Western capitals such as Washington, London, Bonn and Paris have not yet found an answer to how to deal with an important militant group like Hamas, which has won legitimacy through a peaceful election that had a high turnout and was internationally recognized for its fairness.
London would like to see an Israel that is totally secure from terror and a Palestine which is no longer under an illegal, cruel and humiliating occupation. But Hamas was elected on a platform that it would not recognize Israel, a member of the United Nations, and thus would never negotiate with it. This was a roadblock that prevented movement on a road map.
A few political problems can at least be avoided for a period by driving around them. But the United Nations trade and development agency, UNCTAD, has warned that the Palestinian economy is “on the verge of collapse”. Nobody will be surprised at that news, but it does draw attention to the horrifying level of suffering and despair being experienced by Palestinians who may, or may not, have voted for Hamas. Desperate people without hope tend to resort to terror and violence. UNCTAD has projections that show that more than half the Palestinian workforce will soon be unemployed. One paid Palestinian worker normally supports many other people. By the end of next year the economy could shrink by 35 percent. The World Food Program in June estimated that 70 percent of Gazans could not cover their basic food needs.
One of the excellent aspects of a democracy is that the electorate can react quickly to events and changing conditions. To survive their elected leaders have to do the same. The tide has been going out for Hamas and its politicians have been forced to respond.
I maintain that Hamas won 76 seats compared to Fatah’s 43 in the Legislative Council on Jan. 25 because the voters were determined to get rid of a grossly corrupt and failed administration. Hamas did not, as some journalists in Britain have suggested, have such a victory because of its support for suicide bombers, the introduction of Islamic law and bans on Western clothing and dancing.
After the election Hamas’ excited and inexperienced politicians had to face massive strikes by the Palestinian Authority workers who had gone for months without wages. This followed the international sanctions imposed and the broad feeling that this was not the moment to be giving support to Hamas. Israel closed the border crossings which added to the hardship being experienced and increased the food shortage.
An opinion poll on Sept. 11 warned Hamas that if there had been elections at that time Fatah would have won with 34.8 percent of the vote against only 18.8 percent for Hamas. Hamas responded, most reluctantly one presumes, to this new political pressure by accepting an ambiguous and carefully crafted 18-clause text written by Palestinian prisoners. This gives implicit recognition to a State of Israel alongside a state of Palestine.
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas man from Gaza, has stated that his government itself would not be involved in any negotiations with Israel. The Palestine Liberation Organization, which is headed by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, would have this responsibility. The prime minister is hoping this will satisfy his party’s dedicated supporters and be acceptable to international donors.
After its election victory Hamas spent weeks trying to negotiate a national unity government and failed. On Sept. 12 rival Palestinian factions tried again in the light of events. Hamas would be expected to have the majority of ministerial portfolios with the move moderate Fatah and the smaller political groups sharing the rest. Progress came to a temporary halt when President Abbas attended the UN General Assembly in New York.
As far as the Quartet (the UN, EU, USA and Russia) is concerned, these moves by the Palestinians still do not line up with the conditions presented last January. It will be recalled Hamas was told to recognize Israel, bring the violence to an end — it had sent out 50 suicide bombers and killed 430 people — and honor the existing agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
In 2002 all the Arab League states agreed to normalize their relations with Israel provided Israel met certain conditions — in particular giving up the Arab territory it occupied during the 1967 war. A Palestinian national unity government will be mindful of this Arab League proposal.
I think it is a safe bet that the Quartet is itself divided. Washington, in effect under orders from Tel Aviv, will seek to maintain a hard line. Europe dislikes the argument used against it that it is punishing the Palestinian electorate for voting in a manner that upset Europe. In any case it wants to resume aid and as soon as possible.
My belief is that slowly but surely progress is being made.
