Hamas replaces Fatah in Palestinian general election
The Palestinian Authority consisting of Fatah members were seen by the Palestinians and also largely by the rest of the world as a corrupt organization. It has so far failed to deliver anything worth mentioning. Hamas is a determined type of organization which, as reports show, made it a point to win the hearts and minds of people by rendering its services including social and health services, which could not be provided by the Palestinian government i.e Palestinian Authority. In fact, Hamas was working as a parallel government in terms of services to the Palestinian people.
The Palestinians could see that it was Hamas bombs that cleared the way of Arafat to the negotiating table, otherwise, as history shows, Israelis would have never entered into negotiation with Arafat. The recent unilateral disengagement from Gaza is also seen by the Palestinians as the result of Hamas attacks which were unbearable for most Israeli settlers in Gaza and seen by Israel as an area that cannot ultimately be protected by any means.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. In the backdrop of such events and developments, Hamas was set to win ultimately. It would have taken time if Arafat was alive, but the process has been expedited because of his departure. There could have been some improvements in favour of Fatah if Marwan Bagouti was released from Israeli jail. This seems to be a setback for Israel, as it could not predict such landslide victory for Hamas. Hamas won 76 sears out of 132 of the Palestinian Legislative Assembly.
Its win has been greeted by Palestinians in general with the exception of some sporadic clashes between Hamas and Fatah supporters. Mahmud Abbas is, of course, very disturbed because his party lost the election, but said that Fatah has to "accept the outcome of the vote and to keep the public order." He is, of course, in a difficult situation as the president where the government is likely to be formed by Hamas.
Things are still very uncertain, as there are views that Hamas may decide to form a national government with the support of Fatah. The other view is that Hamas may even choose to sit in opposition and allow Fatah to govern and negotiate with Israel. However, one Hamas leader said Hamas should form the national government and run the internal affairs with emphasis on reorganizing the social and health sectors in which it has enough experience, and leave Fatah with the task of negotiations with Israel. This indeed makes sense, as then the issue of dealing with Israel and the international community would not pose a serious problem. Hamas also knows the international reaction on its election victory. So it finds it safer to leave the foreign affairs and negotiations with Israel with Fatah group of the government as Mahmoud Abbas is the President and belongs to Fatah.
In fact, Mahmoud Abbas already indicated that he would like to continue negotiations with Israel on the basis of the Road Map. In case he finds problems there, he might as well resign. His threat of resignation may lead to some rethinking in Hamas circles on the issue of formation of the government. The idea of a national government with Fatah members with the special responsibilities may enable Hamas to gain experience and build up a working relationship with the US and the EU, which will ultimately pay political dividend to Hamas.
On the issue of renouncing violence, Hamas has to be practical as it would now be, in all probability, in the government. Being in the government, working and dealing with the governments of the rest of the world, is something quite different from agitating in the street, which might even be for a very genuine cause. Moreover, it's an unjust world with all types of corrupt practices and self-interest diplomacy. Some people talk of democracy but when it comes to national interest, the latter gets the preference and priority. So democracy is something that must suit one's national interest.
The acting prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert has said that talks with Hamas, the Palestinian radical movement sworn to Israel's destruction, were out of question. That Hamas wants to destroy Israel is obviously wrong, but Olmert conveniently forgot that Israel has already destroyed Palestine, and has hardly any intention of re-establishing it.
Now Israel talks of unilateral setting of borders by putting special concrete walls -- much of it has been completed already -- by grabbing as much Palestinian land as Israel needs to have its "safe" Jewish state, regardless of whether the Palestinians are left with anything that can at all be called a state.
This is not the way the prime minister of the people of a democratic country takes the results of a democratic election of another people. The international community also cannot continue to use disgraceful words towards a political party, whatever may be its past, which has won the mandate of its people.
So if democracy has any meaning, the election result, whether it is to somebody's liking or not, has to be accepted and dealt with appropriately. Due patience is certainly called for. The pressure for renunciation of violence appears quite valid but undue haste for recognition of Israel does not seem to be in consonance with continuing events. This sort of eruption of sympathy and support for a hawkish religious (Jewish) state like Israel does not speak well of the intention of many leaders of the developed countries, who determine the future of this helpless globe.
Hamas has been designated as a terrorist party by Israel, the US, the EU, and many countries around the world for the means it adopted to fight occupation. Yes, suicide bombings have to be rejected outright as a means to achieving anything and as far as I know, suicide in any form is also prohibited in all religions. But it is also to be recognized that there is no standard rule when it comes to fighting occupation.
