Hamas PM Ismail Haniya’s claim in Thursday’s Guardian that the UK and Hamas have strengthened their ties seems credible . After all, the British government reversed its policy of boycotting Hamas when Alan Johnston was kidnapped and since then Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad has been to the UK twice, as has Haniya advisor Ahmed Yussuf. The British consul general in jerusalem has met with Hamas on more than one occasion.
This is just the latest example of British opinion and indeed world opinion slowly shifting toward recognizing the need for dialog with Hamas. In Britain, the House of Lords European Union Committee recommended the EU soften its stance toward Hamas as did Massimo D’Alema, Italy’s foreign minister. Colin Powell issued his powerful denunciation of the Bush administration’s policy toward Hamas a week ago on NPR, as did former World Bank President and Mideast peace envoy James Wolfensohn in an interview with Haaretz last week.
They’re all coming to the same conclusion, and the conclusion is not that Hamas is some angelic and misunderstood organization that deserves a warm fuzzy embrace by the international community. All those calling for engagement with Hamas understand that 1) the Palestinians can make no political progress toward new elections, a legitimate government, consensus on peace talks with Israel, etc, without some kind of agreement between Hamas and Fatah; 2) no peace process is possible without Hamas having a stake in the process; and 3) the best way to empower those voices inside Hamas who are truly moderate and inclined to compromise is through dialog and engagement.
The angry reactionary sorts who often comment on this blog seem to think that the above argument is akin to an unreserved endorsement for all Hamas stands for. Quite the opposite, it is simply a sober analysis of which tactics are most likely to achieve the West’s desired strategic aims.
Read this July 2007 report titled “What went wrong: The impact of Western policies toward Hamas and Hezbollah” by the Center for European Policy Studies’ Nathalie Tocci. You can download the PDF file here. Here are a couple of snippets:
Western policies have not succeeded in their intention to weaken Hamas and Hizbollah, and have on the contrary entrenched their popular legitimacy. Both Hamas and Hizbollah are mass political movements with large-scale and growing popular bases, a fact that western policies seem to have willingly ignored.
First, Hamas’ participation in elections offered the opportunity to overcome a major anomaly in Palestinian political life: the existence of an increasingly popular mass movement operating outside the legal confines and control of the Palestinian political system, and carrying out acts of violence, including war crimes, in its struggle against Israel. Including Hamas in the legal Palestinian political system could have opened the prospect for a much-needed Palestinian rethink of their national liberation strategy within the confines of the law. This all the more so given that Hamas itself, far from expecting a landslide electoral victory and not quite knowing how to handle governance, had invited Fateh to join a coalition government in January 2006.
Second, Hamas’ victory presented the opportunity for a healthy transition of power in Palestine, a critical transition in view of the symbiosis between the PA and the PLO’s political class, represented principally by Fateh and constituted predominantly by returnees from Tunis. This transition not only offered the scope for greater democracy and better governance, but it could also have provided the necessary stimulus for the rejuvenation of Fateh.
Related to this, this transition of power could have added momentum to the reform of PA institutions. Capitalising on Fateh’s ill-governance, Hamas’ 14-page ‘Change and Reform’ electoral platform, and its clean-hands reputation in the governance of municipalities could have provided an additional push in the reform efforts supported by the West.
13 responses so far ↓
1 ns // Jul 29, 2007 at 1:22 am
Hamas is unwilling to renounce militancy, and until it does so, governments around the world will never come around to accommodating or dialoguing with the movement. There may be a few isolated former officials who critique the current policy, and perhaps a crack here and there in the common front against the group, but the world has changed, and Hamas’s politics has no place therein. It’s popularity on the local level is immaterial to its international reputation, and will remain that way. Hamas is perhaps the rising tide, but it is a tide governments around the world have determined to oppose.
2 Anonymous // Jul 29, 2007 at 2:02 am
That’s a nice right-wing wish list ns, but not reality as Charles points out with facts. By the way ns, when is Israel goign to announce it is willing to renounce militancy?
