WASHINGTON, D.C., 23 April 2006 — Troubling questions abound in light of the Hamas victory, but the imperative now is to decide on a course of action that is morally defensible. Is it wise to permit Hamas, or any group with a militia that regularly attacks civilians, to participate in democratic elections? Most pundits in the Middle East feel that everyone should be allowed to participate democratically in elections, regardless of militias, weapons or war crimes. Whether this approach signals the beginning of nonviolent democratic evolution in the Middle East, or the death of it, only time will tell. I am skeptical, but we must work with what is now.
There are questions that the Palestinian people must face such as what will be the fate of moderates, Christians, democrats and others in a state run by Hamas. But the fact is that 40 percent of Palestinians united in a vote for change and the recent, incredible revelations of massive PA corruption while people starved more than explains the vote. The fact is that most did not vote for an Islamic state but the question is will they get more than they bargained for, as did the people who supported the revolutionaries in Iran decades ago. The people of Palestine have spoken and decided on their own risks to be taken, but that is a separate question from whether states that are fighting a war against extremists everywhere want to support the Palestinian choice.
It is time to test the parameters of Hamas’ intentions. The United States and other European states are making this test a stark one that involves Hamas turning against its own charter, “Recognize Israel or we will not recognize you”. As we know this runs the risk of pushing them into the arms of an extremist Iran that single-handedly undermined each moment of quiet in the past decade.
This may be a moment for King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to step in. After all, his Israeli-Arab peace plan still stands as an offer from the Arab world, and if the Kingdom could bring its weight to bear we could see a steady shift of a Gulf-funded Palestine toward a two-state solution.
There is an argument to be made that this moves things toward where they always should have been, not a Palestine looking for Western handouts while resenting it, but rather an Arab-funded Palestine that represents both Palestinian and Arab parties in any final agreement with Israel. This duality of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was always a hindrance to real progress, and perhaps it is time for an Arab-supported Palestine and a comprehensive peace settlement.
What will be the true test for Hamas? Not recognition of Israel, which could be an end-goal of a comprehensive peace process, and not Hamas disarmament, but rather the public and testable disarmament of its bombing infrastructure. The key grievance of the West has never been Palestinian resistance, but resistance by targeting civilians with terror. We have the makings of a Hamas version of this already through the concept of long-term cease-fire, a religious cease-fire that would be coupled with, and conditioned upon, Hamas’ public embrace of negotiations leading toward a two-state solution.
This could have revolutionary implications in terms of the direction of extremism across the world. It would put Hamas and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Jordan, Egypt, Morocco and the Gulf states, into a realistic political struggle for justice, and decidedly against the neo-apocalyptic extremism of Bin Laden and the Iranian president that requires Israel’s destruction (and the West’s).
The trouble at this point is that whenever a violent party in a resistance movement agrees to a cease-fire, a competitor takes up the mantle of legitimacy through violence in the minds of the masses. There are already signs that Fateh and the Al-Aqsa Brigades, not to mention Islamic Jihad, are filling that role.
There is one important element of this scenario to be worked out and this involves the important insight of Rabbi Menahem Fruman. Hamas instinctively cannot cope, as of now, with the idea of recognizing any apostate state, let alone Israel. But there is place for an interim maneuver whereby Hamas declares a treaty of peace with the Jewish people, as represented by a gathering of rabbis and Hamas leaders.
This would entail a commitment to struggle for justice in Palestine over land holy to both peoples, but without ever again targeting civilians and for any violence outside of Palestine to become haram, disallowed — in other words an end to a war of demonization of the Jewish people as such. If this were endorsed by Hamas’ Arab friends it could prove an important reversal to the war of hatreds that abounds now. It would be a step in the right direction for both Israel and the Arab world that have much to fear from an ever expanding extremism that contaminates the streets of the Muslim world.
— Marc Gopin is the James Laue professor of world religions, diplomacy and conflict resolution at George Mason University.
