zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622556315&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
'Hamas must back peace or go broke'
Orly Halpern, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 6, 2006
On the day that a Hamas leader in Cairo said recognizing Israel "was a mistake" that "must be corrected," Palestinian Authority Acting Finance Minister Jihad Wazir said that if Hamas did not change its ideology the PA would collapse for lack of funds.
"If Hamas doesn't make adjustments to be part of the peace process, it can't run the PA, and the PA won't operate," Wazir told The Jerusalem Post while sitting at the paper-stacked desk in his office near Ramallah.
Wazir, the deputy finance minister who became acting minister when Salaam Fayad resigned to run in the recent elections, spoke as he prepared to leave his office to drive to Jerusalem to meet with his Israeli counterpart, Finance Minister (and Acting Prime Minister) Ehud Olmert.
Hamas's landslide win has made the Finance Ministry a focal point of attention because Israel and Western donors refuse to transfer money to a Hamas-led government unless it recognizes Israel and stops terror.
Yet Hamas leaders remain resolute that recognition of Israel won't happen anytime soon. "We believe that [recognition of Israel] was a mistake that happened in the past and this in particular must be corrected," Moussa Abu Marzouk, Hamas's Lebanon-based deputy political leader, told reporters in Cairo.
Abu Marzouk did not explain how the mistake would be "corrected," but did not rule out future recognition. "Where are the borders of the Israel we are supposed to recognize? Are the settlements included in the borders of Israel? ... Is the return of the refugees acceptable to Israel?" he asked. "Until these questions are answered, it is not possible to propose [recognition]."
Back in El-Bireh, a phone call from Israel's Finance Ministry brought a smile to Wazir's face. "That's great news," he told the caller, looking visibly relieved. "We'll have lunch and a glass of wine." Israel had agreed to transfer the $54m.
The US and the EU have also decided to continue funding the PA while a caretaker government rules. But the payments will not continue for much longer.
"I estimate we have six to eight weeks more of breathing space until Hamas forms its government," said Wazir.
Hamas leaders are very aware of the financial dilemma they face. Exiled Hamas leaders, including Abu Marzouk and Khaled Mashaal, met in the Egyptian capital Sunday with recently-elected Hamas leaders from Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud a-Zahar, to decide together who will be the next Palestinian prime minister.
They also will begin a fundraising tour of Muslim countries in an effort to drum up dollars to keep the PA running.
Wazir was pessimistic about their ability to succeed. "The Arab countries cannot transfer money to the PA without the approval of the US," he said, adding that "no single country can cover our expenses."
Furthermore, large amounts of money cannot be transferred from countries or sources unacceptable to Israel. The PA does not have an independent banking system because it is not a state, so all transactions to Palestinian banks are done through Israel, which monitors them, explained Wazir.
"Hamas money transfers to [local] NGOs where possible," he said. "But if you're talking about a national budget, there's no way you can do it clandestinely."
Two Gulf States have approved fund transfers to the PA. Saudi Arabia will be transferring $20m. it previously promised and Qatar will be transferring another $13.2m.
Ministry officials are not only uncertain about the future of their salaries, but about the future of their jobs. Wazir is a technocrat with degrees in business administration from the US and UK. "But I'm also a Fatah party member," he said. "I don't know if [Hamas] will keep me." Nevertheless, he has prepared the budget for 2006 and said that if his plan were followed, the PA would once again be able to support itself within three years.
Despite concerns over his job, Wazir did not mince words.
"Hamas will have to face the music," he said as he stood up to go to the meeting with Olmert. "Being responsible for three billion Palestinians is not the same as running an NGO in Gaza."
On the floor of the ministry office manager's room lay seven piles of papers.
"Those are the bills we have to pay," said the manager, Tareq Mustafa, who has been fielding constant calls over the past week from other ministries anxious to know if they will get paid.
The PA needs $116 million a month to pay salaries of 137,000 workers, civil servants and security forces. That does not include payments to vendors for supplies and services, nor does it include the monthly social security payments to the nation's poorest.
Israel reopened the Karni cargo crossing into Gaza on Sunday, more than three weeks after closing it because of intelligence that terrorists were planning an attack there.
