Palestinian Elections

Militant Groups Have Pledged Cease Fire for Elections

Rachel Bronson , senior fellow and Director for Middle East and Gulf Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, was online Wednesday, Jan. 25, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss the Palestinian elections, the role of Hamas in the political scene, leadership after the death of longtime leader Yassir Arafat and what the outcome of the elections could mean for the Middle East peace process. Hamas, which once disavowed the Palestinian elections a decade ago, is now in a close race with Arafat's Fatah party.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Fairbanks, Alaska: The effect the Hamas party could have involving Israeli government would be profound, but what effects do you think they could have on other Middle Eastern countries?

Rachel Bronson: Thanks for the question and thank you to the Washington Post for providing this forum on such an important day. The outcome of this election and how Fatah and Hamas choose to pursue their respective roles will be fascinating to watch over the coming months.

Your question is a big one: most neighbors are quite worried about a strong showing by Hamas. Every state in the region is trying to figure out how to manage their Islamic opposition. Few, such as Jordan, have actually allowed them into the political process. Although the Egyptians in particular have spent considerable time trying to broker better relations between Fatah and Hamas, they certainly don't want to see a strong showing by Hamas, especially as they've spent the last decade trying to squash their own Islamic opposition (just take a look at how they handled the Muslim Brotherhood in the most recent elections). The neighbors are nervous and they certainly don't like the precedent of a free and fair election bringing Hamas to power. And, like everyone else, are watching closely.

_______________________

Santander, Spain: I suppose this is the question that is on everyone's mind:

Is Hamas capable of participating in a peaceful parliamentary government?

I am wondering about two problems concerning this question: (A) Would they be willing (and able) to lay down their weapons, gradually, if they are granted enough political power? (B) What will become of those members of Hamas who are sought by Israel as terrorists yet elected to Palestinian parliament? How can anyone legislate or govern under such circumstances?

Thank you.

Rachel Bronson: That's the $64,000 question. There is obvious concern that Hamas, despite some statements to the contrary cannot and will not change its stripes. A group sworn to the destruction of Israel will never allow for its leadership to conduct peace negotiations, or any negotiations for that matter. Some point to the evolution of the PLO as evidence to the contrary.

Some other interesting examples to the contrary are worth noting. Hamas members who hold important municipal positions do, and have, engaged with Israelis. It tends to be on a technical level, rather than a political one and when possible both the Israelis and Hamas prefer to use the Palestinian Authority as the intermediary, but many exchanges have occurred to successfully resolve problems.

Some Hamas members speak of the possibility of long-term cease-fires (i.e., decades long).

Still, your question, of course, is not at the tactical, but at the strategic level. The President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, believes that with Hamas inside the political tent they will be co-opted and eventually pacified. Many seasoned diplomats remain skeptical.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I know this involves a great deal of generalizing, but could a change in leadership on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides mean an improvement in the situation? What is your sense overall of what these changes could mean?

Rachel Bronson: I am very concerned about the complete meltdown of Fatah. I do believe that the PA under Fatah leadership is committed to a two-state solution. They are campaigning on it. This is not Hamas position, which advocates a one-state (Palestinian state) solution. If you look at polls over the last several months, Fatah has received support of about 40-45% of the Palestinian population. Hamas has steadily increased its support from around 20% to the high 30s. This means that all those who were undecided a few months ago have decided to cast their lot with Hamas. We'll know soon whether these early polls are indicative of actual voting behavior, but Fatah did nothing in the past few months to secure the confidence of the Palestinian people.

Worse, there is a rift in Fatah between the older generation and the younger one that just a few months ago threatened to rip the party in half. They worked out a deal for this election, but word on the street is that few expect Fatah to survive in tact for much longer. I believe, if it does collapse, things will get worse before they get better. Abu Mazen has his work cut out for him.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: How can the future Israeli government (following the March, 2006 election) negotiate with the new Palestinian leadership when between 38 to 43% of their elected officials will Hamas dedicated to the piecemeal destruction of the State of Israel by all means necessary?

Rachel Bronson: One of the real challenges that Israel and the international community faces,is that many Hamas supporters are voting for Hamas for reasons other than its platform to destroy Israel. It is quite clear that many are voting for Hamas to end the corruption the PA is associated with, improve local services, restore law and order etc. This is the only way to make sense of recent polls (see for example a poll taken by Khalil Shikaki) that show a significant portion of the Palestinian population supports the Clinton Parameters (a two state solution) but plans to vote for Hamas. In fact, Hamas has tended to receive high marks for its role in running various municipalities. Still, Israel will face a legislature populated by Hamas. The first question is, what will Abu Mazen do? Will he pursue a unity government or try to marginalize Hamas. This may depend on what the actual vote looks like. Then Israel will have to decide how it will proceed. Ehud Olmert made an important statement yesterday that he continues to seek a two state solution but I would suspect will continue to pursue a hard line against Palestinian violence crossing out of Palestinian areas, especially if Hamas is strongly represented in the Legislature.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: Isn't it true that all of the Palestinian factions are committed to the complete destruction of Israel? Does it really matter to the Israelis which terrorist organization holds power?

