Rather than debate whether it's time to negotiate with Hamas, the real question is "negotiate over what?" Until that answer becomes clear, the idea of negotiating just for the sake of negotiating would be a waste of time, and would probably only lead to an escalation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

There is a spectre haunting diplomatic groupthink today in the United States, particularly among critics of the Bush administration. It holds that where there is a problem, there must be American and international "engagement." A problem with Iran? Engage Iran. With Syria? Engage Syria. Blockage in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations? Well, let's try something different and talk to Hamas.

But almost never does anyone think this through. Talk to Hamas about what? Indeed, what does Hamas care to talk about? No one ever credibly explains that part. Instead, we are presented with this proposition: Hamas may not be sincere in wanting peace with Israel, but until we talk to the movement we won't know.

But that vacuous argument comes with stringent costs. If states engage Hamas today, then they can say goodbye to Fatah and to the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Is that desirable? Negotiating with Hamas will also in many ways mean indirectly negotiating with Iran and Syria, and neither has any interest in encouraging Hamas to give up violence. Does the international community really want to bargain with Iran and Syria to resolve the Palestinian conflict? Do Damascus and Tehran have any aim other than to use Palestinians to advance their own agendas? Is that dependency where everyone wants to push the Palestinians?

Also, what do those engaging Hamas get in exchange for doing so? After all, Hamas would be rewarded by recognition; but what would it be willing to give up?

Continue »