3 Linda Grant // Jul 29, 2007 at 6:29 am
I’ll be interested to see if Hamas can actually bring itself to drop the Protocols of the Elders of Zion from its Charter. It would be a serious signal that the moderates were in the ascendant and that they meant business. It’s cost-free to drop them, requires no negotiation. Personally, I feel that as long as the Protocols are there, I have to assume they’re there because they believe them.
4 Neville Chamberlain // Jul 29, 2007 at 9:11 am
Apparently, British policy has not changed much in the last 70 years. “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun”. Ecclesiates, 1:9
5 Technik-Fuchs // Jul 29, 2007 at 3:25 pm
“Read this July 2007 report titled “What went wrong: The impact of Western policies toward Hamas and Hezbollah” by the Center for European Policy Studies’ Nathalie Tocci. You can download the PDF here.”
I think your link is wrong, Charles? http://shop.ceps.be/downfree.php?item_id=1523
Intrested persons can purchase the book here: http://www.ceps.be/index3.php
6 litho // Jul 29, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Bad link for the Tocci piece — yours goes to an Arabic-language interview with Dagmush. The correct link is here:
http://shop.ceps.eu/BookDetail.php?item_id=1523
At the top right, there’s a “Download pdf for free” link.
7 Don Cox // Jul 29, 2007 at 3:56 pm
“when is Israel goign to announce it is willing to renounce militancy?”____When they feel safe from attack by Arabs.
8 Don Cox // Jul 29, 2007 at 3:59 pm
“Apparently, British policy has not changed much in the last 70 years.”____I think there have always been two schools of thought in Britain - the pro-Zionist and the pro-Arab. The Foreign Office has a tradition of being pro-Arab. OTOH about half of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet were Jewish (not necessarily Zionist).
9 Anonymous // Jul 29, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Don Cox: “When they feel safe from attack by Arabs.” Oh, ok. Well then, they can expect that to happen when Arabs can feel safe from attack by Israel. Can you tell me when that will happen? Before or after Israel stops stealing their land and bombing their children? Perhaps Israel could start by giving up it’s illegal stockpile of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (you know, the ones developed in conjunction with the Apartheid South African regime that they got along so well with).
10 ns // Jul 29, 2007 at 7:00 pm
oh, and in case anyone thought Hamas was making a comeback (not that polls say it all but…)
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/887346.html
Last update - 20:00 29/07/2007
Poll: 68% of Palestinians want early elections, 15% would vote for Hamas
By News Agencies
An overwhelming majority of Palestinians - 68 percent - favor early legislative and presidential elections in the Palestinian Authority as a solution to the current political crisis in the Palestinian Authority, a poll published Sunday has found.
The survey, conducted by the research center of al-Najjah University in Nablus, also found that if elections were held now, the Islamic Hamas movement would receive only 15.1 percent of the vote, compared to 42 percent for Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party.
Hamas trounced Fatah in the January 2006 elections, winning a majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council.
11 Charles Levinson // Jul 29, 2007 at 8:14 pm
litho — thanks regarding bad link. It’s fixed and the link now works.
12 Abe Bird // Aug 2, 2007 at 8:36 am
Don’t rush too hard into false conclusions. The Guardian is not an official UK speaker and the British PM had already announced his course while meeting with Bush. Hamas is a newer version of the Fatah, and it’s time to recognize the right of the Jews for a national state in the Land of Israel didn’t pervade yet. Both Arab Palestinian fractions see as the ultimate solution for Palestine in creating one big Arab Palestinian state. They are differentiated in their way to achieve that goal. The Fatah is much more sophisticated.
Any way I thing that Britain, and EU as all, don’t play a major roll in the political process. They can only interfere and bring damage to both sides, mainly the Palestinian Arabs, at high cost of blood. The main outsider actor is the US. They were and will be, at least for the seen future. I think that the major task for calming the region intensity and pressure is laid on the Arab Palestinian shoulders. In the meantime I don’t see any good prospect for change in the Arab side. Their tricky and deceptive ways of Oslo trail is unfortunately still prevails.
13 Dashawn // Aug 18, 2007 at 11:33 pm
hi i enjoyed the read
Leave a Comment