Former Israeli Intelligence Chief: Engage Hamas. Thanks to Ken Silverstein at Harper's and former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy for contextualizing in important ways my interview with former Israeli intelligence chief Efraim Halevy in which he argues for engaging Hamas, initially through indirect proximity talks.

Silverstein writes:

Last year, I published a story (“Parties of God: The Bush doctrine and the rise of Islamic democracy”), that discussed whether or not it was desirable for the U.S. government to engage with Islamic political movements, including Hamas. The piece closed with this thought:

[B]y scorning politically active Islamic movements and denying their legitimacy, the United States is essentially signaling to the Middle Eastern public that electoral politics are a meaningless dead end—precisely the same message that this public hears from Al Qaeda. Last year, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, issued a video that attacked the [Egyptian] Muslim Brotherhood for participating in elections, saying it played into America’s “political game” of “exploit[ing] the masses and their love for Islam”; in another video he criticized Hamas, saying that armed jihad, not elections, was the only way to liberate Palestine. If America refuses to engage with Islamist movements, however foreign or flawed their ideas may seem, al-Zawahiri’s antidemocratic rhetoric may be increasingly well received. ...

Levy writes:

... Halevy then describes the Hamas breakout from the “virtual siege” imposed on Gaza as only the latest in a string of strategic surprises to which “no effective counter strategy mounted by the US and Israel proved effective.” Halevy goes on to suggest “It makes sense to approach a possible initial understanding including Hamas—but not exclusively Hamas—at a time when they are still asking for one. No side will gain from a flare up leading to Israel re-entering the Gaza strip in strength to undo the ill-fated unilateral disengagement of 2005.”

He then goes on to question the wisdom of the demand on Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a precondition for talks. “Such a demand has never been made before either to an Arab state or to the Palestinian Liberation Organization/Fatah. There is logic in the Hamas' position that ideological "conversion" is the endgame and not the first move in a negotiation.” Halevy’s preference is for what he calls “indirect proximity engagement.”

At the same time, as Laura Rozen is helping to make us privy to the thinking of a former Mossad chief there seems to be some interesting developments on the ground. There are strong indications that Hamas is signaling a unilateral cessation of the rocket attacks on Israel with the intention that this would then lead to a reciprocal halt in Israel operations and ultimately to the locking-in of a ceasefire understanding. A unilateral ceasefire will not last long absent Israeli reciprocity but it could just begin to break the current escalatory cycle. My sources tell me that a third party is communicating on this between Hamas and the Israeli leadership and security establishment. More to follow on this story. ...

Levy hints towards the end at the kind of third party action underway Halevy's interview and book describe in various contexts. Halevy in speaking with me:

Hamas shuns direct contact and negotiations with Israel and this actually meets Israel's reciprocal attitude to them. The same is true of the United States. But Hamas is eager to "engage" the two indirectly and reach a verifiable cease fire, and understands that could lead to more "down the road."

Such a strategy of indirect proximity engagement, whilst covering our flanks, offers the prospects of lowering the temperature in the region, easing constraints, and opening up real possibilities of social and economic progress. This is a policy that could be tested, and is warranted by the abject failure of the present Palestinian Authority rump leadership in the West Bank ...

A former Arab country ambassador also wrote the magazine saying he strongly agreed with what Halevy said and asking to be put in touch with him. A former US intelligence official well regarded by his Middle Eastern counterparts wrote in response to the piece, "Efraim should be heard, but sadly [will] not by" this administration. "There has to be some rationality in our approach to all the players in the Middle East, not just Hamas and Hezbollah. The current administration, in essence, has never negotiated anything with any of the players. They simply lay down the U.S. bottom line and say that the other side has to agree to all the points and demands before we are willing to negotiate. What's to negotiate?" Will be interesting to see if the debate shifts here in the coming year.

Posted by Laura at February 20, 2008 10:21 PM