Thoughts on a Hamas-led Palestine
Published Sunday, January 29, 2006 by Kevin Breathnach | E-mail this post
The surprise victory of Hamas at the Palestinian polls has raised many talking points. How should Hamas be dealt with? What now for the peace process, Does this end the spell of comparative progress? What now of the idea of democratising the Middle East? I'll come to those in a moment, but first I'd like to point out that (we?) neo-conservatives should read some reactions studiously. It appears that the likes of - Galloway supporting, Bush and Blair hating - Chris Gaskin see the election results as democracy in action. If they are to be convinced that democracy is 'occurring' in Iraq, all one has to do is wait, wait for the Iraqi people to elect a hardline group of terrorists. Simple, really.
In all seriousness though, what of the results? Since they were announced, we've heard many make quasi-told-you-so comments to the Bush Adminstration concerning its hope to 'democratise' (not my scare-quotes) the Middle East. The argument made concerns declarations made by the United States, which stated that the administration would not work with Hamas as a "partner of peace", nor would it support the PLC financially, until it renounces its goal of destroying Israel and disarms its militias. I think there are grounds for supporting this approach though. Our friends at the Dossing Times said Hamas had thrown a sizeable spanner in the works; surely America has now thrown a fairly sizeable carrot into the same works?
Now, what do the results mean for the future? There exist various readings of the situation, but as I see it, there are two main possibilities. One focuses on the following points: Hamas, until very, very recently, has called for the destruction of the State of Israel; they have been at the forefront of terrorists operations against Israel for several years; in contrast to the Fatah Movement, they are an organisation which is as much religious as it is political - religious authorities, particularly those of hardline nature, holding political authority is generally not a good thing (I await a snide Bush joke); they have also proved an invariable thorn in the side of the Fatah movement's strides - albeit reluctant strides - to find some peace in the seemingly perpetual conflict. With these and the many points I'm sure I've omitted in mind, many have come to the conclusion that Hamas' power will be disastrous to the prospect of political calm between Israel and Palestine.
However, there's also the potential for optimism. Firstly, the outcome of the result shows the Palestinian voters that they do have the power to kick people out of power, as well as install others into it. This, primarily, encourages further participation in the democratic process. Secondarily, I think that the increased incentive to vote presents Hamas with a problem; they simply must achieve peace and stability in the region, otherwise it's likely that they will be booted from power. On a similar note, the more moderate opposition group, Fatah, is currently corrupt, bureaucratic and inefficient. As such, they've proved incapable of ruling effectively, even since the death of Yassir Arafat. The election is, without any doubt, a wake-up call.
Over at Progressive Ireland, the 'pot-hole theory of democracy' is referenced. This theory, in brief, concludes that "once in power the perspective of radicals tends to moderate so as to best ensure that governance continues and pot holes go filled." In the weeks leading-up to the election, Hamas withdrew its call for the destruction of the Israeli State. Not for a minute do I believe the move can, or should, be seen as a change in the fundamental belief of the organisation. Rather, they withdrew the call out of necessity - it's acknowledged that most of those who voted for them did so because of Fatah's corruption domestically, and in spite of their extremism on the Israeli question.1 In power, they may be forced to continue and accelerate this very moderate moderation. So, it's not an entirely unlikely prospect, and I think that the Bush stance will, if anything, goad this change.
Most interestingly, with Hamas in power, their powers as a terrorist organisation are essentially non-existent. Sure, they will - and already have - spout on about how they will beat the Israelis through a combination of negotiation and violence. But, in reality, if they commit a violent act against Israel, it is no longer an act of terrorism, but an act of war, thus legitimising a much stronger Israeli response. It's well known that Israel has a formidably strong army, as such I suspect that no Palestinian government has any desire for full-on war with Israel, not anymore. Alas, Hamas attacks seem quite unlikely.
All considered, we must ask which, of the above possibilities is more realistic? Scanning over what I have written, one can't help but notice the great reliance attached to the phrases "likely", "unlikely", "perhaps", "suspect" and "may." It's indicative of the uncertainty of the situation. In reality, nobody - must less I - really knows what will happen, but unlike issue such as the rightness of the Iraq War, at least the answer will eventually become definite. All we have to do is wait, and sure, since we're waiting for a hardline group of terrorists to win power in Iraq, we might as well wait.
