Peace in the Middle East

There’s nothing like tackling God, religion and everything else. While, talking about peace in the Middle East is not as broad as the aforementioned topics, it is certainly very broad and very complicated. An article on Haaretz today talks about this issue, but in a way that many Americans will probably shudder at.

‘Obama Peace Push Will Fail Without Talking to Hamas’:

An exiled Hamas leader urged Barack Obama on Monday to talk directly with the militant group, saying it is the representative of the Palestinian people and the American president’s drive for Mideast peace is impossible without them.

This raises some interesting questions. Should America change it’s policy and begin talking with leaders of Hamas or should America continue to try to push Hamas out completely. In recent days, I have heard numerous people talking about the benefits to involving groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah in the peace talks, because that is the only way that concessions will be made and peace will ensue.

What do you think? Should the peace talks only concentrate on the political groups that America favors or should all of the groups be involved, even if they aren’t the favored children of America? It seems to me that involving as many groups as possible is a positive thing. Especially since there are examples of these sorts of talks working and formerly rebellious groups being included in the governmental systems that follow.

So, I’m curious how you would propose to bring about peace in the Middle East.

You can also follow Haaretz on Twitter: @haaretzonline.


2 thoughts on “Peace in the Middle East

  1. It’s certainly an interesting situation. Because seriously, what’s the point in sitting down with people that you already mostly agree with? Hamas seems to be the biggest threat, it seems they should be the ones that we sit down with. On the other hand, they refuse to play by the rules, they don’t recognize Israel, nor do they recognize previous agreements. Why should we work with them when they won’t work with us. I think they need to make a gesture of good faith before talk are even considered

    1. Great thoughts. But what about us making “a gesture of good faith” first? Is that turning our hand too soon? I definitely think both sides need to “play by the rules” as you put it, but also think that the US seems to think everyone else needs to make positive steps first. We never want to be the “bigger person” as my mom always put it. I obviously don’t have the answers; just trying thinking through an extremely complicated situation.

      BTW, fantastic point about “what’s the point in sitting down with people that you already mostly agree with?”

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s