When we talk about the way civilian populations are used as \ pawns, there is no better example than the people barely surviving in the Gaza \ Strip. Events this week showed just how little regard anyone, including their \ own ostensible leaders, has for their well-being. The previous week, an attack at Nahal Oz, site of the \ crossing through which Israel supplies fuel to the Strip, had the predictable \ effect: Israel suspended fuel supplies for several days. It is inconceivable \ that the perpetrators were unaware that a cutoff would be the result. Hamas did \ not actually carry out that attack, but they fully supported it, calling it \ heroic. In an incident that got very little media coverage this \ week, snipers began firing at the Kerem Shalom crossing. The crossing was then, \ quite properly, closed and the supplies that had been going into Gaza that day \ were halted, cutting the day's supply roughly in half. The much more elaborate \ attack at Kerem Shalom on Saturday will surely mean that supplies into the \ Strip, already inadequate, will slow to a trickle. In all of this, Hamas claims it is acting to force Israel to \ lift its siege on Gaza. After the Nahal Oz attack, they stated that the goal of \ the perpetrators was to kidnap an Israeli or two (which is, in any event, a war \ crime, no matter the cause, as taking hostages, as opposed to prisoners of war, \ is strictly and absolutely forbidden under international law) in order to force \ Israel to end the siege. This compounds murderous brutality with stupidity, as \ it is obvious that such a tactic won't work-just ask Gilad Schalit and his \ family. None of this, of course, changes the fact that Israel itself \ is acting intolerably toward the Strip. The siege has only strengthened Hamas, \ has done nothing to free Schalit and has been ineffective in preventing rocket \ attacks from Gaza. What it has done effectively is to make the impoverished \ mass of Palestinians living in Gaza, the most overcrowded and, even previously, \ one of the poorest places on earth, much more miserable. Other than the victims in Gaza and the southern Negev, there \ are no good guys here. The United States and Israel precipitated much of this \ by pushing for elections in late 2005 and early 2006, despite warnings from \ Palestinian leaders that Hamas stood to make, at minimum, very substantial \ gains. They exacerbated it by proceeding to try to undermine the results of a \ free and fair election, first with boycott then by arming Fatah. The PA went \ along with all of this and continues to refuse any compromise with Hamas that isn't \ preceded by the latter's abdication. But those parts of the "left" which have embraced Hamas are \ failing to see what Hamas' actions have amounted to. They, too, despite the \ enormous suffering in Gaza, refuse any compromise which doesn't ensure their \ power, and while they have made some statements indicating their willingness to \ accept the reality of Israel's existence and settle for a state along the \ pre-1967 borders, they offer no assurances that they are ready to make peace \ with that "reality." Worse, Hamas has acted in a manner that completely ignores \ the well-being of the people under their rule. It certainly seems that, \ recognizing that as the suffering in Gaza escalated so did their support, they \ are wantonly increasing that suffering. At a talk I gave about two months ago, one person asked me \ if I thought part of the criticism of Hamas was because they were the only ones \ "telling the truth." Even leaving aside the questionable honesty of a group \ which has intentionally staged power outages across Gaza when there was ample \ fuel available and even went so far as to fake a broadcast from a darkened room \ which could have been illuminated by flipping on a light switch, it is \ dismaying to see how so-called progressives can ally themselves with a \ reactionary, fundamentalist and violent group like Hamas. Former US President Jimmy Carter brought these questions \ into the spotlight this week when he met twice with Hamas leader, Khaled \ Meshal. Carter is, of course, quite correct when he says that it is futile to \ simply not talk to Hamas. But his method of dealing with that futility leaves a \ lot to be desired. When Hamas was elected, I wrote the first public article I \ am aware of calling on the US and Israel to engage the newly-elected PA, which \ was a fully representative body and a party that is part of it can have \ whatever stances it wants as long as the government has its own policies. In \ that it is no different from Israel having elected Netanyahu in 1996 even \ though he opposed the Oslo Accords. Israel had committed to them, and so \ Netanyahu worked with them, however stubbornly. Hamas is a reality, just as Israel is, and it will not be \ possible to make progress without engaging them in some fashion, just as it \ will not be possible for Hamas to make any real gains without engaging Israel. \ While Israel has every right to expect that any Palestinian government \ recognize its right to exist and abide by previously struck agreements, some \ way needs to be found for communication. Israelis agree, according to a recent \ poll which showed that 64% of Israelis wanted Israel to talk to Hamas. But this does not mean that Israelis want their government \ to work with Hamas on permanent status issues, only that they believe the \ government should talk to Hamas about immediate concerns like Gilad Schalit and \ a cease-fire. While there have been no polls, there is little reason to believe \ that Israelis want to see Hamas given any sort of recognition as a legitimate \ government (bear in mind that Israel has negotiated with terrorist groups for \ years, including Hamas and Hezbollah as well as state actors like Iran). Indeed, \ as long as Hamas holds their current positions, Israel cannot engage them as an \ interlocutor on the larger issues. Nor should they. Hamas is not currently the \ legitimate leader of the Palestinian government, and they should not be \ accorded the recognition of being such. Unfortunately, that's what Carter just did. I have no doubt \ his heart was in the right place. And, to be fair, it is possible his meeting \ with Meshal will open up a door. Possible, but unlikely. More likely is that \ Carter, acting as a private individual, will cause the US and Israel to dig \ their heels in even farther. That Hamas is already trumpeting the visit as \ granting them some legitimacy would seem to reinforce this likelihood and make \ any possibility of discussion even more remote. But Carter's trip will pass. What will remain is the difficult \ reality of Hamas. Israel has every reason to see them as an obstacle that must \ be eliminated rather than as a party that must be dealt with, however \ distasteful that might be. But Hamas is a real force in Palestinian politics \ and a significant presence on the larger Arab stage. The simple fact is that \ Hamas is right when they say that Israel and the Palestinians cannot forge any \ real progress, much less a final peace, with Hamas sidelined. Hamas is not likely to be defeated by force any more than the \ PLO was in its day. They will have to be dealt with somehow. But advocates for \ a more sensible approach to this situation than having...