hamas

Issue #44

Last Update March 2, 2006

International Middle East Hope by David Katz February 5, 2006 The recent victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections has dismayed Israel and the West. Long known as the most intransigent of the Palestinian factions, Hamas has dedicated itself to the destruction of Israel, and has taken a toll of lives in the past decades that has included, in addition to Israeli soldiers and settler militia, innocent women and children, including not a few Arabs. Yet, the election of a Hamas majority may be the first sign of hope for an Israeli/Palestinian peace.

The displacement of Fatah as the voice of Palestinians is itself a good thing. Fatah, until the death of Yassir Arafat, was an unwilling participant in peace talks, always able to find a pretext to undermine any agreement reached. Led mostly by exiles who spent a generation in Lebanon and other Arab states, out of touch with the realities of Palestinian life under Israeli occupation, lacking in home-grown leadership and deeply corrupt, Fatah proved itself unable to govern, or to make any meaningful contribution to improving the lives of its adherents. Hamas, for many years closer to the action than the Fatah leadership, managed to create some social institutions in the areas that are its strongholds, and did make some difference in the day to day conditions of its adherents. Attacked by both Israel and its nominal ally, Fatah, and denied the level of funding Fatah has squandered, Hamas has not had the opportunity to govern in any meaningful sense. Now we will see whether its control of the Palestinian Authority will bring positive benefits to Palestinians.

It is true that the Hamas constitution calls for the destruction of Israel, and that this is a heartfelt wish, not just propaganda. Fatah's constitution did likewise, until changed. But just as it took Nixon to open a dialogue with China, so it is that only Hamas can make an agreement that will stick. Out of power, Hamas was the holdout crying betrayal whenever negotiations with Israel looked promising. It had veto power, in the sense that, by committing a terrorist act, it could shred any trust that may have developed from Palestinian/Israeli talks, sure that the Israeli right would respond in kind. Now, any agreement reached with Hamas will probably last; there are few Palestinians more extreme with power to subvert a pact.

Hamas is now saddled with the reponsibilities and problems of governing. Suddenly, it must find resources for its people. It can no longer afford a nihilistic outlook if it hopes to keep power. The West desperately wants a rapprochement between Israel and the Palestinians; most Israelis want one too, and recent events have shown that most Palestinians would like the quiet in which to live normal lives. How do two governments which have no trust in each other manage such a rapprochement? Hamas must continue its cease-fire, and clamp down on terrorist activity. Hamas must designate people with whom Israel can negotiate. Israel must refrain from massive retaliation for rocket attacks and bombings; in the long run, more lives will be saved than by a show of strength. Israel should not expect Hamas to disarm, formally renounce violence, or alter its constitution to drop the call for Israel's destruction. Instead, Hamas' day by day actions should be the yardstick of their intentions. Finally, it is unlikely that Hamas will support anything called a peace negotiation. Talks on more limited, practical issues, such as water rights, border crossings and the like are quite possible however. A cold peace, where the word is never used, is preferable to a hot war. In time, peace will come as the ratification of a status already reached in practice.

It is better to face a bitter enemy that can govern and can ultimately carry out its agreements, than to negotiate with a corrupt and ineffectual counterpart willing to mouth words of peace.