Rami Khouri
May 8, 2007<snip>
The real significance of Rice and her staff's assorted interactions with the Syrians and Iranians is not mainly about the impact on Iraq, but rather in affirming — in this case, at least — the ineffectiveness and futility of boycotts and sanctions as serious foreign policy tools. The change of policy towards Syria and Iran only highlights the continued nonsensical American-Israeli-European policy towards the elected Government in Palestine, which has evolved into a national unity government comprising Fatah, Hamas and some key independents.
Rice met the Palestinian Finance Minister in Washington a few weeks ago, but that was not a real change of policy; it was merely a sleight-of-hand magician's trick that did not change reality, but only fostered an optical illusion. The continued boycott of that part of the elected Palestinian Government led by Hamas is not achieving anything useful, and is only making things worse for all, as pressures and resentments build up in Palestine and the tenuous ceasefire with Israel slowly collapses.
One country that has gone against the prevalent Israeli-American-European trend of boycotting the elected Palestinian Government is Norway, which has maintained contacts with Hamas and the entire Government for years. Norway is a very sensible place, run by thoughtful, reasonable people who are not prone to extremes in any direction. So I thought it was worthwhile finding out more from knowledgeable Norwegians, in and out of government, about their experience with the Palestinians and Hamas, and why they have remained in touch with Hamas and the elected Government.
Several relevant points emerge from the Norwegian experience and perspective. In principle, the Oslo mind-set says, contacts should be maintained with all relevant parties in a dispute, other than out-and-out criminals such as al-Qaeda. Political groups that use violence but also represent real political constituencies should be engaged with a view to changing their policies ultimately, as Norway has done, for example, in mediating between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan Government. Boycotting eliminates the possibility of prodding militant groups to evolve politically, and thus is not useful.
In the case of Hamas and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is also the issue of balance in the demands of both sides. It is reasonable to ask the Palestinians to end armed resistance, political violence and terror against civilians, but such an approach is not very credible or effective if it punishes the political violence of one side only.
Rami G. Khouri is director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut and editor-at-large of the Beirut Daily Star.http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/what-norway-knows-and-the-us-must-learn/2007/05/07/1178390223040.html