A change through democratic means

While the Council of Europe grapples with the incorrect practices that took place during the recent elections in member state Azerbaijan and the likely outcome of the elections in Belarus, the elections held in Palestine were held in the fairest way possible, with the resultant change being brought about through purely democratic means.

This is not just a personal opinion but also the viewpoint of former US President Jimmy Carter who led an 85-member international observer team from around the world organised by the National Democratic Institute in partnership with The Carter Centre. His general comment was that the elections were completely honest, completely fair, completely safe and without violence.

In my initial reaction to Super 1 TV, I expressed the hope that a way could be found for Hamas to eventually recognise the state of Israel, while being fully aware that initially even such organisations as the PLO had started off by refusing to do so, although its position eventually changed and evolved over the years.

I said so because I genuinely believe in a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that gives recognition both to Palestinian sovereignty rights as well as to Israel's right to live within safe and secure borders.

Over the weekend I monitored as I best could all that the media had to say about the resounding Hamas victory. What struck me most were two articles by two particular Jews: British Labour MP Gerald Kaufman and Henry Siegman, the leading expert on Israeli-Palestinian affairs at the US Council on Foreign Relations.

While Mr Siegman detected signs that Hamas may be seeking ways to ease its policies calling for Israel's destruction (as confirmed by its willingness to deal with Israel through third parties), Mr Kaufman called the election result a triumph for Ariel Sharon in the sense that the Hamas victory is not only the inevitable outcome of everything Mr Sharon did as Prime Minister, but it is precisely what he would have wished.

Mr Kaufman commented that way because he felt that "the Hamas landslide is the direct outcome of the utter frustration felt by the Palestinians at the failure of anybody to do anything about the abject poverty and oppression under which they spend every day of their lives". The problem we have to address is that as confirmed by Mr Kaufman neither the present Israeli government nor Hamas want a negotiated settlement bringing about a two-state solution.

I reiterate what I told The Times the other day that I am not convinced that people voted for Hamas because they wanted armed struggle. This was confirmed the day after by Ephraim Lavie, from the Moshe Dayan Centre for Middle Eastern and African Studies, when he stated that Fatah's defeat is grounded in several factors, particularly its political failures and its shortcomings as a governing party responsible for public welfare.

While Yasser Arafat's departure from the scene might have offered the Palestinians the possibility of a more pragmatic approach, Mahmoud Abbas quickly proved impotent in the face of the old guards' resistance to any organisational reform that would jeopardise their standing.

While I welcomed Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, which was nothing but a failed state and a burden for them, I always had my doubts how much this would integrate itself into the road map process. Only the gullible believed so, particularly as Israel flagrantly refused to commit itself to do the same with the far more heavily Palestinian populated West Bank.

Mr Kaufman made this clear when he stated that: "When he (Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli PM), as he has done since taking over from Sharon, talks about withdrawals on the West Bank, he does not do so foreshadowing productive negotiations with the Palestinians, but as part of a plan to make Israeli military deployments more secure".

One can agree or disagree with George W. Bush but there was a harsh reality in his statement that "When you give people the vote, give them the chance to express themselves at the polls and they're unhappy with the status quo, they'll let you know".

The writing had been on the wall for days, both as a result of opinion polls and even thanks to the Fatah primaries which confirmed that the earlier scepticism had been transformed into a deeper disillusion that was manifest in the overwhelming support for Hamas and the younger generation of Fatah, at the expense of the Fatah old guard.

Some even argue that the worsening security situation in Gaza has in part been deliberately engineered by certain Fatah elements and its security arms as a pretext to postpone or cancel the elections in foreknowledge of the inevitable outcome.

It is my strong belief that the Hamas victory was brought about by bread and butter issues and it is within this context that the road map members must react to it.

One cannot ignore the fact that, in the run-up to the elections proper, such influential think-tanks as the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies saw in the prospect of reshaping the landscape the cornerstone of President Abbas's strategy to establish the rule of law and moderate the militant Hamas movement by allowing it to participate in the country's political system.

This was always a risk strategy yet the alternative of having excluded Hamas from the electoral process would have surely led to more chaos and violence and ensured that no capable Palestinian government will emerge.

For months it was evident that business as usual was no longer an option.

In spite of the highly charged political rhetoric, the above think-tank felt that Hamas's entrance into participatory politics reflects a broad decision within its leadership to accept the parameters of the political game. They actually stated that this trend should be encouraged.

This does not mean that Hamas does not shoulder a certain responsibility. Once part of the political system, it will be on Hamas to prove that it can play by the rules of the game.

If we want to be positive we must bear in mind and recall that, although even the PLO had called for Israel's destruction, they eventually entered into agreements with Israel in 1993.

Nevertheless, Hamas has three vital challenges ahead:

¤ the opposition to Israel's existence;

¤ their continued resort to terror and violence as a goal towards ending the occupation and

¤ the retention of a separate independent militia.

But the fact that the PLO had a charter that originally was no different to that of Hamas should not make us despair and give up hope. To my mind Hamas already began changing the moment they made the decision to enter the election.

Mr Siegman felt that this is not simply a tactical change, but rather a strategic reorientation from their earlier exclusive reliance on violence to politics and nation-building.

We must also not forget that Mr Abbas as President is still the man in charge of the negotiations with Israel and, more importantly, the peace agreement. The Oslo agreement entered into by the Palestinians and Israel was not signed by the Palestinian Authority - which was non-existent then - but rather by the PLO of which Mr Abbas is also the leader.

There has to be flexibility from both sides. Even from the Israeli side. Particularly because when Mr Sharon took unilateral decisions he was merely showing he was totally disinterested in having political discussions and in pursuing the peace process - even when Hamas was not in power.

Hamas might have killed many innocent Israeli citizens but then Israel also killed a number of Hamas leaders which shows that neither side's hands are clean of blood.

We should perhaps bear in mind what former Mossad leader Ephraim Halevy had once said that, while Israel must fight relentlessly to destroy the Hamas terror wing, at the same time Israel must encourage the evolution of Hamas into a political organisation that is part of the Palestinian political polity, because there is no hope of a peace agreement with the Palestinians if Hamas is on the outside and opposes the agreement.

His words become even more relevant today in the wake of the Hamas landslide victory, a victory which, in my opinion, was spurred forward by the dire need for social and economic reconstruction.

Mr Brincat is the Labour shadow minister for foreign affairs and IT.

leo.brincat@gov.mt