Notes:
1. The Observer, The Hamas Revolution.
In all seriousness though, what of the results? Since they were announced, we've heard many make quasi-told-you-so comments to the Bush Adminstration concerning its hope to 'democratise' (not my scare-quotes) the Middle East. The argument made concerns declarations made by the United States, which stated that the administration would not work with Hamas as a "partner of peace", nor would it support the PLC financially, until it renounces its goal of destroying Israel and disarms its militias. I think there are grounds for supporting this approach though. Our friends at the Dossing Times said Hamas had thrown a sizeable spanner in the works; surely America has now thrown a fairly sizeable carrot into the same works?
Now, what do the results mean for the future? There exist various readings of the situation, but as I see it, there are two main possibilities. One focuses on the following points: Hamas, until very, very recently, has called for the destruction of the State of Israel; they have been at the forefront of terrorists operations against Israel for several years; in contrast to the Fatah Movement, they are an organisation which is as much religious as it is political - religious authorities, particularly those of hardline nature, holding political authority is generally not a good thing (I await a snide Bush joke); they have also proved an invariable thorn in the side of the Fatah movement's strides - albeit reluctant strides - to find some peace in the seemingly perpetual conflict. With these and the many points I'm sure I've omitted in mind, many have come to the conclusion that Hamas' power will be disastrous to the prospect of political calm between Israel and Palestine.
However, there's also the potential for optimism. Firstly, the outcome of the result shows the Palestinian voters that they do have the power to kick people out of power, as well as install others into it. This, primarily, encourages further participation in the democratic process. Secondarily, I think that the increased incentive to vote presents Hamas with a problem; they simply must achieve peace and stability in the region, otherwise it's likely that they will be booted from power. On a similar note, the more moderate opposition group, Fatah, is currently corrupt, bureaucratic and inefficient. As such, they've proved incapable of ruling effectively, even since the death of Yassir Arafat. The election is, without any doubt, a wake-up call.
Over at Progressive Ireland, the 'pot-hole theory of democracy' is referenced. This theory, in brief, concludes that "once in power the perspective of radicals tends to moderate so as to best ensure that governance continues and pot holes go filled." In the weeks leading-up to the election, Hamas withdrew its call for the destruction of the Israeli State. Not for a minute do I believe the move can, or should, be seen as a change in the fundamental belief of the organisation. Rather, they withdrew the call out of necessity - it's acknowledged that most of those who voted for them did so because of Fatah's corruption domestically, and in spite of their extremism on the Israeli question.1 In power, they may be forced to continue and accelerate this very moderate moderation. So, it's not an entirely unlikely prospect, and I think that the Bush stance will, if anything, goad this change.
Most interestingly, with Hamas in power, their powers as a terrorist organisation are essentially non-existent. Sure, they will - and already have - spout on about how they will beat the Israelis through a combination of negotiation and violence. But, in reality, if they commit a violent act against Israel, it is no longer an act of terrorism, but an act of war, thus legitimising a much stronger Israeli response. It's well known that Israel has a formidably strong army, as such I suspect that no Palestinian government has any desire for full-on war with Israel, not anymore. Alas, Hamas attacks seem quite unlikely.
All considered, we must ask which, of the above possibilities is more realistic? Scanning over what I have written, one can't help but notice the great reliance attached to the phrases "likely", "unlikely", "perhaps", "suspect" and "may." It's indicative of the uncertainty of the situation. In reality, nobody - must less I - really knows what will happen, but unlike issue such as the rightness of the Iraq War, at least the answer will eventually become definite. All we have to do is wait, and sure, since we're waiting for a hardline group of terrorists to win power in Iraq, we might as well wait.
Notes:
1. The Observer, The Hamas Revolution.
Top reviews:
DVD player
Digital Camera
Portable MP3 player
Travel
Product search: |
E-mail Kevin: blast_portmarnockREMOVE@yahoo.com
Email Michael: mickonline2REMOVE@yahoo.com
Previous posts
Archives
Latest Comments
Irish Blogs
-
Analogue
An Unrepentant Communist
Blue Birds Are So Natural
Cedar Lounge Revolution
Ciaran O'Kelly
Crabling Otter
Damien Mulley
Eoin Purcell
Fustar
Lord Byron's Pistol Club
Midnight Court
Most Sincerely Folks
Poetbloggs
Robert Donohoe
Shock
Twenty Major
A special place in my heart
'Proper' Journalism etc.
The Wireless
BBC Radio
4RTE Radio 1
