The result of the Palestinian elections caught U.S. intelligence agencies once again napping,
eliciting shock and awe within the Bush Administration, which steadfastly refuses to negotiate with terrorist organizations like Hamas. Israel says it will refuse to negotiate with the new Hamas led government, and is counting on the U.S. to do the same.
But is this really the smart thing to do?
A vote for change
Even President Bush admits that the Palestinian people voted the way they did because they wanted change. The people grew weary of the ineffectiveness and rampant corruption of the ruling Fatah party. They were tired of living in squalor, while their leaders pocketed bribes at every turn. They were tired of being pulled apart in a tug of war between the region's Arab states and Israel. They were frustrated that opportunities for peace were being squandered.
When it comes to having leadership that talks a good game, but doesn't deliver, surely every American can appreciate the plight of the Palestinian people, who did exactly the right thing by throwing the bums out. Only secondary concern was given to what might replace the ruling party, but this was a measure of how desperate the Palestinians were for change.
Lost in all the outrage being leveled against the Hamas victory is the fact that the Palestinian people had enough faith that change could be brought about through the democratic election process, rather than through the pursuit of violence that would surely have set them back further from their quest for the peace and prosperity they deserve.
Premature threats
Now President Bush and European Union leaders have threatened to cut off financial aid to the Palestinian Authority if Hamas does not moderate its stance toward Israel and reject the use of violence.
But these threats ring hollow because all this time Fatah leaders had been siphoning off 95% of the international development aid intended for the Palestinian people anyway. Many Palestinians blame the U.S. for being complicit in this corruption by winking at the massive theft by Yasser Arafat, his cronies and their successors.
Yes, Hamas has compiled a sordid track record of implementing and inspiring terrorist acts. And, yes, the international community must be cautious in its dealings with Hamas. But it is folly for the U.S. and Israel to outright dismiss talks with Hamas before the new government can demonstrate its intentions. After all, even the history of Israel underscores the fact that yesterday's terrorists can morph into today's statesmen.
One thing Hamas has going for it is that it does not tolerate corruption; it has long rebuked the Palestinian Authority for this. After the elections, Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader in Gaza, was widely reported as saying "…we in Hamas will sincerely work to exterminate all seeds of corruption in the PA [Palestinian Authority] institutions for the best of our Palestinian people."
Engine for change
In fact, Hamas has always been engaged in the delivery of social services to the people. This was supposed to be the responsibility of the Fatah government but it proved too difficult for officials who were pre-occupied with stashing all the international aid money into their private overseas bank accounts.
Over the years, Hamas has been running a network of health clinics, schools, soup kitchens and welfare services. So there is every indication that the Hamas government would use international aid more efficiently than the corrupt Fatah government.
Demonstrating that it can run the social service apparatus better that the previous regime gives the new Hamas-controlled government enormous credibility and respect among Palestinians. Further, under the new government, Hamas members and eligible Palestinian citizens will be able to occupy critical positions in the educational, security and health sectors, positions which had always been denied to them.
The Palestinian elections signal a readiness for dramatic change by the people. Overlooked by media thought leaders is the fact that Hamas may be the most affected by this desire for change because it is now under extreme pressure to follow through on being responsive to the real needs of the Palestinian people whose hope has just been vibrantly refreshed. This alone may force Hamas to moderate its position on Israel – without having to say the words out loud – in turn shaming Israel to end its military occupation and take down obstacles that prevent Palestine from becoming a unified nation.
A new opportunity
A new opportunity for peace in the Middle East may be at hand. It will take the kind of courage we have never seen for President Bush and European Union leaders to put aside their perfectly legitimate animosities toward Hamas and embrace this opportunity.
Doing so does not entail forgiveness of past acts of terrorism by Hamas, nor will it alter in any way our commitment to the global war on terrorism. It would be based purely on the continued performance of Hamas in attending to the legitimate needs of the Palestinian people, which by definition, does not include acts of terrorism.
Given the absence of any other alternative, we have everything to gain and little to lose by recognizing the outcome of the democratic elections in Palestine and at least talking with the new leadership. The Palestinian people deserve this leap of faith on our part and have indicated their desire not to squander it. For us to do nothing merely assures the continuance of widespread misery and political instability in the region.
Nathan Muller is co-founder of For the Cause and the author of 26 books and numerous articles on political, regulatory, legal, management and technology issues. He is a frequent speaker at seminars and other events. He can be reached at this email address.