As the continual Israeli attacks on Gaza demonstrates it once more, no real peace can see the light under Sharon's watch, or under the watch of any of the leaders of the Israeli expansionist establishment.

This means that the first step for any solution, be it that of one or two-states solution, must be the toppling of the Israeli expansionist establishment.

How can the toppling of the expansionist leadership come about? There are only three hypothetical means.

1) To defeat the Israeli armed forces. The victorious anti-Israeli armies would then be in position to topple the expansionist establishment.

2) To exert so much pressure on the Israeli people that they would topple their Zionist establishment.

3) To implement a strategy based on reducing the distance separating the two peoples, Palestinian and Israeli, so as to get the Israeli people rid of its fears, and topple the expansionist establishment.

Few give credence to the first hypothesis, that of defeating the Israeli army on the battlefield. In view of the obvious improbability of a military victory over Israel, we should not give more time to that hypothesis.

The second hypothesis, that of exerting pressure, has been tried with armed resistance and economical boycotts. It has not worked. The US is not prepared to exert too much pressure on Israel. The Europeans still feeling guilt for their past and present anti-Semitism, are not prepared to exert too much pressure on Israel. The latter has successfully ignored all the external diplomatic pressures.

As to boycotting Israel, there are no reasons why it should today be more successful than yesterday. The suicide bombings in the Israeli territory proper, have been a god-sent present to Sharon by increasing the distance between the two people. This allowed him to sabotage all peace plans, and to go on building more and more settlements in the West Bank.

The unilateral "disengagement" from Gaza, was very beneficial to the expansionists. It allowed them to build an enormous credit of "peaceful intentions" in the eyes of the world opinion, while allowing them to accelerate the process of colonizing the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Once the disengagement done, Israel has little restraint to inflict strong damage to the Gaza potential for resistance, whatever the cost in civilian deaths. The so often repeated statement by Hamas and other resistance organizations to leave no Israeli crime without appropriate response, is ridiculous when one knows the disproportionate ability of each side to hurt the other.

Remains the third hypothesis, that of a strategy based on lessening the distance between the two people. This raises two questions

a) does the Israeli people fear the Palestinians? WHY?

b) can the distance between the two people be lessened? b) would it bring the expected good results?

Do the Israeli people fear the Palestinians?

I was in Israel in 1967 when the Egyptian radio station broadcasted in Hebrew a message directed to the Israeli people saying in substance the following:

"The time of reckoning has come. The Egyptian army is about to enter in Israel, rape your wives and daughters and throw the Jewish population into the sea."

I heard by myself, in the company of neighbors that stupid and criminal broadcast. It was not at all in line with the policies of Jamal abd el Nasser. But the latter did not know Hebrew. Jamal had been betrayed by a stupid overseer of the radio station.

Few Israelis of today can remember this broadcast. To remember it, they must have been at least 12 years old. They would have had to be now 50 years old, at least. Most of the Israeli population is younger than 50, but they have been raised by parents who had listened to that broadcast. Add to that the fact that there does not exist any Arab democracy, and we can understand the fear that Jews have of the Palestinians. What is more important is that fear plays an essential role for the survival of the Israeli expansionist leadership. This is why they do whatever it takes to increase that distance. The suicide bombings on Israeli territory have played a big role in increasing the distance. That is why, every time there seems to be a lull in the hostilities, Israel has recourse to targeted assassination to provoke the Palestinian resistance organizations into resuming their suicide bombing attacks.

It is a fact that Sharon was quite low in the polls just before the second intifada (less than 5%). Sharon provoked the second intifada by coming walking with soldiers at the Temple Mount/al-Haram al-Sharif and proclaim that the place belonged to Israel

Is it possible to diminish the distance between the two peoples?

To answer the question, one should know the cause of the distance between the two peoples. The easiest way is to demonize the other side. It does not request much knowledge, it does not request an effort to find out what is essential for the understanding of the situation but has to be uncovered. Once you decide that the Israelis are evil then the distance not only is great but is becoming greater by this very decision.

This decision, that the Israelis are evil, allow you to justify whatever action you take against them, allows you to avoid determining a correct strategy, because you do not need strategy to combat evil. You combat it in all its aspects, wherever it be. It justifies acts of revenge and dancing when an Israeli suffers. It justifies burning the building which was once a Jewish synagogue. In short it justifies an absence of consideration for what is best to bring closer the day of the satisfaction of the Palestinian aspirations.