Palestinian officials estimated the Gaza economy lost $30m. due to the closure, mostly because 135 tons of fruits and vegetables spoiled as they waited to cross for delivery to Israeli and European markets.
AP contributed to this report.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622556315&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2006/425/index.html?id=mp6.htm
Political earthquake as Hamas wins election =2 - 8 Feb 2006
Another setback to imperialism in the Middle East
Kevin Simpson, CWI, London
YET ANOTHER political earthquake has struck the Middle East. Hamas, standing for the first time in national elections, achieved a massive landslide victory in Gaza and the West Bank with 76 seats out of 132 in Parliament.
Fatah which used to be the majority in the Palestinian Authority (PA) only won 43. Hamas won seats in all the major towns and cities even in places like Bethlehem where there is a large Christian population, and in Nablus which was historically a stronghold for Fatah.
This was a crushing defeat for Fatah and particularly for the weak PA President Mohammed Abbas. But it is also a severe blow and a huge surprise for both the Israeli ruling class and Western imperialist powers and their plans for an imposed 'peace settlement'.
The win is a major embarrassment for the Bush administration's campaign to 'democratise' the Middle East. Many of the corrupt Arab elite are also undoubtedly scurrying around their marble-lined, air-conditioned palaces wringing their hands at what this victory means for their already shaky grip on power.
The landslide has been accompanied by a torrent of propaganda in the Western press about "terrorists" winning at the ballot box. But the hypocrisy of the imperialist powers knows no limits. They have supported the Israeli capitalist state for decades. This regime has presided over one of the most brutal military occupations in the world using methods which can only be described as state terrorism.
Protest vote
HAMAS'S VICTORY was in the main a huge protest vote against the corrupt Fatah leadership at the head of the Palestinian Authority (PA) while the Palestinian majority slowly starved or were crushed under Israeli military occupation.
But the election's significance is not just confined to the Gaza and West Bank. It could have profound consequences for the region. Given the huge tensions in the Middle East and its vital geo-political importance to US and other imperialist powers, this election victory could contribute - along with other events - to abrupt changes in international relations.
The Middle East is characterised by various degrees of grinding poverty and social collapse, made worse by the implementation of at least 15 years of 'neo-liberal' policies. The collapse in living standards in the Middle East has in part exacerbated already burgeoning problems around the national question and the struggle of national minorities for their rights, particularly the Palestinians. The failure of imperialism's 'peace process' has actually complicated the situation further and led to more tension on this issue.
The huge pressure for change from the working class and the poor peasantry has been reflected, even if in a distorted way, in many of the political developments that have shaken the region over the last few months. The election of Hamas belongs to this category.
It is true that political support for Hamas' ideas has risen amongst some layers of the poorest and most downtrodden in the vacuum that exists in the West Bank and Gaza. However, rather than signifying overwhelming support for Hamas' Islamist policies, the extent of the election victory mainly reflects the anger against Fatah.
One Palestinian woman, summed up the mood of many Palestinians, saying "For 10 years Fatah haven't done anything for us. We have to try Hamas. We can't say if they will be better but we have to try." (The Guardian, London, 24 January 2006)
"Change and Reform"
HAMAS ORIENTATED its entire campaign around this mood. Running under the name "Change and Reform", Hamas highlighted the rampant corruption of the PA and promised a clean-up.
Other organisations seen as being to the left of Fatah, such as the Peoples Party (Communist Party) the DFLP (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) stood candidates. However, historically the leadership of these organisations made serious mistakes by tail-ending the nationalist approach of Fatah which sought a solution within the confines of capitalism. Experience has shown this is impossible.
These organisations went into retreat in the 1990s because of the confusion and demoralisation caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 and they never recovered. In these elections they never really distinguished themselves from other parties critical of Fatah and as a result they only won five seats.
When Hamas arose in early 1988 just after the beginning of the first Intifada, the Israeli state encouraged its development. These tactics were used by the Israelis to undermine Fatah, which then had majority support in the Occupied Territories, and prevent opposition to it taking a 'left' character.
