MideastWeb Middle East Web Log

log  archives  middle east  maps  history   documents   countries   books   encyclopedia   culture   dialogue   links    timeline   donations 


Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections


The outcome of the Palestinian elections shows a classic paradox of democracy: the victory of an undemocratic and extremist party. The voting was fair and democratic, and more than in the elections of 1996, there was a vivid campaign and the Palestinian people really had something to choose.

The Palestinians had probably one of the most democratic elections ever seen in the Middle East, and that is something to be proud of. Yet for many Israelis this is a grey day and in their eyes the result proves that most Palestinians don't want peace. The Israeli government has said from the start that it would not talk to Hamas and that there will be no negotiations with a government in which Hamas participates. Hamas has carried out hundreds of terrorist attacks in Israel since the 1990's, and wants to liberate all of Palestine through Jihad. The Hamas Charter labels all negotiations a waste of time, and says no Palestinian is ever allowed to give up one inch of historical Palestine. It harbors the worst anti-Semitic propaganda:

After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

It is no wonder that an organization that says such things, is not viewed as a peace partner by the world's only Jewish state, and Abbas' remarks, that there is nothing for Israel to be afraid of, sound a bit surrealistic:

The Israelis must not be afraid of the Palestinian elections and the Palestinian democracy, which would be a rock foundation for peace between us (the Israelis and Palestinians). We will continue peace with the Israelis.

Some people, incorrigible optimists or with little understanding of what is necessary to come to peace, say that Hamas has become more pragmatic and for example offered a long term truce and did not rule out negoptiations. Besides, on a local level there is already cooperation between Hamas-led Palestinian towns and Israeli officials. People also refer to the fact that Hamas adhered to the informal truce during most of 2005. Also the fact that Hamas decided to run in the elections, and thus showed a willingness to take political responsibility, is cited as proof of Hamas' moderation. [Click here for some quotes of Hamas leaders and candidates during the election campaign.]

It is certainly true that there are both a more radical and a more pragmatic branch in Hamas. 'More pragmatic' compared to the radical branch, that is. It might seem a bit odd to some people, but offering a truce without disarmement, in return for all of the territories and East Jerusalem, and the right of return for all refugees, doesn't sound as a peace offer to most Israelis. Also, the fact that Hamas is willing to talk on a practical level to have the water or electricity supply guaranteed, doesn't sound really reconciliatory. It is true that Hamas carried out only one suicide attack in 2005, whereas Islamic Jihad, which opposed the truce, carried out several.

Hamas did fire hundreds of missiles at Israel from the Gaza Strip and has smuggled extensive amounts of weapons. In comparison: after the killing of Hamas leaders Yassin and Rantisi in the spring of 2004, the willingness to carry out attacks against Israel was enormous, yet it took them 5 months before they suceeded in doing so. The difference with Islamic Jihad is that the latter is much smaller and supported by Iran and probably more difficult for Israel to infiltrate. So, according to most Israelis, the truce was no sign from the side of Hamas of a willingness to compromise, but a tactical decision aimed at strengthening themselves for a future confrontation. The fact that Hamas entered the political process would have been a landmark if they had abandoned the armed option. In a democracy, it cannot be that political parties carry their own arms.

To conclude, although there are some signs of pragmatism they don't point in the direction of accepting Israel's right to exist and of a willingness to negotiate in stead of fight.

Regarding Israel's refusal to talk to Hamas, some people refer to the PLO in the 1980's. It also refused to recognize Israel and to renounce terror. It also called for Israel's destruction in it's charter, and it was also viewed by Israel and the USA as a terrorist organization. Yet it changed and entered negotiations that filled many people with hope. For its part Israel understood that a solution to the conflict is not possible without negotiating with the Palestinians, with their representatives to be more precise. It is certainly possible that Hamas would change in a similar way, but that is something different from assuming it is making such a change right now, and that therefore Israel should treat it as such

Israel decided to talk to the PLO after it recognized Israel and renounced terror. A difference with the PLO is that Hamas is an islamic fundamentalist organization, and it is difficult to make compromises if Allah or God is behind you. That is also why it is unlikely that the Jewish religious fanatics will ever change. An Israeli government led by the National Religious Party and Moshe Feiglin is as unlikely to be ever able to make peace with the Palestinians as the Hamas is to compromise with Israel. The land is theirs, as promised by God and written down in their holy books.

