Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

The Honest Broker

Robert Malley, a former Clinton official, says Hamas must be engaged

Print Email
Robert Malley at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. (Jamie Rose/Getty Images)

“The healthy thing to do is listen,” Robert Malley told me last week. The former Clinton Administration Middle East policy aide will listen to anyone, even his critics inside the Beltway. A few years ago I sat on a panel with Malley at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, where Malley found himself amid a pro-Bush crowd and isolated, just like the Syrian regime with whom he was then urging Washington should engage. At the end of the session, I leaned over to tell him that I admired his nerve, and he looked at me like he didn’t know what I could possibly mean. With his policy establishment pedigree—undergraduate at Yale; law school at Harvard, alongside future President Barack Obama; a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford; a Supreme Court clerkship with Justice Byron White; and a fellowship at the Council on Foreign Relations—Malley wears his edginess easily. After all, the reason he’s back in the news again is for speaking to Hamas officials.

“I work for a think tank”—the International Crisis Group—“whose mandate is to come up with ideas about how to prevent or resolve deadly conflict,” Malley told me over the phone on his way to catch a plane to Europe, where he was raised. Did he brief the Obama Administration on his talks with Palestine’s Islamic Resistance? “Even the Bush Administration was at times interested in hearing our analysis,” he says of his work with the Washington-based ICG, where he is program director for Middle East and North Africa. “They did their due diligence, as does the Obama Administration. They wanted to hear the conclusions that we reached.”

Malley and the ICG are understandably cautious, if not cagey, in their presentation and wording, but their main conclusion couldn’t be clearer: Hamas is an essential partner if the United States wants to reach an agreement to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. “It’s very simple,” says Malley. “If you are going to have a historic agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis, it’s difficult to do so with a counterpart that can’t speak with one voice.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter how much Washington loves the Palestinian Authority’s reform-minded Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, or how much success Fayyad has in growing the West Bank economy and strengthening his U.S.-trained security forces. Without the Israel Defense Force in the West Bank, Fayyad would be a dead man, and Hamas would take over in a year to 18 months. Then Hamas would be firing rockets not at small, working-class villages in southern Israel, like Sderot, but rather directly into the center of Israel—Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Ben Gurion International Airport. Since a conflict on that scale is also unsustainable, goes Malley’s argument, you need to negotiate with the party that will wage that war: Hamas.

While some have argued that Malley is serving as a back channel to Hamas, enabling the Obama Administration to keep some distance from a project that might well alienate the White House’s Jewish supporters, Malley explains that he forecasts no talks between Washington and Hamas anytime in the near future, nor does he advocate such talks right now. “The U.S. is not going to speak to Hamas tomorrow or any time soon,” says Malley. “The U.S. would say, ‘Meet quartet requirements’ ”—by acknowledging Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence and accepting past agreements—“Hamas would say, ‘No thanks.’ And they’d walk away from each other.”

Malley is portrayed by America’s pro-Israel right wing as a villain, a terrorist groupie-cum-Manchurian candidate who wants to bring Israel to its knees and to sell the United States out to its enemies. In reality he’s a highly credentialed product of America’s mainstream social and political institutions, from the Ivy League to the peace process. It’s true that his consultations with armed Arab militants smack of the European leftist thumbing his nose at the American bourgeoisie. But his air of aristocratic detachment, of being slightly above the fray—both cooler and smarter than other Washington figures like Flynt Leverett and Mark Perry who also make a living by talking to terrorists—have earned him the grudging respect of his Beltway adversaries.

Now, Malley is savvy enough to be thinking two moves ahead in a board game of someone else’s design. If there is going to be a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, then Hamas, the outfit that refuses to accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state, is going to have to be engaged. The alternative is putting aside the peace process, a choice that, as President George W. Bush found out, no U.S. president can afford to make for the sake of his domestic and international standing. Since the United States has no intention of defeating Hamas militarily, and neither Washington nor Europe will allow Israel to do so, the only alternative is to make Hamas a partner to the just, comprehensive, and lasting peace that has eluded Palestinians and Israelis since the founding of the Jewish state.

