Conducting a formal meeting with a group the United States considers a “terrorist organization” probably does not sound like the best idea. Former President Jimmy Carter recently concluded a trip to Syria to meet with Hamas – a militant Palestinian political party that is currently the majority party in the legislative body of the Palestinian Authority. Carter’s meeting has been making waves, to say the least. In fact, Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., even lobbied Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice to revoke Carter’s passport. What would we do without brave patriots like Myrick? Aside from being an incredibly lame publicity stunt, Myrick’s action represents a disturbing trend. Our foreign policy has become overtly militant. No more carrot-and-stick diplomacy – just the stick. Carter’s meeting with Hamas is nothing short of all-out treachery, to many Republicans. Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin now refers to Carter as Hamas’s “jihadi postman.” Now, I would like to set some facts straight. There is no doubt Hamas ran on a militant agenda against Israel. They represent a threat to the peace process, and their violent predisposition may never change. But Hamas legitimately won – fair and square – the 2006 parlimentary elections. Hamas is the majority political party, and they remain highly popular with the Palestinian people and several of Israel’s neighbors – largely for the construction of hospitals and schools in Gaza and the West Bank. Overwhelming majorities in Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt “feel that the Hamas Party victory will be good for the Palestinian people,” according to a Pew Research poll conducted shortly after Hamas’ victory. The same poll also found a majority of Muslim respondents believe Hamas’ victory will facilitate a fair settlement in the Middle-East conflict. Whether President Bush likes it or not, Hamas is a legitimate and popular political force in the Middle East that was elected without any controversy – more than can be said for Bush’s victory in the 2000 Presidential Election. Ignoring Hamas, or even worse, attacking them, will not bring any help to the peace process. Carter is doing the right thing by engaging Hamas and, most importantly, challenging them to aid a peaceful resolution between the Israelis and Palestinians. Unfortunately, Republicans have successfully warped the U.S. foreign policy into a simple doctrine: Any action taken short of an invasion – accompanied by a prolonged occupation where an unpopular democratic government is then installed – is “appeasement.” Therefore, the only acceptable methods of diplomacy include: ignoring the enemy government completely, chest-pounding or – the most preferable – war. In short, there is no more diplomacy. From this perspective, it is easy to see why Carter’s meeting enraged so many in the Republican Party. I wish I could say Bush’s doctrine is not the dominating foreign-policy doctrine in the political arena – but it clearly is. “Strength” and “tough” have become the operative words for our foreign policy, and those words even find footing in the Democratic Party. This past Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran should they attack Israel. Whether or not she was implying nuclear force is not clear, but there are only a limited number of ways to “totally obliterate” an entire country. Never mind, of course, the millions of innocent Iranians that would also be “totally obliterated.” But Clinton’s comments passed without much notice. In fact, they received far less attention than Sen. Barack Obama’s, D-Ill., performance in a basketball game earlier this week. But Clinton’s comments were not ignored simply because the media have a natural inclination to ignore all policy-related stories – they were also ignored because her comments are not perceived as terribly controversial. The Bush Administration has been toying with the idea of launching an attack on Iran for months, and Republican presidential contender Sen. John McCain has been claiming he is “Hamas’ worst nightmare.” According to the Clinton and McCain camps, Obama, D-Ill., is the “weak” candidate because, so far, he has only pledged to drop bombs on Pakistan if – and only if – it is absolutely vital to the United States’ safety. In fact, a diplomatic policy in the spirit of Carter’s actions – where the United States would be concerned for the well-being of all involved parties – is a politically toxic position. Such a belief could easily end a young politician’s political career. Fortunately for Carter, he will surely never run for an office again anyway. Carter – who has been the butt of many Republican jokes in his lifetime – may not have been the greatest president. What ought to embarrass those war hawks, though, is that Carter could teach them a thing or two about diplomacy.
—-Contact Nate Monroe at [email protected]