2/07/2006 MEASURE Survey Release:
US Policy Toward
Hamas and Palestinians
The Middle East Academic Survey
Research Exposition project polled 62 Middle East academics about US policy toward
Hamas and the Palestinians. The survey was
fielded between January 29 and February 1, 2006. Drawn
from a pool of 2,300 academics with advanced degrees in Middle East area studies, IRmep compiled and
presents survey responses. This poll should
not be interpreted as a statistically significant reflection on the views of all US Middle East academic specialists.
- 55% of Middle
East Academics polled believe the Bush Administration will engage in "low
intensity, limited diplomatic relations" with the new Hamas led Palestinian Authority
and only 2% believe it will give full diplomatic recognition.
- 40% believe
the administration should engage in "low intensity, limited diplomatic
relations" with the new Hamas led Palestinian Authority while 50% believe it should
give "full diplomatic recognition."
- 96% of Middle
East Academics polled believe that Israeli regional ambitions are "influential"
to "highly influential" on Bush Administration policy toward the Palestinians.
- Only 38% of
Middle East Academics polled believe that the "roadmap to peace" and creating a
Palestinian state are "influential" to "highly influential" on Bush
Administration policy toward the Palestinians.
- 71% of Middle
East Academics polled believe that current Bush administration toward the Palestinians is
functioning "poorly", 19% believe it is working "not very well".
See the following charts and comments for elaboration on each survey question.
#1 How likely is it that the Bush Administration will pursue any level of
engagement with a Hamas leadership?
At least not as long as Hamas sticks to its current ideology.
Hamas will have to give a lot more before there will be engagement with its leadership
The administration continues to view Hamas in crude stereotypes
as a terrorist group, rather than recognizing the nuances and plurality within it.
They cannot simply ignore a democratically elected government
without exposing hypocrisy in Bush's position.
The administration wants to pressure Hamas, but recognizes that
Hamas has effectively committed to a cease fire and is a more pragmatic organization than
they appear to be.
The victory was so stunning that even the Bush administration
can scarcely ignore it: there is also a strong chance that HAMAS will somewhat moderate
its policies as it finds itself faced with the task of governing
The administration will look for any excuse to blame Hamas, such
as putting up ridiculous obstacles at the outset rather than creating space and
opportunities for moderate voices within Hamas to be able to pursue more centrist
That is, of course, if 'they' 'renounce' the destruction of
Israel and the right to self-defense.
This is unfortunate. The
United States can play a constructive role in persuading Hamas to modify its hardline
course, and can also attempt to understand what drives Hamas into its position. The United States needs to understand the Middle
East through its players, and Hamas is one such player.
Much is done behind the scenes in ME; I'm sure Israel (if not
the less competent Bush administration) has realistically assessed the need to deal with
Hamas as a political organization.
Should recognize will of Palestinian people-if US wants
democracy, support Hamas
The Bush administration may continue to pursue engagement with
Abbas, as long as he remains in power, and this may the way for the US to continue to send
support. Unless Hamas is clear in changing its
outlook, and even if it does, there is little to no chance the US will engage.
The Administration will approach Hamas on two levels, public and
private. On the first, the message will be
loud and strongly negative, demanding an immediate change in the organization's stated
outlook. Privately, it will encourage greater
moderation, but truck no acts of terrorism.
Talk is always better than refusal.
No public recognition or engagement, but I expect some private
contacts will occur.
Lousy, tragic rhetoric. Sad
and incorrect policy.
Bush will, of course, take the worst and most stupid course of
action, which is to shut them out.
The Bush admin has locked itself into no recognition, no
exchanges. Hamas will not change re weapons or recognition of Israel given current Israeli
settlement expansion = stalemate, especially re upcoming Israeli elections.
Realpolitik requires back channel communication even with one's
This was democracy
Initially informal contacts behind the scenes
Time and circumstances will oblige US and Hamas to conduct
negotiations - as with US and Iraqi insurgents.
This is a juvenile attitude. If the Israeli government is
willing to consider talks, then the Bush Administration comes across as completely
unreasonable to deny authority to Hamas--regardless of whether the ideology of the Hamas
party is palatable to the U.S.
#2 Should the Bush Administration
pursue any level of engagement with a Hamas leadership?