Of course it was the fact that Malley had been meeting with Hamas members that compelled the Obama campaign to drop him as an unofficial foreign policy adviser in the spring of 2008. “I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” Malley said at the time. What upset him was when the criticism became personal. “I shouldn’t have to say that I’m Jewish, but here I am saying so,” Malley told the New York Times in response to charges that his decision to meet with Israel’s enemies marked him as a foe of the Jewish state.

The opposition to Malley’s courtship of Hamas was accompanied by vicious attacks on his father, Simon Malley, the late journalist and editor of Afrique Asie, a French publication famous for its sympathetic, even activist, perspective on third-world causes. Indeed, Malley has an authentic Non-Aligned Movement lineage. While working in New York as correspondent for one of the official government newspapers of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Malley’s father met Barbara Silverstein, an American working with the U.N. delegation of Algeria’s National Liberation Front, who later became his wife. They raised Robert in France before returning him to the United States, where he attended Yale. In 1998, he was appointed special assistant to President Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs, a position from where he watched the end of the Oslo Process deteriorate into the second intifada.

It was Malley’s series of articles about the end of Oslo in the New York Review of Books that first brought him attention outside of the small, insular circle of mid-level Washington policymakers. Along with his co-author Hussein Agha, he charged that Clinton as well as then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak bore as much responsibility as Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian side for failing to reach a historic agreement at Camp David. He argued that the peace process collapsed because Israelis and Americans failed to build Arafat’s confidence and that the land exchange offers the Americans and Israelis made were not generous enough. While Malley’s account was challenged by Barak in an NYRB interview with the Israeli historian Benny Morris, and by Bill Clinton himself, Malley’s take has become the de facto mainstream explanation of what went wrong.

The importance of Malley’s articles was not that they suggested that both Barak and Clinton were liars, but that they created a viable interpretative framework for continuing to blame both sides for the collapse of the peace process even after the outbreak of the second intifada. If both sides were at fault, then it would be possible to resume negotiations once things calmed down. If, on the other hand, the sticking point was actually about existential issues—the refusal to accept a Jewish state—and the inability, or unwillingness, of the Palestinians to give up the right of Arab refugees to return to their pre-1948 places of residence, then Washington would have been compelled to abandon the peace process after Clinton left office. Malley’s articles were a necessary version of history that allowed policymakers to move forward without forsaking the diplomatic and ideological currency that Washington has invested in the concept of creating an independent Palestinian state through a negotiated peace with Israel.

Obama is not interested in maintaining the status quo but in making history, and that means pushing through a real Palestinian-Israel peace deal. “The challenge for the administration,” as Malley explained in Senate testimony on Middle East peace last month, “is to devise a strategy that strives for our traditional goals but in a radically transformed environment. It will take persistence and flexibility, determination and creativity, a retooled approach toward local parties and the region.”

The realignment that Malley sees as a necessary challenge for U.S. foreign policy in the region means seeing the region as more than a series of confrontations between the United States and its allies and the Iranian axis. Malley believes that Syria is another player that the United States needs to engage. The ICG opened a Damascus office after the Bush Administration isolated Syria following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. “I don’t have a naïve belief that Syria is going to shift its position entirely just to suit Washington,” Malley told me. “But the U.S. could benefit from their gradual reorientation”—especially on the peace process. Part of what makes Syria attractive is its alliance with Hamas. Khaled Meshaal, chief of the Islamic Resistance’s political wing, lives in Damascus, and Syria is Hamas’s staunchest Arab ally, along with Iran providing the organization with arms and money as well as diplomatic and political support.

Of course, Syria doesn’t see things the way the United States does. Washington policymakers believe the peace process strengthens moderates by removing a source of fundamental tension that radicals can use to their advantage, yet the forces of radicalism can derail negotiations through violence anytime they want. This is precisely what makes the peace process so difficult to solve. As Tony Badran, a Syria/Lebanon specialist at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies explains, “For Syria, peace and resistance are simultaneous tools of attrition. Peace talks provide Damascus with impunity as it pursues resistance. In this framework, the peace process is just warfare by other means.”

