So, you guys think that if Obama wanted to have SECRET talks with Hamas, he would confirm that he wanted to have SECRET talks with Hamas, thereby no longer making them SECRET?
..........
Clever, but no.
If, as Obama's left and leftish supporters claim, he's on the verge of pursuing what's conventionally called an 'even handed' approach, there'll be no need for *secret* talks.
Washington openly talks to Tel Aviv so it should -- if 'an 'even handed' policy is in play -- be able to openly talk to Hamas.
It is an elected government, after all.
There are (obviously far less lethal, to date) disputes between Beijing and Taipei. Once upon a time, before Nixon went to China, Washington acted as if it only talked to Taipei and never spoke to Beijing. But of course, there were so-called 'back channels'. 'Back channels' heavily implies that the group you're speaking with is Persona non grata. You don't want to freely admit you're dealing with such scum.
This is why Sara Roy's statement, quoted by Doug, about the insignificance of 'secret talks' is important to keep in mind. As Roy says, the Bush admin held 'secret talks' with Hamas. Those shadowy dealings, by their underground nature, acknowledged the status quo which presents Hamas (or any Palestinian org which doesn't suck Tel Aviv's cock with wild abandon) as outside normal discourse.
So let's not get too parse-y and shrewd about these allegedly upcoming 'secret' talks. When it comes to Washington's relationship with Israel, there's a long and almost completely pointless history of such off grid chats.
.d.