Hamas' aims, expressed in its founding charter in 1988, are to create an Islamist state on the territory encompassed by Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. Such a state would be ruled under Shariah law. This would be an oppressive reactionary society which would be hostile to an independent movement of the working class in defence of its rights and socialist ideas. It would also mean the widespread oppression of women. It would represent a move backwards socially and politically.
The preamble to the Hamas Charter of 1988 states: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." This is taken to mean a call for the destruction of the state of Israel.
Hamas opposed the Oslo 'peace agreement' and also boycotted the first elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council (Parliament).
While Hamas has organised elements of mass protests during the second Intifada, these have always been strictly controlled from above and only used intermittently. One of its tactics has been suicide bombings.
The Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) opposes these tactics because it drives sections of Israeli Jewish workers into the arms of the government. This is because they feel they have no option but to support the government's oppressive measures as the only available measure to try to protect their security.
This does not mean the CWI has a pacifist approach. We believe in a mass, democratic struggle of the Palestinian working class and poor peasantry to end the occupation. Such a movement will have to be armed to defend itself against the attacks by the IDF and others but those bearing arms should be accountable to the working class as a whole.
Even before the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004, the PA leadership was in reality paralysed and unable to control events on the ground. Arafat was forced to announce the holding of local elections. They had long campaigned for this, eager to consolidate its growing base at local level. Hamas made sweeping gains in these elections last year which prepared the way for its election victory last week.
Whatever they said publicly, Hamas' military and political leaders knew that a campaign of suicide bombings on its own would not defeat the Israeli ruling class. There was also a certain war-weariness amongst the Palestinian masses. This forced Hamas to look at the possibility of entering the political process. Undoubtedly, the entrance of Hezbollah in Lebanon into Parliament had an effect. Abbas and the PA insisted on Hamas agreeing to a ceasefire in March 2005 as a precondition to standing in elections. Abbas took this gamble because he saw it as the only way in which Hamas might be forced to disarm its militias, something demanded by the imperialist powers and the Israeli state.
Hamas did not want to win an outright majority in these elections. They would rather not have taken the responsibility of ruling Gaza and the West Bank. This is why they spent the first day after the election appealing to Fatah to join them in government. They are also attempting to find a non-Hamas MP to be prime minister.
PA funding threat
A new and very unstable situation has opened up in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli government has said that there will be no negotiations with the PA because Hamas will be part of the government.
Of course, the Israeli regime has not mentioned that it was prepared to have contacts with local councils run by Hamas and facilitate through prison officials, negotiations between Hamas prisoners with other Arab countries as well as their leadership. It has threatened not to pass over VAT receipts or customs duties to the PA as has been the case previously.
The Bush administration has said that it will review all aid to the Palestinian Authority since Hamas is on its list of banned terrorist organisations. At the moment it donates $234 million a year. But its first act was to plead with Abbas to stay on as President. Undoubtedly, one calculation behind this request was to have a non-Hamas member who could act as an intermediary without it appearing as if they are negotiating with 'terrorists'.
The EU (as opposed to its member states) also donates $280 million a year to the PA. It is less likely they will cut back or halt funding. But the imperialist powers face a very difficult decision.
On 31 January, the PA will need $100 million, at least, to pay the wages of its 135,000 employees. Without these wages an explosion of mass protest could occur. At the moment there is no money and the PA is bankrupt.
There will be huge pressure on imperialism to find some solution to this potential disaster - either through channelling the money via Abbas, the president, or perhaps with some of the Arab regimes stepping in with emergency funding.
In Nablus, demonstrations have taken place by Fatah members calling for the resignation of the entire leadership of the organisation. Members of Fatah militias have announced an "internal intifada" to drive out the old corrupt leadership.
As far as Hamas is concerned, it is very unlikely that it will renounce its call for the destruction of Israel or disarm immediately. This would cause huge divisions. Hamas leaders in the run-up to the elections did make the point that in return for a withdrawal by Israel to the 1967 borders, they would be prepared to announce a 10-15 year ceasefire.
What Hamas may do is formally set up a separate political party from its armed militias in an attempt to overcome this problem. Hamas may be looking at the example of Sinn Fein and the IRA as an example to emulate.
