Hamas's albatross

Having avowedly chosen the path of resistance, Hamas faces tough choices as it tries to navigate the political terrain following Israel's campaign of destruction in Gaza, writes Ayman El-Amir*

---

The Palestinian Islamic resistance movement, Hamas, has emerged from the three-week-long battle against the Israeli invasion of Gaza with a bagful of challenges. It is caught up between two daunting choices: continued resistance against the Israeli occupation, which could escalate into another confrontation beyond tolerable limits, or pacification that would erode the resistance movement's ra"son d'être. Pressure by national, regional and international players makes the situation more complex. The movement is hard put to make a choice that would ease the suffering of the people of Gaza as a priority. As there is no choice without consequences, Hamas will probably have to accept a combination of several. Whatever it chooses, the road will be full of hazards.

Conflicting agendas are at play. Hamas's urgent priority is to reach agreement on a long-term ceasefire accompanied by arrangements to open up access to the Strip, including the Rafah Crossing, and lifting the Israeli blockade. This is primarily in the hands of Israel, which does not want to give the resistance movement the benefit of claiming victory over the invasion and of ending the Israeli siege while retaining the option of military resistance. Israel has injected the additional factor of the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Egypt, the mediator, is keenly aware of the suffering of the people of Gaza but also wants to demonstrate that, in the face of Arab competitors, it is the only player that could arrange an acceptable compromise. With the exception of the release of Shalit, other issues are the easier part of the bargain. A longer-term ceasefire agreement in return for limited opening of Gaza's crossing will be worked out to meet some of the demands of each party. The more serious challenges loom beyond.

One issue is the very existence of Hamas as a government in Gaza. Israel, the US and Western countries have gone to all extremes to demonise and unseat the democratically elected government. This included excommunication by the pro-West president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Mahmoud Abbas. Even Egypt, in the words of its Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul- Gheit, proclaimed Hamas a threat to its national security. The anti-Hamas coalition pampers Abbas as the epitome of moderation who has renounced armed resistance against the Israeli occupation (code-named "violence"), has recognised Israel and is most suited as a figurehead to work out a peaceful settlement acceptable to Israel. The conflict between Gaza and Ramallah is the result of a dichotomy of doctrines: Israeli acceptance of Abbas is founded on his renouncement of armed struggle that is Hamas's fundamental rationale. Hamas considers armed struggle as the only guarantee of the continued existence of the Palestinian people. In parallel, Arab countries are polarised along the same dividing lines. There is the moderate wing led by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which supports Abbas, and the hardline coalition of Syria, Qatar and Algeria, that back Hamas's balance of armed struggle and negotiations. This division of favour will play out more clearly when the donor conference for the reconstruction of Gaza convenes 2 March. In this regard, there is hardly any conceivable way of undertaking the reconstruction of the Israeli-devastated Strip without giving Hamas's government a leading role.

In negotiating an extended ceasefire agreement, Hamas will be watching the new Israeli government produced by this week's general elections. The policy of the new government with regard to the prospects of a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians will depend on the domestic political coalition as much as on the US peace drive in the Middle East. From both the Israeli and US perspectives, Hamas may be regarded as the bête noir of the region, classified as a terrorist organisation by the former Bush administration. However, it is no more a villain than the Iranian regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whom the administration of President Barack Obama would like to engage directly. Or the US may wish to engage Hamas through the good offices of Egypt; but there, too, a great deal of effort needs to be invested to build mutual trust. And Hamas may not wish to be engaged for too long by remote control.

Divided Arab ranks between the PA in Ramallah and the dismissed Hamas government in Gaza could possibly be regarded as a great US- Israeli achievement in that it splits the Palestinians into moderates to be embraced and radicals to be rejected. It was thought that this would help isolate the radicals and soften up the moderates for a settlement that would meet the best Israeli condition that consists of the cantonment of the Palestinians in a pseudo-tribal homeland called the State of Palestine. However, this approach has proved to be a disservice to Israel and to peace endeavours. No single Palestinian faction will make peace with Israel and no Arab country will countenance an arrangement that could not be approved by the Palestinian people. Israel may have learned a valuable lesson from the three-week brutal campaign against Gaza: the Palestinian people's determination and willingness to sacrifice are superior to Israeli atrocities. Divisiveness is not going to work in favour of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement or in freezing the status quo until the Palestinians beg for a settlement.

From the perspective of Washington, the scene does not look very promising, as confirmed by the recent Middle East tour of President Obama's special envoy George Mitchell. He avoided talking to Syria or to "terrorist" Hamas only to discover that there would be no progress towards a peaceful settlement by excluding the movement and its like-minded organisations. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated US commitment to the two-state solution -- a borrowed line from the failed Bush administration's Middle East policy. The Obama administration is mulling its greater Middle East strategy that includes Iran before Mitchell's next visit to the region scheduled for the end of February. He will have to find a way to help the Obama administration climb out of the hole that the Bush administration dug for US policy by rejecting any contact with Hamas. Since Mitchell is credited with resolving the conflict of Northern Ireland, he might wish to try engaging Hamas in the same way he did Sinn Féin, which was backed up by the Irish Republican Army. Embracing or isolating Hamas by either Washington or Tel Aviv is merely pressure tactics. Both had to deal with Yasser Arafat that Israel had condemned as a terrorist. Abbas is not of the Arafat stature and he is not prepared to meet the same destiny.

Clearly Hamas's most urgent priority is to repay the Palestinian population of Gaza for their suffering at the hands of the Israeli killer campaign by embarking on reconstruction. It also needs a breathing spell to dress its wounds, to rebuild itself and to prepare for the next move in the Middle East process. To achieve any measure of success this move cannot be built on playing moderates against hardliners, Abbas against Hamas or Egypt against Syria. Hamas will have the challenge of pursuing Palestinian reconciliation, uniting the Palestinian people and establishing a national unity government. If achieved, Arab governments with hidden agendas will have little cause for manoeuvring. The choice of armed struggle against foreign military occupation is a universal right that Western governments conveniently choose to disavow. Cynical Europeans detach themselves from the memories of the Nazi occupation of Europe and the armed resistance they legitimised. Instead, building a naval armada to besiege Gaza in the name of suppressing the smuggling of arms to Hamas has become the main priority. But that too will not stop the armed resistance against the Israeli occupation.

Ultimately, Hamas's major challenge, together with rebuilding the Gaza Strip, is national unity and new elections to confirm the choices of the Palestinian people and create a new mandate.

* The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington, DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.