The damage to American foreign policy would be greater if it
talks to Hamas.
Hamas will face daunting problems and need to provide tangible
results. The US should encourage them to focus
on social and economic success and to find a modus vivendi to engage in talks with Israel.
To do this requires a low level of engagements and carrots rather than sticks.
The US wanted an election; they got a free and fair election. So
deal with the folks who won. Hamas now has far greater legitimacy than most regimes in the
Although I would prefer full recognition, such an act without
the Israelis making similar moves and without Hamas giving anything would be too sharp a
break with the past. Some pressure to follow through with commitments to clean up
corruption in the PA bureaucracy is probably a good thing.
We have not kept up in the US with the evolution of Hamas over
It seems unlikely that the Bush administration can isolate
itself entirely even from a group whose policies it disapproves. It doesn't have the
capacity to reject entirely that it does with, say Iran.
Start with full engagement and a serious commitment to working
with them, and then put the burden on Hamas to respond in a moderate manner. Hamas will likely fail in this regard, but the
administration is setting itself up to be yet another obstacle rather than letting Hamas
fail politically on its own (and thus discredit itself with Palestinians).
This is their best chance to get it right.
Some form of respectful dialogue (even when differences are
clearly articulated) is probably the best hope of moderating a group more accustomed to
being in the opposition and taking radical positions.
It depends on how well they govern and what they show their
intentions to be.
This will persuade the peoples of the Middle East that we are
sincere in promoting democracy, and that we respect the people's choices, although we may
disagree with them. Imposing sanctions or
shunning the democratically elected government will not be in the national interest of the
This was an open, freely contested election. Bush admin needs to
look at why Palestinians voted for Hamas and what needs of Pal state are (end occupation,
dismantle settlements, contiguous territory, etc). Hamas can negotiate that as well as PLO
They are the elected officials of the Palestinian people, not
some fake government imposed by US invasion. Far more legitimate than Afghan or Iraqi
The Bush administration would run the risk of legitimizing Hamas
by engaging, especially when it did not engage with the pre-Hamas government.
Nixon opened China and Sharon left Gaza. Maybe intelligent,
pragmatic Hamas leaders will drop their aim to destroy Israel.
It is obvious what Gaza and West Bank Palestinians want, but few
Americans would support Hamas's stated aims. However, some form of quiet contact should
You have to talk, if you want to make peace. There's no way around it.
No aid unless they renounce violence against Israel.
I was not surprised that Hamas won. The Palestinians are desperate and voted for Hamas,
an organization devoted to their welfare. Most
of Hamas member are NOT terrorist, but rather Palestinians looking for a way forward. By sticking our head in the hole, we gain nothing. Our policies are hypocritical. We support "chosen governments" whether
or not they are democratic. Should the Bus
administration cut back money to the Palestinians, they should also CUT BACK Israeli
"support" which is way out of line.
We cannot go from Terrorist list to best friends, but we have to
This should be the objective but, in close coordination with the
other members of the Quartet, we need to impress upon Hamas the importance of renouncing
armed struggle and recognizing Israel if they want a two-state solution. If they don't there will still be a lot of
humanitarian work to accomplish through the elected representatives of the Palestinian
this could be justified despite the anti-Hamas rhetoric on the
grounds of accepting results of democratic elections.
The electoral victory of Hamas provides the Bush administration
with an opportunity to show that they are serious about the idea of embracing democracy in
the Middle East. If the Bush administration
just continues with the support and engagement that it had when Fatah was the ruling party
it would send an extremely positive message. Note
that Israeli public opinion polls show the majority of the Israeli population is in favor
of dialoguing with Hamas.
But they aren't going to be smart enough to do this. They have consistently demonstrated their complete
lack of understanding of the Middle East; why would they start now to be smart?
This was democracy
They are a duly elected government and should be recognized as
such and accorded all the respect of any democratically elected government.
They are the democratically elected representatives of the
They have democratic legitimacy for better or worse so they
can't be avoided
If the US were to be serious about a fair solution to the
problem, some level of contact is necessary. Hamas has been popularly elected.
Radicalization is a function of lack of engagement and
consequently lack of hope, and vice versa.
