Appalachian Panel Reviews Hamas Victory in Palestinian Elections

BY JASON LAURITZEN

Hamas, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, and listed as a terrorist group by the
U.S. State Department, won a majority of seats in the first Palestinian parliamentary elections in
10 years.

1.34 million or 77 percent of Palestinians turned out to hand Hamas 76 of the 132 available
parliamentary seats. The ruling Fatah party was left with 43 seats. However, the head of Fatah—
Mahmoud Abbas—still controls the presidency.

Three professors from the department of political science—Dr. Curtis Ryan, Dr. Renee Scherlen
and Dr. James Barnes—led a panel discussion to analyze the world response to Hamas’ victory
and what the future may hold for the party recently at Appalachian State University.

Alarm Bells Across The World Press

World reaction to Hamas’ victory took the tone of alarm: “Goodbye peace, goodbye roadmap,”
said Russia’s Pravda; “Hamas election victory hits ‘like an earthquake,’” said the Toronto Star;
“West trembles as Hamas gains power,” said Switzerland’s Le Temps; and “The peace process,
which has in any case only existed as a hollow word for the last five years, is now definitely
dead,” said Austria’s Die Presse.

A Predictable Victory
“It wasn’t shocking that they won,” said Ryan, in his opening comments.

Fatah has been assaulted by charges of nepotism and corruption for years. Hamas played off
those allegations and ran under the title “Reform.”

“Hamas was going to run on the ticket of cleaning up the house,” said Ryan.

Ryan said it was very easy for Hamas to run on the platform of reform because Hamas has not
had a place in Palestinian parliament until now, so the party has a clean slate in comparison to
Fatah.

The Keys to Campaign Success

Hamas played its cards right in regards to Islamic fundamentalism. Depending on where Hamas
was campaigning, it either played up or played down its fundamentalist overtones, to attract as
many voters as possible.

Ryan said the majority of people voted for Hamas because Hamas has a history of resisting Israel
and something unique that not many people know about or would associate with a militant
group: A social and charity wing.

Since the 1980s, said Ryan, Hamas has offered free medical clinics, repaired roads and repaired
schools for not only Muslim, but also Christian communities.

Palestine is divided into 16 electoral districts and when voters went the polls they were handed a
list of candidates. Voters selected a number of candidates that did not exceed the number of seats
per a district.

Hamas made sure to put the exact number of candidates on each list, whereas Fatah overloaded
their ballot with candidates and in turn, confused voters.

“Fatah fought against themselves and split their votes,” said Ryan.

A Balancing Act
While Fatah lost parliament, it still controls the executive. Also, it controls about 58,000 security
officers who police Palestine.

Ryan said Hamas does not have to rule in collusion if it does not want to, but it must be mindful
that Fatah still has control over the executive and security officers.

Ryan pointed out that many ideologically extreme parties are forced to tone down their rhetoric
and become moderate once they get into office because they have to provide for the public’s
basic needs.

“The sky is not falling … yet,” said Ryan.

Israeli Blowback
Hamas’ rise to power in the elections is not something that should be surprising to Israel. It is a
classic instance of Blowback: Unintended consequences of covert actions.

Richard Sale, terrorism correspondent for UPI, has detailed that, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel
Aviv gave “direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.”

According to Sale, a former senior CIA official said Israeli support for Hamas “was a direct
attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO [Palestinian Liberation
Organization] by using a competing religious alternative.”

Using Hamas as a “counterweight” to the PLO, several in the Israeli right-wing establishment
believed that it would stonewall any chance at a peace process, reported Sale.

“Israel would still be the only democracy in the region for the United States to deal with,” said a
U.S. government official quoted by Sale.
However, as Hamas influence grew in Palestine, Israel began an “assassination policy” that
Israeli Defense Minister Shaoul Mofaz called “liquidating terrorists.” The program led to the
death of several Hamas figures, including Sheik Ahmed Yassin—the founder of Hamas.

Double Standards of Democracy

“The U.S. has retained a strong rhetorical support for democracy,” said Scherlen. “Free and fair
elections can result in bad allies for the U.S.”

President Bush has said the democracy brings security, but Scherlen said that the United States
has created a paradox: Hamas would never have come to power had there not been elections.

Bush has threatened to cut aid to Palestinians because of the Hamas victory.

“If democracy equals penalties, why participate?” said Scherlen.

Penalties could be headed Hamas’ way in more ways than aid cuts. According to the New York
Times, the United States and Israel are discussing ways of destabilizing the Palestinian
government, so Mahmoud Abbas can call for new elections.

In the New York Times article representatives for Israel and the Bush administration denied the
charges, but diplomats who discussed the plan said Hamas must be “starved for power” and if
Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, abandon violence and accept previous
Palestinian-Israeli agreements then the party could “face isolation and collapse.”