the gold standard
By Jacob Goldberg

the political tsunami of Hamas

The magnitude of Hamas's victory in Palestinian elections can be appreciated against the backdrop that not even one intelligence agency predicted it! The CIA, for one, expected the newly-elected leadership to finally disarm Hamas…No wonder, then, that the landslide victory created total shock both in the West and across the Middle East.

The defeat of al-Fath is of historical proportions: for the first time in half a century, the Palestinian center of power shifts from the national (al-Fath/PLO) to the religious (Hamas) leadership. In a broader perspective, Hamas represents the first Arab Islamist (terrorist) group – a child of its parent organization “The Muslim Brotherhood” – not only to be legitimated but to actually come to power through the ballot box. It is not surprising, therefore, that similar groups in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco are encouraged by Hamas's success, while the governments are frightened by the precedent.

What accounts for Hamas's unprecedented success?

Conventional wisdom has it that mostly secular Palestinians chose Hamas not because it opposed peace with Israel, nor because they wanted a fundamentalist state like Iran. They chose Hamas because they were utterly disillusioned with the corrupt, anarchic and sloppy rule of al-Fath and the bankruptcy of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Other analysts pointed an accusing finger at Israel: it did not help PA Chairman Abbas, hardened Palestinian lives, and launched unilateral initiatives, such as Gaza withdrawal, which embarrassed Abbas and rendered the whole PA totally powerless and ineffective.

Without discounting all other explanations, I venture to suggest that the single most important factor responsible for Hamas ascendancy is the US endorsing Hamas participation in the elections, based on the fallacious doctrine of “changing the Middle East landscape through democracy.” Oblivious to the lessons of history, disregarding similar precedents in Arab/Islamic countries, and in line with Tuchman's March of the Follies, President Bush and Secretary Rice allowed a terrorist, anti-democratic group to use a democratic process in order to come to power.

US misconceptions go much deeper. Washington has been repeatedly told that open elections, without mass, preparatory “democratic education,” would inevitably lead to ascendancy of Muslim fundamentalists (as was the case in Algeria, Jordan and Egypt) and not of Western-oriented liberals. Shouldn't President Carter's fallacy have taught President Bush that the alternative to disaster (Shah) could be catastrophe (Khomeini)?

Would the US embark on a soul-searching process? Secretary Rice admitted that the US underestimated Hamas strength, saying, “We failed to understand the depth of hostility among Palestinians toward their longtime leaders. I've asked why nobody saw it coming. It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse.” True!

Even the EU now understands that, in the words of Xavier Solana, “winning elections does not turn a terrorist organization into a legitimate group.” But, as the new German Chancellor Angela Merkel concluded, “regardless of the reasons which led to Hamas victory, at the end of the day, a terrorist group will be at the top of the PA.”

Most commentaries on Hamas’s victory focused on the total surprise all over the world; very few noted that most surprised, if not shocked, of all was Hamas itself! With this being now the new reality, the $64,000 question is how will Hamas proceed?

There are two schools of thoughts. One promotes the thesis that when liberation, revolutionary or terrorist groups gain political power, they are forced to deal with the pragmatic realities of the governing process and to make a transition from violence to peaceful coexistence. Therefore, Hamas’s views of Israel as a government will not be the same as an insurgency.

The other school views such analysis sheer wishful thinking. These are precisely the kind of predictions made when the fundamentalists took over Iran in 1979! Likewise, when the Taliban took power in Afghanistan in the 1990's, instead of becoming pragmatic and moderate, they imposed a reign of terror and forced the most extreme form of Islam. Similarly, after Israel's final withdrawal from Lebanon, Hizballah was expected to transform from an Iranian-linked Shi'ite terror group into a political party. Instead, it pursued political power in parallel with terrorism, kidnapping Israeli soldiers, deploying 12,000 rockets, and providing direct support for Palestinian terror attacks.

A most likely scenario is for Hamas to walk a tightrope between adherence to its long-term ideological platform and the need to make short-term practical concessions. Thus, in order to solidify its newly-gained political status and obtain international legitimacy, Hamas would strive to form a “national unity government” with al-Fath consisting of technocrats. It might accept a “Hudna” (long-term armistice) with Israel without giving up its long-term goal of “liberating the whole of Palestine.”

But, regardless of the course of action Hamas takes, it is abundantly clear that a bloodless coup has changed the rules of the game and reshaped the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for years to come. It remains to be seen whether a national-territorial struggle will transform into a Jewish-Moslem religious conflict.

For feedback, contact editor@sdjewishjournal.com.