I happen to think that compared to what the Israelis have done during long years, burning the building that had been a Jewish synagogue is "small change". But it is obvious that such an act does not bring closer the day of the satisfaction of the Palestinian aspirations. If so, why do it? Had the Palestinian leaders who were on the spot, be they from Hamas or any other organization, told the masses: "There is nothing to gain from destroying the building. We could put the building to good use, for a school for instance. We can put a plaque in one of its corners saying: 'this has once been a synagogue used by settlers who illegally took pieces of our land. Any Jew who would visit this place as a friend, with no evil attention, is welcome to pray and meditate in this place.' It would be a tremendous lesson to all the world and would increase the world's respect for our struggle, thus bringing so ever slightly closer the day of the satisfaction of our aspirations" Had a leader of Hamas said that, it would not have constituted a concession to the Israelis, it would have been a lesson to the world. Hamas has missed that opportunity. It has missed that opportunity because it is motivated by hatred and demonization and not by a correct understanding of the interests of the Palestinian people. Hatred blinds.

Last week, Israel barred a UNESCO fact-finding mission from entering the country, charging that the Palestinians had ‘politicized’ the mission before it had even arrived. The mission was tasked with looking into conditions of historical sites in the Old City of Jerusalem, something Israel apparently found to be very threatening.

Looking at the state of Jerusalem’s eastern sector today, it is understandable why Israel would not want UNESCO or anyone else walking around the Old City, especially the Palestinian-populated parts of it. Because anyone who does, will see the devastation that Israel and its settlers have wreaked on one of the oldest and most beautiful cities in the world.

Excavation works are being conducted in and around the Aqsa Mosque to make way for more Jewish construction at the place where Waqf authorities say Ottoman and Abbasid artifacts have long been tucked away. A Muslim graveyard is being dug up just outside the Old City’s Jaffa Gate, to build – ironically – a museum of tolerance. Today, two stores were forcefully taken over by Jewish settlers in Al Hakari, one of the neighborhoods in the Muslim quarter and every day, it seems that more and more homes are either being demolished by Israeli municipality authorities or being taken over by Jewish settlers.

The “Judiazation” of Jerusalem is a term many Palestinians and Arabs use for what Israel is doing in the city. In a nutshell, it is the long-term plan Israel is gradually carrying out to change the Arab Palestinian character of Jerusalem. This means demolishing old and historical structures, displacing Palestinians, handing over their homes to settlers and trying to erase the Palestinian or Arab history of the city.

The sad truth is that, on the surface, Israel has succeeded in this to a large extent. Pockets of Jewish settlers now live in the heart of Muslim quarters and aim to take over more and more. Sheikh Jarrah, one of the more affluent Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem, is now pierced with Jewish flags waving from homes that have been wrestled from their Palestinian owners, and Israel’s light rail train cuts right down through Palestinian neighborhoods outside of the city center. The train, of course, is not meant to service the Palestinian population but rather to connect Jewish neighborhoods and settlements in the city, but the area confiscated from Shufat and Beit Hanina for its construction simply fell into the plan.

What the UNESCO mission would not have seen even if they made it into the Old City is the overall humiliation that the Palestinian population of Jerusalem must endure on a daily basis because of Israel’s military occupation. Trips to the Israeli ministry of interior must be made just to prove that one lives in the city for fear that their residency rights may be revoked; young Palestinian men are stopped randomly by Israeli soldiers to check their ID cards or just to harass them, and settlers are always given the luxury of maximum security whenever they walk the streets. If settlers want to march through the city, the Palestinians are told to close their shops, are barred for hours from reaching their homes if they run along the path of the march and are always the ones blamed if any kind of confrontation between the two sides breaks out.

Jerusalem is being squeezed by these measures more and more each day. But there is always that glimmer of hope, that strength that shines through proving that all is not lost. On Shavuot, Israeli settlers and extremists poured into the Old City, singing loudly, banging on the shop doors and waving huge Israeli flags. The sight was disconcerting to say the least. However, the afternoon of that same day, at Damascus Gate, passersby were met with a completely different scene. Palestinian flags waved in determined Palestinian hands under the threatening eye of heavily armed Israeli police and soldiers. The youths were fearless, demanding freedom, with strong, unrelenting voices.

The sight of the Palestinian flag waving at the entrance to Damascus Gate was a breath of fresh air. All is not lost and never will be because hope is eternal and determination and strength come from a never-ending spring.