The comparison with the PLO in the 1980's reveals another problem: despite the optimism and hope of that time, the peace process failed and an important reason for that was the fact that the PLO's recognition of Israel and renouncing of terror were not sincere. Arafat continued making bellicose statements in Arabic and supported terror, at least during the second intifada. To say it cynically, one can doubt if it is so much better for Israel to have to deal with a wolf in sheep's clothing than with a plain one.

Some cynical commenters say that there will not be much of a difference with a Hamas run government in the territories, as Israel didn't view Abbas as a peace partner either, and refused to negotiate with him until he disarmed the terrorists, something he was unwilling and probably also unable to do. Moreover, that might be one of the reasons for Hamas' popularity: Fatah, the main party in the PLO, has accomplished little during 10 years of talking with Israel. The only real concession was the disengagement, and that was not carried out as a result of a negotiated settlement, but unilaterally, because Israel was no longer willing to take the deaths it suffered in Gaza. Among Palestinians it is widely believed to be due to Hamas' 'armed struggle', not Abbas willingness to compromise. According to these people Israel owes the Hamas victory to itself.

It is certainly true that Israel could have done more to strengthen Abbas, but people who blame Israel for the failure of the peace process forget that it was Arafat who refused to accept Clinton's bridging proposals in 2000, and that the second intifada was planned months before Sharon's visit to the temple Mount, and was actively supported by the PA (see Myth 4 & 5). Abbas was more sincere in achieving peace with Israel than Arafat, but it is very hard for Israel to make a deal with someone who says that he is too weak to keep it.Yet the new centrist Kadima party (the most popular party since it's creation in november according to all polls) announced that it was willing to resume talks with Abbas after the elections, and it even spoke about some devision of Jerusalem. The victory of Hamas might change Israeli positions however, and strengthen the right. All those people who talk about the need for Israel to strengthen Abbas, tend to forget that Israeli moderates also need to be able to show to the public that their approach of making compromises is better for the country than the hawkish position of the right. The second intifada decimated the Israeli peace movement. What will a Hamas victory and possible third intifada do to the rest of it?

Despite Hamas' extremist views on Israel, one cannot say that the Palestinians voted for it because of its bellicose stance towards Israel. Probably the main reasons were frustrations with their daily lives, for which they held Fatah responsible, and the latter's widespread corruption, whereas Hamas provided social services, education and healthcare to the needy. Hamas also had a better organized election campaign, whereas in Fatah there was a lot of rivalry and different candidates campaigning against each other. However, the rhetoric about 'martyrs dying for the Palestinian homeland' and 'the need to kill the evil Zionists' and so on is very popular within the Palestinian street. For too many Palestinians, all Israelis have horns and a tail.

I have already heard left-wing commentators explain that Israel must accept the democratic outcome of the Palestinian elections and be willing to negotiate with whoever emerges as the new Palestinian leadership. A Dutch sodeletedt politician even said: "Hamas is willing to talk to Israel, if not the Palestinians wouldn't have elected them." It is not the first time that Europeans think to know what Israel should do and what is good for peace. I sometimes wish that these persons would be Israeli PM for just one month to find out that 'from there, things look different than from here', but I don't think that would be very good for Israel.

Ratna Pelle
This article is copyright by the author, and is reproduced by permission.
It is taken from Hamas Victory in the Palestinian Elections - at Israel-Palestina.Info.

