HAMAS VICTORIOUS

The terrorist group Hamas has won a resounding victory in the Palestinian Territories. The Fatah Party, which had the governing majority since the creation of the Palestinian proto-state after the Oslo Accords in 1993 will, according to some reports, not be part of the new government.

Here is some analysis of the consequences of this election. More here and here.

In recent weeks representatives of the Israeli and U.S. governments have made it clear that they will not negotiate with a Palestinian government that included Hamas, unless Hamas recognized Israel's right to exist. This the leaders of Hamas have steadfastly refused to do. I see no evidence that there new-found responsibilities will change their minds. Does this mean war? Remember that for many years Israel lived in an uneasy peace with neighbors that did not recognize her right to exist. It is only in recent years that Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan and, to this day, she still has not done so with Syria.

The difference in these situations is, of course, that Egypt, Jordan and even Syria are all governed by secular leaders. This enabled the President of Egypt and the King of Jordan to make peace with Israel, and allows the President of Syria to maintain the status quo. None of these leaders is compelled by their ideology or faith to make unrelenting war on Israel. By contrast, the leaders of Hamas are compelled by their ideology and their faith to do just that. The raison d'etre of Hamas is the destruction of Israel and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Palestine from the Jordan River to the sea. They were not created as a social service agency for the benefit of ordinary Palestinians, although it is that aspect of the organization which has been a large factor in its electoral success. Hamas was created to make war on Israel.

Therefore, while it was possible for Israel to co-exist with its neighbors, even though they did not officially recognize her right to exist, it may very well not be possible for Israel to co-exist with a quasi-state governed by a terrorist group dedicated to her destruction. The ball will now clearly fall into Israel's court. Ehud Ohlmert, who governs now while the old lion Sharon lies in his hospital bed, is faced with perhaps the most difficult decision ever considered by an Israeli Prime Minister. Unfortunately, he does so without the political legitimacy of a Sharon, and while facing the possibility of a nuclear Iran.

I am reminded of a movie called "The Candidate". Robert Redford played an activist taken under the wing of a savvy political operative (played by Peter Boyle) who runs for the U.S. Senate. He wins. After he learns of his victory, in the last line of the movie, he says, "What do we do now"? The leaders of Hamas and Israel are, no doubt, asking that same question today, with perhaps some of the same bewilderment.