At a time with Bush has more than suggested that Democracy is
the answer for ALL nations, to ignore a government elected through a democratic process is
completely hypocritical. I do not agree with most of Hamas' plans, but the U.S. has lost
so much respect and become the bully of the Middle East. This is an opportunity for the
Bush Administration to put their diplomatic relations where their mouth is. It took Nixon
to open relations with China, Regan to end the Cold War, so perhaps Hamas (a group not
seen as weak by Palestinians and other Islamic groups) to make peace with Israel.
Question #3 How influential are each of the
following factors on Bush administration policies toward Palestinians?
"Democratization" of the Middle East.
b. US regional military logistics and control
c. Israeli regional ambitions.
"Global War on Terrorism"
The "Road map" & creating Palestinian state
political considerations. The religious conservative base has been given a bone on Alito
and may not mind some wavering on the unconditional support of Israel, but Bush is
unlikely to completely ignore this interest base.
U. S. Street
opinion about Israel/Palestine. The Bush
administration (except for the neo cons who have lost face rapidly lately, is mostly on
board with thwarting Israeli regional ambitions, backing them out of the occupied
territories to the extent that the American public allows and stabilizing Palestine. Thus
having the voters with the US gov. on this plan is very important.
'democratization' is merely rhetoric designed to allow the Bush govt. to appear they are
trying to 'civilize' the primitive world. Rather, it is a combo. of the
Israeli-military-industrial complex that are the primary movers of any Bush policy. Let's
This is a poorly
designed question designed to solicit a biased answer.
administration has an extremely naive understanding of democratization in this context.
They have shown themselves to be uninterested in reading history, even the recent history
of Algeria. Just about everything they have done so far has made things worse. The irony
is that back in 2000-2001, when I was living in Morocco, many Moroccan intellectuals hoped
that Bush would follow his father's lead in taking a tougher stand with the Israelis.
It seems that
the Administration's policy toward the Middle East in general, and the Palestinian problem
in particular is not driven by a sincere desire to find solutions, but as a tactical
approach toward a program the Administration has for US economic and military programs in
the Middle East. This policy is one of the
root causes of conflict, terrorism and low esteem for the United States throughout the
Middle East, as well as the Islamic World. US
one-sided support for Israel, right or wrong, is not likely to help us attain stability
and peace in that troubled region. We must
follow a more even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We also need to rely more on diplomacy and
negotiations rather than wars and military approach. We
can attain more by peaceful methods than we can by military actions. This applies to Iran, Iraq and other conflicts.
Keep regimes in
power that accord with US interests as defined by Bush administration and corporations
with interest in the region.
ambitions trump everything--this makes us even more of a target for al-Qaeda and its
Much show for
public, but what Washington cares about is gaining and wielding power
unconvinced that Bush was ever very interested in furthering peace in the region or in
Bush's (and his
cronies') total ignorance of the Middle East and the way it works.
The Neo-Cons so
influential particularly in the Dep't of Defense in league with the pro-Israeli lobby and
its congressional colleagues.
administration does not speak with one voice, it is hard to rate these various
contradictory pressures. Maybe the need for EU
support with respect to Iran and Iraq will pressure US policy makers to being more
responsive to EU and Quartet concerns about following the Road Map...
domestic politics, especially with the coming Congressional elections.
The Road Map is
dead because Sharon never accepted it and Bush et. al. let him - so a double standard
applied. Plus Sharon never engaged Mahmud Abbas, again with Bush tolerance. If true re
Abbas, doubly true w/ Hamas in office.
If the Bush
administration boycotts Hamas in what was an extremely fair and reliable election, then it
shows that they are not really interested in democratization and it is only used as a
guise for other aims.
control of the sea lanes and the oil spigot for the US and its allies, e.g., Japan, South
Korea, etc.; and ensuring water for the Israelis.
It is clear that
the Bush Administration uses the term "Democratization" loosely, as once a group
is elected through a democratic process he can easily dismiss them.
Question #4. How influential should each of the
following factors be on Bush administration policies toward Palestinians?
"Democratization" of the Middle East.
b. US regional military logistics and control
c. Israeli regional ambitions.
d. "Global War on Terrorism"
e. The "Road map" & creating
US needs to focus on concrete
achievements that give hope to Middle Easterners, a peace settlement and troop reductions
Domestic politics. Bush should ignore
the pro-Israel Christian right when it comes to this issue.