The case of Allied bombings on Germany and Japan, including the use of atom bombs on innocent men, women, and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW II, killing millions, is a burning example. What is the difference between suicide bombing and carpet bombing plus dropping of atom bombs on innocent civilians? In the former, the suicide bombers themselves destroy their lives and in the latter the bombers return to base safely and enjoy hot coffee.
It should be recognized that Hamas joined the political process and this should have been welcomed by all with the hope that it would now demonstrate responsible behaviour when it is in the government. The reactions of the British Foreign office appear to have carried such sense: "We have the responsibility to accept the outcome of a democratic election, but those who run in a democratic election have a responsibility to renounce violence because the bullet and the ballot are incompatible."
The British Foreign office further said that London did not rule out the possibility of dealing with some Hamas figures, "but the decision is not ours, it is theirs -- the decision to renounce violence." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw urged Hamas to renounce violence and recognize Israel.
The US President George Bush said that Hamas cannot be partner for Middle East peacemaking without renouncing violence, and he reiterated that the United States would not deal with Palestinian leaders who do not recognize Israel's right to exist. He also added that Israel is the US ally and friend, and called upon defeated chairman Mahmoud Abbas to remain in office.
Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, interrupting a discussion on democracy in Economic World Forum in Davos to give first reaction of the US government, said that: . "The election has been peaceful, and free of violence, and by all accounts fair. The Palestinian people have voted for change." But she told Hamas that: "You can't have one foot in politics and another in terror."
The remarks of both British and the US administration on renouncing violence were appropriate, but their insistence on recognition of Israel was too hasty, partisan, and should not have been raised at all at this stage. Better approach would have been to wait and see how Hamas reacts after entering into the government. If Hamas forms the government and agrees to negotiate with Israel, this would have virtually meant recognizing the negotiating partner, Israel.
Hamas leaders have already said they are ready for a long truce with Israel if Israel moves out and goes beyond 1967 borders. This would mean virtual recognition of Israel by Hamas and end of violence. In any case, the Palestinians recognized Israel long ago and Hamas is only a political party of the Palestinian people. So, one may say that the recognition implicitly exists, though its party's charter said something different. The party's charter is not Palestinian government's charter. So the better course would have been to keep quiet on the issue and insist on end of violence.
However, as the question of recognition has been raised, Hamas leader Zahad asked when Israel does not recognize the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes. How and why they should recognize Israel? Moreover, Israel even does not vacate occupation which the international community including the UN asked for. The existence of Israel is a hard reality and its recognition appears to be formality, but those who lost everything at the hands of the Israeli occupier may not find it that easy to recognize it without knowing what would be their final status.
So a word of advice on cessation of violence appears acceptable, but insisting on immediate recognition appears to be putting the horse before the cart. Normally official recognition comes on reciprocal basis. Anyway, the world should wait and see how Hamas, a party which has the mandate of the Palestinians, talks and behaves while in the government. If Hamas forms the government, it cannot have a militia and at the same time the official Palestinian security forces. These two things do not go together.
Let things move and settle down. Too much of negative and indeed derogatory remarks would only complicate things and make issues harder for Mahmoud Abbas to deal with it.
The world should, while advising Hamas, ask Israel also to accept the election result and do business with it. Indeed, in the latest poll after the Hamas election victory, majority of the Israeli citizens expressed their support for negotiations with Hamas. Many see the possibility of a reasonable deal. It is also possible that Hamas would try to deliver a Palestinian state which Fatah could not do in five decades. This may induce Hamas to go for negotiations. As mentioned before, Hamas already said it would go for a long truce if Israel goes back to 1967 borders. This is what the international community also wants. If Israel goes back to1967 borders, violence would stop regardless of whether Hamas renounces violence or not.
It seems that the people of Israel are more interested in peace than the governments of Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and Netanyahu, which were no less terrorist than Hamas. One may just browse through the pages of very recent history to see the violence that the security forces of successive Israeli governments inflicted on innocent Palestinians by way of dropping missiles on Palestinian homes with families inside, bulldozing of Palestinian homes, assassinations, building concrete barriers separating Palestinian land and villages, road blocks, daily harassment, economic deprivation, etc.
It is high time for the international community to give up its partisan attitude and seriously insist on Israel to go for immediate two states solution as given in the Road Map.