Brit Tzedek v'Shalom

Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace

Jewish Chronicle

February 10, 2006

by Allan Abrams

The victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections is cause for great concern within the American Jewish community.
Not only is Hamas on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations, but its charter calls for the destruction of Israel and it has repeatedly perpetrated acts of terror and violence that target innocent civilians.

For the majority of American Jews who are committed to Israel's well being through a negotiated, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is difficult not to see this development as a major step backwards. But, as hard as it may be to find hope, there are a number of concrete reasons to mute our despair and to continue with like-minded Palestinians to struggle for peace.
Not least, the fact that a clear majority of Palestinians have said for years that they recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. A recent report issued by the United States Institute for Peace found that in 2005, 63 percent of Palestinians support the establishment of two states that recognize each other as the national homes of their respective peoples and 60 percent oppose attacks against Israeli civilians.

There's no argument that some portion of Hamas's electoral base saw their vote as a blow against the Jewish state. However, in yet another poll of Palestinians released by the Near East Consulting Institute on Jan. 30, just five days after the Palestinian elections, 73 percent of all surveyed believe that Hamas should "change its position on the elimination of the state of Israel" and 84 percent support a peace agreement with Israel, a sentiment echoed by 77 percent of those respondents who voted for Hamas. The bottom line is that if three-quarters of Palestinians disagree with the group's fundamental tenets, the election results cannot truly be seen as a mandate for extremism.

Many observers believe that anger at Fatah's corruption, its failure to ease the burden of Israel's occupation, and Hamas's work providing social, educational and health services led many Palestinians to abandon the ruling party. Moreover, the bald numbers - 74 seats for Hamas to Fatah's 45 - are themselves misleading, the result of a culmination of low percentage victories in several small regions.

The Palestinian electoral system combines district voting (voters choose between local candidates) with a national ballot (voters choose a party). In the national party balloting, Hamas won just 44 percent of the votes, as compared to Fatah's 41 percent. The legislative seats apportioned by national voting to these two parties were thus nearly even: 29 for Hamas versus 28 for Fatah.
The disparity between the parties in seats determined by district voting, however, was much greater: 45 for Hamas, 17 for Fatah. In many cases though, Hamas candidates took these elections by narrow margins. No matter how narrow the victory, of course, the seats representing these districts added up, creating the impression of a landslide for Hamas.

With these numbers in mind, it seems wise to support the Bush administration's wait-and-see policy, urging both Israel and the U.S. to maintain open communications with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has repeatedly demonstrated his commitment to a peaceful, negotiated settlement.

It's important to view the Palestinian election of two weeks ago with proper perspective. About a decade ago, we started to accept the idea that the Palestinian Liberation Organization could be a partner for peace, notwithstanding the fact that its charter once called for the destruction of Israel and whose weapon of choice had been terror against civilians. So before we rush to judgment now, let's first see what shape a Hamas-led government will take. Hamas must decide whether it will turn the Palestinian Authority into a pariah or, instead, amend the organization's positions, renounce violence, and recognize Israel's right to exist - and by so doing, gain standing in the international community.

Interestingly, Israeli Jews may have already reconciled themselves to the new reality. A poll that appeared in Israeli daily Ma'ariv just two days after the elections showed that a majority of those surveyed believe that Israel should negotiate with a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority: Forty percent agree with this concept only if Hamas renounces its charter, while 27 percent support negotiations unconditionally.

The American Jewish community is justified in greeting the results of the Palestinian elections with great trepidation. We must not, however, give in to our fear. As these recent polls clearly demonstrate, there are many Palestinians who would join with us in building a peaceful future and in insisting that their elected government represent them in this endeavor; we must continue to try to work with them.

The Palestinians held a fair, free, and democratic election - perhaps the most democratic ever in the Arab world. We hope they will now stand up and demand an accountable leadership that can lead them down the only path towards true security and independence: the path of a negotiated peace. This is more than wishful thinking. Though it may still take years, it is a reality that is achievable sooner rather than later, particularly if we do our part in encouraging this result.

Allan Abrams, J.D., LL.M., M.A., a national board member of Bit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Jewish Alliance of Justice and Peace, is a past President of the American Jewish Committee's Kansas City Chapter and served as a national Trustee of the NCCJ (formerly known as the National Conference of Christians and Jews).