Yezid Sayigh is Professor in Middle Eastern Studies at King’s College London. He is a former negotiator of the PLO-Israel accord of May 1994, and author of Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949-1993 (Oxford University Press, 1997 and 1999).
The prospect of Hamas holding power in the Palestinian Authority is hugely problematic given its refusal to follow the PLO and the previous ruling party Fateh in recognizing Israel’s right to exist and to disown the use of force, particularly suicide bombings, and given its social agenda, especially on gender issues and the implementation of Sharia law. Yet, Hamas won its parliamentary majority fair and square. In fact, it did so on the basis of an electoral law that had been designed by former President Arafat’s party Fateh in order to ensure its own victory. The West therefore risks being hoisted by its own petard: it refuses to talk to ‘terrorist’ organizations, but preaches respect for democratic process and outcomes, and moreover needs to help maintain a functioning Palestinian Authority in order to revive the peace process with Israel. The US Administration appears to have opted for a coercive approach towards Hamas. It has actively discouraged Fateh from joining a national unity government in the hope of isolating Hamas and imposing sweeping financial sanctions on it, disregarding the lesson that sanctions impose needless suffering on captive populations and, if anything, strengthen incumbent regimes. Fateh has already shifted major executive and legislative powers and financial assets to President Mahmoud Abbas, and refused to surrender control of the over-sized security forces. The US posture is probably encouraging Fateh to destabilize the Hamas government: its militiamen are assaulting local and central government facilities in Gaza on a daily basis, and threaten renewed armed attacks against Israel. What unites the US Administration and Fateh is the belief that a strategy of destabilizing and bankrupting a Hamas government will stoke public dissatisfaction and bring it down, leading to new elections that Fateh hopes to win. This is delusional: Hamas won because it offered an end to bad government and lawlessness, and recent opinion polls suggest that Fateh will suffer an even worse drubbing if it sabotages the democratic process and the national interest. The US, EU, and others in the international community should avoid becoming a partisan actor in internal Palestinian politics. Diverting assistance away from the duly-elected government to the President’s office and Fateh will split the Palestinian Authority (PA) and undermine constitutional government. It will weaken financial transparency and public accountability, and polarize Palestinian politics and society, possibly with violent results. A preferable alternative is for international representatives to meet – as needed – with duly-elected PA officials regardless of their party affiliation, while refusing to deal directly with Hamas until it meets the conditions for formal dialogue. Aid flows should continue to the PA so long as they are subject to full transparency and accountability. Only then can Hamas be held directly responsible by its own public for its policies, including the choice of meeting international conditions or not. Otherwise the US and the EU will be seen not only to tolerate, but to actively bring about, a repeat of the Algerian scenario of 1992, when an Islamist government was refused power and a gruesome civil war ensued. In this case, the damage to the West’s claim to support genuine democracy will be far more profound than the ‘pain’ of having to deal with an unpalatable Hamas government for an uncomfortable interlude until it either meets international conditions or demonstrates conclusively that it merits a boycott. Return to the debate homepage.