However, in Northern Ireland the 'peace process' has foundered. It is three years since the local power-sharing government collapsed. The level of violence which characterised the Troubles may have died down in terms of its intensity but the sectarian polarisation between Protestant and Catholic communities is as great if not greater, than before. None of the fundamental problems have been solved.
But in the Middle East the tension, huge social and economic problems, and the geo-strategic importance of the region mean that rather than a reduction in violence, a new period of instability and clashes could develop.
It still remains to be seen whether Hamas can successfully take control of the PA security forces. Many of them are Fatah members. Partly this depends on Hamas' ability to keep on paying their wages. But there is no doubt that the possibility of episodes of violence, verging on open civil war is more likely. There have already been armed clashes between Hamas and Fatah supporters.
Regional repercussions
The Hamas victory will destabilise the capitalist and feudal elite across the region. Egypt has already seen an increased vote for the Muslim Brotherhood in the most recent elections.
In Saudi Arabia, more hardline Islamist candidates won ground in the limited elections that took place last year. There is already a growth in support for reactionary Islamist organisations, including al-Qa'ida amongst the population.
Jordan already has a majority of Palestinians living there and the Muslim Brotherhood is active as an opposition group. In all of these countries, these forces will be strengthened and the ruling elite weakened by Hamas's victory.
The election results in Gaza and the West Bank will also increase fears that Iran, which has refused to bend to imperialism's pressure to close down its civilian nuclear programme, is strengthening its influence in the region, because of its historic links with Hamas.
The political situation in Israel will also become more complicated for a time. Fears amongst Israeli Jews have been whipped up as a result of the Hamas victory. Soon after the election of Hamas, Israel's Defence Minister, Mofaz, implied in a media interview, that Hamas leaders should not think they were exempt from assassination attempts by the IDF following their election victory.
Ahead of Israel's general election, and with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon incapacitated following a stroke, Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu is keen to attack Sharon's policy of unilaterally withdrawing Israeli settlers from Gaza as 'playing into the hands of terrorists'.
Hamas will now have to deliver the goods - and quickly - to the Palestinian people. While in power in local councils, although it cleaned up the worst examples of corruption, it also carried out cuts in spending and sold off local council land and property, ostensibly to clear debts which involved paying "non-Islamic" interest payments.
Experience will show the Palestinian masses that only a break with capitalism and feudalism can begin to offer a way out of the disaster they face. But disappointment with Hamas rule will not be, in and of itself, enough to ensure this conclusion is drawn. A clear socialist alternative as part of an independent working class movement will have to be constructed for that to happen. The CWI will, along with the most conscious activists, struggle to make that objective a reality.
This would require a struggle to end mass unemployment and poverty. But this would only be the beginning - a movement to end the political and economic oppression by Israeli, Palestinian and Arab capitalism needs to be built which can put in its place a democratically planned socialist economy to transform the living standards of the region.
Such a struggle would also include the right of Palestinians to self-determination, including an independent state with full rights for all minorities. This would mean the fight for a socialist Palestine and a socialist Israel, as part of a voluntary socialist confederation of the Middle East.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=4e43fa98-5289-4a9b-b53a-8401a572726b
Brief history of Hamas
Friday, January 27, 2006
1970s-1980s: Begins as offshoot of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. Israel supported early growth as a counterbalance to Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. Early activity concentrated on social and community issues.
December 1987: Hamas officially forms as group days after outbreak of first Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation. Group targets Israeli soldiers and civilians in war to establish Islamic theocracy in Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
1993-1994: Hamas rejects interim peace accords between Israel and Palestinians.
1994: Hamas begins campaign of suicide bombings in Israel, aimed at derailing peace plan.
1996: Hamas intensifies bombings in response to killing of its chief bombmaker by Israel. Four bombings in the spring of 1996 kill at least 60 Israelis in eight days. Boycotts first Palestinian parliamentary election.
2000: Outbreak of second uprising in September ignites clashes that kill more than 3,500 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis over 4 1/2 years. Hamas suicide bombings account for large number of Israeli fatalities.
2004: Founder and spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin assassinated in Israeli missile strike in late March. Successor Abdel Aziz Rantisi assassinated in another air strike four weeks later.
December 2004: Hamas enters political system through municipal races.