If you like this post - click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.usAdd to digg - digg it

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000425.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.

by Moderator @ 10:54 AM CST [Link]


Middle East e-Zine

Midde East News

Opinion Digest

Late Updates


Middle East Glossary

Middle East Maps

Middle East Books

Middle East Documents

Israel-Palestine History

Israel-Palestine Timeline

Middle East Countries

Middle East Economy

Middle East Population

Middle East Health

Zionism History

Palestinian Parties

Palestinian Refugees

Peace Plans


Middle East


Blog Links

OneVoice - Israeli-Palestinian Peace Blog

Bravo411 -Info Freedom

Israel News


Michael Brenner

Dutchblog Israel

Dutch - IMO (Israel & Midden-Oosten) Blog (NL)



Alas, a Blog

Little Green Footballs

Blue Truth

Fresno Zionism

Reut Blog

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Blog

Simply Jews: Judaism and Israel

Jeff Weintraub - Commentaries and Controversies

Vital Perspective


Meretz USA Weblog


MIDEAST observer

On the Contrary

Blogger News Network- BNN

Google Sex Maps

Demediacratic Nation

Realistic Dove

Tulip - Israeli-Palestinian Trade Union Assoc.

On the Face

Israel Palestjnen (Dutch)

Middle East Analysis

Israel: Like This, As If

Middle East Analysis

Mid_East Journal

Z-Word Blog

Dvar Dea

SEO for Everyone

Web Sites & Pages

Israeli-Palestinian Procon

End Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: One Voice


ATFP- American Task Force on Palestine

Americans For Peace Now

Shalom Achshav

Chicago Peace Now


Peacechild Israel

Bridges of Peace


Israeli-Palestinian Conflict



Zionism and Israel

Zionism and Israel on the Web

Israel - Palestina:Midden-Oosten Conflict + Zionisme

IsraŽl in de Media

Euston Manifesto

New Year Peace


Christian Zionism

Jew Hate

Space Shuttle Blog

Israel News Magazine


My Ecosystem Details
International Affairs Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

Link 2 us
We link 2 U.
MidEastWeb- Middle East News & Views
MidEastWeb is not responsible for the content of linked Web sites

Replies: 4 comments

I'm not so sure having Hamas dragged into the mainstream government is that bad of a decision. Doesn't Israel have Orthodox parties that hold a great deal of power in the Knesset? Sometimes peace can only be achieved if the extremists on both sides realize that a solution must be formulated. That said, Israel didn't help Fatah with its actions. The same check points, settlement building, ect. If you were a Palestinian Farmer and your land was cut into half by a "wall" and your entire livelihood depended on your land, what would you do? Vote for a corrupt government where officals are driven around in BMW's or vote for the local health care facility run by Hamas. Hamas uses a great deal of rhetoric but at the end of the day, when all is said and done, they will have to accept a two state solution. The question is when will Israel accept the same solution? Every sane individual knows the formula. 77% of historical Palestine will be Israel the remaining 23% will be the State of Palestine (West Bank, Gaza and E.Jerusalem). When all parties have concluded that this forumla is the only resolution - they will not only build two thriving states, they will be the envy of the entire Arab World. Two democratic nations in the midst of Kings, Amirs, Dictators, ect. If I were Israel, I would cease the moment and make a true and just peace with the Palestinians.


Posted by George @ 01/28/2006 06:08 PM CST

I confess: I am European and I am optimist, although I'm not left-wing. I think one should not loose the view for solutions. Yes, Hamas is an agressive and a radical movement. But this fact can also be a chance for Israel and the peace process, according to the fact that "only a left-wing party can make successful right-wing politics and vice versa". The Fatah government had the great disadvantage of a strong and more radical Hamas opposition. The fear of loosing the people's confidence to the extremists was always present and an obstacle to important, but sometimes unpopular decisions. A government led by Hamas doesn't have this problem: (At the moment), there is no opposition that more radical than the government itself.Theoretically, Hamas can make bigger steps towards peace than any other government before. Another side effect of negotiations could be the weakening of Hamas, if the Palestinian people loose their illusions about the abilities of their new leaders. Therefore, Israel should not exclude peace talks with the Hamas.

