Big Jew on Campus: On Hizbullah's deaf ears

President-elect Barack Obama's desire to engage some of America's political adversaries, such as Iran, in direct dialogue has been a source of acclaim and criticism. Those opposed to such talks charge that Obama's stance is detrimental to plans that seek to undermine the Iranian regime and inhibit its acquisition of nuclear weapons. Supporters of Obama's plan to have "tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions" believe that this is a chance to for America to persuade Iran to change its current course while avoiding further escalation.

Former President Jimmy Carter has been the focus of much criticism after he met with Hamas' leader Khaled Mashaal in Damascus in April. After meeting with one group that his own government designates as a terrorist organization, this week Carter planned on meeting with another; Hizbullah. However, on December 10th a Carter spokesman reported that Hizbullah rejected the proposed meeting.

Part of the problem with Obama's and Carter's desire to engage Iran and Hizbullah is not only that these meetings give legitimacy to them, but also that it signals a complete misunderstanding of whom Obama and Carter are dealing with and what they really want. For example, a direct meeting with Iranian officials over its nuclear activities will never come to fruition, not because of American officials are setting pre-conditions, but because the Iranians are. The Iranian Vice President for Media Affairs, Mehdi Kalhor, openly stated that Iran has two preconditions before a meeting with high-level American officials can occur; one, that the US withdraw all of its forces from the Middle East, and two, that the US no longer support Israel. Obama seemed like a trailblazer and beacon of hope when he declared he would meet with Iranian officials, but he was unaware of Iran's agenda and global outlook. He never bothered to ask them if they want to meet with him.

Carter's ego had to deal with the blow that came with Hizbullah's rejection, but it is more important that he understand why this occured. Meeting one terrorist organization, Hamas, does not mean that the rest will follow. There are tremendous differences between Hamas and Hizbullah. First, Hizbullah is Iran's proxy, and its foreign policy won't stray too far from the hand that feeds it. Carter probably wants to meet Hizbullah to have some form of normalization with the most powerful party in Lebanon, even though they have the blood of hundreds of American Marines and civilians on their hands. However, he fails to see that Hizbullah has little to gain from a meeting with a former American president. It rose to power in Lebanon partly due to its platform of anti-Israeli and anti-American rhetoric and violence. A meeting with Carter would not please anyone within Hizbullah, but rather would overturn what it has practiced and preached for over two decades. Although Carter was probably surprised by Hizbullah's rejection, he shouldn't have been.

The real problem with Obama's and Carter's desire to meet entities that America is opposed to, as noted above, is not just that it gives them legitimacy to them or shows our failure to remain resolute. Rather, it shows Iran and Hizbullah that our leaders do not understand their goals and what makes them so opposed to America. We cannot expect to deter Iran and Hizbullah in anyway if we fail to understand them. Before Obama and Carter plan their next meeting, they better know who they are meeting with.