pyrephox: (Default)
Pyrephox ([personal profile] pyrephox) wrote2008-04-16 03:01 pm

My political boggle for today...

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she found it "hard to understand what is going to be gained by having discussions with Hamas about peace when Hamas is in fact the impediment to peace."

Um. Y'know. Well. Just /possibly/, that whole 'talking' thing, it might, y'know, have an effect on them being an impediment to peace. I mean, hey, crazy idea when you've got nukes, I know, but give it a shot.

[identity profile] pyrephox.livejournal.com 2008-04-16 07:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh, no, Hamas are not good guys, by any means.

But, what I dislike is the sense in that quote that there's not point in even /talking/ to the people who are in your way, even in an utterly unofficial capacity, because it sets up very nasty dynamics, y'know?

[identity profile] cpip.livejournal.com 2008-04-16 07:30 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, I doubt State's going to say "Oh, yes, we're talking to Hamas but pretending we're not," if you're going to suggest back-channel communications...

[identity profile] pyrephox.livejournal.com 2008-04-16 07:33 pm (UTC)(link)
I think they're idiots if they're not doing back-channel communications...but then, based on this administration and anything having to with diplomacy, I think 'idiot' is the way to bet.

But, even if they were and just wanted deniability, there are far better ways to do that than say, "Those people aren't worth talking to," y'know? They invented 'no comment', or even a sniffy 'As an American citizen, Mr. Carter is free to talk to whoever he wishes within the bounds of the law, but we're not opening any negotiations at this time'.