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.
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.