Misfiring Israel gave Hamas upper hand

The recent, devastating Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip that lasted 22 days, has brought Hamas to centre stage at both the political and diplomatic levels and raised the question of how to accommodate the increasingly popular movement firmly in full control of the Gaza Strip.

Resorting to a military solution to force Hamas to kneel, appeared the final option that Israel, the United States, certain regional regimes and some Palestinians endorsed.

The rationale behind this viewpoint stems from the fact that Hamas "does not recognise the existence of Israel," and that both its ideology and predisposition are in contradiction with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation's (PLO) submission "to future Palestinian-Israeli permanent peaceful co-existence".

However, some savvy foreign diplomats and seasoned politicians such as Ambassador Richard Murphy, former US Undersecretary of State had been urging Western countries not to delay the start of a dialogue with Hamas.

Murphy draws the analogy of the shortsightedness of the US administrations for not having recognised the PLO much earlier and entering into meaningful dialogue with the exclusive representative of Palestinians at that time.

Murphy judges that it is 'inevitable' that the new American administration would open a dialogue with Hamas, the same way the United States found it inevitable to deal with the PLO.

With regard to initiatives and actions that the American administration should take, Murphy was quick to say that, "I don't think it needs a statement by the United States. I think it needs some measures on the ground... We can start practical cooperation with some of those ministries that we blackballed." Along similar lines, another US diplomat, president Bill Clinton's political advisor Robert Malley - a top expert on the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations - thinks that blackballing Hamas was a great mistake.

He thinks that "Hamas seems solidly entrenched in the Arab and Palestinian public opinions, and then there's the mounting worldwide criticism of Israel's conduct of the war on Gaza."

As for his expectations from the Obama's administration's Middle East policy, Malley thinks that America is about to change policy: "It's going to start talking to Syria, talking to Iran, and it will be engaged from day one in the [Middle East] peace process."

Malley also adds: "It's certain that if the relationship between these countries and the United States improves, then the Israeli-Palestinian peace process will get a new lease of life, which will create a new regional context that will also change Hamas' political calculations."

As for the Europeans, they too appear to change their stance and modify their Middle East policy. EU foreign ministers called, in a conference two weeks ago, for support of "a Palestinian national unity government."

This may mean that they will not oppose a Palestinian government in which Hamas is a participant. Revealing Paris' flexibility towards the Quartet's conditions regarding any dialogue with Hamas, French Foreign Ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier declared that France is "ready to work with a national unity government that will respect the principles of the peace process and commit itself to negotiations with Israel to secure the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace and security."

As for the Israelis, even before the latest aggression on Gaza, there were several voices that called for a dialogue with Hamas.

Some important Israeli opinion leaders and political thinkers had accused their government of following a rigid policy to disrupt any initiative that could lead to a peaceful settlement.

Israeli novelist David Grossman was one of them. Two other distinguished Israeli novelists, Amos Oz and A. B. Yehoshua, have added their voices to Grossman's in recent interviews with the Italian dailies, Corriere della Sierra and La Stampa, respectively.

Perhaps the most powerful article advocating opening a dialogue with Hamas was that of Rabbi Menahem Froman in Haaretz entitled, 'Peace with Hamas'. Rabbi Froman noted: "Is there any possibility to change Hamas' position? I can say, through years-long relationship with Hamas leaders and understanding their ideology that the answer is yes, there is a possibility for a change."

He adds: "Obama will avail a leeway for Hamas to change its position."

The decision on how to deal with Hamas demands an understanding of the nature of the Islamic movement in general and the role it plays in Palestinian politics in particular.

This is especially so in that political Islam is increasingly gaining force in the whole Middle Eastern region.

Hamas' increasing popularity in Palestinian politics - as was amply demonstrated in the last, truly democratic legislative elections in January, 2006 - stems from the fact that Israel had failed the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) on both the security and political levels.

On the security level the Israelis rendered the PNA incapable of protecting the Palestinians under its direct authority from recurring army raids.

On the political level, Israel's intransigence rendered protracted peace negotiations void of substance and meaning.

By weakening the PNA's position, as well as that of Fatah, Israel made it impossible to reach an early agreement to the exclusion of the participation of Hamas.

Israel's political intransigence and deteriorating security situation of the Palestinians catapulted Hamas to the position of political leadership among the Palestinians.

Thus, and in view of the increasing voices in Western and Israeli policy-making circles calling for the opening of dialogue with Hamas, it is justified to expect new dramatic turns in the not so distant future.

Professor As'ad Abdul Rahman is the Chairman of the Palestinian Encyclopedia.