How did a terrorist group become Palestine's leading party?

The Islamists of Hamas, the most notorious terrorist organization in the Middle-East, have vowed to destroy Israel. And with Hamas’ decisive victory in the Palestinian Authority’s January legislative elections, the question of what next came to the fore of everyone’s minds. Now, the world has found an answer. The West is beginning to distance itself from what it sees as a potent foe in the fight against terror. Recently, both Europe and America have announced funding cuts for the PA, while Israel has displayed similar intransigence, refusing to cooperate with an organization that does not recognize its right to exist.

But how did this blatantly repugnant organization come to power? In the immediate aftermath following the January election, it was not the fact that Hamas had won, but rather the magnitude of victory that shocked observers around the world. Out of 132 chamber seats, Hamas garnered a total of 76. Its political rival Fatah, which has governed the PA for several years, was only able to gain 43 seats, putting it substantially behind Hamas in terms of legislative control. It is clear that the Palestinian people have spoken, and their mandate has been handed to Hamas. But what has caused such a dramatic shift away from the mainstream Fatah party? In order to portend the effects this will have on the region, a careful analysis of the reasons behind Hamas’ apparent popularity is in order.

Hamas was founded in 1987 as a Gaza Strip branch of the Sunni, Pan-Arab Islamist Muslim Brotherhood movement, which began in Egypt. The introduction of its charter declares that “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious”, and then later “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad”. Not the words of a peace-loving movement. Clearly, it is very easy to love to hate Hamas. The Palestinian’s people view of Hamas, however, is very different from the Western view of the organization. While it takes many Western observers by surprise, the Palestinian people have a simple and logical reason to elect Hamas and depose Fatah: Hamas knows good governance.

Omar Hamayel’s efforts are a great example of Hamas’ attunement to local needs. Daily, the new major of the West Bank town of Bireh, shows up to work when the doors open at 8 and leaves later into the night than anyone else. Even though Bireh is a relatively wealthy town, the streets are still littered with garbage, streetlights. The city’s infrastructure suffers from continuously broken water pipes, and unemployment is high. Hamayel is a member of Hamas, and his work ethic and drive are what the Palestinian people consider the standard set by Hamas.

Residents of the West Bank city of Qalqilya seem to expect a similar level of commitment. Surrounded by Israeli settlements and contained by a concrete wall, Qalqilya’s 50,000 residents previously relied on a city council dominated by Fatah members to produce change in what was essentially a ghetto. In the municipal elections that took place last June, Qalqilya’s populace voted Hamas candidates into every single city council seat. This move was replicated across the occupied territories, with Hamas winning virtually all the seats elected on a geographic basis. The vote was as much a rejection of Fatah as it was an affirmation of Hamas. Hamas candidates are being elected because the Palestinian people think they can make a difference, and know that Fatah is largely a stagnant and ineffective party.

Hamas has long provided a disciplined alternative to Fatah, running its own medical clinics, schools, and soup kitchens for the poor. Furthermore, the Palestinians expect Hamas members to have clean records, as opposed to the notoriously corrupt Fatah officials. Despite having controlled Qalqilya only since June, the Hamas council has balanced the city’s budget, paid off the town debt, raised salaries, and begun building roads. After only a month of control in Bireh, workers have installed streetlights and the streets have begun to be cleaned. To the Palestinian people, the bottom line is that Hamas can get the job done. This is the reality of the situation, whatever Hamas’s international policy may be., Their domestic policy provides, hands-down, the most benefits for the Palestinian people.

One cannot give Hamas’ success in local governance, however, all the credit for the party’s broad-based victory. The organization has been helped significantly by Israeli attempts to undermine the rule of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah party. Despite dismantling a few token settlements, Israel’s continuing occupation of the Palestinian territories and its concerted efforts to destroy the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority, expand other settlements beyond the 1967 borders, annex West Bank territory through the security barrier, conduct military raids, and place new internal restrictions on movement have revealed Fatah’s helplessness in the face of Israeli power, pushing the Palestinian people to find a political alternative that can stand up to Israel. The unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 was the result of negotiations between Fatah, the United States, and Israel. However, due to Israel’s refusal to coordinate the details of withdrawal and redeployment openly with the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Abbas were unable to (rightfully) present the withdrawal as a result of their policies. Hamas smoothly stepped in and claimed that the Israeli withdrawal was a result of its armed struggle – a claim that the majority of the Palestinian people believe.

While Hamas is full of tough talk, saying that it will never recognize Israel, it still largely abides by its self-imposed cease-fire with Israel. The so-called Quartet, composed of the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations, have complicated matters by cutting and redirecting funds that Hamas requires to provide a functioning government. It does not help that Fatah has become the Western puppet within the Palestinian government and that ministries beneath the Hamas leadership are stuffed with Fatah members. Such internal discord encouraged by the Quartet’s use of sanctions is rather unbecoming of nations that profess to abide by the results of democracy. Hamas has done and will always do what is in the best interest of the Palestinian people. The reality is that the Palestinian people need leadership that is strong enough to stand up to external pressures while moderate enough to avoid provoking more violence. So far, Hamas’ balancing act is working, but the process is reminiscent of the tortuous negotiations between the Irish Republican Army and the British government during the 80’s and 90’s.

Israel and the Quartet thus have two options – to stonewall the Hamas government and deny it the necessities of functioning government on the grounds that Hamas is a terrorist organization, or to engage it cautiously, moving forward with small concessions and negotiations, offering real progress towards a Palestinian state as exchange. Indeed, removal of funding would cause Hamas to resort to the type of suicide bombings that defined it as an organization in recent history. Whatever one may believe, a moderate Hamas in control of a Palestinian state that is no longer dependent on Israeli money and security is much better for the world than a stagnant group of territories afflicted by both anarchy and a barely functioning government. The path is clear for the Western world.