Hard men to deal with
Hamas’s apparent election success brings problems, but raises the prospect of a more binding peace agreement, writes Ewen MacAskill.
The election success of Hamas, the Islamist organisation responsible for most of the suicide bombings in Israel, complicates even more the already tangled Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Will the Hamas surge increase internal Palestinian tensions, with the possibility of even more violence between factions? Will Israel, the UE and Washington deal with a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority? And will the Islamisation of Palestinian culture, squeezing the secular, nationalist tradition, bring longer-term problems? The answer to all these is yes.
But the Hamas success also has a huge plus attached to it. The organisation, the most violent of the Palestinian factions, a decade ago showed no interest in politics, shunning the first election after Oslo. That it took part in this week’s election represents a remarkable shift: a move towards politicisation of a hardline violent organisation. A Hamas-led administration could speed that process.
Israeli ministers, officials and soldiers regularly dismiss comparisons with other peace processes, particularly comparisons with Northern Ireland. But few such conflicts are ever ended by military means alone. At some point, the men of violence have to be brought into the political process, and this is what could happen with Hamas.
Election means it has to change, and change fast. The organisation has been running its own parallel social security services in Gaza and has won elections that have left it in charge of university boards, unions and other non-governmental organisations. This gave it power at grassroots level, while leaving it free to criticise the Palestinian Authority run by the rival Fatah organisation, founded by Yasser Arafat.
It is relatively easy to be in opposition, carping from the sidelines. Hamas will find it harder as part of the government. It will have to make decisions and compromises and many of these will be unpopular. Hamas’s preference would probably have been to remain in opposition.
George Bush has already said Washington will not deal with Hamas until it renounces violence and its avowed aim of the destruction of Israel. But Bush cannot call for democracy in the Middle East and then ignore the results.
A peace deal with Hamas, though seemingly distant at present, is possible. The organisation has for years had a compromise on offer, one espoused by its founder and leader, Sheikh Yassin, before his assassination by Israel. Hamas says it will not give up its aim of winning back Israel but it also says that will commit itself to an indefinite ceasefire, the effect of which is de facto recognition of Israel.
Israel adopts the same position as Washington. But the Israelis have always been more pragmatic than the Bush administration, with unofficial Israeli contacts at all possible levels in the West Bank and Gaza, formal or informal. The chances of real peace being reached are greater dealing directly with the men with the most guns and bombs, rather than doing a deal with Fatah alone, with Hamas left on the sidelines.
All this is dependent on Hamas stopping sending suicide bombers into Israel.
This result will play into the upcoming Israeli election. Voters there will decide whether the election of Hamas offers an opportunity or a threat: if the latter, voters might be inclined to opt for Binyamin Netanyahu, whose rhetoric suggests taking a tough line with the Palestinians, though when in power in the past he has shown an unexpected willingness to negotiate, rather than Ariel Sharon’s deputy Ehud Olmert, who is more willing to negotiate with the Palestinians, though he has said he will not deal with Hamas.
Hamas, in spite of its public relations makeover to try to make its representatives seem less menacing to western audiences, has championed Islamist values in Gaza but has had less success so far in the West Bank. The difference between the two is evident in the appearance of women in the West Bank, free to dress as they please – up to a point – in comparison with their veiled, and often completely covered, counterparts in Gaza.
The Hamas success does not mean that the Palestinians, one of the most secular populations in the Arab world, are heading headlong towards Islamisation. In many places, the vote was not for the Hamas agenda but against Fatah, stemming from disillusionment with the years of corruption.
The source: Ewen MacAskill is The Guardian’s diplomatic editor.