Foreign Policy Association: Global Views|Global Views

As the militant Palestinian party Hamas prepares to form a governing body following its recent victory in parliamentary elections, leaders from around the world are cautiously staking out positions on how best to engage a new Palestinian Authority. While the U.S. and Israel have explicitly stated they will not fund or consult with any government that fails to accept Israel's right to exist and supports terrorism, other countries have adopted a wait-and-see attitude until the new government emerges. Russia, however, has raised international concern by offering to meet Hamas leaders in Moscow as early as next month.

A New Government

On Saturday, Palestinians are set to begin the formation of a new government and Hamas – the militant group the U.S. and European Union have labeled a terrorist organization – will be at its center. Following elections last month, Hamas won a 74-seat majority in a parliament of 132 members, as well as the opportunity to name a prime minister and the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Though the democratic rise of Hamas has many in the international community worried about future prospects for peace in the region, the ability of the group to govern at present depends largely on “intra-Palestinian” cooperation, according to analysts at Stratfor.com. First and foremost, they point out, Hamas must convince the recently-ousted Fatah party to join its future government. “The Hamas-proposed PNA Cabinet gives Hamas the prime minister post and foreign, finance, information and education portfolios; Fatah is to get the security and interior ministries,” they write, though Fatah has not yet officially agreed to join the government.

In addition, Stratfor.com analysts point to the group's nomination of non-extremist leaders for top posts as evidence it is aware of political challenges on the home front. Hamas is seeking to ensure “the government will be composed of technocrats rather than ideologues -- a move that allows Hamas to offset any potential criticism that it has compromised its principles in exchange for power.”

Indeed, according to a Financial Times report, “the line-up of Hamas's potential nominees for ministerial preferment reads deceptively like a provincial faculty board rather than the typecast of a terrorist network.” There is little doubt, though, that the move is also intended for a wider audience. While some see the shift towards a more moderate public face as an indicator of the group's political savvy and ability to transform itself to the conditions surrounding its new role, others claim it is nothing more than a front. It is around these opposing hopes and suspicions that lines in the international community are currently being drawn.

The U.S. and Israel

Officials from the U.S and Israel have been among the first to clearly state their position towards a Hamas-led government – demanding the group to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and denounce violence. A failure to do so, according to a non-binding resolution passed this week by the U.S. House of Representatives and backed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, would halt direct U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority – roughly $150 million of which is earmarked for 2006. Humanitarian aid, however, is likely to continue. “Until Hamas changes course – dismantles its terrorist organization, and agrees to work towards a peaceful settlement with Israel – no taxpayer money should be provided to support the Palestinian government,” said newly elected House majority leader John Boehner. For its part – Israel has vowed not to engage with Hamas until it recognizes its right to exist, and has suggested it could further restrict movement between the West Bank and Gaza and ban Palestinians from working in Israel.

The so-called Middle East “quartet” comprised of the U.S., the European Union, the United Nations and Russia that aims to bring peace to the Middle East, has also indicated it will take a similar approach to the U.S. The quartet issued a communiqué following the Hamas parliamentary victory stating that a “two-state solution to the conflict [between Israel and the Palestinians] requires all participants in the democratic process to renounce violence and terror, accept Israel's right to exist, and disarm, as outlined in the road map.”

Such a united front, said former Middle East peace negotiator Dennis Ross in an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, is critical. It is imperative, “to maintain a strong consensus internationally that there will not be relations with a Hamas-led government; there will not be assistance for a Hamas-led government, unless Hamas is prepared to change itself," Ross said. “If it wants to operate in a way that benefits the Palestinians, then it has to adjust its behavior, and if it doesn't, there's a consequence for that.”

Others, however, warn against taking such a rigid stand this early in the game. Such thinking, writes Nathan Brown in Foreign Policy magazine, “must be accompanied by careful thinking about how to measure compliance and progress.” In such a volatile region, he writes, “setting conditions on Hamas may force it to confront difficult choices, but pressure applied clumsily will easily backfire.”

A Fragmented Front

Already there are cracks in the coalition, the most glaring of them being Russian President Vladimir Putin's invitation for Hamas leaders to visit Moscow. The move, a significant and potentially embarrassing blow to the quartet, has raised a fundamental question – should Hamas be given a chance to reform on its own terms, or must the international community, in a show of solidarity, force it to meet widely accepted conditions before it takes over the reigns of power in one of the world's most volatile regions?

For some, the answer is clear. Former Middle East peace negotiator Ross said the Russian meeting is a message in itself. “I can assure you the way Hamas reads it is that this is proof that the world will adjust to Hamas, and that Hamas does not need to adjust to the world,” he said. “Our premise has to be that Hamas has to be the one doing the adjusting.”

A New York Times editorial, however, says pressing Hamas hard from the starting gate and threatening to withhold aid could amount to a kind of “deliberate destabilization” of Palestinian leadership on the part of the U.S. and Israel. Throughout the long and bloody history of the conflict, the editorial says, “there is not a shred of evidence to support the notion that pushing the Palestinian population into more economic desperation would somehow cause them to moderate their political views.” Instead, the Times argues, Palestinians should be given a chance to boot Hamas out of power democratically should it fails to improve their lot.

Still, many observers continue to urge patience as Palestinian political developments continue to unfold. Brown, writing in Foreign Policy, calls for calm and creativity. “All players should avoid locking themselves into positions they will regret later,” he writes. “If prospects for Arab democracy, democratic Islamic political movements, and Israeli-Palestinian peace are to survive the Hamas landslide victory, creative benchmarks rather than rigid slogans must be the guide.”

Print This Article

Robert Nolan is online editor at the Foreign Policy Association and editorial producer of the Great Decisions Television Series. He can be contacted at rnolan@fpa.org

Recently In Focus

In Focus Archive »

Global Views|Global Views

Explore By Region

Explore By Issue

Newsletter

Join FPA

Upcoming Events »

Just Posted »

Jobs »

Blogs »

In Focus

Middle East Update: Engaging Hamas

Recently In Focus