February 2005: Proclaims ceasefire. Truce marred by rocket attacks ahead of Israel's summer withdrawal from Gaza, but no Hamas-sponsored suicide bombings since.
March 2005: Hamas announces it will take part in Palestinian legislative elections. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas refuses to disarm group before balloting, afraid to provoke civil war.
September 2005: Israel ends 38-year occupation of Gaza. Hamas claims victory for its armed struggle and pledges to end Israeli occupation of West Bank.
January 2006: Hamas defies polls, sweeps Palestinian parliamentary elections.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_292.shtml
Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections: Questions you need answered
The stunning victory by Hamas in the Palestinian election has raised many questions. Jewish Voice for Peace offers some answers to help our members and supporters make sense of these momentous developments.
Who is Hamas?
So is Hamas a terrorist group?
Does this vote mean that Palestinians support Islamic fundamentalism?
Was this a vote in support of increased attacks against Israel?
Doesn’t it make sense for Israel to refuse to negotiate with terrorists?
Don’t Israelis have a right to be scared by this result?
Is Hamas prepared to engage in diplomacy with Israel?
How did Israel and the United States contribute to this outcome?
What does this election say about Palestinian democracy?
Is there any positive side to this?
What can we expect in the coming days?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: Who is Hamas?
A: Hamas is an Arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. Created in 1987 during the first intifada, Hamas was an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamic militant group. Hamas is a purely Palestinian group and focuses exclusively on the Palestinian issue.
Hamas’ charter explicitly calls for Israel’s destruction; it bars recognition of Israel and compromise with her. The charter also commits the group to armed struggle and, in describing its view of Israeli and Zionist plans, cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a Russian forgery from the very early 20th century that is the seminal piece of modern anti-Semitic literature) as its source. Hamas has engaged in many criminal acts of attacking civilians.
But Hamas has another side as well. It has established an extensive social services network, especially in the Gaza Strip. Many Palestinians have gotten much more material aid through and from Hamas than the PA over the years. This is a key source of support for Hamas among those who do not share their political, religious or ideological worldview.
Hamas, though certainly bound to a particular dogma, has always shown a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances. In the past, Hamas has refused to engage in Palestinian elections, seeing them, correctly, as products of the Oslo Accords they opposed. But they have obviously changed their views on this point. Even before that shift, there were many indications that, while they may never accept the legitimacy of Israel’s existence, they were prepared to find ways for Israel and Palestine to live together.
The book “The Palestinian Hamas” by Israeli scholars Shaul Mishal and Avraham Sela is required reading for anyone who wishes to understand Hamas. Though a bit outdated (the book was published in 2000), the clarity it sheds on Hamas is still valid. In fact, the way the book battles the simplistic view of Hamas has only been strengthened in recent years—if anything, Hamas has become more adaptable to new circumstances and more open to new ways of doing things than it had been five years ago.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: So is Hamas a terrorist group?
A: Yes. But many terrorist groups have become governments or taken leadership positions in governments in the past. That includes groups like the Irgun Z’vai Leumi and the Lochamei Herut Israel (LEHI or Stern Group), terrorist groups from the pre-state Yishuv, or Jewish settlement in Palestine. From the ranks of those groups came two Israeli Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. Fatah, the party that had been in control of the Palestinian Authority, also had a long history of attacks against Israeli and other civilian and military targets. It is precisely the fact that Hamas has such a great involvement in the violence of the second Palestinian intifada that gives them much more ability than Fatah had to control that violence, if they wish to do so.
+++++++++++++++
Q: Does this vote mean that Palestinians support Islamic fundamentalism?
A: Not likely. Although in recent years, religion has increased in influence in the Palestinian territories, Palestinian society still has a very strong secular element. While Hamas certainly has a sizable core of supporters, their success in this election was not due to religion, ideology or violence. Rather, it was attributable to the failure and corruption of the ruling Fatah party and to the accurate perception that Hamas was better organized and free of rampant corruption.
More than anything, this was a vote for change, and Hamas was the alternative. Beyond Fatah’s corruption, there was also the fact that Fatah’s way of doing things had gained the Palestinians nothing in their dealings with Israel. From the Palestinian point of view, the politics of Fatah failed to produce results, so why not give Hamas a chance?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: Was this a vote in support of increased attacks against Israel?