The U.S. should be very concerned
about damping down Israeli regional ambitions and working to enable a viable Palestinian
State. This would be one of the central means,
in addition to removing a military presence that looks "permanent" that would
1. The aspirations of the Palestinian
people to a normal existence of their choosing, w/no WALL, or interference by Israel or
the U. S.
I don't see any of the above factors
as being positive. What would it take for the US to join in a broadly multilateral
approach to the issues?
We need to recognize that democracy
has to come from within that region. We can
encourage it by example, but not by the stick. We
need to be sincere about it, and respect its effects, whether we like them or not. Otherwise our credibility is destroyed. We should attempt to understand the root causes of
anger in the Middle East, most of which is related to our lack of sensitivity to the
problems of the Middle East: hunger, disease, poverty, lack of education and wealth
concentrated in the hands of ruthless dictators we support and deal with.
Just and equitable solution to
Helping create principled and just
regimes in the ME with full recognition of the rights of all people in the area.
The Road Map has long been a dead
project, given Sharon's 14 objections. A real
peace negotiation process is desperately needed, but the US is not an honest [or neutral]
Positive reinforcement (investment,
etc) for strides in this regard and in democratic policies set up by the Palestinians
themselves. Reward their own development and the making of their government transparent
and less corrupt for instance.
Seriously acknowledging the degree to
which American Middle Eastern policy, particularly its unqualified support of Israel, has
led to the "terrorism" so loudly condemned.
When I argue "Global WOT"
should be extremely influential, I mean we are struggling for Muslim minds and can regain
some support if we push strongly for a Palestinian Israeli peace process that could come
at the expense of some Israeli regional ambitions.
Creating a truly viable Palest state would require pressure on Israel, highly unlikely.
but allowing things to drift hurts our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere.
Bringing Israel to the table to
become a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty; thereby rendering moot the real reason
for Iran seeking nuclear weapons.
Recognition that past policy toward
Palestinians has been misguided and future policy should make it clear that the US
supports the return to Palestinian control over all of Gaza, the West Bank, and East
Jerusalem and the right of the Palestinians to live at peace in these areas.
Domestic political considerations
-our own national interests should be paramount
A friendly and democratic Arab World
is impossible without resolving the Palestinian issue and creating a viable Palestinian
state, and the latter is impossible without highly engaged, vigorous and public US foreign
policy to that effect.
Palestinians who were displaced in
1948 and 1967 and had everything confiscated from them and their descendents should be
granted the same right of return by Israel that Israel grants to Jewish people
Question #5 What is the probability that the
following will occur within the next three years?
a. Renewed "Intifada" against Israel
Israeli annexation of E. Jerusalem & West Bank.
Return to "Road Map" and peace negotiation.
Effective Hamas leadership of Palestinians.
e. Other (rank, then comment below):
Israel will use the pretext of a
'terrorist' Hamas leadership to do more land grabs.
Israel is *very* likely to annex E.
Jerusalem but very *unlikely* to annex the West Bank in total, though they will
undoubtedly take parts of it where there are major Israeli settllements.
Declaration of a Palestinian state
Probably we will limp along as we are
unless the U.S. gets the gumption to be firmer with Israel.
The intifada against continued occupation never really stops, the attempt by
Israel gradually to take more and more of E. Jerusalem and the W.B. never stops as more
fancy homes for Jewish Israelis are built and more Palestinian homes bulldozed. Hamas wants to lead with Fatah now. If Fatah wises up to their mistakes and helps
Hamas, progress could be made.
The Hamas could only be effective
w/out interference from: the U.S., Israel, special interests, OR using Fatah as puppets to
ruin Palestinian society even further.
Notwithstanding international media
accounts, Palestinians may well have thought that a harder line government might give them
better leverage in forcing Israel to stop its policy of targeted assassinations, economic
strangulation, etc.. If the US gets Israel to stop these things, perhaps there is some
hope for an end to the violence. Otherwise, the Intifada will continue. The big worry is
whether Hamas will prove effective in leading Palestinians through ruthless intimidation
of enemies and suppression of dissent.
