Hamas Hysteria

By Joe Klein

You've got to wonder what sort of anti-Israel, soft-on-terrorism nutjob said this after the elections that brought Hamas to power in 2006: "So the Palestinians had another election yesterday, and the results of which remind me about the power of democracy ... Obviously, people were not happy with the status quo. The people are demanding honest government. The people want services ... And so the elections should open the eyes of the Old Guard there in the Palestinian territories ... There's something healthy about a system that does that."

Wait a minute. That wasn't some pro- terrorist nutjob. It was George W. Bush. The President balanced that assessment of Hamas with, "I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform." But that's the point: it was a balanced statement on an issue that has not produced many such -- and none at all in the U.S. presidential campaign. Of course, Bush had a stake in the Palestinian elections. His Administration had demanded them, over the quiet objections of the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority -- both of which suspected that the service-providing terrorists of Hamas might win. And very soon after that initial, gracious statement, Bush changed course and, along with some of our European allies, refused to deal with the Hamas government unless it recognized Israel. The message to democracy activists in the region was crystal clear: We want elections unless we don't like the results of those elections. It stands as Exhibit A of the incoherence of the Bush foreign policy.

How to deal with groups like Hamas should be an important debate in the coming U.S. election, but it won't be. It was taken off the table in the past few weeks. First, John McCain allowed his campaign to spread the word that Barack Obama had been "endorsed" by a leader of Hamas. That will be one of McCain's main lines of attack: Obama is soft on terrorism. He wants to negotiate with Iran. He has advisers like Zbigniew Brzezinski who have been "anti-Israel" in the past; the wantonly accommodating spirit of Jimmy Carter looms heavy over Obama's candidacy. Such accusations subtly reinforce the most scurrilous smears circulating about Obama -- that he's a Muslim Manchurian Candidate, a secret agent sent to do us in.

Obama responded quickly and definitively to McCain's attack. He told Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, "I've repeatedly condemned [Hamas]. I've repeatedly said ... since [Hamas] is a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and abide by previous agreements." To reinforce this message, Obama dropped Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group (ICG) from his list of advisers. Malley's offense had been to meet with Hamas leaders. Given the ICG's mission -- the peaceful, negotiated resolution of conflicts -- Malley would not have been doing his job if he hadn't met with Hamas. And given Obama's oft-stated position that we should be talking to all parties in the region, the Illinois Senator's position on Hamas can only be considered a sad abandonment of principles. And McCain's predilection for bluster marks him as a leader potentially less flexible than even Bush.

This is not to suggest that Hamas is even vaguely reputable, even if it did win a free and fair election. This is not even to suggest official U.S.-Hamas talks. Those should be a reward for good behavior -- perhaps not the recognition of Israel, which Hamas considers a matter to be resolved in formal negotiations, but a real cease-fire -- for starters, the end of rocket attacks from Gaza. Meanwhile, the unofficial contacts that people like Malley have with Hamas are extremely valuable. They are the avatars of negotiation. In Iraq, the U.S. military has had quiet talks with everyone from the Sunni insurgents in Fallujah in 2004 to the "special groups" in Sadr City today. Our European partners meet surreptitiously with Hamas -- the British diplomat Sir Jeremy Greenstock has publicly acknowledged having such meetings. Furthermore, talks with Hamas have been advocated by a broad swath of notable Israelis -- including a former head of Mossad, a former foreign minister and Ariel Sharon's former national security adviser. Why should it be easier for an Israeli politician to favor talks with Hamas than it is for an American?

"If you're not talking to everyone, you're going to be Chalabied every time," says Daniel Levy, an Israeli who has negotiated extensively with Palestinians, referring to Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi who helped mislead the U.S. into war with Iraq. Indeed, the next President will be negligent if he doesn't include someone like Malley in his circle of Middle East advisers. There is a need to keep all channels open in that insanely complicated region. It is tragic that both McCain and Obama seem poised to fail this essential test of leadership.