted the message that extremists need not moderate their positions, because the world will eventually come around, starting with a former American president."

If anything, Carter reinforced this message in his own report about his trip : Pleading for understanding, he argued that groups "such as Hamas view themselves as seeking liberation, but their role is viewed by some as using terrorism to undermine the prospects for peace.... The current strategy of isolating and suppressing Hamas and persecuting the people of Gaza is not working. It only exacerbates the cycle of violence, and latest polls show that it increases the relative popularity of Hamas throughout Palestine. Some feel that my meeting with Hamas legitimized them, but their legitimacy came when a plurality of the Palestinian people voted for them in the 2006 elections, which I observed. Israelis know that Hamas won a majority of parliamentary seats, and a recent poll of Israeli citizens indicates strong support (64 percent) for direct Israel-Hamas talks."

The poll Carter refers to has become somewhat famous, because it is widely cited in the international media under headlines that suggest that indeed almost two thirds of Israelis want negotiations with Hamas. However, the poll, as originally reported by Haaretz , actually referred to negotiations about specific issues, namely a ceasefire that would stop the barrage of rockets from Gaza and the release of Gilad Shalit.

That there is a huge difference between advocating dialogue with Hamas for dialogue's sake and talks that focus on specific issues is a point that Michael Young has eloquently made in a very critical commentary on Carter's meetings with Hamas. Young argued that while it might be possible to identify issues that Hamas would actually be prepared to negotiate about, the more general "debate over whether the United States, Israel and others should talk to Hamas has become tiresome, largely because those supporting dialogue invariably limit their reasoning to a narrow syllogism: Hamas is a central actor in the Palestinian conflict; to resolve the conflict you need to talk to central actors; therefore talk to Hamas. To many engagers the problem is mainly one of communication. If only everyone could just sit around a table and talk, things would work out. ... You can almost hear Khaled Meshaal gasping at the naivete of such sweeping positivism, as he prepares to score points off his solemn American visitor."