That day at Damascus Gate is what all Palestinians must keep in their minds’ eye in spite of the daily oppression of the occupation. No matter how many missions Israel bars from entering or how many houses it takes over, there will always be those brave souls who, despite the risks, will always raise Palestine’s flag.

Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.

There is no point falling into the pit of countering the claims being made about the death of Mohammed Al Durra, the 12-year old boy from Gaza whose videotaped killing was seen around the world. The boy, crouching in fear behind is equally afraid father as bullets whizzed around them, was killed admittedly by the Israeli army. Later, the army recanted after investigating the tape, saying Durra was killed by Palestinian fire instead. Well now, Israel is changing its story altogether, saying he was not killed at all. In fact, he was probably not even wounded and the French channel that broadcast the footage and brought some pretty bad rap to Israel, had most likely filmed a charade.

The reason why I will not waste my time countering this claim is that even with the great lengths the Israeli government went to to prove that the boy was never killed, it could not provide any irrefutable proof that Mohammed Al Durra – who would be 25 now – is still alive. No pictures, no testimonies, no hospital or morgue officials giving statements to refute his death, have been provided. Only sketchy information about ‘poor quality footage’ and the fact that it seems as though the boy moved his arm after he had slumped over his father following the explosion.

My point is this: indeed, Mohammed Durra’s death was at least one of the catalysts that fueled the second Intifada, and thus, was an important event in the history of the Palestinians. However, more importantly – most importantly to me –is the fact that this is about a boy who died in sheer terror, with his distraught father futilely trying to shelter him from the barrage of bullets coming their way.

Mohammed Al Durra was a boy, with a life, a family and friends. He died a horrible death and now he is being made to die a second one. I did not know Mohammed or his family, but I can only imagine how awful it must be for them to read these claims now and feel the pain of losing their child all over again. If nothing else, this is disrespect for human life of the worst kind.

Some may postulate that the rehashing of the Durra case is a personal jab at the French cameraman who shot the footage, Charles Enderlin. Perhaps. But as a Palestinian who has seen the pain endured by numerous families who receive the horrible news that their sons or daughters have been killed by the Israeli army, my concern is for his family and for his memory. He should be left to rest in peace. If Israel has axes to grind with French journalists or with the international community for holding it accountable for its actions, then so be it. Israel is not lacking in the public relations department.

That being said, there is just one decent thing left to do. Leave Mohammed Al Durra and his memory alone.

Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.

This week Palestinians will commemorate Al Nakba, the catastrophe that befell the Palestinian people when Israel was founded. Every year, Palestinians hang placards pointing to the right of return, they carry keys symbolizing the homes they were forced to leave and could not return to and remember the Palestine that was lost to them 65 years ago.

This year will be no different. Every May 15, Palestinian recall their catastrophe and demand justice. They demand that they are granted the right of return for those who were made refugees virtually overnight and were then relegate to a life they did not choose. But more than anything, they demand recognition of the tragedy that befell them rather than a denial that it ever happened, or worse, that it was of their own making.

It has been 65 years since Israel was established in 1948, which means those who were cast into exile are either very old or have long passed. Those who experienced the Nakba are now few and far between, clinging to those few precious memories of a small garden in front of their house in Jaffa or of the salty smell of the sea in their neighborhood in Haifa. The rest of us are either descendants of these refugees or ordinary Palestinians who feel their cause is our cause because we are one people.

But the Palestinians have made one thing clear. The refugee issue will not die with the last refugee. It is felt nationwide, the loss, the injustice and the fact that those who were forced from their homes have mostly passed, longing for their beloved homes.

We cannot turn back time. What was lost has been altered, destroyed, changed or taken over by Israel’s newcomers. What we can do is hold on to the right to be recognized, for the injustice to be rectified in word and deed and for Palestine to never be lost in our minds or hearts.

Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.

Palestine is going through a crisis imposed by Israel, and its supporters. Cutting off funds from the Palestinian government prevents it from running the daily business of governing, prevents it from paying its employees, and greatly hurts the whole Palestinian population.

The mere fact that the European Union participates in the cutting of funds demonstrates how easily the Israeli government can today pursue its policies of unilateralism. Israel now states that there is no Palestinian partner with whom to negotiate. Israeli leaders have always stated this. They were subject to some moderate criticism from European countries. But now, Israeli leaders have it very easy. No European country criticizes them. The attention is shifted from the traditional Israeli reluctance to negotiate, to the fact that there is no Palestinian partner.

