[Mb-civic] The Hamas Dilemma By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

[Michael Butler]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

April 12, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Hamas Dilemma
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

It doesn't have a sexy name yet, like "The Six Day War," "Intifada III" or
"Suez," but since Israel withdrew from Gaza, a quiet little war has been
going on between Israelis and Palestinians. Maybe that's what we should call
it: "The Quiet Little War." Or better yet, let's call it by its real name:
Stupid.

Let's see, Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians have a
chance, not perfect, not ideal, but the best chance ever to build something
decent of their own, without any Israeli occupation army breathing down
their necks, and what are they doing? Mostly fighting each other and lobbing
Qassam rockets into Israel, prompting increasingly iron-fisted Israeli
retaliations.

Even the E.U. has decided to withhold aid money to the new Hamas-led
Palestinian government, and when the Europeans get tough on the
Palestinians, you know they really must be acting foolishly. The E.U. said
it will not give the Hamas government direct aid or money for the salaries
of Palestinian public employees as long as it refuses to abide by previous
Palestinian decisions to recognize Israel and renounce violence.

What if Israel, the U.S. and the E.U. are right on principle, but that leads
to an even bigger disaster in practice?

What do I mean? Let's start with the principle. Democracy is not just the
act of winning a free election. It involves respect for the rule of law,
constitutional restraints and decisions taken by previously elected
parliaments. Both the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority and the P.L.O.
recognized Israel's right to exist and, at least on paper, renounced the use
of force. The Hamas government has rejected both. The only way Hamas can do
that democratically is by holding a new referendum and asking Palestinians
to reverse these established positions. But for Hamas to unilaterally reject
the positions ratified by the previous Palestinian parliament is just an
arbitrary exercise of power. It would be like President Bush tearing up the
Panama Canal Treaty.

Also, a democratic government has to exercise a monopoly of force. Hamas
can't ask the world to respect its democratic credentials if it, in turn,
refuses to restrain Palestinian militants from attacking Israel from Gaza
with rockets or suicide bombers. Hamas can't pretend it has no
responsibility for "renegade" attacks on Israel by militias under its
sovereign authority.

"A terrorist organization which came to power by procedural democracy cannot
be equated with a democratic government," said the Israeli political
theorist Yaron Ezrahi. "Every day that passes without Hamas trying to stop
this barrage of rockets on Israel or to recognize the international
agreements by [the former Palestinian government] is undermining the
legitimacy of Hamas's election." Democracy "is not a one-night stand," he
added. "It is a marriage between government and people. That is why we call
it a social contract. It can't just be arbitrarily changed by one side." In
sum, the world does not have to respect Hamas as a democratic government, if
Hamas does not respect these basic principles of democracy.

So let's just starve them of money until they come to their senses, right?
But what if that leads to massive unemployment in the West Bank? Sure, it's
Hamas's fault, but Israel will suffer the consequences of having a desperate
Palestinian population on its doorstep. Or what if starving Hamas drives it
deeper into an alliance with Iran to pay its bills? Can that be in Israel's
interest?

As Nahum Barnea, one of Israel's leading columnists, pointed out to me, the
Israeli public is in a "very pragmatic" mood when it comes to Hamas. Bibi
Netanyahu focused the Likud campaign in the last election on heated charges
that the Kadima Party was going to deal with Hamas, and he got creamed.
Israeli voters rejected his message. The fact is, the four-year Hamas
suicide campaign had a huge impact on the Israeli psyche. Israelis do not
want to see it resumed. A majority of Israelis would negotiate with Hamas
tomorrow if they were persuaded that Hamas would deliver a long-term
cease-fire.

So, yes, in principle, Hamas doesn't deserve to be treated like a democratic
government. But in practice, Hamas has something Israelis badly want: a
cease-fire ‹ not recognition. Israel chose to destroy Yasir Arafat's
government and got Hamas. What if it destroys Hamas? What will it get then?
I don't know, but the answer is not simple. Designing the right policy to
deal with a democratically elected terrorist group that deserves to be
spurned but has something you want is not in the textbooks.