The chances are, unless we revise our
policies in the Middle East, there will be more bloodshed, and destructive conflicts. We can contain all this be devising a policy of
economic assistance, and fair dealing with all concerned, without relying on domestic
pressures to support Israel blindly. We should
also extricate ourselves from Iraq and avoid a military confrontation with Iran. We should demand of Israel to dismantle its nuclear
arsenal, and at the same time use this as a reason why the Middle East should be free of
weapons of mass destruction. We should find
and honest solution to the Palestinian Israeli conflict consistent with our tradition of
fair play and integrity.
I think Palestinians are tired and
just want to make their daily life work as free as possible from Israeli intrusion and
occupation. Israel cannot annex the west bank because of the demographic problem. if
Israel does annex these, then you have an overt apartheid regime. while this might be bad
in the short term for Palestinians, in the long term it will give them the moral high
ground and expose Israeli injustice. witness how many times people have repeated the
phrase "Israel's right to exist" in the past few days. Israel NEEDS the high
ground in order not to have the injustices exposed. I think Hamas would be internally
effective if the international community would not meddle, cutting off its funding (90%).
Hamas has to show its competence to
lead the Palestinians and cut a better deal than Arafat did with Israel & the US
b. is an inaccurate choice. Israel has already annexed East Jerusalem in 1967.
Israel is not very likely to annex all of the West Bank in the near future, but its goal
is more land, less Palestinian people, so it will continuing annexing parts of the OPT,
much as it is now doing via the Wall. FYI, I
live and work in a US NGO's peace building program in Jerusalem.
Continuation of Israeli policy of
unilateral separation and effective border-drawing.
Continued Bush ignorance and
mis-steps in the Middle East.
Israel's annexation of East
Jerusalem, expansion of its colonies in the West Bank, and its unilateral determination of
Unilateral Israeli withdrawal from
certain areas in the West Bank.
Negotiations should begin but abandon
the Road Map first as it is long dead and was never implemented fairly. Arrangements
Wolfensohn [sp] worked out re Gaza were not implemented because Israel balked after the
fact. U.S. has no assurance its policies will be implemented by its major ally.
Bringing Israel to the table to
become a signatory the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Consequence: Iran will have nuclear weapons capability within
five (5) years.
Hamas is likely to at least clean up
the PA. So it will be effective there. If "negotiations" are resumed without the
US setting clear agenda and goals (rather than simply accepting Israel's agenda as its
own), they will be acrimonious and short-lived at worst, cosmetic and ineffective at best.
Question #6 How well is the US foreign policy
formulation process toward the Palestinians working?
Question #7 If you could give the Bush
administration three recommendations for medium term policy toward Hamas, what
would they be?
Expose the contradictions between the
different goals of the group (eliminating Israeli while creating a prosperous Palestinian
society). let them fail, expose their weakness and let them face the realities of holding
power. don't be tempted to buy into the EU conciliation attempts, remember that a
religious ideology like that of Hamas doesn't lend itself to any real accommodation.
Palestinian Islamists are not Turkish Islamists
-Talk to their leadership -Don't
assume the worst, work toward moderation of the leadership -Continue economic aid to
Palestine at all costs
1. Recognize Hamas as legitimately
elected representatives of the Palestinians. 2. Strongly
encourage Israeli gov't to do the same. 3. Take
powerful steps to demonstrate to the Hamas government that the US is fully committed to a
Palestinian state embracing both Gaza and the majority of the West Bank.
1. Treat Hamas as the legitimate
representatives of the Palestinians: they won a free and fair election 2. Don't put US
pressure Hamas -- let Israel and Hamas figure things out on their own first. Expect that
the next two or three months are going to be a little rocky. 3. Don't precipitously cut
all aid to the Palestinian Authority -- at that point, Hamas will truly have nothing to
1. Quickly find compromise language
that Hamas and the US can accept concerning Hamas accepting Israel's right to exist. 2.
Find was to prevent humanitarian disaster if US and EU funding appears to be threatened.
