U.S. May Relent on Hamas Role in Talks

The New York Times reports that, in an effort to make progress with peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, the "Bush administration is using Egypt as an intermediary to open a channel between Israel and representatives of [Hamas]", the militant Islamic group.

Reaching a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine is, needless to say, crucial for the well-being of that region, but many question the effectiveness of negotiating with a group known for its acts of terrorism. Isn't negotiating with "terrorists" against American policy? Some officials call this a "softening of the American stance", and rightfully so.

Past peace talks have been interrupted by attacks from Hamas against Israel, attempting to provoke retaliation. But perhaps by introducing Egyptian officials as mediators and considering the wants of the Islamic group, progress can be made, and talks can proceed more smoothly.

An interesting spin on the issue occured when a recent State Department blog posed the question "Should the United States engage Hamas as part of its efforts to bring about peace between the Israelis and Palestinians?", and the responses, at best, ridiculed the fact that such a question was posted. One comment blatantly asked the blogger "Are you nuts?". Congressman Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, accused the question of "undercut[ting] the policy of the United States". (Seriously, Mr. Kirk, it was a question, not a suggestion.)

It is evident that a good deal of people agree that this move is, indeed, "soft". But, all things considered, where else can the U.S. look to in this situation? The U.S. and Israel should exhaust their possibilities instead of turning their noses up at opportunities for peace.