February 3, 2006
Why Hamas's Electoral Victory Leaves Me Neutral
By Daniel
Pipes
Reactions
to the lopsided Hamas victory over Fatah last week in the Palestinian
Authority elections divided into three. Some, like the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee expressed dismay, worried
about Hamas openly boasting of its goal to destroy the Jewish
state, seeing this as the end of the peace process.
Others, such
as former president Jimmy
Carter, gulped hard and defied common sense to hope that following
Hamas winning 74 seats to Fatah's 45 in the 132-seat legislative
council, it would be tamed and transformed into Israel's peace
partner.
A third group,
which includes Boston Globe columnist Jeff
Jacoby, determined that the Hamas success was "by far
the best result" because it offers an "unambiguous reality
check into the nature of Palestinian society."
And me? The Hamas
victory leaves me neutral with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Not much separates
Hamas anti-Zionism from Fatah anti-Zionism except that Hamas terrorists
speak forthrightly while Fatah terrorists obfuscate. Even their
tactics overlap, as Fatah denies the existence of Israel and Hamas
negotiates with Israelis. Differing emphases and styles, more
than substance, distinguishes their attitudes toward Israel.
I abominate
Hamas and have called
for its destruction, but I also recognize that the elections
might bring benefits, prompting Israelis finally to recognize
the deep and pervasive anti-Zionism in the Palestinian Arab body
politic. Hamas and Fatah together won all but thirteen seats in
the legislative council. A leftist terrorist group, the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine, got three seats; three
leftist parties – Al-Badil (or the Alternative List), the
Independent Palestine List, and the Third Way List – each
won two seats, and four independents won seats. With the possible
exception of some marginal figures, then, the legislative council
wall-to-wall rejects Israel's right to exist. Or, in David
Horowitz's biting description, Palestinian Arabs are "the
first terrorist people."
The Palestinian election
outcome resulted partly from more than a decade of misrule by
Yasser Arafat and his cronies, who stole, plotted, embezzled,
and ran roughshod over their subjects. Hamas, in contrast, built
a record of community service, relative probity, and modesty.
Looked at positively, the success of Hamas implies that Palestinian
Arabs do take other matters into consideration besides eliminating
Israel. Looked at negatively, they merely prefer honest terrorists
to dishonest ones.
The strong
Hamas victory, wrote Steven
Plaut of Haifa University, is "the only thing that stands
a chance of forcing Israelis to open their eyes and wake up."
Its ascent might conceivably wake others up too; will Spain's
blinkered government note the recent call by a Hamas children's
publication for the city of Seville to be returned to Muslim rule?
Possibly. But I hold
out meager hope that Hamas-in-power will provide a reality check.
The "peace process" community will not give up its cherished
negotiations just because a murderous totalitarian organization
has been elected. As has inexorably been the case since 1993,
it will ignore this setback and press ahead for more Israeli concessions.
I predict
an approximate repeat performance of the pressure on Arafat in
1982-88 to renounce terrorism. But an acute observer of the Arab-Israeli
conflict, Robert
Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
doubts that Hamas will be compelled even to match Arafat's concessions
back then.
I also expect
that, despite bold statements about how it will not change, Hamas
will play along with the verbal demands on it. Feeling a financial
pinch and diplomatic pressure, its leaders will adopt Arafat's
habit of delivering opaque hints and saying one thing in English
and another in Arabic. Like Arafat, they might even "renounce"
terrorism or pretend to change their Protocols-laced
covenant.
Indeed, what
Yossi
Klein Halevi calls "the era of the wink and the hint"
has already begun, with Hamas largely desisting from terrorism
against Israel during its declared tahdiya (calming down)
in 2005, then somewhat moderating its rhetoric in recent weeks;
for example, it proposed a 15-year truce with Israel. The makeover
shows signs of success: former president Bill
Clinton, often an opinion bellwether, has just urged the Bush
administration to consider dealing with Hamas.
I predict Palestinian-Israeli
negotiations will resume their glorious record of bringing good
will, harmony, and tranquility, with Israel this time facing a
far more determined and clever foe than the blighted Arafat or
the hapless Mahmoud Abbas.
Mr.
Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org)
is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures
(Transaction Publishers).