Posted by Severin @ 01/29/2006 09:18 PM CST

Dear George,
It is a bit strange to me that right at the moment that the Palestinians elected an extremist movement that opposed peace since the early '90 with all its means you say that Israel has to do more to achieve peace with the Palestinians. In Israel, the Kadima party is the most popular according to all polls, also after the Hamas victory. It supports negotiations with the Palestinians, more withdrawals and even some division of Jerusalem. Hamas said after it's elections that it will not give up it's armed struggle, speak terrorism, and will not recognize Israel. It is willing to some temporary truce maybe, a truce they will keep as long as it suits their interests.

You wrote: "Hamas uses a great deal of rhetoric but at the end of the day, when all is said and done, they will have to accept a two state solution."
I don't know where you got this idea or what it is based on. Hamas is a fundamentalist islamic organization that says that no-one has the right to cede one inch of 'historical Palestine' to the Jews. The fact that Hamas now will have to take political responsibility MIGHT moderate them, but that is not sure at all. They might as well turn the territories into a kind of islamic state like Iran. Should Israel agree to create a hostile state, that calls for its destruction and wants to build up a strong army, at its doorstep?
I understand that Palestinians elected Hamas out of frustration with Fatah and with the ongoing occupation, and I also think Israel could have done more to strengthen Abbas. In Iran, the fundamentalists were also elected out of frustration with the Shah who neglected the needs of the people. If you are so much committed to peace, doesn't it worry you that such an extremist party has gotten the majority in Palestine?

You wrote: " Doesn't Israel have Orthodox parties that hold a great deal of power in the Knesset?"
In Israel, orthodox parties (who are not all anti-Arab or anti-peace) don't have a majority and never had. They have too much power, but the disengagement shows that the religious extremists don't determine the policy, and most Israeli's favor more withdrawals. Imagine the National Religious Party would have about 60% of the votes?! It is unthinkable.

You wrote: "Every sane individual knows the formula. 77% of historical Palestine will be Israel the remaining 23% will be the State of Palestine (West Bank, Gaza and E.Jerusalem)"
I think every sane person understands that there are some places in East-Jerusalem that Israel will not give up, like (parts of) the Old City. I also think there should be a landswap - even the Geneva Accord proposes this. And in the last place people who cite the 78/22% mostly forget that about 50% of Israel is desert, and that the 78% refers to the British Mandate of Palestine after Transjordan was cut off from it. 'Historical Palestine' with these borders existed only about 25 years and was no state. Under Ottoman rule Palestine was the name of a geographical area with no clear borders. It consisted of several provinces, some of which extended into what is now Jordan, Syria or Lebanon.
The Palestinians could have had 45% of Mandatory Palestine if they had accepted the UN partition plan, but they rejected it. In 2000, they rejected Clinton's Bridging Proposals that provided for 95% of the West Bank with a land swap and devision of Jerusalem (see http://www.mideastweb.org/clintonproposal.htm) . Now they voted for a movement that always said to be and acted against peace and against negotiations. But according to you, there is only one party to blame: Israel.

Posted by Ratna @ 01/30/2006 11:56 AM CST

This is a Site;for understanding beetwen the People of differents cultur;but for Peace,and lyberty for all.//http://www.publimatic.com/-dieseite- http://www.publimatic.com/espectroparlasur

Posted by Raul @ 01/30/2006 08:10 PM CST

Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.

Powered By Greymatter

[Previous entry: "Hamas victory - the new Middle East is not what we expected"] Main Index [Next entry: "An Early response to Hamas Success"]


Thank you for visiting MidEastWeb - Middle East.
If you like what you see here, tell others about the MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log - www.mideastweb.org/log/.

Contact Us


Editors' contributions are copyright by the authors and MidEastWeb for Coexistence RA.
Please link to main article pages and tell your friends about MidEastWeb. Do not copy MidEastWeb materials to your Web Site. That is a violation of our copyright. Click for copyright policy.
MidEastWeb and the editors are not responsible for content of visitors' comments.
Please report any comments that are offensive or racist.

Editors can log in by clicking here

Technorati Profile

RSS FeedRSS feed Add to Amphetadesk Add to Amphetadesk

USA Credit Card - Donate to MidEastWeb  On-Line - Help us live and grow