Should the United States negotiate with Islamist groups?

Islamist groups are emerging everywhere and are having an increasingly influential role in the making of politics in the region, both as non-state actors (Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood) and as the official representatives of certain states, whether they were democratically elected (Hamas in the Occupied Palestinian Territories), or have imposed themselves on the scene by sheer force (the Sharia militias in Somalia). This state of affairs is creating a reality that the US cannot afford to ignore.

But, how should the US deal with it? Should it continue to ignore these movements and hope that they would go away somehow? Should it try to expedite their destruction by supporting their enemies, or attacking them directly? Or, is their room for some kind of a dialogue here, no matter how unlikely it might at first appear? Let’s not forget here that the US has indeed engaged in some dialogue with Islamist figures and movements in Iraq.

This is your chance to have your say on this important matter. Remember, the only condition here is to maintain a civil dialogue and refrain from making any kind of slurs.

Comments

[Anonymous]

While such negotiations are as unlikely as Islamist groups endorsing civil rights and values, in theory, negotiations on the basis of such commitments sound pretty reasonable. But the doctrine of “trust but verify” needs to be born in mind throughout any such negotiations.

[Yaman]

I do not believe that any of these groups (except al-Qaeda, which I count to be in a different category) is inherently violent, but that they resort to a violent route after being deprived of a viable political avenue. For example, Hamas began to shed (though this process is not complete yet) its violent wing and move towards the political arena after its ascension to the Palestinian parliament. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood has allied itself with secular ex-Baathists of Khaddam's party to oust Bashar al Assad. Groups like these, I think, are only further marginalized and encouraged to resort to violent means when they are totally rejected any political solutions. These issues must be considered before the US categorically refuses to negotiate or make contacts with any of them. Moderate threads must be facilitated by the US so that they can become domestically empowered. On the other hand, the Islamists that took over Somalia do not seem like a political force at all. They have power, yet have recently been on the rampage murdering civilians who watch television in public, for example. I can't rationalize this at this moment, and I do not know enough about the Somali climate to determine what the US should do, but I seriously do not think this group is comparable to Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood. Hizballah, on the other hand, presents a more difficult obstacle than Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. Its willingness--perhaps even desire--to disrupt political avenues is indicative of its truly Islamist nature. Whereas Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are an embodiment of Islam against oppression, Hizballah has messianic urges inspired and supported by Iran. Though it is an authentically Lebanese movement, it is not a nationalist one, and thus should not be given the benefit of the doubt--however, Israel's current position towards them is counterproductive and will devastate the national post-Syrian government.

[Alex]

The US should not negotiate with them directly, but they should try to address their more reasonable "demands" without empowering the fundamentalists in the process, because when they feel they "won" once, there is no end to their newer demands.

So, do not try to defeat them by force, and do not allow them to declare a clear victory ...

And every case is different.

[jodetoad]

Consider how these groups proliferate. One of the problems in Palestine, for instance, is that even if the major players agree to something, there are smaller players that don't agree. Hamas can't control them all, nor can Fatah. Negotiations have purpose when both sides can be held to an agreement.

Additionally, many acts of these Islamist groups are considered criminal here in the US. Our attitude toward criminals is that you don't negotiate with them, you arrest them. To most of us, there is no sufficient justification for these criminal acts. One negotiates with criminals from a position of weakness, such as in a hostage situation. Once the hostage is released or killed, negotiations are over. At present, Israel is the government who should decide if negotiations are appropriate.

Perhaps because democracy involves compromise, each of us frequently must accept a national stance we disagree with. The rule of law guarantees our safety, and our freedom to seek to change politically the stance we dislike. Giving credibility to forces outside the law distorts the sovereignty of any power that does so.

Rather than negotiate with unlawul groups, efforts should target giving a political voice to the people they spring from. If these organizations menace the US, how much more do they menace the nations in which they reside? The threat to the citizens of the area is much more dire than the threat to the US. Which of these groups is incapable of an action similar to Hezbollah's, which called down destruction?

If anybody should negotiate with them, it is the governments of nations where they live.

Personally, I don't see much point in negotiations with groups that can't compromise. Given their religious agenda, which of the core issues is negotiable? Given that they reject the rule of law, on what basis do we put confidence in their keeping agreements?