2006-01-26-Palestinian elections |
||||
|
||||
|
jewishsightseeing.com, January 26, 2006 |
By Ira Sharkansky
There is good news and bad news in the Palestinian
election.
The good news is that the process scored well on criteria
of democracy. More than in other Arab societies, there was freedom of
competition, more or less law and order on election day, and the
opposition is noted as having won the election. Some Palestinians may say,
as they have on other occasions, that they have learned the lessons of
democracy from Israel.
Assuming the rest of the process goes well (i.e., the
actual sitting of the winning party), the bad news is that Hamas is the
winning party. Current reports are that it took 70 out of 132 seats in the
parliament. Pre-election polls gave a 5-10 percent margin to the
ruling Fatah Party of Mahmoud Abbas. It is not unusual for individuals
intending to vote for an "anti-establishment" party to avoid
pollsters, or to answer questions with something thought to be acceptable.
During the campaign, Hamas leaders engaged a public
relations firm and indicated that it had turned its face to peace; that it
could serve in a Palestinian government and negotiate with Israel.
However, one of the candidates (a mother who had blessed her son's suicide
in the name of Palestine), appeared on television to say that the party
would pursue both a course of violence and a course of politics in order
to free all of Palestine from Israeli occupation. She included Jaffa,
Haifa, and the rest of Israel in the areas to be liberated. Another
candidate, somewhat more sophisticated, indicated that a Hamas government
could arrange a cease fire with Israel, even though it would not recognize
the legitimacy of the Jewish state.
Neither option is anywhere close to being good enough for
any of the major Israeli parties.
Currently Israeli opposition parties to the left and right
are accusing Ehud Olmert of not doing enough to prevent a Hamas victory.
What could he have done? The victory is consistent with what we have been
seeing in a number of Palestinian opinion polls in recent years. While
majorities indicate their desire for peace with Israel, majorities have
also indicated their support for violence. The election is another
indication of the population that we face as neighbors. An unknown (and
perhaps unknowable) proportion of the vote reflects substantial anti-Fatah,
anti-corruption sentiment. Palestinians want the billions in outside aid
to help them, and not only to line the pockets of those close to power.
It may take a while to see how this works itself out. There
are several possibilities for the near future.
Fatah finds reasons not to relinquish power, and the West
Bank and Gaza revert to the violent chaos that preceded the few days of
quiet before the voting.
Hamas forms a government that leads Palestine further into
the mire of paying the price of pursuing an extreme nationalist dream of
having a monopoly of what they call Palestine.
The United States and European governments reduce, if not
eliminate altogether their financial aid to Palestine. The inflated
personnel roles of Palestinian government and security forces will face
some payless paydays.
Israel continues to build the barrier, with the government
employing the intransigence of the Palestinians as an argument in Israeli
courts against those who view the barrier as imposing intolerable burdens
on the Palestinians.
In response to acts of violence, Israel closes the gates in
those barriers to Palestinians wanting to work, sell things in Israel,
pray, seek health care, or visit relatives, or takes other actions that
increases the suffering of Hamas voters and other Palestinians.
Who knows what comes next?
Sharkansky is an emeritus member of the political science department at Hebrew University in Jerusalem |