|
|
Feb. 3, 2006
An uncertain future ahead
Hamas victory launches a catalogue of security concerns.
KATHARINE HAMER EDITOR
For some Canadian Jewish leaders, the very fact that Palestinians
were able to vote for representatives of a known terrorist organization
was unfathomable.
"The inclusion on the Palestinian ballot of Hamas terrorist
operatives is a subversion of the democratic process," said
B'nai Brith Canada executive vice-president Frank Dimant in a statement
issued late last week. "The fiction that Hamas is anything
other than an armed terrorist group whose avowed aim continues to
be the destruction of the Jewish state serves only to undermine
any real hope for a genuine process of Palestinian democratization
and reform."
Hamas won 76 out of 132 seats in the Palestinian Authority elections
last Wednesday, wresting control away from the long-time governance
of the Fatah party.
"Obviously, it came as a great surprise to both Israelis and
Jews in the Diaspora," observed Dr. Michael Elterman, Pacific
Region chair of the Canada-Israel Committee, "because we had
been led to believe that this was not going to happen – and
I suspect, from what I've read, that it came as a surprise even
to Hamas that they had won."
Fatah – the party of Yasser Arafat and, more recently, of PA
leader Mahmoud Abbas – has been widely accused of corruption
and political mismanagement.
"I think one has to look at it in the perspective of it being
a vote against Fatah, whose reputation has been for corruptness
and nepotism," said Elterman. "It's a political earthquake
in the Palestinian territory that is essentially a protest vote
against all the dollars that have been pocketed and squandered by
Fatah officials over the years."
As of press time, it was unclear what the make-up of the next Palestinian
government would look like. Hamas had hoped to establish a political
coalition with Abbas.
"I think it's going to be months before this whole situation
shakes itself out," said Elterman. "But what is very interesting
is the effect that it's going to have on the Israeli election in
March and whether, in fact, by having a Hamas government south of
Israel, it's going to push the electorate towards Likud and away
from the other parties. I suspect [there will be support for] the
argument that [Likud leader Binyamin] Netanyahu is making currently,
which is 'I told you so; I told you that if you withdraw from Gaza
that you are essentially giving the message that terrorism is going
to be rewarded, that this is what is going to happen.' Netanyahu
uses the word 'Hamastan' as what is being created. So he may actually
pick up a lot of support in the March election from just exactly
this turn of events."
That was also the view shared by Prof. Lenard Cohen, a political
scientist at Simon Fraser University. "The usual cycle is action
and reaction," Cohen observed, "so [the Hamas victory]
strengthens the extreme side in Israel, and some of that, of course,
is the extremists in Likud."
Cohen predicted that, "Hamas will have an internal struggle
over the question of moderating itself. The hard-liners will want
to stick to their guns, so to speak, literally and figuratively,
and there will be moderates that want to receive the financial aid
from the EU and the recognition from the international community.
"All parties, when they assume power, are challenged by the
need to move to the centre. It doesn't matter where you're at on
the spectrum, when you assume power, you have new responsibilities
and relationships, especially in the international community, so
I expect Hamas to go through this struggle. Where it will come out,
I don't know, I think that it's too early to tell. I think the position
both in Brussels and in Washington and in Ottawa, for that matter
– these are the correct positions to take at this moment."
What was immediately clear is that Israel – and, as noted by
Cohen, many Western countries – will not negotiate with a government
that is even partially controlled by Hamas.
"As long as their charter calls for the annilihation of the
state of Israel by terror, then clearly we can't have any dealings
with them," Alan Baker, Israel's ambassador to Canada, told
the Independent on Monday.
"No administration would be expected to deal with this type
of terrorist organization – and I think the position put forward
by the Europeans and by Canada and by all the other countries is
that until they [Hamas] give up terrorism and accept the framework
of obligations that have been taken on by Abu Mazzen [Abbas] and
the other leaders of the PA, there's little chance that anybody's
going to deal with them."
Baker said he thought it was "very, very unlikely" Hamas
would renounce terrorism.
Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar told reporters earlier this week that
a long-term hudna (truce) with Israel is possible if Israel
"retreats" to the pre-1967 borders. Zahar asked that all
Palestinian detainees be released and a land link forged between
Gaza and the West Bank. He also indicated he would like to see stricter
Islamic law introduced to all Palestinian territories.
"There's every sign this is what's going to happen, coming
out from the statements that they're making," said Baker, "that
they're going to segregate their women and children, boys and girls
in schools and institute the shar'ia (Islamic law) as their main
legal system and integrate their terrorist forces within an army.
All these things point to the sort of Iran-style entity that they
want to set up."
When he was questioned about the growing ties between Hamas and
Tehran, Zahar said that Hamas was not taking money from Iran. (Baker,
however, suggested that Iran was giving Hamas, "for every suicide
bomber, around $5,000. Iran and Syria are financing them, as is
Saudi Arabia.")
Cohen posited that the introduction of Islamism would have "a
knock-on effect throughout the region which is very negative. I
think it will embolden parties that are extreme to take more extreme
positions, because they will see that you can win an open election
and therefore legitimate yourself; legitimate your extremism."
All of the observers with whom the Independent spoke agreed that
the election results would put a major spoke in peace process negotiations.
"I think the peace negotiations are dead," said Elterman.
"I think that, at this particular point, there is no road map,
all bets are off and there are no peace negotiations, because there
is no one to negotiate with. You can't negotiate with people whose
mandate is the destruction of Israel and you can't negotiate with
people whose main medium of influence is not words but violence.
From that point of view, I don't think there will be any peace negotiations
for quite some time."
"Only at such a time as Hamas decides to give up its terrorist
character and give up its arms and acknowledge and recognize the
state of Israel and accept the agreements between Israel and the
PLO," Baker asserted, "only then will there be a possibility
that we'll be able to relate to and deal with Hamas as the elected
government of the Palestinian Authority."
Elterman said that while he was skeptical about Hamas being "the
leopard that changes its spots," the reality of being in power
might force the organization to tone down its terrorist activities.
"Hopefully," he said, "there will be some reality
check when they have to actually govern and they have to deal with
paying city workers and having sewers cleaned and basically having
to deal with the day-to-day task of governing a country. On the
one hand, I don't think Hamas is going to change, but over time,
one hopes that in government they will have to deal with more than
just killing Jews."
Responding to the fact that close to 50 per cent of Israelis said,
prior to the election, that they thought their government should
negotiate with Hamas representatives, Elterman added, "I think
Israelis want peace more than anything else. They want their government
to negotiate with whatever entity is governing Palestine –
but at the same time, what we don't know is whether or not that
government is open to negotiation and to what extent they will want
to negotiate. One hopes that the more reality-minded, more practical
individuals will come to the fore and say in the long term we have
to accept Israel, we have to negotiate, but that may take some time."
Until such time as that does happen, Baker said, Israel will remain
painfully attuned to the dangers it faces. Security is already high,
he said, "but clearly, because of the declared aims of Hamas
and the fact that this election, in addition to being an expression
of the will of the Palestinian people to get rid of Fatah and all
the corruption, we can't ignore the fact that it's also an identification
with the aims and purposes of Hamas vis-a-vis Israel, and this is
very worrying – and this can only herald a direction towards
violence, which we have to be prepared for and alert to."
^TOP
|
|
