Thursday, January 26, 2006

Palestinian election "earthquake"

I must admit to feeling sick in the stomach, with the news that Hamas has easily won the Palestinian elections and now has the capacity to form government.

The implications are startling. Hamas does not accept the two state solution nor does it renounce violence or terrorism. They are an Islamic fundamentalist organisation. The capacity for the conflict turning from a political/territorial conflict to a religious one is now real. For the Palestinians the election of Hamas may likely turn into a disaster for them. Dependent on overseas financial support and dependent on Israel for basic things such as electricity and water, should Hamas not dramatically change their positions, the PA is likely to go bankrupt shortly and lose any legitimacy, outside of the arab world. For Israel, the election of Hamas poses the final nail in the coffin of the Oslo and The Road Map. Hamas are not partners for peace. Unless they accept Israel's existence and renouce violence they can not be partners for peace. These are the foundational axioms Israel has accepted when negotiating with Palestinians and which will not and should not change.

The cause of Hamas's rise is complicated and it would be a mistake to think that the majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas because of their political platform essentially to destroy Israel. No doubt Bibi, the Israeli right and their diaspora supporters will attempt to construct such a narrative. The real reasons for Hamas's rise has been two fold; firstly the Palestinians were fed up with Fatah and the corruptions associated with it. They saw in Hamas an organisation free of corruption who had already demonstrated a capacity in their volunteer health and educational work for improving Palestinian society.

Secondly, Palestinians believed that they had given Fatah the benefit of the doubt in 1993 supporting Oslo hoping it would led to a Palestinian state, and Fatah had failed in this regard. The roadblocks, the economic stagnation, the settlerments were still there and not going away. The only achievement that had been made was Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, largely seen as a Hamas success. In this regard, one has to question the tactics of the Sharon government over the last six years who successfully nutured the "no partner" thesis which in the process weakened Fatah and strengthened Hamas. Since the death of Arafat and the election of Abu Mazen, there was adequate time for Israel to strengthen the PA and to coordinate the withdrawal from Gaza with them. Instead, Sharon at every point humiliated and weakened Abu Mazen. The opening of the Gaza crossings was one such example, which over a number of months after exhaustive negotiation was finally resolved but only through Condi Rice and Wolfenson negotiating. The matter needless to say could have been resolved in weeks. It seems that Israel has been caught slightly off guard by the result. After years in which security personnel have declared "victory" against terrorism, Israel now has a terrrorist group in power. Surely, the wisdom of Israel's past approach needs to be questioned.

In the end of the day, however, the responsiblity for this result lies with the Palestinian people. They chose Hamas knowing full well what they represent. They full know well that Hamas is the principal engine of terrorism within Palestinian society and that their election to power, makes any diplomatic opportunities slimmer and their international and economic position weak. They also know full well that Israel's military responses have largely been a result of Hamas terrorist's actions. In short, it is due in no small part to Hamas's vicious terrorist campaign that the Palestinians find themselves in the position they are in: further away from statehood then ever. The election of Hamas makes statehood for Palestinians ever more further and Palestinians in the end of the day only have themselves to blame for that.

So what are the likely scenarios:

1. Hamas forms government and declares a Hudna. Abu Mazen negotiates with Israel through the vehicle of the PLO effectively bypassing the Hamas controlled parliament. Israel ignores the Palestinian parliament and with an Olmert victory, makes a further unilateral withdrawal or negotiates solely with Abu Mazen.

2. Hamas forms government and indicates its intention to continue the arm struggle. Abu Mazen resigns creating a vacuum in the PA. Israel treats Hamas's position as a declaration of war and effectively takes control of the Palestinian area. Parts of the territories are then eventually handed over to an international force who acts as trustees for the time being.

3. Hamas is forced to deal with the pragmatic reality and indicate their intention to renounce violence. They also accept as an "interim long term arrangement" the concept of a two state solution. Abu Mazen negotiates with Israel through the vehicle of the PLO or makes a unilateral withdrawal from parts of the territory.

4. Hamas takes power, but the Palestinian policeforce mainly consisting of Fatah supporters objects. A civil war breaks out in the territories.

There are of course a myriad of other possibilities, which are likely to be far more complicated then the ones above. Another factor to take into account will how the PA elections will effect the upcoming Israeli elections. I do not foresee Kadmah losing. The Labour party may shed some seats which are likely to go to Kadimah but Bibi is still a long way from winning. It is essential that Israel has a responsible judicious leader at this time and Olmert fits the bill quite well.

Resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict continues to seem so far off. One only hopes that a modicum of peace and stability will one day prevail in this troubled region. At the moment, we're further away from that then ever.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home