The
historical background of all parties seems to be dictating their
current positions. The United States and European countries firmly
oppose dealing with a Hamas-run Palestinian Authority, based on both
powers' classification of the Palestinian resistance group as "a
terrorist organization."
Russia
and the United Nations, forming the so-called Quartet (sponsoring a
largely non-existent peace process) along with Washington and European
Union, view Hamas, at least slightly differently.
Hamas,
on its part, is sworn, by virtue of its charter, to the destruction of
Israel and the liberation of Palestine (including pre-1948 lands). The
Jewish state, on its part, is sworn to destroying Hamas, its foe and
current symbol of Palestinian armed resistance.
This
is the sum-up of the key players' positions stemming from historical
backgrounds "in the long." The "zoom" or details
on the ground bear huge differences though.
Policy
games dictate almost totally variant positions. On the one hand, Hamas
decided to get engaged in the political process and took the
necessary, rather pragmatic, steps for that end.
Pragmatic
Hamas
Hamas
has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto
for the Palestinian parliamentary election, bringing the group closer
to the rules of the political process.
The
Islamic group still calls for the maintenance of armed resistance
against Israeli occupation, but it steps back from Hamas's 1988
charter demanding Israel's eradication and the establishment of a
Palestinian state in its place, according to The Guardian last
January.
"The
manifesto makes no mention of the destruction of the Jewish state and
instead takes a more ambiguous position by saying that Hamas had
decided to compete in the elections because it would contribute to
'the establishment of an independent state whose capital is
Jerusalem.'"
In
addition, statements by Hamas leaders, since their bombshell electoral
win, have indicated their intention to respect internationally
recognized agreements by the PA.
Khaled
Meshaal, the group's leader in exile, has declared the group's
readiness for dialogue with the United States and Europe "without
any prior conditions."
Hamas
leader and Palestinian Prime Minister-Designate Ismail Haniya also
stated that the Islamist group does not harbor animosity towards Jews
and could establish "peace in stages" with Israel if the
latter withdraws to its 1967 borders and recognizes the inalienable
rights of the Palestinians.
Some
observers see this as a de facto recognition of Israel. You cannot
establish "peace in stages" with a country you do not
recognize!
While
statements by US president George W. Bush and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice to the effect that "you can not talk peace with
a party that does not recognize you in the first place", others
see these statements as "a twist of facts."
These
"others" say that instead of insisting on getting Hamas to
recognize Israel, denounce "violence" and disarm, is it not
a bit logical to press Israel (the occupying power) to respect its
international obligations first.
Israel,
US
 |
|
Gresh believes the West’s rejection of Hamas makes democracy and political reform calls in the region rather insignificant and useless.
|
Immediately
after initial results showed how much Hamas was leading, Israel,
followed instantly by Washington, launched a frantic — hysterical
even — campaign to cut financial aid from the PA and to impose a
political blockade of the winning party.
Threats
of stopping aid were coupled with actions. The United States demanded
the PA return some $50 million Washington had transferred for
infrastructure projects. Tel Aviv went further by refusing to hand the
Palestinians tax revenues it collects on their behalf according to
Oslo agreements. The decision was criticized by the United Nations.
"It
would not violate any political principles to at least give the
Palestinians their own money; let humanitarian assistance continue
through UN and private agencies," said Carter.
Rice,
during her tour in the Middle East last week, made it clear her prime
goal was to make sure Arab regimes will participate in tightening the
noose on Hamas.
Some
in the West advocate the position of taking extreme measures to
subordinate Hamas, but others see this to be counterproductive.
Alain
Gresh, the editor in chief of France’s Le Monde Diplomatique
magazine, believes the West's rejection of Hamas after its democratic
landslide election victory, makes the West's democracy and political
reform calls in the region rather insignificant and useless.
Egypt's
president and veteran politician Hosni Mubarak — a close US ally —
also warns pushing Hamas too hard will only force it into Iran's
hemisphere.
As
a matter of fact, Iran did declare it was ready to fill the gap of
financial aid to the Palestinians caused by the West's threats.
Significance
All
these deliberations, however different "in the long" from
"the zoom," give rise to a number of queries.
First:
What is the impact of the West's anti-Hamas position on the Arab and
Muslim public opinions?
We
might not be surprised by the international complacency to starve and
humiliate the Palestinian people, on the road to causing the failure
of Hamas government and forcing it to give in or quit. (Egyptian
thinker Fahmy Houaidy, Al-Ahram
daily Tuesday, February 28, 2006)
Second:
How can that policy be explained to Palestinians who believed in
democracy and went to the polls to choose their representative only to
find themselves paying a heavy price of starvation?
Third:
How will that position play into the hands of extremists and even
"terrorists" in the Arab and Muslim worlds accusing the West
of double-standards and anti-Muslims crusades?
These
questions need more and deeper pondering by policy-makers in
Washington and Europe, with future impacts and strategic goals being
more present.
It
may eventually be argued that starving the Palestinians may only push
them all to the wall, leaving no room for peace calls or peace
advocates. Is this what the US-led international community is aiming
at?
