Hamas
The Middle East was taken aback recently at the results of the Palestinian elections, in which Hamas won an outright majority. They resoundingly defeated all challengers, including the incumbent and favored Fatah party. Basically, this has the potential to be either very good or very bad. I'm being an optimist.
The reasons I think this will be good are as follows:
1 - Hamas is straightforward. They don't tend to say one thing and do another -- rather they do (in general) what they say they're going to do. They've earned this win with the Palestinian people -- many local elections have got the way of Hamas in the past few years, and they have not disappointed. Although they might be more difficult to negotiate with than Fatah was in terms of the land-for-peace idea (that might be an understatement), they will be a much more reliable and accountable partner once they are convinced to sit down at the table.
2 - Hamas can control the violence. Abbas and Arafat could never control the armed uprisings (well, Arafat could in his earlier years, but not towards the end). To a certain extent these leaders had to play the middleman -- negotiating between the demands of Israel and the demands of Hamas. So to some degree, this arrangement might be more efficient. It's definitely more realistic and less sugar coated.
3 - The realpolitik remains the same. All this election did was expose the reality that has existed for the past 5 years on the ground. Hamas is more popular with the people, manages a lot of the "state" activities (such as schooling and healthcare), and they control most of the violence in the Palestinian territories. They have been de facto running a lot of the show, and Israel knows this. Their new power gives them more opportunities to implement their goals, but it also restrains them b/c they can no longer blame stuff on the PA. It's their government now.
4 - Hamas is less corrupt. Notice that I did not say they are uncorrupt, b/c I'm sure that's not true. However the ruling Fatah party was notoriously bad about this, including Arafat himself. One of the main reasons the people chose Hamas in the recent elections was because they see Hamas investing a lot of their money is schools, hospitals, etc, and not building 4 houses for themselves. It was a vote for change.
5 - Hamas can be pragmatic. Lots of local leaders of towns and cities in Gaza are part of Hamas, and they have dealt on a regular basis with Israeli leaders. They have to, since they often share the same sewage lines, waterways, etc. It's clear that they don't do it any more than they have to, and they certainly don't relish the spotlight like the former leaders, but it's a good sign.
Hamas has always had a focus on building out a strong social system in the West Bank and Gaza, hence their commitment to these social services. This is going to be in conflict with their stance against Israel, since their refusal to negotiate will lead directly to a deterioration in the living standards in Palestine. How pragmatic will they be? My bet is that they'll bend like Fatah did years ago. Let's just hope they don't turn into as inept a ruling party.
The Middle East was taken aback recently at the results of the Palestinian elections, in which Hamas won an outright majority. They resoundingly defeated all challengers, including the incumbent and favored Fatah party. Basically, this has the potential to be either very good or very bad. I'm being an optimist.
The reasons I think this will be good are as follows:
1 - Hamas is straightforward. They don't tend to say one thing and do another -- rather they do (in general) what they say they're going to do. They've earned this win with the Palestinian people -- many local elections have got the way of Hamas in the past few years, and they have not disappointed. Although they might be more difficult to negotiate with than Fatah was in terms of the land-for-peace idea (that might be an understatement), they will be a much more reliable and accountable partner once they are convinced to sit down at the table.
2 - Hamas can control the violence. Abbas and Arafat could never control the armed uprisings (well, Arafat could in his earlier years, but not towards the end). To a certain extent these leaders had to play the middleman -- negotiating between the demands of Israel and the demands of Hamas. So to some degree, this arrangement might be more efficient. It's definitely more realistic and less sugar coated.
3 - The realpolitik remains the same. All this election did was expose the reality that has existed for the past 5 years on the ground. Hamas is more popular with the people, manages a lot of the "state" activities (such as schooling and healthcare), and they control most of the violence in the Palestinian territories. They have been de facto running a lot of the show, and Israel knows this. Their new power gives them more opportunities to implement their goals, but it also restrains them b/c they can no longer blame stuff on the PA. It's their government now.
4 - Hamas is less corrupt. Notice that I did not say they are uncorrupt, b/c I'm sure that's not true. However the ruling Fatah party was notoriously bad about this, including Arafat himself. One of the main reasons the people chose Hamas in the recent elections was because they see Hamas investing a lot of their money is schools, hospitals, etc, and not building 4 houses for themselves. It was a vote for change.