A: Again, not likely. Recent polls indicate very strong Palestinian support for continuing the cease-fire with Israel. Polls have consistently indicated that Palestinians reserve their right to resist occupation with force, but both oppose attacks on civilians (although the settlers in the West Bank who are often armed and sometimes have formed ad-hoc militias can blur the distinction between civilians and combatants) and believe that violence is an unsound tactic at this time (this has not always been the case during the second intifada, but the polls on this point have been consistent for quite some time now).
Hamas is cognizant of these popular feelings. That is why they have abided by the cease-fire for the past year and why they have already stated their willingness to continue it, despite the fact that the conditions they set a year ago for maintaining the cease-fire have not been met (this primarily refers to the release of Palestinian prisoners).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: Doesn’t it make sense for Israel to refuse to negotiate with terrorists?
A: The entire issue is phony; Israel has not been negotiating with Fatah in any real sense since the end of talks at Taba in early 2001, in the last days of Ehud Barak’s term as Prime Minister of Israel. So their refusal to talk with Hamas does not represent a change from before the election.
It is fair for Israel to push for Hamas to change their charter. But one makes peace with enemies, not with friends or even “partners.” It was not the military leaders of Hamas that got elected, but those from its political wing. The same controversy was raised a decade ago in Northern Ireland, and everyone eventually realized that the only way to move forward was to involve Sinn Fein, the Irish Republican Army’s political wing. That same pragmatic view is needed now.
It is wrong and counter-productive for Hamas to refuse to negotiate with Israel and it is wrong and counter-productive for Israel to refuse to negotiate with the legitimately elected leadership of the Palestinians.
+++++++++++++
Q: Don’t Israelis have a right to be scared by this result?
A: Yes, they do. The top Palestinian party is sworn to Israel’s destruction by its charter, and has, until recently, been responsible for some of the most horrific suicide bombings in the intifada. That they are now making some more conciliatory remarks is not very reassuring to Israelis, especially since those remarks, at least for the time being, include refusal to recognize Israel.
But while fear should never be ignored, it must also not be allowed to overcome reason. Hamas is the legitimately elected party in power. It is reasonable to expect them to act like a legitimate political party, but it is not reasonable to simply say there will be no dealing with them. There are good reasons to be afraid of Hamas. There are even better ones, particularly if there is to be any hope for a better future, to engage them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: Is Hamas prepared to engage in diplomacy with Israel?
A: Not at present, but there are indications that this could change. Hamas’ charter bars negotiating, recognizing or making any compromises with Israel. For the time being, they are sticking to that line, but even their own officials are saying that such a stance is incompatible with being the leading Palestinian party. Hamas understands that they are going to have to change. One Hamas official has already said that, while Hamas is not prepared for direct negotiations, if Israel has “something to offer, 1,000 ways can be found” to negotiate, which likely means negotiating through third parties.
The Secretary-General of the Arab League flatly stated that Hamas “must” negotiate with Israel and abide by the Beirut declarations of 2002. Based on a Saudi peace proposal, the Arab League in 2002 offered full peace and fully normal relations between Israel and each of the member states of the League in exchange for complete withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967, the establishment of a Palestinian state on those lands in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital and “Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.” Israel completely ignored this offer. While there are points Israel would not accept whole cloth, there is no discernable reason that this offer could not be the basis for serious, short-term negotiations aimed at a permanent settlement of the conflict.
In any event, this makes it clear that Hamas is going to face intense pressure to recognize and negotiate with Israel from corners that matter to them. Hamas has always been sensitive to Palestinian public opinion, and that opinion still supports finding a way to end the Israeli occupation and reach an agreement with Israel for a secure and more hopeful future. All these factors combine to suggest that Hamas will, if they form a government, take steps to comply with the wishes of the Arab League and most of the Palestinian populace.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: How did Israel and the United States contribute to this outcome?
