It is a good informative dialogue representing two viewpoints on a key issue (it does leave out the Fatah viewpoint). One fundamental problem is that if an entity has a part in a war, then it has to have a part in talks to end that war, or it has no responsibilities under any treaties that are reached. A second fundamental problem is that while Israel is a nation which can control its army, Hamas does not have complete control over its 'army'. So including it in the talks would not necessarily stop rocket attacks on Israeli towns or terror attacks elsewhere. And until those stop, no peace is reachable; the tit for tat process will continue.

I would find this dialogue more worthy if it mentioned the concepts of the Nakba, the right of return, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Failure to mention those concepts means that the position of a large number of Palestinians is being omitted entirely. This has an effect on how Hamas is viewed.

The authors of this article do a great job of capturing both sides of the debate over whether or not to negotiate with Hamas. Both draw on historical and cultural knowledge to make their points. Neither debater changed my own opinion, but I now have a much better understanding of the opposing view. Disclosure: I work for this site, but have attempted to remain objective in this review.

this is a fascinating argument between two people who know about the situation regarding the u.s. position towards hamas in negotiating between palestine and israel. i don't pretend to know enough about hamas or the people of palestine to say i agree with one or the other; i can say that some way of taking both their arguments into account has to happen, but perhaps it cannot if there is not a true willingness to make a fair, just agreement on either one side or the other or neither.