As many Palestinians and Israelis realize that armed conflict is not going to be the

answer, more and more people within each community are looking for other answers. Hamas is
no different. They have long been the champions of social services to the Palestinian people.
Each year Hamas spends approximately $70 million (about 90% of their budget) to provide
schools, orphanages, mosques and medical facilities for the people of Gaza and the West Bank.
This social service network has proved to be much more successful and efficient than anything
implemented by the Palestinian Authority or the United Nations. Hamas’s radical ideology has
kept them out of the political process in much the same way the Irish Republican Army’s did
until recently.
As the freely elected leadership of the Palestinian people, Hamas should be accorded the
same respect as any other freely elected political party in the world. Many people, who
apparently have no interest in democracy, argue that the nations of the world do not have any
obligation to respect this election and cite the “election” of Adolf Hitler as an example. The
main problem with this analogy is that Hitler was never elected by a majority of Germans in a
free and fair election. The highest percentage of the vote the Nazi party ever got was 36.8. This
was in an election where they used violence to intimidate the other parties and the electorate.
With no coalition governments able to be formed, Hindenburg named Hitler Chancellor in an
effort to ease Nazi disruptions of the Reichstag. New elections were held, and despite using the
same tactics of intimidation, the Nazis only garnered 32% of the vote. With many in the party
feeling all was lost Hitler used the Reichstag fire, in which the Nazis undoubtedly had a hand, to
get “temporary” dictatorial powers. Therefore the comparison is false. By all accounts the
elections in Palestine were free and fair, and Hamas won. Let’s just deal with it and move on.
The only way Hamas’s election has been a barrier to the peace process is that the other
democratic governments have refused to work with them. Hamas, while it has not renounced its
charter or the use of armed force, many of its leaders have stepped back from its declared aim of
removing Israel from the map. In fact, in early April, Hamas offered an extended cease-fire
along with a pledge to prevent any Palestinian organization from launching attacks against Israel.
Even if this is not a heartfelt embrace of the Israeli state it does show that Hamas realizes that
most Palestinians do not share their view on this matter. It’s a start. Of course, Israel dismissed
the offer as a "trick" and continues to refuse to talk to the Hamas-led Palestinian government.
The main plank of the Hamas platform, and the focus of their now elected officials, has
been the very thing many western governments wished the Palestinian Authority would focus on:
putting a stop to corruption. Hamas spokesman, Gazi Hamad, said “we know that first of all we
have to put more effort into resolving the internal problems, dealing with corruption, blackmail,
chaos. This is our priority,” (from “Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto,”
by Chris McGreal for Guardian Unlimited at www.guardian.co.uk 1/12/06). Ghassan Khatib, a
former Palestinian cabinet member said that he believes that , by joining the political process,
Hamas will be forced to conform more to the rules of governance.
If the United States truly believes in democracy and the right to self-determination, we
need to be pressuring the rest of the world to work with the freely elected Hamas-led
government, not to reject it. This current position of the United States and Israel may cause the
collapse of the Palestinian government, but it will also increase the popularity of Hamas. If the
Bush Administration thinks that the collapse of the government will be viewed by the Palestinian
people as a failure of Hamas, they had better think again. Nobody with any common sense
couldlook at this situation and say the collapse was due to anything other than outside pressure.
Bush justifies his stance by saying "I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you don't
give up violent intentions."The President should put that Ivy League education to use and try to
understand how progress was eventually made in a similar situation in Northern Ireland.
The idea of a violent organization becoming more mainstream once it was included in the
political process was used as an argument for including Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish
Republican Army (IRA) in the peace process in the 90s. It proved to be true. The IRA offered a
cease-fire on September 1, 1994 simply for the right to be included in the political process.
Much the way Hamas joined a cease-fire in August 2004 (largely upheld by Hamas despite
continued Israeli attacks). The IRA cease-fire ended when the government of the United
Kingdom refused to talk to Sinn Fein. Another cease-fire was agreed to by the main branches of
the IRA in 1998, after it was agreed that Sinn Fein would be admitted to the political process.
The IRA did not give up the possibility of the use of violence, or turn in their weapons until
September 2005; seven years after they were admitted into the political arena! Why should we
expect Hamas to be any different? Is their offer of a truce not enough? Is the fact that they do
more for the Palestinian people than the Palestinian Authority, or anyone else for that matter, not
enough to open a dialogue? Is their entering into the political process not enough?
Israel and the United States have used violence, intimidation and humiliation for years to
little effect. Isn’t it time to engage the chosen representatives of the Palestinian people and
actually address their concerns. History shows that such engagement works. Let’s just deal with
our disappointment and move on.