3. Pressure Israel to continue to release custom's duties and other taxes due the
(1) Full recognition of Hamas since
they are the democratically preferred choice of the Palestinian people reflecting
Palestinian mentality. (2) Pressure Israel to withdraw back to the UN-accepted 1967
"Green Line," including the Golan Heights, especially since Syria has publicly
stated that they will declare peace with Israel pending the full return of occupied Syrian
Engage Hamas-led government Negotiate
with them Seek international consensus on US policy
As quickly as possible get up to speed on how Hamas is perceived in the
region e.g. in Syria where they are seen as an aid organization as opposed to Hezbollah,
which is seen as terrorist. Reconsider the
knee jerk rhetoric. 2. Declare that East
Jerusalem must be Palestinian 3. STOP Israel
from building and bulldozing in the West Bank in order to give the reasonable Palestinians
Stop being a proxy for Israel. How
long can the tail wag the dog> 2. Pay
serious attention to Palestinian aspirations. 3. Develop
a foreign policy that recognizes that there are other peoples/states in the Middle East
1. To remember that they have
received the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian vote 2. To remember that most of
those who voted for them want some way out of their situation rather than actively seek
the creation of an Islamic state. 3. That the policy of relying on highly corrupt members
of Fatah in the past (Dahlan in Gaza for instance) should be dropped. It's difficult not
to regard Fatah as a spent force in Palestinian politics, especially if Hamas succeeds in
governing at least tolerably well.
open talks with Hamas, that will
moderate the movement direct help and support more towards the public rather than
autocratic regimes enforce an Israeli-Palestinian solution that would be consistent with
the achievement of the minimal claims of both sides
1) Recognize the government (not
formally Hamas) and create opportunities for moderates within Hamas to achieve
"successes" that will significantly discredit the radicals. 2) Insist Hamas
abandon use of political violence toward Israel, but don't pressure the group to fully
accept Israel at this point--it only creates a situation where the U.S. and Israel are
again perceived as not serious about cooperation with Palestinians. 3) Act consistently to
support democratization and human rights, which will include more vocal criticism of
Israeli policies toward Palestinians.
1. Recognize them and treat them
civilly and diplomatically. 2. Spend $$$ to
redevelop their society-that WILL create a civil society.
3. Engage Israel to see that it is in their best interests to see a stable
Palestine-tie $$$ to both sides dependent on building bridges together-e.g. dual NGO's;
Palest. and Israel. NGO's at ea. others' countries. Neutralize radicals with social
Insist on revoking the covenant give
up on destroying Israel disarm
The best recommendation is to seek
out people with real, concrete knowledge of the area and of Hamas. Not neo-conservatives,
not ideologues. You may not like what you hear. Personally,
I do not think the US is in a position to be an honest broker; the internal political
stakes are too high. Better that another country, Spain or Sweden or Norway, perhaps,
1. Try to get PA President Mahmud
Abbas to call a referendum, with approval of Hamas, on whether Palestinians accept 2-state
division of former Palestine mandate. 2. Offer economic aid to Hamas gov't if it agrees to
2-state future. 3. If above achieved, press Israel to agree.
Treat the newly elected members of
the Palestinian parliament as newly elected parliamentarians Hamas members have the
majority of seats, but that does not mean that the parliament is the same entity as HAMAS.
Remember that before the declaration of the State of Israel many of those who later held
positions in Israel's government had used violence in the pursuit of their goals - how can
they now refuse to deal with those who act now as did the founders of Israel? Remember
that many of Hamas' leaders have recently been violently assassinated by Israel - recent
violence has gone both ways.
Congratulate the Palestinians for
their democratic process. Announce that the US
will respect their choice and will work with the new government they selected. Work with Hamas through diplomacy and negotiations
and show impartiality by insisting that Israel must withdraw from all the occupied
territories and dismantle all the settlements including East Jerusalem. Work with Hamas to establish a democratic
Palestinian state that will live in peace with an Israel that will not violate the rights
of its neighbors.
1. Accept that Pal people freely
chose their leadership and urge Israel to negotiate. 2. Recognize that Pal people voted
for Hamas for its extensive and successful service programs and its stand against
corruption. 3. Reward and encourage Hamas' stand against corruption (which US and others
criticized PA and Arafat for) and potential moderation with movement toward full
Palestinian political self-determination.
