Hamas

It's not much a surprise that Hamas won.  The accusation that they are like Islamic Fascists tells us something:  fascists were remarkably effective at organizing people.  They had a corporatist mentality and strict rules of self-discipline. 

The NYT quotes a Barghouti, a clan that can claim both Marwan and Moustafa.   "But if you sit with them they will say: 'We hate Fatah. They did nothing for us. A few poor people suddenly became rich people. Hamas worked in another way. They worked with society. They worked with the poor.' " 

Philip Stephens writes:  The manner of their campaign suggests Hamas’s leaders recognise some at least of the realities. The party’s candidates pitched to the day-to-day preoccupations of Palestinians. They promised better schools and health centres, clean government and an end to lawlessness. They did not resile from hostility to Israel, but the pledge of an Islamist state stretching all the way from the Jordan to the Mediterranean was never the centrepiece.

There you have your answer.

There were other reasons.  Fatah had failed.  They were corrupt.  They couldn't deliver what Palestinians desire:  security and freedom. 

This is also a failure of Israeli policy.  The policy of disengagement inherently inhibits the creation of moderate Palestinian institutions.  Why would anyone vote for an institution that can't guarantee an agreement with the Israelis?   

Like other terrorist organizations, money will influence future choices to some extent.  The FT reports: 

Ziad Abu Amr, a former Palestinian Authority minister who Hamas supported in Wednesday’s poll, said Hamas would also try to persuade members of the defeated Fatah party to join a national unity government.

“I don’t think Hamas will ignore the existing political realities,” he said. “It knows what is at stake here. They have to find a way to participate in the decision-making process without making a lot of internal, regional and international problems for themselves. Hamas will try to mend fences with the international community.”

Hamas may do well without money for a while, but power may bring moderation.  They may have better luck at reining in their own militants.  More radical groups might form as an alternative to Hamas.   Stephens again:

History tells us that even when terrorist groups want to renounce violence they often struggle to map out the course. It is often easier, for example, simply to stop shooting than to tear up cherished charters. Language can be remoulded to reality after a lag. So it matters more in the short term that Hamas observes a ceasefire, than that it disowns its past.

Like the Irgun, for example. 

But we should not abandon democracy.  As the editor of the FT writes:

As they emerge from the shock of seeing a ruling party, the Fatah of the late Yassir Arafat, ejected at the ballot box, America's Arab friends such as Mr Mubarak will be urging Washington and its allies to abandon this dangerous flirtation with democracy, arguing that it is playing into the hands of the Islamists. They should be ignored.

It is the scorched earth tactics of these autocrats, who have left their opponents nothing but the mosque to rally around, that have furnished the Islamists with their following. The west should persevere in trying to foster a democratic environment, while insisting all parties abide by the rule of law. The trick is to create a framework in which all currents, including the secular, can emerge. Islamists will often be the short-term beneficiaries, but they will surely eventually falter.

Comments

[Phil Snyder]

I also was unsurprised when Hamas won. Fatah was morally bankrupt and could teach the Warren Harding administration a trick or seven about political corruption.

The Palestinians had two bad choices. The could vote for the lying weasels who had done nothing but impoverish them or they could vote for the hate filled weasels who had suffered with them and promised to improve their lot and had worked before to improve their lot - but might bring military destruction if Israel were attacked again.

Hamas has brought the Israel and terrorism question back to the forefront of both Palestinian and Israeli life. Now, the Palestinian gov't can no longer claim that a terrorist attack was something that just wasn't prevented in time. Now it will be viewed as government policy and responded to government to government. The terrorists have become a defacto state. Let's hope they can keep it and not throw it away.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[John Wilkins]

history is full of terrorists who became politicians. Sharon, Shamir and Begin, for example.