Diplomacy Between Israel, Hamas May Start With Dialogue (Page 1 of 1)

How to do diplomacy is a hot question in the presidential campaign. Sen. John McCain, the hard-liner, suggests Sen. Barack Obama is an appeaser for his willingness “to talk to the enemy.” Obama thinks any resolution short of military action has to start with talking.

A writer for the News Sentinel took former President Jimmy Carter to task April 18 for meeting with the leader of Hamas because Hamas is radical in its violence. By the middle of Leslie Snow’s column, Carter was “negotiating with terrorists,” and by the end, Snow had Carter “embracing” Hamas. There is a difference, though, between speaking to someone, even an enemy, and negotiating with or embracing someone.

Carter knows there is a risk that even speaking to a Hamas leader like Khaled Mashaal may give the appearance of legitimizing Mashaal, his agenda and his means, though Carter’s record as a peace-seeker should overrule
that possibility.

Carter is a realist. He is fully aware of the issues at stake in the Israel/Hamas stand-off, personally aware of the challenges of trying to resolve those issues and acutely aware of the death and destruction that continue to assail Palestinians and Israelis alike while current policies, including those pursued officially by the United States, maintain the horrific status quo.

So what should a hard-nosed realist do? Take the position that we won’t even speak to Mashaal, a decision doomed to continue the cycle of violence and destruction that is the “diplomacy” of choice for both Hamas and Israel?

I suggest it takes great courage, maybe even the kind of foolishness Carter teaches about in Sunday school each week, to venture where angels, sitting presidents, secretaries of state and other politicians can’t or won’t tread. There are reasons those individuals can’t and won’t meet with Hamas and reasons they distance themselves from Carter. But it is also true he can do what they cannot: Speak face to face and see what happens.

Worst-case scenario? Things continue as they are — they could hardly get any worse. Best-case scenario?
Carter’s visit to Hamas begins to move a process of discussion that leads to eventual disarmament and an accord that validates the rights of all parties and strives for peaceful coexistence. Far-fetched? Sure — but so was talk of peace in Northern Ireland not so long ago.

The reports coming from Carter’s initiative are encouraging. It sounds as though the Hamas leadership is trying to find some way to give ground, maintain its core demands for land and autonomy, offer some hope for mutual security and save face all at the same time. Depending on how Israel (and the “official U.S.”) responds, this could be a first step toward breaking the clinch that has kept Hamas and Israel circling in a dance of death for decades.
All people should cheer the possibility of hope for the Middle East, no matter where their sympathies lie, if that hope is rooted in justice and peace. Can Hamas or Israel be trusted? Only time will tell.

Carter is not naïve — he is a dreamer with his feet on the ground. He is not soft — his track record shows he is dogged in his pursuit of peace without compromise. He may be overly optimistic, though I doubt he expects anything more than a small opening in the peace process from his visit. He knows the only thing worse than talking to Hamas is not talking to them.

Maybe just as important as the outcome, though, is the process. Those who believe nonviolence offers practical solutions to even difficult problems see the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. reflected in Carter’s visit. One of the fundamental principles of Gandhi’s satyagraha was a recognition that everyone has a piece of the truth. It follows, then, that if we are ever going to have the whole truth, we cannot afford to alienate anyone or shut anyone out of the conversation.

A corollary to that principle follows: Always leave the other a face-saving exit. This principle recognizes two fundamental human instincts: The desire to survive and an aversion to shame. Forcing antagonists to fight their way out of a corner or permitting them to escape, but only after marking them with shame, is a pretty reliable way to ensure future violence.

Finding the path out of violence that saves face for all sides is often the toughest task of the diplomat. Though it may seem at times the leadership of both Israel and Hamas is resigned to violence and the death of children, Carter’s approach takes the premise that they are human beings with grievances — cultural, religious, political and geographic — and neither side takes pleasure in the reign of terror under which they live.

The Way Out must start with a conversation. If “official Washington” can’t have that conversation and may even need to disavow it publicly, they can — and the rest of us should — refrain from condemning it. Carter, who brokered the most successful peace effort in Middle East history at Camp David, may be the only person on the face of the earth who can accomplish the task. A slim hope, perhaps, but even the slimmest of hopes is worth the effort if it saves one life or shortens the violence by one day.

I don’t know Snow, the columnist who blasted Carter in the News Sentinel. I don’t know why she felt compelled to take on Carter when the paper wasn’t covering the story from the news side. But I’m glad she raised the issue in our community so we could all think about it. I’m just guessing, but I bet if she drew up an “enemies” list here, it would look like mine, with Violence at the top and Those Who Use Violence next in line. And I hope if she thinks about it a little more, she might realize Jimmy Carter doesn’t belong on that list.