A: In a global sense, major Western powers, as well as Israel, have worked to counter secular Arab nationalism for decades. For a very long time that was seen as the primary threat to first British and French and later American interests. One of the ways they pursued their opposition to Arab nationalism was by strengthening, or at the very least ignoring the growth of, religious opposition groups. This led to the rise of many groups, often equipped with US money and/or training.
In Hamas’ case, they certainly benefited from a general rise in religious militarism. But Israel also helped them by allowing the Islamic groups that preceded Hamas to flourish with relatively little harassment in the 70s and most of the 80s. Israel saw the religious groups opposing the secular nationalists, like the PLO, that Israel was more concerned with. They believed that allowing, and even encouraging Hamas to flower would create a thorn in the side of secular Palestinian nationalism, leading to infighting and blunting the Palestinians’ ability to mount resistance. And for a time, that was what happened. But the rise of groups like Hamas was the inevitable result.
In more recent years, Israeli actions have consistently undermined support for Fatah, Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. In April, 2002, after a horrific attack in Netanya on Passover (carried out, it should be noted, by Hamas), Israel launched “Operation Defensive Shield”. By the end of that offensive, the Palestinian infrastructure had been destroyed. There has only recently been an opportunity for the Palestinian Authority to start to rebuild that infrastructure. Yet Israel continued to insist that the PA clamp down on militants, despite their not having the military means or the political capital to do so. When the PA could not comply, Israel and the US would ridicule their leadership, refuse to negotiate and act unilaterally. Then, by building the wall, in defiance of international law, through the West Bank rather than along the Green Line and by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza, Israel demonstrated the irrelevance, in their eyes, of Mahmoud Abbas, the PA and Fatah.
From the Palestinian point of view, things were just getting worse under Fatah’s leadership and what warmth the US was showing Fatah only made the party look like quislings. Indeed, the leaking of news that the US was covertly funneling funds to Fatah to bolster their campaign just before the election was probably very damaging.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: What does this election say about Palestinian democracy?
A: Considering that this election took place under military occupation and was run by a Palestinian Authority that does not have anything like the resources of an independent government, the election, in and of itself, was a triumph for the Palestinians. Virtually free of any scandals, and with nearly 78% of eligible voters participating, the election was a huge success. In terms of participation, transparency and verified honesty of the ballot, one would have to dig deep and far before one found an Israeli or American national election that could match it.
That Hamas comes out the winner is the result of their being the clearest alternative to Fatah, and of their superior organizational ability. It is not inevitable that harder-line groups would triumph in a Palestinian democracy. But other, more secular and mainstream groups, must now demonstrate to the Palestinian people that they are free of corruption, organized and connected to the people if they wish to challenge Hamas.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: Is there any positive side to this?
A: Yes, there are opportunities in this surprising turn of events. One of the biggest difficulties over the years of dealing with Fatah, particularly under Yasir Arafat’s was a disconnect between the negotiations with Israel and the US and the attitudes among the Palestinian population. Particularly on the issue of refugees, the terms of negotiations were always very different from what the populace was prepared to accept. Hamas is likely to force the issue into greater clarity. The refugee issue is the hardest one to deal with, because it is absolutely fundamental to Palestinian nationalism and is also the one area where Israelis are almost universally united in being unwilling to see anything more than a token return of refugees. This issue can’t be resolved unless both sides are really negotiating based on the feelings of their people, and in the past Palestinian negotiators have not done this.
The Fatah leadership that has been leading negotiations is very much removed from the Palestinian street. Hamas is very much in touch with it. This would allow for much greater clarity, and, if compromises can be found (which will certainly be more difficult with Hamas, but still not impossible) they will be much more likely to be accepted by the Palestinian masses than the sort of deals Fatah tended to discuss. In fact, the legitimacy which Hamas has now means both greater difficulty but also greater clarity and confidence in all negotiations. If Hamas can be persuaded to strike a deal, it will be one that will pass the muster of the Palestinian street, something Fatah could never guarantee.
Hamas also now has the incentive to continue to refrain from attacks on Israeli civilians. More than that, they have incentive to bring all the militias under the PA's control. And they have the political and military cache to do it, in a way Fatah did not any longer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: What can we expect in the coming days?
