That’s an interesting battle in any case but it’s actually an important battle in light of Bill Clinton saying that we should engage Hamas in dialogue and Morris’ saying that we should take a hardline approach towards Hamas. Let the battle begin:

Ex-president Bill Clinton is urging the U.S. to establish a dialogue with Hamas in the wake of its upset victory in last week’s Palestinian parliamentary elections, saying it would be wrong to cut off contact with the terror group just because they may have killed people “in a way that we hate.”

“You’ve got to find a way to at least open doors,” Clinton told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Saturday. “And I don’t see how we can do it without more contact.”

In quotes picked up by the Associated Press, Clinton said Hamas might “acquire a greater sense of responsibility, and as they do we have to be willing to act on that.”

This is understandable considering the intifadah that his policies started by cramming one PLO demand down Israel’s throat after another. By taking a biased position mostly against Israel, they made it clear that Hamas operated without consequence.

It wasn’t until President Bush made Yassir Arafat a persona non grata at the White House that the tide turned and Israel got our from under the White House’s foot. It wasn’t until President told the world that Israel had the right to defend themselves did the intifadah lose its steam.

Frankly, Bill Clinton’s idea of progress is talking endlessly about a problem rather than taking a moral stand and achieving victory. It’s all about being long-winded, not about achievement. And that’s the difference between Clinton and Bush.

Now, let’s see Dick Morris’ solution to the Hamas problem:

President Bush is correct to cut off all dealings with the Palestinian Authority until Hamas renounces and reins in its campaign of terror against Israel. But the United States should go further and cut off all direct and indirect assistance to the PA or to Palestinian refugee groups until Hamas makes the requisite declarations.
The U.S. taxpayer is the foremost financial supporter of the Palestinian community, now set to come under Hamas management.

The United States should:
1) Cut off all direct subsidy of the Palestinian refugee population or its political or charitable organs.
2) Demand that the United Nations follow suit.
3) Immediately suspend all payments to the United Nations until it does so.
———-
Some will argue that we allowed aid to flow under Yassir Arafat. But we did not do that until he pledged to work with Israel and to cease his efforts to destroy it. When it became clear that he was double dealing and, in fact, winking at terrorist attacks on Israel, the United States set in motion a series of events that led to a new democratic PA (aided by Arafat’s death, of course). Now the United States should ratchet up its pressure on the PA: Cut off all funding.

Now that’s intelligent action. That’s the path, more or less, that the Bush administration is pushing.

I suspect that President Clinton came out opposed to President Bush’s to carve out a different niche for Hillary to fill.

Cross-post at LetFreedomRing