Elections in Palestine: a win-win situation for Israel?
With initial results from the Palestinian election indicating that Hamas has done better than expected, and possibly winning an outright majority, it is worth speculating on how exactly the peace process is likely to develop in the near future. Of course, this vote is only the first of what are likely to prove seismic shifts in the regional structure: the other being the impending Israeli election, which was likely to be a close-run thing even before Ariel Sharon’s untimely withdrawal from the political sphere. But the former is likely to influence the latter and, if the polls are correct and Hamas has in fact won, it is a probability that Likud will prevail and Binyamin Netanyahu be restored as Prime Minister.
Supported by Washington, Israel refuses to negotiate with Hamas, considering it a terrorist organisation. Leaving aside the large numbers of suicide bombs that have ripped civil Israeli society, Hamas’ desire for a future Palestinian state are set out in stark detail in its founding charter of 1988: it calls for nothing less than the destruction of the state of Israel. Therefore, despite a last-minute cosmetic makeover – hiring a spin doctor for a reported cost of $100,000 and running under the name of ‘Change and Reform’ in the election – Israel can quite easily (and legitimately) eschew the question of whether or not Hamas should be recognised by pointing out the manifest (if implausible) threat to its very existence.
Yet it would be a mistake to assume that, sina qua non, any Palestinian voting for Hamas is a potential militant who longs for nothing more than Israel’s annihilation. In local councils, Hamas has for a number of years proved itself to be capable of addressing the more humble needs of Palestinians – seeing to municipal matters, ensuring rubbish is collected, and maintaining roads and walkways. An article from the St Petersburg Times details the benefits that a Hamas mayor has brought to the West Bank town of Bidya. On a local level Israeli officials have been quietly impressed with the Hamas mayors and councillors they deal with, who have carved out a reputation for honesty and a lack of corruption – something that sharply distinguishes them from the ruling Fatah party, which has held power in the Palestinian Authority since it was formed over ten years ago.
Whether Israel’s appreciation for the municipal-level Hamas will be transferred to a bigger stage is unlikely, for the reasons stated above. Yet there have been signs that Hamas could be willing to renounce violence if it engaged with Israel on a genuinely multi-lateral peace process, akin to the near-forgotten ‘road map’ of 2003. Since it promised a ceasefire a year ago, Hamas has kept to its word; recent attacks in Israel – including one in Tel Aviv a week ago - have been largely from Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs, a Fatah splinter group. Crucially, the issue of Israel’s destruction has been largely silenced in the election campaign. Whether or not this is a ploy or represents a genuine desire to evolve into a more moderate organisation, with genuine political rather than military aims, remains to be seen.
The United States loves to talk about democracy, yet it doesn’t seem so pleased when the people that it wants to win fail to do so. With a few exceptions – notably Senator John McCain – the talks of ‘freedom’ tend to become silenced when confronted with a situation like that in Palestine today. It seems likely, therefore, that Israel will reject any kind of Hamas win, therefore leaving it with easy recourse to claim once again – disingenuously, of course – that it has “no partner for peace”. The alternative doesn’t offer much hope either; a Fatah win would mean the continuation of the ineffectual Mahmoud Abbas' "negotiations", and Arafat’s legacy of corruption and lack of control would be fulfilled. In either scenario, it seems that Israel has the most to gain.
Supported by Washington, Israel refuses to negotiate with Hamas, considering it a terrorist organisation. Leaving aside the large numbers of suicide bombs that have ripped civil Israeli society, Hamas’ desire for a future Palestinian state are set out in stark detail in its founding charter of 1988: it calls for nothing less than the destruction of the state of Israel. Therefore, despite a last-minute cosmetic makeover – hiring a spin doctor for a reported cost of $100,000 and running under the name of ‘Change and Reform’ in the election – Israel can quite easily (and legitimately) eschew the question of whether or not Hamas should be recognised by pointing out the manifest (if implausible) threat to its very existence.
Yet it would be a mistake to assume that, sina qua non, any Palestinian voting for Hamas is a potential militant who longs for nothing more than Israel’s annihilation. In local councils, Hamas has for a number of years proved itself to be capable of addressing the more humble needs of Palestinians – seeing to municipal matters, ensuring rubbish is collected, and maintaining roads and walkways. An article from the St Petersburg Times details the benefits that a Hamas mayor has brought to the West Bank town of Bidya. On a local level Israeli officials have been quietly impressed with the Hamas mayors and councillors they deal with, who have carved out a reputation for honesty and a lack of corruption – something that sharply distinguishes them from the ruling Fatah party, which has held power in the Palestinian Authority since it was formed over ten years ago.
Whether Israel’s appreciation for the municipal-level Hamas will be transferred to a bigger stage is unlikely, for the reasons stated above. Yet there have been signs that Hamas could be willing to renounce violence if it engaged with Israel on a genuinely multi-lateral peace process, akin to the near-forgotten ‘road map’ of 2003. Since it promised a ceasefire a year ago, Hamas has kept to its word; recent attacks in Israel – including one in Tel Aviv a week ago - have been largely from Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs, a Fatah splinter group. Crucially, the issue of Israel’s destruction has been largely silenced in the election campaign. Whether or not this is a ploy or represents a genuine desire to evolve into a more moderate organisation, with genuine political rather than military aims, remains to be seen.
The United States loves to talk about democracy, yet it doesn’t seem so pleased when the people that it wants to win fail to do so. With a few exceptions – notably Senator John McCain – the talks of ‘freedom’ tend to become silenced when confronted with a situation like that in Palestine today. It seems likely, therefore, that Israel will reject any kind of Hamas win, therefore leaving it with easy recourse to claim once again – disingenuously, of course – that it has “no partner for peace”. The alternative doesn’t offer much hope either; a Fatah win would mean the continuation of the ineffectual Mahmoud Abbas' "negotiations", and Arafat’s legacy of corruption and lack of control would be fulfilled. In either scenario, it seems that Israel has the most to gain.
posted by DN at 9:14 AM
0 comments
