Posted on 01/28/2006 5:59:58 PM PST by SJackson
Can anyone be surprised Palestinians went against the status quo this week in their historic election?
The success of Hamas in the Palestinian elections shocked many analysts but appeared inevitable to those who were watching closely. Fatah has long been discredited by corruption and general mismanagement. Israeli unilateralism and the mainstreaming of Sharon as a peace hero in the face of a helpless P.A. was bound to cause Palestinian protest at the ballot box. American silence has allowed Israel to take more land, build more settlements, and construct the aberration Palestinians know as the Apartheid Wall. The light at the end of the tunnel had flickered out.
A new institutional role for Hamas raises important questions. Will the P.A. function as a two-party body? It's anybody's guess. President Abbas was elected in a separate election, so he remains in office. With the legislature now controlled by his opponents, the rubber-stamping will come to an end. Hamas picks the new Prime Minister. For the first time, the government is divided between parties. Will they be able to work together?
Can Hamas make the leap from terrorist group to governing political party? This is certainly not impossible. The Stern Gang and Irgun, groups responsible for the King David hotel terrorist attacks, as well as massacres of Palestinians, gave up arms for politics. The pro-slavery rebels of the American South laid down their arms after the civil war and joined the Democratic party.
It is possible, but is Hamas willing? If the P.A. is kept as a quasi-government with symbolic authority only, Hamas will have little incentive to change – and Hamas will continue to try to win sovereignty by force. If the P.A. is granted real authority and power, Hamas will be forced to accept the responsibility that comes with it and become a political party. Since Israel and the U.S. determine the PA’s true authority, the ball is in their court.
Many pundits ask what this vote means for negotiations. In many ways, that is a moot point. Negotiations appear to be a thing of the past. Israel’s unilateral pullout from most of Gaza and the way Israel went about designing and building the Apartheid Wall shows it has little interest in exchange and cooperation. U.S. inaction proves the administration concurs with a path devoid of negotiations, a concept it only pays occasional lip service to.
Though the United States doesn’t know it, its best course of action is to make this an opportunity for negotiations as a framework for peace.
First, the U.S. wanted elections. At a November 12th, 2004 White House press conference, Bush reiterated the need for "a free, truly democratic society in the Palestinian territories that becomes a state." They've gotten closer to democracy, so it's time to deliver. American credibility is at stake.
Second, Hamas has established and run many well-functioning institutions in Gaza in the absence of a state. It knows something about institution building. Hamas will give the P.A. more experience in indigenous governance, even if the Hamas model has been mostly limited to schools, medical clinics, and wedding halls.
Third, the P.A. finally has a full mandate. With the P.A. actually representing different views among Palestinians, it is a much more democratic body than it has been in many years. Especially since the passing of Arafat, the P.A. has been largely missing true legitimacy.
Fourth, given that Hamas has a lot of strength in Gaza, this will bring Gaza closer to the West Bank politically. Fatah rule over the P.A. distanced Gaza. That should not be the case if the new P.A. is more representative.
Finally, just as pundits galore said Israel needs a warmonger like Sharon to make peace (the Israeli DeGaulle), maybe the Palestinians need the same thing.
Can the Bush administration come up with the expertise, the political capital and the perspective to make something positive of this? If not, a major opportunity will be blown here.
Hamas will try to build a true government. It won't work if it's under Israel's military occupation, if Israel dictates Palestinian mobility, operates checkpoints, has soldiers, tanks, etc. on the ground. No government can function under such conditions. No amount of elections and polling will change that.
A government with no sovereignty is not a real government. And the less real the government is, the less likely Hamas will moderate and fully commit to electoral politics.
Further entrenchment of Israeli apartheid – separation between the two peoples on unequal terms - is not an option. Palestinians who make up half of the population on historic Palestine will be stuck behind Apartheid walls and fences on 12% of historic Palestine’s land. There may be a temporary illusion of peace with the dressings of sovereignty – like the black homelands in South Africa. Then the struggle will become an anti-Apartheid one.
Hamas will only accept a true peace offering: real sovereignty on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. No more playing games. But consider this: It is only true peace that will bring security to Israel.
It has dawned on me that I have been very unjust to "mans best friend", the dog kingdom by mentioning them in the same breath with islamofascists and wish to issue an apology. Islamofascists do not deserve the upgrade to dog status. Jackals and hyenas may be more appropriate although it is a challenge to find anything low enough in the animal kingdom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.