Hamas: Election Victory

Today’s question: a new Hamas?

Indian Express (New Delhi) Saturday, January 28, 2006

Columns

The spectacular and unprecedented victory for the Islamic militant group, Hamas, in the Palestinian national election has surprised many seasoned observers. While Hamas making a strong show was a foregone conclusion, none — including its most ardent supporters — predicted a landslide victory. The group securing a convincing majority in the 132-member Palestinian parliament means that Hamas has, overnight, been catapulted from the opposition benches to being a ruling party.

The emphatic victory signifies Palestinian disappointment at the Fatah-led Palestinian National Authority. They have many things to complain about: continued Israeli occupation, elusive Palestinian statehood, rampant corruption and lawlessness. It is more like a vote of no-confidence with Fatah, that had dominated the lives of Palestinians for over four decades.
Since the popular verdict is unequivocal, it is unlike that Fatah would be eager to join hands with Hamas in forming the next government. The talks of ‘national unity’ would be insufficient to gloss over fundamental differences between the two on a host of issues, including the peace process.

Having presented itself as the only democracy in the entire Middle East, Israel would have to come to terms with the Palestinian verdict and prepare to accept Hamas as a partner in any peace agreement. At the same time, this victory ironically presents more problems not just for the Israelis. First and foremost, Hamas would have to come to terms with the Oslo process and the need to recognise and negotiate with the Jewish state. For over two decades, it rode on a militant platform and built a reputation as an uncompromising organisation vis-a-vis Israel. Its popularity was partly due to its brutal campaign of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians carried out by its militant arm, Izzedin-al-Qassem. After its victory, Hamas would have to reinvent itself as a responsible political party that is capable of reaching a political settlement for the Palestinian problem. Disarming of its militants, therefore, cannot be avoided.

If the post-election scuffles between the supporters of Hamas and Fatah in front of the Palestinian parliament in Ramallah were an indication, maintaining law and order would continue to be a paramount task before the new leadership. Stunned by this victory, the US and its allies have demanded a total transformation of Hamas. At one level, the US cannot afford to ignore the will of the Palestinians and their decision to pack off the Fatah and settle for the untested Hamas. Such a move would have gone against the grain of democracy that the West often flaunts. At the same time, the West — the US especially — cannot ignore the inherent contradictions in the Hamas victory. Is it ready to abandon its path of violence, recognise the inevitability of coming to terms with Israel and engaging in a political process? This would require Hamas to formally modify, if not abandon, some of the provisions of its charter that explicitly calls for Israel’s destruction.

India also faces the same dilemma. Historically it had supported the Palestinians and viewed the Palestinian state as a pre-condition for peace and stability in the region. Yet, its belated normalisation of relations with Israel in 1992 meant that New Delhi would have to find a balance between its support for the Palestinians and promoting closer ties with Israel. Even at the height of its support for the late Yasser Arafat, India was opposed to the idea of Palestinians opting for unilateral declaration of statehood.

Therefore, even while supporting the Palestinians, India carefully avoided interacting with groups such as Hamas that called for Israel’s destruction. Even though it has a resident mission in the in Palestinian areas, there are no indications that it had cultivated any prominent leaders of Hamas and other militant groups.

Such a posture would have run counter to India’s commitment to the peace process. Bestowing of legitimacy to militant groups such as Hamas would have also undermined India’s secular credentials. Given the transnational linkages of some militant groups in the Middle East, any formal contacts would have far wider repercussions. A section of the ruling UPA government, sympathetic towards the militant group, might advocate a complete reversal of the policy and argue that India should actively engage with the Hamas — led new Palestinian dispensation.

Any hasty abandonment of the Fatah and other secular groups would be a recipe for disaster.
A prudent policy would be to look for signals that Hamas is prepared to shoulder national responsibility. Even without joining the West, India should be able to fathom the true intentions of Hamas and its road map. In other words, will the electoral victory transform Hamas into a responsible player?

Web Link:

http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/full_story.php?content_id=86741