As Israel and the Palestinian Authority prepare to resume indirect talks, through American mediation, some are insisting that the Islamist movement Hamas must be brought into the process. Hamas, the argument goes, is capable of obstructing progress in negotiations, so that only by engaging the group can the United States and the international community avoid such an outcome. The rationale is naive.Zo klaar als een klontje maar waarom is het naïef te denken Hamas te betrekken? Young komt met een duidelijk antwoord:
Hamas reinforced its ties with Syria and Iran, two regional actors sharing its antipathy for the Palestinian Authority, later led by Mahmoud Abbas. Both Damascus and Tehran viewed Hamas as a useful tool to advance their agendas – the Iranians, to block any breakthrough on the Palestinian-Israeli front, the Syrians to use such obstacles as leverage in their own track with Israel. Hamas, needing allies against Mr Abbas and Fatah, went along with this. It also benefited from Iranian funding and arms, while its effective leader, Khaled Meshaal, who heads the movement’s political bureau, made Damascus his headquarters in 2001.Aha dat maakt het een stuk duidelijker. Zijn er nog andere goede redenen Hamas te blijven isoleren?
Ja:







