Hammered by Hamas Posted by Suzanne Nossel

President Bush called yesterday's Palestinian election results a "wake up call" for senior Palestinian leadership.  Only they didn't know they were sleeping on the ledge of a 10-story building, nor that the morning alarm would come in the form of a swift shove.  No one has had the time to fully digest the results, but here are a couple of observations in relation to US policy:

1.  Bush's neglect is Hamas' gain - As progressives, we've long criticized Bush for failing to fully engage in the Israel-Palestinian peace process.   Team Bush's involvement in pressing peace has been intermittent at best:  at first Bush seemed reluctant to wade in where Clinton had tried and failed; later in the Administration Bush was too distracted, mainly by Iraq. 

Hamas' victory grows out of this neglect:  at the simplest level, if it had reached a settlement with Israel, Fatah would still be in power.   More broadly, the US's failure to engage bred a sense of stagnation that fueled popular frustrations with the party.  Time passed, and the momentum built up at various points (for example, right after initial combat operations ended in Iraq, and right after the Gaza pullout)  repeatedly disintegrated into hopelessness.   This is an example of the unwillingness to take more risk has wrought a worse outcome probably worse than a policy tried and failed.

2. US Aid to the PA - The US funnels hundreds of millions a year to the Palestinian Authority.  If Hamas takes over key ministries and other functions, this money will go to the hands of a terrorist organization, something Congress has already resolved not to allow.  Yet a substantial cut-off in US aid could quickly doom the already precarious PA down. 

While we can wait until a new Palestinian government is formed, thereafter we should provide the PA with a list of clear demands - agreed with the Europeans and other major aid donors - that must be met for the monies to continue to flow.  These prerequisites would have to include revision of the Hamas charter provision calling for Israel's destruction, a platform the group's leadership has vowed to maintain. 

Here Bush can and should call Hamas' bluff:  they've run on a platform of delivering social services and basic needs to the population, and making good will require funds.  Yet a frightening scenario could involve Hamas responding to a US aid shut off by turning to Iran, Syria or others for support.  By turning its back entirely on Hamas, we may risk driving a pragmatic group toward its own worst extremes.

The key to avoiding this worst-case scenario may be getting moderate Arab countries - Jordan and Egypt in particular - to help convince the Hamas-led government that by isolating itself and aligning with Islamists and terrorists they will quickly lose their following among the mostly secular Palestinian population and/or see the Palestinian territories devolve into a failed state.   The last thing the Arab countries want is a Palestinian basket case of a partly-born nation on their doorsteps.  Jordan and Egypt each have their own domestic Islamist concerns which will complicate any mediating efforts.  But still, a unified front consisting of the US, Europe, Russia, and Palestinian neighbors is probably our best bet.

Comments

[J Thomas]

None of this should be at all surprising.

The hundreds of millions we've given to Fatah to try to hold the palestinians down, was simply not enough. Particularly not when israel has consistently acted to hamstring the PA whenever it started to get enough force to subdue its own citizens.

The israeli government has rightly decided that any hope for palestinians is bad for israel. Any economic improvements or political improvements or particularly concessions by israel about land, travel restrictions, checkpoints, or repression generally would have a strictly temporary calming effect -- whatever israel gives up, palestinians will want more. They will not settle for less than all of the west bank and east jerusalem and an open border with jordan, demands which no israeli government could agree to. Anything which makes palestinians less miserable is bad for israel.

If we were to cut aid in half, Hamas could deliver services at least as well with that money as are done now. Do you suppose that less than half of the money we gave to Fatah was wasted? Sure, palestinians are hungry. But like the people of vichy france who were almost as hungry, they know who to blame for that. Of course, we could cut off all aid and if no one else picked up the tab, we could watch the palestinians starve. We could watch humanitarian food convoys get turned back at the borders by israeli guards. Etc.

Of course we don't want a palestinian government that actually represents its people. But how can we stop it now? The easiest way would be for israel to do another big incursion. Move in, detain every known Hamas official they can find including every elected one, destroy every internal combustion engine they find, and pull out again. But what then?

I believe the easiest approach would be to just wait and see. See what Hamas does as opposed to telling them they have to change their charter or else. What do we really have to lose by postponing drastic action? The worst they can do is say things to the international media that we'd rather not hear. They aren't in any position to do anything substantive.

[Robert McDougall]

Suzanne Nossel:

If Hamas takes over key ministries and other functions, this money will go to the hands of a terrorist organization . . .

And when I pay my taxes, the money goes to the hands of the Republican Party? There's no way forward here but to accept that the party is one thing and the government another.

These prerequisites would have to include revision of the Hamas charter provision calling for Israel's destruction . . .

And this would profit the United States how? There's a moral case for not dealing if HAMAS reverts to criminal violence. It would also be legitimate realpolitik for the U.S. to insist on recognition of Israel if its interest lay that way; but for reasons given in the next para of your article, it doesn't.

J. Thomas:

If we were to cut aid in half, Hamas could deliver services at least as well with that money as are done now. Do you suppose that less than half of the money we gave to Fatah was wasted?

Corruption does not equal waste. A great deal of the corruption is income support for low-level Fatah hangers on. It's not being wasted, it's helping keep them, and the Occupied Territories, from destitution. If the aid is cut, there will be hardship, even if anti-corruption measures keep service delivery unaffected.

Now the Territories presumably would be better off overall if the aid flow were maintained and at the same time corruption curbed, but that's a different proposition.

[Lane Brody]

I am struck by all the negative coverage on the election. The Palestinians had a great turnout and voted in overwhelming numbers for Hamas. Why is this bad? What are they going to do declare war on Israel and be destroyed? All it proves is that the Palestinian people are not ready to accept peace with Israel insofar as Hamas stands for destroying Israel. In reality it was more about 10 years of corupt Fatah rule.

However, it might also show that Arafat had a good read on his people when he turned down, without negotiation or counter-proposal, the Clinton and Barak deal. Nobody has ever really explained what peace will mean and Arafat just flatly rejected the notion of telling his people the "right of return" is simply a non-starter.

The only comments I heard from Hamas today, CNN, was someone mentioning how central the "right of return" is any long term peace with Israel. It's only to the long term good that Hamas was elected. Reality might get accepted some years from now.

Finally the notion that if only Fatah had made peace Hamas would not be in power belies reality. There was never going to be peace- it was entirely an illusion. The Palestinian people have never been told what peace will cost. Everyone knows the details- Saab Erekat has said this in public and so has Dennis Ross and many other central figures on all sides.

Lane Brody

[J Thomas]

Robert McDougal, I'm sympathetic to most of your points. About Fatah corruption, it depends. If a Fatah agent took money that was intended to buy a ton of wheat to distribute to poor people, and instead he buys a ton of wheat for himself, and he then distributes the wheat to poor people in return for political failures, then not much harm done. But if he takes the money and hides it in a swiss bank, that doesn't do much for palestinians except the particular exiles who know the account number and password.

I don't have good data about how much of the corruption was of each type. it isn't the sort of thing I'd expect to find reliable data on.

[R.G.]

Suzanne Nossel is right: the U.S. government can't give money to a government whose activities and express purpose is to destroy Israel, regardless of the government's social welfare programs. Don't forget, Hamas is now invited to be the government of the Palestinians, and will soon be the government. Where so much of our money now goes into the pockets of corrupt Fatah officials, and the rest to the Palestinian people, with a Hamas government, it would go to violence against Israelis, and the rest to the Palestinians, and it will have the sanction of a Palestinian government, not a mere organization, to boot. So, again, that can't be U.S. policy toward a Hamas government. Conclusion: Any support for such a government is simply impossible. Prod such a government to change its charter and its violent behavior? Wishful thinking. Not even Arafat (at Camp David) would abjure Palestinians'claim to a right of return and Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem. But at least he controlled some of the violence against Israelis.

For the present, Israel must just proceed on a policy of separation from the Palestinians, fence and all. Only time will tell what future policy should be for the U.S.

Doing harm is always worse than doing nothing, if doing nothing is less harmful, of course. And I think that in the present circumstances, the U.S. should just sit tight for a while as the Israelis separate further from the Palestinians and as the Hamas government tries to get even more money than they have presently got from the Saudis and whoever else might contribute.

R.G.

[J Thomas]

RG, I want to suggest that we follow Nixon's old dictum. "Watch what they do, not what they say."

Israel has never negotiated in good faith with palestinians. For a long time, the dominant israeli position was "There is no such thing as a palestinian, there are only arab refugees.". Then when Fatah etc started to do a little damage the dominant israeli position became "There is no such thing as a palestinian, there are only arab refugees and terrorists.". Then after the intifada it became "There are palestinians but there is nothing like a palestinian governent, there is nobody to negotiate with.". And so on. The closest israel has come to good-faith negotiation was with Rabin, but after Rabin was murdered nothing came of it.

So the USA has nothing to lose by supposing that Hamas might negotiate in good faith, and see what they actually do. They might agree to a real cease-fire if israel stops killing Hamas leaders. There's no reason to think that israel would agree to that, but we can't know it's impossible. If israel behaves like they accept a cease-fire then we can see what Hamas does.

Demanding that Hamas change their charter is a tactic to prevent negotiation. Why should americans buy into that? We demanded it of the PLO and what good did it do? While we're at it why not demand that israel change their own charter to repudiate the israeli Return? If we did, the result would be no negotiation, right? Same thing the other way round.

Never mind their charter. They are on the way toward developing an actual palestinian government that it might be possible to negotiate with. The way to find out whether negotiation is possible is to try it and see.

"Watch what they do, not what they say." If they said they were ready to forego violence completely, no matter what the israelis did to them, would you believe them? It isn't about what they say when they aren't negotiating. It's about what they're willing to negotiate, and how well they keep their word -- and how well the israelis keep their word. Don't prejudge it unless you don't want an agreement. Until recently the dominant opinion in israel has been that they didn't want an agreement. Agreements limit them. While they have entirely the upper hand they can do whatever they want, why agree to anything that reduces that? Now Sharon's new party talked like they wanted peace. There's no reason to believe that Sharon meant it. He probably intended to cut the power of the settlers and withdraw from areas that were expensive to occupy but had no particular value. Without Sharon, will his party actually try to negotiate? It seems unlikely but there's always the possibility that this is what their voters want and that they might cater to that want.

[Lane Brody]

Fact Check: The details of what peace will look like are very widely known. The Palestinians and Israeli's know exactly what the deal will look like. President Clinton, Dennis Ross, Saab Erekat, Barak, and many other central figures have all said this in public on multiple occasions.

Lane Brody

[J Thomas]

Lane, I have to disagree. Nobody knows what peace would look like.

Sure, various americans and israelis have listed their demands and made offers that have consistently been retracted and made obsolete with "facts on the ground". This says nothing about what peace would look like.

[Lane Brody]

J Thomas you are incorrect and ignore my citation of a very well known Palestinian, Saab Erekat, who I believe won his seat this election (Fatah). He and other Palestinians, along with President Clinton, Dennis Ross, and others have all said many times, in public, that the details are widely known. There's been one or two Frontline's and many other serious documentaries over the years that clearly show state this. There was another one in the past year with the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators (Clinton/Barak) who said pretty much the same thing.

Basically everyone knows Jerusalem will be shared and will be the capital of both nations, each nation gets to decide who can be a citizen and who can not ("right of return" non starter), Palestine to be around 98% of the West Bank (but not 100% simply for security concerns), and the PA gets a LOT of money.

If you believe most Palestinians have ever been told these details you would be incorrect. They are told, constantly, that the "right of return" is a basic "right" they will someday get. Hamas, post-election, repeated this on CNN. The Palestinian people have never been prepared for peace, period. One day when they know what reality means they can make the choice one way or the other. Right now they've chosen Hamas.

Lane Brody

[J Thomas]

Lane, you have completely missed the point. If Erekat says that the details are known, he is wrong. Nobody knows what peace would look like for palestine. Neither israel nor palestine have agreed to anything, yet. Israel has made various plans but has not accepted any of the plans that israel has proposed to propose, and unilaterally broke the one that was started.

There is no evidence whatsoever that israel would ever allow jerusalem to be shared, beyond statements by a few negotiators who did not have authority to make that offer. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that israel would willingly give up 98% of the west bank. You are correct that israel has never considered palestinian right of return to be negotiable.

Various palestinians have said that they do consider their right of return to be negotiable, but they don't actually have the authority to make that offer.

Israel has not negotiated in good faith with the PA -- certainly not from Barak on. Of course, they didn't believe that Arafat was negotiating in good faith either -- which made the whole exercise pointless.

Possibly a new israeli government and a new palestinian government might agree on a way to live together. Nobody knows the details of what they might agree on. Saying those details are known is simply to say that one side is ready to impose its terms. But the terms you suggest are a fantasy.

If israel was ready to return 98% of the west bank when they built their latest Wall, why did they include so much extra land? In a way it doesn't matter where they build their expensive Wall because the USA will always pay for them to rebuild it elsewhere. But ... no. You are talking a fantasy, silly propaganda meant for US ears. If Netanyahu wins in the coming israeli election this will be clear to everyone who pays attention.

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[Network]

thanks for sharing Sohbet many people are pay more attention to one's swearing than before, especially a watch.Muhabbet.
Perhaps when you went to some place far away Sohbet you must borrow it from friends you can get everything you want in this game Chat money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit. Sohbet when you look at Chat
the surface of the watches viaload great any cool Exsohbet from the city you live in and thought you knew nobody there Egitim Fourth, there were various signs of political conflict among shia. If they split 3 ways or 4 ways, the sunnis and the kurds could often be the Sohbet swing votes in the politics. If they felt they had political clout out of proportion to their numbers, they could settle in Sohbet and do politics and not feel oppressed.

[orjin krem]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[swissgear backpack]

It's good that they have thought about that. It was about time they did something. Thanks for sharing.