There are many ways the Palestinian government could follow to get out of the present difficulties. The government could adopt the document signed in jail by imprisoned Fateh and Hamas leaders, among others. Then Israel would be recognized as a state within its pre-1967 boundaries. The US and Europe would have no excuses to maintain cutting off funds. Israel would have to find new and weaker excuses to act unilaterally.

A second way is to have recourse to a plebiscite imposed by Mahmoud Abbas will leave it to the Palestinians to approve or disapprove the recognition of Israel.

A third way would be for Abbas to declare a state of emergency during which the constitution (the Palestinian Basic Law) would allow him to edict laws to be approved by the Palestinian Legislative Council much later. He could form an emergency cabinet which would likewise have to be approved by the parliament.

A constitutional crisis is not the healthiest way to develop democracy in any state, and particularly in a nascent democracy. Both the second and third ways would be in fact a confrontation between the Palestinian presidency and government. It bodes ill for the future of democracy and establishes precedents which are divisive, and God knows if Palestinians can afford some more division!!

The best way would be for Hamas to issue an invitation to Fateh to examine together the proposal of the jailed leaders to considering its possible adoption. In this way, difficulties are solved without challenging the constitution, without putting it to the test in a divisive atmosphere.

It would be a demonstration of maturity for Hamas to follow that way.

Suicide-Bombings

In certain respects, there is a symmetry between the position of Hamas and that of Israel. Both have committed, and are supporting, acts of violence against innocent civil population. Nevertheless, there are three essential differences between the two sides.

1. Israel can inflict much more damage on the Palestinians than the Palestinians can inflict on the Israelis.
2. From the point of view of the international public opinion, and for reasons whose expression here would take too much place, Israel can, and does, "get away with murder" while Hamas does not, and cannot.
3. From the point of view of the Israeli internal policy, the suicide-bombings committed and defended by Hamas have increased the cohesion of the Israelis around the rightists, have increased the fears Israelis perceive of the Palestinians. Thus, they have increased the distance between the Palestinian people and the Israeli people, a fact to which Hamas seems to give little importance, though it is the primordial factor in the Palestinian situation.

It is time for Hamas to take a clear position with respect to violence, a position which, while recognizing the sacred right of the Palestinian people to fight for its independence, does not unify the international community against it. Attacking the Israeli forces in the occupied territory conveys the clear message that Palestinians are against the occupation. The recourse to suicide-bombings on the Israeli territory conveys the message that Hamas hate Jews, is immoral and do not mind the killing of innocent civil population. For reasons which will be dealt elsewhere Israel can "get away with murder" in this respect.

It is why the policy of suicide-bombings is a losing card in the hands of Hamas. Hamas should disavow the suicide-bombings while not disavowing the suicide-bombers who are victims of the Israeli occupation, victims of the Israeli persecution. Instead, Hamas should remind that an occupied people has the right to resist to the occupation even violently, provided the violence is directed against the occupying forces.

And what about the victims' right to revenge?

No day is passing without bringing still more evidence of the barbarity of the Israeli occupation. We learn that more Palestinians of all age are killed. More obstructions are imposed on the normal productive activities of the Palestinian population More and more do the settlers act like the Hitler-youth. More and more do the Israelis inflict humiliating measures on the Palestinian young and adult population.

The claim for the blood of the killer is a primeval need that most parents of a murdered child would feel with an unbearable intensity. Few are the saints on earth who can ignore that gut's demand. Patients suffering unbearable pains are given morphine to alleviate their sufferings. Nobody dares criticize a person who has lost most of his skin in a fire when he asks for the strongest pain killers. Likewise, nobody should dare criticize parents asking for revenge. This is the only aspiration whose realization could somewhat calm the unbearable.

This demand for revenge must be treated with respect. And since the personal revenge is impossible, since in most cases one cannot get the name of the individual killer, since the killer can be as anonymous as the pilot of an apachi helicopter, the revenge is requested from anonymous entities. It is the whole Israeli people who is perceived as THE murderer, and must be made to pay for the crime. The Palestinian psyche is injured and is in need to have its dignity restored. The easiest way is to take revenge and inflict heavy casualties on the Israelis. It results in a short-term benefit, antidote to the humiliating feeling of powerlessness. It is a pale antidote to the loss of a child, at a time when no other antidote is available.

