That's the mirror image of Hamas feeling justified to lob shells into Israel and to use suicide bombers to kill.
Like in the debate about torture, if both sides become equally bestial, then all justifications become equally null.

The goal is to stop Hamas, not to become like them. .

Get real for a minute. We're not going to “dump lethal chemicals” on a civilian population in which Hamas or other terrorists are hiding, more than we already are, that is. If that's what you're suggesting, man, seek help.

The point is that there's no way to take out “Hamas” (as if it's a sovereign state) and though they are evil criminals IMO, negotiation is still a legitimate tool to press for reining in the violence.

As for “what happened to…” as the comments here so clearly show, no one dares advocate talking to Hamas. As I recall, Obama was referring to all the states in the Mideast, eg Iran, Syria, not to stateless criminal elements. So I don't see anything contradictory in his counting out Hamas, though I still think negotiation may be able to make inroads where current approaches are not, and your suggested option is simply untenable. Did you really just question my principles and then advocate chemical warfare against the Palestinian people?

Yeah — we need the cops in this country to apologize for “demeaning” criminals, and offer restitution, even…

Don't you have any self-respect, not to mention principles, as another poster referred to?

Israel *** OR *** the USA would be fully justififed in dumping lethal chemicals on the likes of Hamas and the scum in the Afghan-Pakistani border zone. The fake, worthless far-left whiners in the USA and the rest of the West who would be the first and loudest to complain are also scum who deserve little better if not worse treatment. [scowl]

Negotiation is tricky in the political season, as everyone prepares to pounce on every word said by anyone, especially candidates with a (D) after their names. But on the subject of negotiation, this oft-repeated meme is demonstrably off base:

By negotiating with terrorists you legitimize terrorists, thus codifying the tactics they utilize.

We negotiate with mass murderers, with kidnappers, with extortionists and yes, with terrorists. We do so because it saves lives, which should always trump any cute concept of “legitimizing” them. Give me a break. When the police negotiate to end a stand-off, no one accuses them of “appeasing” or “legitimizing”.

Every negotiation is different, every situation unique, and taking a stand on the general concept of negotiating with people we don't like, is foolish and narrow-minded.

Negotiation is often a process of reaching for the least bad option, and to start from a rigid “we won't negotiate” position reduces the options to exactly one: telling “terrorists” or criminals to go ahead and do whatever they're going to do (with the subtext “then we'll kill you”). And killing them doesn't help, especially after they've done whatever they were not persuaded to reconsider (ie. through negotiation). Since we can't reduce the growing number of terrorists with bullets, we need to be open to all options within our grasp.

So Hamas. If we don't negotiate for fear of “legitimizing” it, our option is to continue to do what isn't working already.

However, the violence continues while we debate these fine points, and the popularity of Hamas grows and grows. If meaningful action is delayed long enough, it could well be that Hamas would win the genreal election and take over the presidency, replacing Abbas with one of their own.

With every passing day,, the chasm between Israel and the Palestinians widens. Israel can't afford to wait until the chasm is so great that it 's iimpossible to avoid a catastropic confrontaton.

I think the time for hiding behind argumentation is over. The time for bold action is already overdue.

I support Israel but I support the Palestinian people. I support Carter but I can see why people believe he should not engage with Hamas. I support Obama but cannot support him here. I support . . .

I actually agree with Holly here, even though we disagree on Israel a lot. Hamas is not a legitimate government. It's a political movement that's won parliamentary elections but it does not represent the full leadership of the Palestinian people. I do happen to agree with Obama's “talk to our enemies” approach. But that only applies to legitimate heads of state with real bargaining power and not terrorist gangsters who have nothing to offer up for negotiation. If Hamas drops its core “destruction of Israel” rhetoric and becomes the head of state in Palestine then the situation changes. But for now, no reason to talk to Hamas.

What happened to 'I'll talk to anybody'?

How has not talking to Iran without pre-conditions worked out? They're doing just fine without talking, and by now, I doubt they have much incentive to talk.
Like with the Iranians, losing the leading role while you''re still strong may well lose the opportunity to influence, totally and, maybe, forever.

No one should be so naive as to think that just talking, or negotiating, will solve the problem. But is is an opportunity to extend the sticks and the carrots that comprise avoiding catastrophe. If a catastrophe does come about, I fear it may be Israel's That I would like to see avoided, above all.

Obama gave a brilliant speech on race, when a controversy gave him the opportunity.
I hoped to hear an equally brilliant speech on foreign relations., Carter having given him the opportunity to do so.
His response is a huge disappointment!

I think it's perfectly reasonable for an American president to say that he wouldn't have any diplomatic talks with Hamas as long as that's Israel's position as well — after all, what would they talk about? Hamas can't make concessions to the United States nor is there much of anything the United States would concede to Hamas. So in that sense, Barack Obama's refusal to expand his generous meetings policy to Hamas is both defensible policy and a good cheap talk way of saying something that “pro-Israel” folks like.

But I don't like that he either believes in or feels compelled to make these blanket statements about never negotiating.

Next thing he'll be expected to be nice to all the gangs in America's inner cities, and even buy their peace — or be criticized from the cesspool for that, too.