RSS

Hamas: Negotiate or Isolate?

In the face of Hamas’ violent takeover of Gaza, the transatlantic community must reassess its conflict management. The Western reaction to this situation will be an important battle in the “war of ideas” that has been going on since the electoral victory of Hamas in 2006. Then, the international community was thrown into confusion on how to deal with a radical Islamist party blacklisted in many countries as a terrorist organization. Lacking a genuine comprehensive strategy, Western policies oscillated between engagement and isolation.

Now, there are strong Islamist candidates for election in other countries allied to the West, such as Pakistan . Challenging the legitimacy of the democratic victories of such parties, or indeed wholly excluding them from the political process, could have moral, political and strategic consequences for the West.

PRO

• Respect the vote: Palestinians voted for and elected Hamas members in a free and fair election. Failure to honor electoral results hurts the Western cause of democracy promotion. The US is not the only nation susceptible to charges of hypocrisy: with the launching of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2004, Europe too added democracy promotion to its main agenda. When Hamas refused to meet the basic conditions set by the Quartet on the Middle East, the EU worked only with non-Hamas members, even though some European countries took different stances.
• Food before morals: The vote for Hamas was not so much an affirmation of violence as it was a protest against Fatah’s political corruption. Fatah is led by an older generation; some 50% of Palestinians are under 14. Isolating and boycotting Hamas-controlled Gaza furthers the desolate economic situation among all Palestinians collectively, including those who do not follow Hamas. A currently popular argument reasons that economic desperation will turn Palestinians against Hamas, but a stable society is less easily indoctrinated and less vulnerable to radical ideologies in the first place.
• One or none: It is politically and economically impossible to create two Palestinian states. Hermetically closing Gaza’s borders would lead to a humanitarian disaster. Fatah forces will not be allowed to march through Israeli territory to recapture Gaza; neither can Israel tolerate such a region at its immediate borders. The only choice is engagement.
• Tame Hamas: The US and EU can work to create the proper incentives for Hamas to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Remaining officially committed to the destruction of Israel, Hamas has always, often indirectly, negotiated with the EU, the US, Arab interlocutors or with other proxies. Hamas is not a monolithic organization, but encompasses armed and political factions, similar to Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Brigades. Negotiations with Hamas would force the party to share responsibility in the grinding everyday political process. Atef Abou Saif, author at the new Washington-based journal Arab Insight, argues : “if democracy in the region is vital to American national security … then Islamist parties should be encouraged to join the political process.”.

CON

• Respect the rules: Elections do not a democracy make. While electoral results must be respected, countries do not have to negotiate with and financially support radical leaders. If the West believes in democratic peace, radical and violent parties should be excluded from the political process. Most democracies do in fact have standard rules a party must conform to in order to be allowed to run for election.
• Welfare propaganda: Hamas’ popularity is based on its social welfare system, a comparatively small infrastructure which is heavily used for indoctrination. Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy asserts that the military, political and social wings of Hamas are inseparable. Western countries could easily afford the expenditure required to replace Hamas’ social services, instead of giving the money directly to Hamas and risking further radicalization of Palestinian society.
• One or none: Participation in a coalition government did not make Hamas any more of a democratic institution.The organization has no interest in finding a side-by-side solution with Israel and purposefully makes unreasonable demands. Therefore, it is not an appropriate candidate for a cooperative merger. The conflict going on between the two Palestinian parties is one of religious principle and cultural difference, and the West should make clear which side they support.
• Untamed Hamas: Considering Hamas’ violent seizure of Gaza, the organization’s historical record and its uncompromising charter, it is futile to hope for internal change. Political participation co-opts militants only under very specific conditions, advises IDF Brigadier General Michael Herzog.
  
  
  What do you think? You can check out the results of our recent poll here . We would also appreciate your thoughts, comments and any additional policy recommendations you might have on this topic.