Those parents asking for revenge are carrying the martyrdom of their children. Is it fair to ask from martyrs to accept a second martyrdom in the form of renouncing their justified claim for revenge?

Here I must ask the victims to chose between two ways of revenge. One is to inflict misery on the Israelis even if it would result in more miseries on the Palestinians, even if it serves well the policy of the Israeli expansionist establishment. The other revenge is to counteract the policy of the Israeli expansionist establishment, contribute in reducing the distance between the two peoples, lead in a real policy of reconciliation, the progress of which will be paralleled with the satisfaction of more and more of the Palestinian aspirations.

Instead of blood revenge, I am suggesting a revenge which derives from a vision, the vision of victory, the victory of the Palestinian people in achieving, together with the Israeli people, peace against their common enemy, the Israeli expansionist establishment. This vision is not illusory. It can be substantiated by a proper strategy (contact the author cleibovi@shawbiz.ca).

In this perspective, the policy of supporting suicide-bombings is a failing one strengthening the Israeli policy of unilateralism and expansion,.

Non-Recognition of Israel

Hamas should proclaim what is its agenda. What comes above anything else? Here one can wonder. Is the satisfaction, of the Palestinian people's aspirations, to the maximum possible, is it Hamas' agenda? Or is Hamas' agenda the non-recognition of Israel? For Hamas, is the non-recognition of Israel a way to realize, to the maximum possible, Palestinian aspirations, or is it an agenda in itself, an aim which in principle they would not deviate from, even if it conflicts with the best interests of the Palestinian people? Hamas owes it to the Palestinian people to be clear on this subject.

It could be a matter of principles, or it could be a card to give away against some advantage, some gain, some diplomatic progress. If it is a matter of principle then it cannot be subject to conditions such as "Israel should first return behind the pre-1967 boundaries",. we will then see what we will do. This does not sound compatible with the statement many times repeated that "we will not abandon our principle, the one of non-recognition of Israel". Once more there is here a need for more clarity, for more candidness.

If Hamas envisage conditions under which they would recognize Israel, they should clarify what is gained by putting conditions. Does the expansionist Israel needs Hamas' recognition? The whole political history would convince us that Israel is delighted by the absence of recognition. It justifies internationally its unilateralism it isolates Hamas. On the contrary, an official and clear statement by Hamas that it recognizes Israel within its pre--1967 borders, can only reinforce the international position of Hamas. The fact is that the non-recognition of Israel is now a losing card in Hamas' hands and represents a winning card in the expansionist Israeli hands. A recognition of Israel within its pre-1967 borders would in fact force Israel to lose one of its winning cards.

The missing winning card

It is time for all Palestinian leaders to recognize that no serious progress can be made towards the satisfaction of the Palestinian aspirations without the toppling of the Israeli expansionist leadership. This must go hand in hand with the recognition that the only force that can topple that Israeli leadership is the Israeli people. A good strategy could show the role of the Palestinian leadership in helping the Israeli people to realize this important task. Here are the proofs that I am not rambling.

Following the massacres in Sabra and Shatila, 300,00 Israeli took to the streets of Tel-Aviv on September 1982 demonstrating against Sharon. At this demonstration, there was a virtual alliance between the two peoples. What is also remarkable about that demonstration is that the Israeli people was quite furious against the Palestinians after the Munich massacre of many of the Israeli olympic team in September 1972, just ten year before. This virtual alliance between the two people did not last. Under the Israeli street pressure, an Israeli commission concluded that Sharon had a personal responsibility in the massacres of Sabra And Shatila. It recommended that Sharon should never hold a public office.

The Israeli expansionist endeavored to increase the distance between the two people. This was rendered easy following the wave of suicide bombings. Often, the suicide-bombing was provoked by the Israeli authorities. Whenever Hamas would announce a truce in hostilities, Israel would proceed to targeted assassinations designed at provoking Hamas to resume its policy of suicide-bombings. And Hamas would fall in the trap. The fact is that, as a result of a lack of interest from the part of the Palestinian authority in influencing the Israeli public opinion, by following policies helping the Israeli government in increasing the distance between the two people, following serious mistakes of arab leaders (write to me at cleibovi@shawbiz.ca ), the distance between the two people has indeed increased to the point where the Israeli expansionists feel comfortable in pursuing their policies of expansion and of unilateralism.