Yet if it were truly the case that the peace process is warfare, then it would seem strange for Washington to compel its one strategic ally in the Middle East to weaken itself and strengthen its enemies. Even as the Obama Administration has showed its impatience with the Netanyahu government, it nonetheless respects Israel’s security concerns and appreciates the fact that Israel has fought two wars on its borders over the last five years after withdrawing from occupied territories. And this is why Washington has no intention to bring Hamas into the peace process—at least not yet.

The stumbling block is not so much Hamas’s unwillingness to recognize the existence of the Jewish state. After all, the Clinton Administration deftly ignored Arafat’s double-talk, and Hamas leaders have proclaimed their conditional willingness to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, side by side with the Zionist entity. The problem is the large imaginary edifice constructed around the peace process, which grows bigger every year and which is founded on beliefs that are not rooted in the particulars of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Rather, the assumptions of the peace process are found in the grand theology of American diplomacy, which has held for generations that all outstanding issues will be finally resolved with a grand compromise that will establish a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish one with peace, prosperity, and security for both peoples. The peace process promises everything to everyone—an undivided Jerusalem and an Arab capital in Jerusalem—not because the project is feasible, but because it is proof of our good intentions toward Israel and the Arabs, the American Jewish community and the Muslim world. Even more difficult than a successful resolution to such a peace process is the admission of a mistake: that perhaps the solution might lie elsewhere, or that there is no solution at all.

To the disillusioned, the problem with the Middle East peace process is not Hamas but the premise of the peace process itself. That’s not Robert Malley’s fault. He didn’t invent the peace process; he’s just honest enough to state what everyone else chooses to wish away.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

I think that Mr Malley’s basic premise is wrong. Israel, by making peace with Egypt and sacrificing land and with Jordan and sacrificing water has shown that it is willing to make peace with it’s neighbors who negotiate in good faith. Nothing that the Palestinians have done have shown that they are interested in a state of their own. What they are interested in is the Jews not having a state. Malley and others think that because if they were in the Palestinian leadership they would want a state, then that is what the Palestinians want also. Nothing has shown that this is so. As far as Hamas goes, Israel made a big mistake during cast lead by no dragging the Hamas leadership out from under the hospital they were hiding in and arresting them.

Jon Ihle says:

“The healthy thing to do is listen”

Did this guy go to the Oprah Winfrey school of diplomacy? International relations is not group therapy. The goal is not to make the key actors in the Middle East feel better about themselves or each other, or to achieve self-actualisation. For goodness sake, that statement is so embedded in centuries of Western self-regard that it is totally meaningless for the people to whom it is supposed to apply. What exactly is healthy about listening to bigots’ point of view?

Well, a international leftist in the blood evidently. It’s that movement and its founding premise that the world’s problems originate with former colonial powers that seems above all to inform Malley’s views.

It is fundamentally and essentially hostile to the United States, of course.

MRKS says:

I wholeheartedly agree with Max. Palestenian leadership (Hamas) has not shown themselves to be interested in peace- just in making Israel disappear. This is an unacceptable position and until they prove that this is not their goal, all the listening in the world will not help.

tillkan says:

I wholeheartedly disagree with Max. Israeli leadership (Likud, Labor, Kadima, whoever) has not shown themselves to be interested in peace- just in making Palestinians disappear. Plus they succeed more and more in this goal everyday and the US just looks the other way.

To Tillkan: It might help if you did a little history reading about the middle east. The so-called Palestinians have been offered peace and land since the 1937 Peel Commission. Every single offer made to them has not only been rejected, but regarding Barak’s offer nearly everyone who played any role in the Camp David-Taba peace process now places the entire blame for its failure on Arafat’s decision to turn down Barak’s offer. Even Arafat’s own trusted advisers regretted his decision. The fact is, Arafat lied to Clinton and to Bush and even to Prince Bandar who he promised that he would sign the agreement. To regain his lost credibility within the Arab world for refusing the offer Barak made, Arafat made a plan: Start murdering Jews at prayer, Israeli teenagers at pizza parlors and discos, pregnant women in shopping malls, etc. He counted on Israel to “overreact” and to turn foreign countries against Israel for their defensive response to the intifada. Israel responded by destroying the houses of the terrorists who committed the murders of innocent civilians. World opinion shifted as Arafat hoped it would, to look at the Palestinians as innocent victims once again.