1. Do not deal with Hamas as a
political party but rather with elected Palestinian officials whether they are Hamas or
not, in their capacity as elected Palestinian officials. 2. Expect them to respond on the
basis of the interests of their constituency. 3. Offer the following compromise: abandon
the call for armed conflict with Israel and we shall support the Palestinian right of
return in principle, with the understanding that we shall cooperate with an Israeli
attempt to compensate as many refugees s are willing to voluntarily accept compensation in
lieu of return.
Recognize it and as part of a
coalition regime and push for a 2-state solution based on Israeli withdrawal from all
occupied lands and E. Jerusalem
1. Recognize and work with them 2.
Stop doing what Israel wants 3. Promote real democratization
1. It is in our own long-term
security interests to have Hamas succeed because they will have to deal with corruption
and will not have the excuse that they were shut out by foreign imperialist powers. 2. You
will make a grave mistake if you cut off funding; this will be perceived as punishing the
Palestinian people. Hamas is perceived by the larger Arab world, not as a terrorist but a
liberation group in a colonial war. (Hamas= al-Qaeda-like) terrorist is Israel's line in
trying to identify a common interest between us in the war on terror.) 3. Negotiate and
broker deals behind the scenes if you must maintain the appearance of "not dealing
with terrorists" but DO NOT cut them off. they now have legitimacy. You will ruin
whatever credibility you have gained in promoting democracy.
1. Wait and watch until Israeli
elections. 2. Initiate a proxy dialogue with Hamas. 3. Keep an open mind.
Encourage democratic transition and
transparent governance Keep pressure on to recognize Israel with no other additional
requirements at first, aid money contingent upon such recognition Keep pressure on Israeli
administration to allow time for Hamas to evolve politically and for Fatah or other
parties to regroup or emerge
1. Diplomatic and economic engagement
2. Demand full disarmament 3. Work with moderate leaders to secure moderate leadership of
1. Recognize legitimacy of Hamas
election 2. Continue aid to Palestinians, via government 3. Engage the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict immediately so that the US can gain some capital in the region.
Talk, explain US policies, and push
the Road map
Watch closely, say as little as
possible, and work for reconciliation despite the Hamas Charter and bellicose remarks by
Israel and its supporters
1. Constructive engagement through
low level negotiations, 2. Increase aid to
Palestinian Authority and NGOs, 3. Pressure
Hamas to distance itself from Syria and Iran.
Recognize, support economically, and
(1) Stay out of Palestinian
politics--you just made it worse via the $2 m you gave Fatah for electioneering; (2)
become even handed: the MAJOR injustice is the Israel Occupation, as is the vast majority
of the violence. For example, 4 times as many
Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than vice versa in the last five years. (3) Stop
funding the Israeli Occupation, the Wall, settlements, military expenditures, as these are
all in opposition to peace progress.
1. No aid to Hamas-led Palestinian
Authority unless violence is eschewed. 2. Don't be so anxious to push democracy elsewhere
in the Arab world. 3. be willing to talk to them, but not give them money unless they
REALLY LISTEN and acknowledge as extremely influential Middle Eastern
experts - both academic and otherwise. 2. Recognize Palestinians and their right to their own
Don't use "the war on terror" as an excuse to disregard,
disrespect, and devalue Palestinian rights.
Keep the door open. Go slow. Reward
any positive steps by Hamas.
Recognize that the process that has
empowered them was democratic and a step in the right direction though we do not
necessarily embrace all that HAMAS stands for. 2. SPEAK to them and really find out what
will satisfy them. Negotiate new or improved platform language and actively help the
Palestinian Authority gain greater legitimacy while there is still time. 3. Don't just
pontificate, but actually work actively for a Palestinian State, first step being helping
out in Gaza, which Israel left as a sewer pit.
1) Deal with Hamas. 2) Oblige Israel
to adhere to the Road Map. 3) Moderate the Zionist influence on US Middle Eastern policy
that has already had dire consequences for the American national interest.
Work closely with the other members
of the Quartet, especially EU, to convince Hamas of the viability of a two-state and hence
for Hamas to alter its positions on Israel and armed struggle. Stay flexibly engaged,
working together to make life less unbearable for the Palestinians even without a
meaningful peace process Impress upon Israel the need for positive engagement with Hamas
(after all, they invented them to offset the PLO and Fatah in 1986-87!)and the perils of
unilateral solutions to their demographic problem.