I have shown in http://cleibovi.shawbiz.ca/justpeace/stumbl.html that a successful Palestinian Strategy has to pass through a reconciliation of the two peoples, the thought of it is the nightmare of the Israeli expansionists. Hamas who does not believe in it is ignoring the most important winning card it could have.

Dr. Isam Sartawi was a moderate member of the PLO. He was assassinated in Portugal in 1983. Ytzhak Shamir, the then Israeli minister for foreign affairs, in an interview with Time Magazine, was asked if he was sad at the death of a moderate PLO member. He answered that he was not sad at all, quite the contrary. Israel, said Shamir, is not afraid of the extremists. No country in the world would pressure Israel into negotiating with them. He added that the dangerous people are the moderate Palestinians. There is pressure on Israel to negotiate with them, and peace is not in the interest of Israel.

I do not say that Hamas is extremist, but I do say that Hamas is perceived as being so. That in itself is enough for the Israeli expansionists to be happy at the electoral victory of Hamas. Their task is then much easier.

There have often been periods of calm, when armed hostilities and suicide bombings had ceased for a while. During these times, the Israeli expansionists provoked Hamas to resume the hostilities. The provocation was often caused by the targeting of Hamas leaders for assassination.

Israel is now demanding that Hamas recognize the state of Israel. Indeed, the Israeli expansionists would prefer that Hamas abstain from that. It is enough to consider the past when the PLO refused for long years to recognize the existence of Israel. When the PLO finally did recognize Israel, Israel refused to 'recognize' that recognition. They tried for some time to convince the Israeli people that the recognition was not a valid one. The Israel expansionists did and still do not want the expression of a moderate policy by Palestinian popular leaders.

Today, the international community supports Israel and concentrates on the extremist aspects of Hamas' charter or in the vows of the martyrs.

The recognition of Israel in its pre-1967 borders would be a severe blow to the Israeli expansionists. We saw that in the last 50 years they were afraid of the moderates, not of the "extremists". The expansionists deal with the Palestinian "extremists" using military power. However, they feel powerless with popular Palestinian moderates. Mahmoud Abbas was a moderate, but not a popular one. The Palestinian people want a moderate who will not give up Palestinian rights, who will recognize Israel within its pre-1967 borders, and who will pursue a strategy to ensure the right of return of refugees, if not immediately, then within a foreseeable future.

The Palestinians have suffered for too long. By fulfilling the Israeli expansionists' dreams, Hamas will prolong the suffering of the Palestinian people, isolating Palestine from the international community and facilitating the building of new Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Hamas has other options, but the Palestinian people are entitled to know what course Hamas intends to take.

Recently, snippets of news indicated that Hamas might be preparing to recognize Israel, provided that the latter evacuates the territories it conquered and occupied in 1967. Israel is not ready to respond positively because it suits them at the moment to demand recognition from Hamas, all the while banking on their refusal to do. Instead, Hamas should call Israel's bluff and recognize the state within its pre-1967 boundaries, leaving the ball in Israel's court. Israel would no longer be in a position to hide behind the pretense that Hamas does not recognize its existence. Indeed, if Hamas took on this initiative, it would certainly leave Israel in a difficult position.

It is a victory for the Palestinian people. They have expressed their distrust in Mahmoud Abbas' corrupt government, a government that expected partial satisfaction of Palestinian aspirations through US pressure on Israel. The political atmosphere has thus changed for the better.

The world, and the US in particular, have to face a situation in which they must take into account that the people of Palestine have made a stand against subservient policies and delays. They must now know that unless curfews become a thing of the past, unless checkpoints are quickly eliminated, unless borders are established, and unless the Israeli army retires behind those borders, the atmosphere in Palestine will become chaotic in a way that no longer serves the joint interests of Israel and the US.

As for the borders established by Israel, they cannot become permanent until detailed peace negotiations between a Palestinian state and Israel are complete.

Hamas will also have to consider the fact that an important minority of the Palestinian people did not vote for them. I am certain that Hamas, realizing the huge difficulty of the tasks ahead, will consider measures aimed at unifying the Palestinian people.

Hamas will also have to consider the significance of their electoral victory. It must, and I hope it will, understand that many of the votes for Hamas were due to a) a protest against the Mahmoud Abbas' rule b) the social activities of Hamas c) the fighting spirit of Hamas, though not specifically any of its ideological positions, and d) Fatah's relationship with the US. In addition, Hamas must understand that their victory does not automatically mean that the Palestinian people are committed to an Islamic state.