Crossposted from SmokeyMonkey.org
At this point I wish I had followed the elections in Palestine a bit more closely in writing. I did diary on the thought of Hamas participating and what would happen if Hamas was an accepted political party. I called that diary, Palestine - Elections Without Borders. There was some feedback along a couple of different lines. First, the diary was launching from a student body election, so it was dismissed as unimportant.
The other line, however, led mostly by Jay Elias, who posted this diary on DailyKos.com today, suggested that if Hamas wins the parliamentary elections (which they now have), the roadmap to peace would be basically dead because Hamas is against the existence of Israel and Israel will not deal with Hamas. We are definitely at a point where this is the primary issue facing peace in the middle east.
Here are the official election results:
Yellow is Fatah, green is Hamas. See the difference? And it appears to be a fair election with great turnout. Here is a breakdown of the voter demographics:
The lead-up to this election has been speckled with rhetoric and official statements from many sides. In December of last year, the BBC published this article which sums up the problems quite succinctly in the first section:
Gen Suleiman [Head of Egyptian Intelligence] has reportedly passed on a warning from the US and the EU that aid to the Palestinian Authority would be suspended if Hamas were to make big gains and become part of the future Palestinian government.
From the Israeli point of view, there are several problems. One is that Hamas has a charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." This is in what is essentially the preamble of the Hamas Charter. The entire charter is about the organization of the Islamic Resistance Movement and its opposition to the occupation of Palestine by Zionists and Jews. The charter is worth a read at this point.
Another problem for Israel with Hamas as a political party is their military wing. This is primarily in the form of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Squads. There is a long, documented history of Hamas terror activities at AIPAC's site: Danger to Democracy (not up to date). Taking these problems together, one can understand how the initial reaction from Israel was to take a hardline and suggest that Hamas participation would invalidate any relations between Israel and Palestine. Ariel Sharon stated just that at various points before he was incapacitated.
There are several problems from the western point of view, as well. For one thing, Hamas is still listed as a terrorist organization by our State Department. This means a great many things. First, it would mean that all aide must stop to Palestine if Hamas is allowed to form a government. It also means that Palestine becomes a 'state sponsor of terror', and therefore no American companies can deal with them. As with many developing nations, aide from western countries is very important to their economy. It is unknown what would happen there if aide were truly to stop coming. In this article from the World Bank there is a section suggesting Palestine is seeking Arab financial assistance after the west halted $60 million in aide. If $60 million can create a financial crisis, imagine if all western aide stopped.
Lastly, there are problems for the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, is not effected by this election in terms of losing his seat. However, his ability to negotiate with Israel is now basically nil. He was losing the confidence of negotiators anyway for his inability to control the security situation. In my initial diary, I suggested that it was the ability of Hamas, as the largest of the militaries in Palestine, to control the security of Palestine that is perhaps the secret factor they are bringing to the table. They demonstrated their ability to respect a ceasefire during and continuing after, thusfar, the Gaza withdrawal.
Indeed, it is suggested by some that Israel should not have been unilateral in withdrawing from Gaza, that perhaps they should have propped Abbas and his Fatah party up, giving them the credit for negotiating the withdrawal. This perhaps would have kept Hamas out. (I lost my quote for this, sorry.)
So where are we now? I think these few quotes sum it up:
From the NY Times:
Asked if Hamas was willing to consider negotiations with Israel, Mr. [Ismail] Haniya said, "The occupation must first recognize our rights and the international community must exert pressure on them."
From Haaretz:
"I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you know you can't be a partner in peace if you have - if your party has got an armed wing," [President] Bush told a White House news conference.
From Forbes:
Left-wing lawmaker Ran Cohen told Army Radio that victory could make Hamas more pragmatic. "If the Hamas wants to talk about a solution of two states for two peoples, the significance is essentially recognizing the state of Israel, and that means we need to talk, first and foremost about stopping the terror," he said.
Israel Hasson, a former top Shin Bet official, agreed. "As soon as Hamas talks to us, it's not Hamas any longer," he said.
I'll close with a simple poll, as Al-Jazeera's. (By the way, check out some of the other polls on that Al-Jazeera link. They are very interesting.)
References:
United States Institute of Peace - Khalil Shakiki, regarding Palestinian public opinion. (Thanks to another American for that link.)