Rachel Bronson: Over the past decade the Israeli government has rightfully made a clear distinction between Fatah and Hamas. In fact, the Oslo Accords, the 1993 between Palestinians and Israelis were signed in part to counter the appeal of Hamas. Fatah is in fact campaigning on a two-state solution, as I mentioned above, Hamas is not. Ariel Sharon, who today lies in a vegetative state in an Israeli hospital, believed that Arafat was a problem because he did not allow younger members of Fatah, who seemed to understand the need for two states and how to get there, a larger voice in ruling. That was one of the factors that motivated Sharon to isolate Yasser Arafat.

_______________________

Fairbanks, Alaska: Why are the Palestinian people losing faith in the Fatah party? Do they no longer think peaceful negotiations with Israel is possible for what they want?

Rachel Bronson: Many voters view Fatah as an old, corrupt, inefficient, untenable, incompetent party. When Arafat died in November 2004 it was hoped that Abu Mazen would clean up corruption, bring in international assistance that could add new jobs to the faltering economy, get some prisoners released, and set Palestine on a healthier course. He too believed that was possible and is why he received such overwhelming support. He didn't deliver. In fact, after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (something Hamas got credit for), the security situation there got worse rather than better. The economy deteriorated rather than improved, etc. In the meantime, localities run by Hamas representative seem to have a better track record for security as well as providing services. So much of the vote is going to Hamas because they have demonstrated an ability to deliver services, keep the streets safe (at least safer than Fatah) and they're less tainted by having served in political positions for several decades.

_______________________

Corvallis, Ore.: What percentage of the people that voted for Hamas voted for them because they wanted change and what percentage voted for them because they believe in the Hamas message?

Rachel Bronson: ooops, not sure what happened. My last answer was supposed to be directed to this question.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: How could terrorists win an election? I am flabbergasted. We spent billions to promote democracy in the middle east and now un-American terrorists are winning? What's wrong with these voters? I don't get it.

Rachel Bronson: We have spent billions to fight in Iraq, but to promote democracy in the Middle East? The U.S. has given a lot of rhetorical attention to it and over the last few years has devoted more aid and attention, but democracies surely take more than a few years to build. Unfortunately, we have tended to equate elections with democracy, rather than building the institutions and checks and balances that democracies depend on to function in a healthy fashion. Democracy is the right thing for the US to promote (although lately people in the region are saying that they prefer the pursuit of the rule of law to more general democracy) but it will take time time time. If you expect it overnight, you'll get radicals every time.

Who knows, Abu Mazen may be right (although I remain skeptical) that bringing Hamas into the political tent will moderate its position. After all, he's advocating the Bush theory of "pothole politics" which assumes that once in power, politicians will be responsible to fixing potholes and will spend most of their time dealing with the nitty gritty of governance and won't have the time or interest to pursue more radical policies.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: Should the United States seek to encourage Hamas to become more moderate similar to what we did with the PLO? For example, should Secretary Rice indicate that the United States is ready to talk with Hamas if it renounces terror/violence and recognizes Israel's right to exist?

Rachel Bronson: The U.S. position has evolved slowly, but is now that the US will not engage with Hamas unless in lays down its arms, much as the international community demanded of the IRA in the case of Ireland. What you're advocating is now US policy.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: I'm wondering if you could explain Hamas' political posture regarding the destruction of Israel. Is there any rational political/strategic reason to take this posture or is it pure fanaticism.

It seems clear that Israel, backed by the US and armed with nuclear weapons is not existentially threatened by Hamas. The whole stance is a bit absurd.

There must be another gain they get from taking such a position.

Rachel Bronson: Hamas' charter was written in the early days of the 1987-1993 Intifada. Its rationale is that its authors and many of its most determined followers are sworn to the destruction of Israel and believe in what they wrote. Members have played this up when Palestinians have given up hope in the peace process, for example during the Netanyahu years and as violence has peaked in the most recent Intifada. When things are going better, for example after the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, Hamas plays down this angle. Today, for example, Hamas is campaigning on social services (very attractive to most Palestinians) and play down the implications of the charter.

On your second point, while Israel's nuclear weapons may provide it a deterrence against say a nuclear armed Iran, or a conventional Arab offensive, it provides no security against a local insurgency. Rabin recognized this and is why he tried to negotiate a two state solution.

_______________________

Mexico: Why are these elections so important for the future of Palestine and Israel? What role will the Palestinian Legislative Council will play?

Rachel Bronson: They are important because they are shaping the future political fabric of Palestinian society and politics. The recent elections show that Hamas is a force to be reckoned with in Palestinian politics. Abu Mazen has threatened to resign if Hamas gains too much power, if for example he is forced to choose a member of Hamas as his Prime Minister, recognizing that this will constrain his ability to successfully pursue his larger political agenda. The PLC has considerable impact over the daily lives of the Palestinian people.

_______________________

Corvallis, Ore.: Are there any other parties besides Fatah and Hamas?

Rachel Bronson: Yes, there are a number. The most interesting one in my book is the Third Way, a party led by the former finance minister Salem Fayyad who is well respected internationally and Hanan Ashrawi. They are polling very low (about 3%). Most other partiers are coming in around that number. For a party to obtain any representation they need to clear the 2% threshold. Originally it was thought that Fatah could get a majority by teaming up with this party and some others. Now, it looks like the only game in town is the one between Hamas and Fatah.

_______________________

Rachel Bronson: Thank you for your questions today. The polls have now closed and we will all soon know the actual election results. Whatever the case, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian people, Ehud Olmert, and the Israelis face very difficult choices. I look forward to discussing the outcome with you in the days and months ahead.

Rachel Bronson,

Council on Foreign Relations

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.