Hamas in Charge
February 10 , 2006
Last week’s
legislative elections in Palestine produced a
shocking win for Hamas, the Islamist group that
has never held power in the Palestinian Authority.
This win has thrown the Middle East into turmoil,
and its implications are still unknown.
While the PLO recognized Israel’s right
to exist in the context of a two-state solution
of the conflict back in 1988, Hamas has consistently
argued that Israel has no legitimacy, and that
what was taken by force from the Palestinians
must be returned. Namely, they believe that all
the land of geographic Palestine belongs to the
Palestinians, and reject a permanent peace based
on two states.
Hamas has also been notorious for its use of suicide
bombings and other attacks against Israeli targets,
both civilians and military and also among the
settlers in the territories (who don’t have
quite the innocence of civilians, but are not
really military either). The recent unilateral
withdrawal by Israel from Gaza was widely seen
as the result of unrelenting Hamas violence that
eventually wore down the Israelis.
So based on this agenda and history, can we assume
that Palestinians have rejected a two-state settlement
and have voted for violence against Israel until
the Hamas agenda is achieved? Actually, we can’t.
Because peace was not on the ballot, only corruption
was.
Since returning from Tunis with his Fatah supporters
in 1993, Arafat transformed the PLO into the Palestinian
Authority. But in reality, it remained his personal
kingdom. And within that kingdom tremendous graft,
venality, corruption, and incompetence took hold.
The end result was that despite significant foreign
aid, average Palestinians did not see much return
from the PA in tangible improvements to their
lives. In contrast, Hamas ran a wide network of
humanitarian projects including food aid, schools,
health clinics, and other nodes of assistance
that made life bearable for the Palestinians.
The relative efficiency of Hamas operations compared
with the incompetence of the Fatah-controlled
Palestinian Authority undermined Fatah’s
credibility. On election day, the voters decided
to give Hamas a chance.
But what about peace? Don’t the Palestinians
see that only Fatah could get a peace deal with
Israel, and Hamas only promises more violence?
The average Palestinian voter does not see that
to be the true state of affairs. In reality, Israel
has made clear that they will not negotiate with
any Palestinian government. In fact they have
pursued a public policy of unilateralism for the
last several years. There have been no meaningful
negotiations between Israel and the PA since the
Taba meetings in January of 2001, which took place
before either Bush or Sharon came to power. The
US has totally backed Israel in its policy of
unilateralism, including the building of the illegal
wall.
Israel insisted that the PA must dismantle Hamas
before it would even talk to it. Given the election
results, it is obvious that Israel was demanding
the Palestinians have a civil war in exchange
merely for the privilege of talking to Israel.
Palestinian voters see no downside in terms of
peace negotiations to voting for Hamas, as they
had no expectation of any negotiations even if
Fatah had won.
Finally, it is possible that the voters were even
wiser than we credit them. Hamas will find that
playing the defiant one works better when you
are not ultimately responsible for your people.
They have been brought into power to provide clean
and effective government and to improve the lives
of the people. To accomplish that, they will have
to pursue peace with Israel. Already Hamas is
adjusting its rhetoric and strategy. While on
the one hand appealing to the Muslim world to
make up the financial shortfall an aid cutoff
from the West would bring, on the other they have
declared their willingness to negotiate a “long
term truce” with Israel. If by “long
term” they mean not just a few years but
a few decades, then they are really talking about
accepting a two-state solution in all but name.
While it may have been easiest and best for all
if the left in Israel and Palestine had negotiated
a final peace 10 years ago, it now seems that
only after both societies have exhausted the possibilities
of total victory that their respective right-wings
have pursued will final peace be possible. It
could possibly be that in a few years a Hamas
government signs the peace that ends this 100-year
conflict. The one useful thing about having the
extremists sign the deal is that it will really
stick. Comments can reach me at Nali@socal.rr.com