I found “Honest Broker” extremely disturbing to read. It is more evidence that at the highest levels of government, there is more support for talking with Gaza terrorists, than for talking with and trying to understand Israel’s position.

I am astounded at the suggestion that talking with those whose primary goal is the destruction of Israel would be seen as productive of anything. I suppose Malley is one of those who thinks we should have negotiated with Hitler and thereby avoided having to fight in World War II. I cannot fathom the historical, diplomatic, or political basis for thinking Israel should negotiate with those sworn to destroy her. What is this man smoking? And what is Obama smoking if he listens to him?

will edwards says:

I am beginning to think Tablet is one of those 2 state solution propaganda rags. I am sorry if I sound a little harsh, but seriously… there is no merit, in my opinion, of backing anything or anyone which isn’t very decidedly for a united and Jewish Israel. Hamas, the PLO, and Hezbollah are not organizations to compromise with. They are radical, murderous, lying zealots of Islam. They are the phony philistines… Arabs that assumed the name palestinian for their own wicked political gain. They are the wicked ravenous faces of evil that send rockets, suicide bombers, and armed mad men into Israel to murder our children and cause havoc. In my opinion they should be utterly destroyed, not in the horrible way of the Nazis, but in an honorable war to protect the citizens of Israel from the constant barrage of terror these disgusting creatures rain down upon them. It is an insult to treat these people as intelligent social creatures. They only know violence and immorality. They only practice hate and death…even amongst themselves. Negotiating with these people is simply wrong and a slap in the face to Ha-Shem. It is dishonorable. This person, if he’s not Jewish has the right to his opinion and that should be respected, but the viewpoint of any Jewish journalistic effort, again in my opinion, is to print the truth but not glamorize such opinions as they are ultimately counterproductive to the goal of Israel.

Both Malley’s parents were involved with and supporters of Arab Regimes, and he himself has ties to them.

So, we can expect Malley to play down any negatives of the Arab and Palestinian position, plays up or even fabricates positive outcomes, and then justifies this intellectually, since he is certainly quite smart and skilled. And this is what he does.

Eve makes some very good points in her comments. Malley wants the US to engage both Syria and Hamas – as a way that results in further legitimizing their positions (and primary anti-Israel perspective); unfortunately, recent news shows that Syria is increasing its shipments of Scud missiles to Hizballah and rejecting any negotiations with Israel. Hopefully, if and when the next war comes, we will remember whom Malley supported.

Sol W Sanders says:

Ms/Mr. Lee has the story about Mallery’s father a little confused. She might checkk on why he was expelled from France for his direct involvement in the Entebbe hi-jacking affair.

Marty says:

Malley is right about one point: There is no solution to the Israel-Palestine problem that doesn’t address the issue of Hamas. But since Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), that means there is no solution without addressing the issue of the MB and its “Project” to conquer the world. Maybe what is needed is greater publicity for the MB’s goals so people of goodwill everywhere will understand the need to unite against the MB. Some Arab governments understand this, so perhaps the key is to focus on the MB?

comfortable ego’re enjoying the post! i truly suspense it’s contributory abate auspicious enlightenment moving inner self all! elect regarding luck!

I spotted your blog’s link put up by a friend of mine on Facebook. Thank you for putting useful information on the net. It’s difficult to come by this stuff these days.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

The Honest Broker

Robert Malley, a former Clinton official, says Hamas must be engaged

More on Tablet:

Obama: Denying Israel’s Right to Exist as a Jewish Homeland is Anti-Semitic

By Yair Rosenberg — The president draws a line in the sand in his latest interview