1) Use track-two diplomacy. 2) Use
third parties. 3) Work to lessen the influence of Iran and Syria over Hamas.
Only 1. Engage Hamas regardless. But
this is unrealistic given upcoming Israeli and then US elections The US is captive to its
own and Israel's domestic politics; despite the fact it seriously harms its foreign policy
See the victory of Hamas as an opportunity to enter into dialogue and to
seriously return to the road map and peace negotiations.
Remember that Begin and Sharon were both considered
"terrorists" by many, yet maybe because of that brave steps were made toward
peace. Boycotting Hamas is a lose-lose
Welcoming them to community of nation
leaders; Entering talks immediately around the issue of recognition of Israel's right to
exist and the Palestinians to have a state; enlist them in the global fight against the
real, root causes of terrorism.
Diplomacy, using intermediaries such
as Sweden or Norway, Being evenhanded
Recognize the legitimacy of the Hamas
government. Increase foreign aid to the Hamas
government to a level equal to US aid to Israel. Treat the Hamas government as an equal
basis as the treatment of the Israeli government.
1. Recognize that the national
leaders of many states, including Israel, committed terrorist acts before - and after -
their states were established; 2. A balanced policy toward the Arabs and Israel is in the
interest of the US; and 3. Talk informally with Hamas - and Israeli - leaders to gain an
understanding with and concessions from them. Be an unbiased partner in the peace process.
Be proactive on both sides of the equation.
1. Salvage whatever credibility you
have by giving HAMAS a chance to prove themselves. 2. get the Israelis to understand
(which of course requires that you realize this yourself) that power projection and
military rule is not going to achieve a LASTING peace. 3. Facilitate exchange of all sorts
on individual and institutional level with the Palestinian society. Give the younger
generation the hope of being able to influence and build their own future without tying
them to the ritualistic mantras you usually dish out in order to score points with LIKUD.
Try seriously to address the
Palestinians' cause in a fair way. Adopt a less direct form of intervention in the area.
Look to existing Arab proposals for a solution - King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia.
1. Engage, while demanding change in
position. 2. Give hope. State that US wants
two states, and does not support occupation, including the settlements. 3. Lay out a
US-led plan for peace and two states. This should be clear and concise, do not leave it up
Patience show less favoritism to
Israel, appear more even handed, do not withdraw foreign aid ($)
The Palestinians refugees should be
granted their legal right of return.
1. Acknowledge that the
"people" have chosen Hamas out of frustration resulting from corruption and lack
of action by the Fatah party. 2. Ask Hamas
what it would take for them to take the "Removal of the Israeli people" out of
their Charter. 3. Suggest that Jerusalem
should become an international City of Peace, belonging to no nation, and open to all.
1) Take a hard line publicly,
until/unless Hamas softens its stance toward Israel, but try to keep covert lines of
communication open. 2) Try to work with European and other allies toward a common policy.
3) DON'T cut off economic aid to Palestine except as an absolute last resort.
Measure is the acronym of Middle East
Academic Survey Research and Exposition. MEASURE
is a grant funded research tool that advises policy makers and the American public on
highly relevant topics. MEASURE surveys
are fielded by the Washington DC based Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy,
(IRmep) a non-profit, non-partisan, non- ideological public policy institute.
academics via a series of multiple choice and open questions to compile and aggregate of
informed opinion on timely policy issues.
62 MEASURE survey
candidates were drawn from a pool of 2,300 academics with advanced degrees in Middle East
area studies. Not all MEASURE candidates teach
or write about contemporary Middle East issues, but are
generally more informed and involved in regional issues than their counterparts in
academia, and reside within Middle East university
departments. The terminal degree profile of
this pool reveals a majority at the PhD and Master level.
results are presented in aggregate form only. Individual
responses are anonymous. MEASURE survey
results are presented to the public in a timely fashion and also made available to policy
makers and the press. MEASURE
avoids uninvited or multiple survey responses by soliciting response by invitees only and
discarding repeat responses.
v House of
v Foreign Diplomatic
v State Department
v Department of
v Congress Watch