If we look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the peace process in now in a coma, thanks to a counterproductive US-Israeli policy of isolating Hamas and Syria. Hamas is undoubtedly a terrorist organization and Syria a rouge state. However, Hamas is also the most popular political party in Palestine while Syria remains a key player in the game.

Former US president Jimmy Carter is evidently rowing his boat in hostile waters, trying to underline this fact. In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, he writes: “Hamas had been declared a terrorist organization by the US and Israel, and the elected Palestinian government was forced to dissolve… Opinion polls show Hamas steadily gaining popularity. Since there can be no peace with Palestinians divided, we at the Carter Center believed it important to explore conditions allowing Hamas to be brought peacefully back into the discussions… Similarly, Israel cannot gain peace with Syria unless the Golan Heights dispute is resolved. Here again, US policy is to ostracize the Syrian government and prevent bilateral peace talks…”¹

Indeed, the path to peace lies in negotiation, not in isolation.

In Nepal, after a decade of civil-war that saw at least 13,000 dead, the Maoists — a terrorist organization as designated by the US and many other world governments — entered a peace process. The organization that is responsible for numberless massacres and adheres to a murderous ideology, has now surprisingly won the recent constituent assembly elections.

Now, unlike Iraq or Palestine, the US (and other international actors) is ready to do business with terrorists — the Maoists — and has offered assistance to “stability and democracy [in Nepal].” And unlike Israel, India — the US ally in South Asia — is also ready to give peace a chance despite its troublesome relationship with the Maoists.

Is Nepal an example that can benefit the Middle East peace process? When I ask David Pottie, Associate Director of Democracy Program at the Carter Center, he writes, “… a peace process can only succeed when all sides to a conflict are committed to dialog. The Maoists have demonstrated their commitment to multi-party elections and the overall peace process and the other parties to the conflict have signaled their willingness to work with them. Although Nepal’s peace process is ongoing and there remain many serious unresolved issues, there may be important examples for the Middle East.”

Despite their poor human rights record and terror campaigns, “by voting for the Maoists, the Nepali people have voted for peace and change more than they have voted for the ideology,” says Kanak Mani Dixit, Editor of Kathmandu-based Himal magazine.

Rhoderick Chalmers, of the International Crisis Group, believes that the Nepali peace process is ongoing, “It remains to be seen: how a government is formed, how the Maoists go forward with their plan to bring federalism to Nepal, how they carry out land-reforms they promised, and how security-sector reforms take place.”

Chalmers notes the point that the international community plays a major role in the Nepali peace process, even though it has to deal with the Maoists. One reason why unlike Iraq or Palestine, peace is dawning on Nepal.

Sometimes, seating with terrorists at the same table does pay off.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28carter.html