5 - Hamas can be pragmatic. Lots of local leaders of towns and cities in Gaza are part of Hamas, and they have dealt on a regular basis with Israeli leaders. They have to, since they often share the same sewage lines, waterways, etc. It's clear that they don't do it any more than they have to, and they certainly don't relish the spotlight like the former leaders, but it's a good sign.
Hamas has always had a focus on building out a strong social system in the West Bank and Gaza, hence their commitment to these social services. This is going to be in conflict with their stance against Israel, since their refusal to negotiate will lead directly to a deterioration in the living standards in Palestine. How pragmatic will they be? My bet is that they'll bend like Fatah did years ago. Let's just hope they don't turn into as inept a ruling party.
posted by slithytoves at 9:49 PM
3 Comments:
Pragmatism on the local level does not speak to pragmatism on the leadership level. It does not characterize the movement as a whole. Nor is it clear that Hamas will be able to control Islamic Jihad or Al-Aqsa - especially the latter. I frankly think you underestimate their ideology. Gaining office hasn't made Hezbollah especially moderate; these folks answer to a higher authority than a pliable electorate. Under no circumstances will they accept the existence of Israel, however many hints they may make to would-be donors. They hate Israel and Jews and they've constructed a theology to enable them to do so. And they think that God will make it all happen for them. No combination of earthly carrots will steer them away from it, and we're better off not kidding ourselves on this score.
This is one of those posts that I might have deleted earlier, as it's very easy to misconstrue. To be clear: I firmly believe that Hamas espouses an ideology that is unacceptable and their tactics are abhorrent, and they have to be dealt with very firmly. Nevertheless, their ideology of hate is at least partially due to their impotence to change the social circumstances in which they are surrounded. They are no longer so impotent. A certain faction may feel vindicated by this election and become more extreme, but I think a larger part of the movement (and the base they count on for support/legitmacy) will not accept the radicalism that we have seen from Hamas-on-the-fringe now that they are Hamas-the-government. My basic point is that their base is less corrupt, more focused on social reform, and less willing to compromise but more accountable when they do than Fatah. Their leaders may be religous fanatics who desire the destruction of Israel and a reversion to an oppressive Islamic state, but I am hopeful they will soon be removed or replaced as I don't think that characterizes the base that put them in power.
All this does have a rather hopeful quality to it, but I daresay it's not a wager either of us would take as residents of the region or American policymakers. Hamas here emerges as something either a.) disciplined and capable of delivering and b.) bifurcated between a pragmatic base and a foul, violent, and bigoted leadership. How can these two views be reconciled? Who is to say that pragmatists - and I'm much less convinced than you that they exist - would be able to win out entirely, instead of just fragmenting the movement? Hamas may be stronger than Fatah, but it won't enjoy a monopoly on violence either. And lets keep the other violent actors - Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa in mind - either of whom would love to seize ground to Hamas's right. All of this delivers the delicious irony of Hamas trying to bind together a fractured polity, but doesn't get us anywhere nearer anything negotiated.
In a short bit, they are going to be faced with the task of extending their patronage network - which has been funded via their ability to raise money from rich fundamentalists - to the entire Palestinian polity. They will have to do so, in all likelihood, without funds from the West, or at least significantly less EU money. They will - as a result - be more dependent on donors less amenable to compromise, notably Iran.
Iran is a useful example here for another reason. Ahmadinejad didn't run for election on the basis that he could deny the Holocaust more effectively than his rivals. He ran on the basis of providing better social services, and then focused his attention on external scapegoats (one might ask as well where gay marriage ranked on GWB's priorities after the 2004 campaign). How one runs and how one governs don't necessarily or even usually line up.
The early rumblings from Hamas do not indicate an interest in negotiation, but in building an army. I wonder how that's going to be used. For probably the first time since the fall of Imperial Japan, we can see how a government goes about recruiting suicide killers. Arafat adapted badly to the responsibilities of government, I see no reason why his less flexible, feudal-minded counterparts will do any better.
Post a Comment
<< Home