A: It is almost impossible to predict where things will go from here. Fatah finds itself outside of whatever power exists among the Palestinians for the first time in more than forty years. There is a lot of anger in Fatah, against Hamas, against Israel and against its own outgoing leadership. There have been a few violent incidents and Fatah has already declared its intention to be a very vocal opposition.
It is not clear what kind of deals Hamas will make to form a coalition government or even if it will do so. Hamas has enough seats to control the government without a coalition, so if coalition-building proves untenable, they have the option not to pursue it. They are currently putting a great deal of effort into bringing Fatah into a coalition government, but thus far Fatah has remained adamant in its refusal.
One thing that is likely is that Hamas will try to focus inward first and leave the nagging question of the Israel, the US and the occupation until later. This is sensible, as it will give them the opportunity to root out corruption in the PA, thereby increasing its effectiveness. Then they will need to make the hard choices about whether to change their stances or how to accommodate the Palestinians’ and the rest of the world’s desire to see negotiations commence again.
Israel and the US would do well to put the onus on Hamas to negotiate by accepting the Beirut Declaration of 2002 as a basis for resuming negotiations (which does not mean accepting their terms whole cloth, something Israel would obviously not do). This would force the issue of recognition and negotiation and would really turn the heat up on Hamas to sit down and negotiate a deal. It could prove a turning point, but it is not going to happen. As sensible as such a move would be for everyone, even the Israeli Labor Party has immediately turned to a call for more “unilateral moves” in the wake of the election, and the Bush Administration is certainly not going to compromise its “anti-terror” rhetoric in this regard.
There is the real possibility that Hamas will try to meet the conditions the US has set forth for being a “legitimate partner” on some level. Hamas could try to make some declaration about this (one of their leaders has already said that Hamas would respect agreements made by previous Palestinian governments, whether they agreed with them or not) and see if that was enough. It is highly unlikely they will change their charter any time in the foreseeable future. They have already announced their intention to integrate their militia with PA forces, though this may prove more difficult than it sounds. Many observers, including some inside Hamas, feel that by running in the elections, Hamas has de facto accepted the Oslo framework.
For the time being, Hamas is probably going to focus on rooting out corruption in the PA and will maintain the “quiet” with Israel, as long as Israel does the same. It seems likely that Israel will do so, although with their own elections coming up, acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will be very deliberate about how he approaches the Hamas-led PA. He could decide that increasing actions in the West Bank or even extra-judicial killings would bolster his position. But this doesn’t seem immediately likely. The other militant groups like Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade may decide that it is now time for them to ramp up their operations. The al-Aqsa Martyrs in particular, being a breakaway faction of Fatah, may wish to immediately de-stabilize the Hamas government. It is a certainty that Hamas will now be blamed for every attack, whether they had anything to with it or not, much as Fatah was in the past, only amplified. It is in their interests to try to bring the other armed groups under control. Whether they can or even wish to do so remains to be seen.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Related Information Links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600372.html
Friday, January 27, 2006; A01
Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in Mideast
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
RAMALLAH, West Bank, Jan. 26 -- The radical Islamic movement Hamas won a large majority in the new Palestinian parliament, according to official election results announced Thursday, trouncing the governing Fatah party in a contest that could dramatically reshape the Palestinians' relations with Israel and the rest of the world……….
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4652866.stm
Friday, 27 January 2006
Israel rules out talks with Hamas……….
Hamas' strong showing has caused consternation in Israel and the US
1996 ELECTION
1) Fatah: 55 seats
2) Independent Fatah: 7 seats
3) Independent Islamists: 4
4) Independent Christians: 3
5) Independents: 15 seats
6) Samaritans: 1 seat
7) Others: 1 seat
8): Vacant: 2 seats
2006 ELECTION
1) Hamas - 76 seats
2) Fatah - 43 seats
3) PFLP - 3 seats
4) Badeel - 2 seats
5) Independent Palestine - 2
6) Third Way - 2 seats
7) Independent/other - 4
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Many thanks to Our Sister Norma J F Harrison for contributing to this HRA {Humane-Rights-Agenda Group} Report:
Email: normaha@pacbell.net
http://humane-rights-agenda.blogspot.com/2006/02/hra-report-hamas-wins-elections.html
No comments:
Post a Comment