May  06 Newsletter

[back to the Table of Contents]

          Should the Hamas dominated Palestinian government Be Recognized and Engaged by the West? 
Maria Dayton

 The January 15th elections in Palestine ushered in a Hamas led government that both surprised and scared the United States and Europe.  Washington reacted by demanding a series of concessions by the new government, which appeared to contradict its prior claims of unequivocal support of Middle Eastern democracy.  Hamas was asked to publicly reject violence, revise the Hamas Charter, recognize Israel, and accept all prior peace agreements.  Washington, and later Europe, backed up these threats by cutting over 250,000,000 dollars of direct aid to the new Palestinian government, thereby cutting its budget by around 15%. 

            These moves on the part of the West are counterproductive and I argue that the new Hamas government should be recognized and engaged unconditionally for three basic reasons.  The first reason being that the moral objections against Hamas that are leveled by both the US and Europe are blatantly hypocritical.  Secondly, the engagement of the Hamas government would show sincere support of the democratic process in the region; and thirdly, cutting the budget of the Palestinian Authority is only punishing the Palestinian people and making a solution to the greater conflict less likely.  

The major argument against recognizing the Hamas led government revolves around objections relating to the Hamas charter and the attacks upon civilians that the organization has supported since its inception in 1988. This position on the part of West is blatantly hypocritical especially considering the track record of both the US and Europe when it comes to negotiations with opposition groups in other parts of the world.  In Africa the United States and Europe is notorious for negotiating with opposition groups and then later integrating them into governments regardless of their vast crimes against humanity.  This is true of Charles Taylor government in Liberia, the Kagame government in Rwanda, and the Kabila government in Congo.  The list continues with similar instances in Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Angola, Sierra Leone, Sudan and others.  To pretend that that the 2114 innocent lives that Hamas has claimed over the last 28 years deserves more condemnation than the hundreds of thousands brutally murdered elsewhere by opposition groups that were later absorbed into governments is hypocritical.  The loss of over two thousand people is definitely something that deserves moral condemnation, however in the harsh cold reality of geo-politics it should not prevent a government from negotiating with a major player like Hamas.  This is especially true if the West is sincere in its desire to end this conflict. What’s ironic about this issue is that despite Hamas’s refusal to renounce violence it is widely accepted that the organization has not carried out a suicide bombing since a ceasefire was agreed upon over a year ago.  Contrast this position with that of the Islamic Sudanese government who has made very public renouncements of all violence yet continues to encourage the genocide in Darfur through government backed militias.  These types of double standards makes it look like the West is not really interested in reducing violence but only in sound bites that can later be used to rationalize inaction.  Such blatant hypocrisy hurts the West and limits its ability to elicit contracted change in the region. 

            The second reason why the Hamas government should be engaged without conditions is the fact that the January elections gave the Hamas led government a mandate that the West cannot ignore.  It is important to keep in mind that Hamas, despite its dominant position within the government, is not the only party present within the Palestinian Authority.  The Palestinian Legislative Council as well as local municipal governments contains an assortment of Hamas, Fatah, and independent politicians.  The Deputy Prime Minister Naser El Deen Al Sha’er encouraged our group to remind the international community that there is more to the Hamas-led government than just Hamas.  There are technocrats, and Fatah members, and independents all working together as part of the Palestinian government.  He equated forcing Hamas to re-vise their charter as akin to asking the Labour party in England or the notoriously right wing Likud Party in Israel to change their party platform or face retaliation on the part of the international community. 

            The third reason why the Hamas-led Palestinian government should be recognized and its foreign aid re-instated is because failing to do so only hurts the Palestinian estinian people and punishes them for choosing the opposition party.  There is a wide spread belief on the streets of Palestine that the people are being punished for choosing Hamas over Fatah.  When the rates of unemployment are around 70% and 30% of the population works for the Palestinian Authority then any significant decrease in the budget of the PA has a direct effect on the wages and lives of Palestinians.  The collective punishment of the Palestinian people is counterproductive because it makes a solution to the greater conflict less likely.  These actions also weaken the democratic process by making the Palestinian populace loose faith in the possibility of “free” elections.  Making the Palestinian Authority incapable of providing the meager services that they now provide only radicalizes the population further and forces Hamas to seek financial support elsewhere.  If Hamas was still actively sending suicide bombers into Israel then the strategy of the West would be more understandable, but the West’s persistent desire to force an oral affirmation of what is already happening on the ground and behind the scenes gives credence to the claims of hypocrisy and bias in favor of Israel.