EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Hamas, the Islamist movement designated a terrorist organisation by the U.S. and EU and considered a mortal enemy by Israel, will soon join the Palestinian legislature. Riding an unprecedented wave of popularity and having exceeded virtually all expectations in recent municipal contests, it could end up sitting at the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) cabinet table. Consequences would likely be far-reaching: Palestinians are hugely dependent on the West and Israel, and both have threatened to cut ties should Hamas join the PA. So far, the U.S. and EU essentially have opted to ignore the Islamists rather than deal with them upfront – the end result being a movement that feels stronger, more emboldened, and over which the West has precious little leverage. With the prospect as remote as ever of a renewed peace process or a weakened PA cracking down on a strengthened Hamas, the international community’s best remaining option is to maximise the Islamist movement’s incentives to move in a political direction through a policy of gradual, conditional engagement.

Hamas’s electoral participation results from a convergence of disparate interests. For President Abbas, securing the ceasefire, rehabilitating the Palestinians’ international standing, and putting the domestic house in order required a deal with Hamas. In exchange for cooperation, he offered power-sharing through political integration. Abbas’s gambit coincided with Hamas’s calculations: it had experienced a surge in popular support during the uprising, was eager for a respite from Israeli military assaults, and, with both Fatah and the PA in disarray, saw an opportunity to translate its success into institutional power. Though originally scheduled for July 2005, parliamentary elections were postponed by Fatah leaders concerned about Hamas’s strength and convinced that with more time they would recover lost ground.

Fatah’s concerns were not misplaced but its response was plainly misguided. Strong half a year ago, Hamas appears far stronger now. In the intervening months, Fatah has continued to fray, consumed by internal divisions, while Hamas has come of age. Municipal elections, in which they handily won control of most urban areas, including traditional Fatah bastions like Nablus, suggest the Islamists are establishing themselves as the alternative of choice to a PA discredited by corruption, chaos and a failure to realise its political agenda. Today, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians live in localities ruled by Hamas.

The record of the last several months, as Hamas rubbed elbows with issues of local governance and campaigned for national office, offers a preliminary, mixed picture of how political integration might affect its outlook and conduct. In its pragmatism, and even willingness to deal with Israel on day-to-day operational affairs, Hamas rule at the local level has been almost boringly similar to its predecessor. Local politicians emphasise themes of good governance, economic development, and personal and social security, leaving specifically religious issues and the conflict with Israel to the background. With only scant exceptions, they have yet to try to impose their vision of an Islamist society.

Nationally, too, signs of pragmatism can be detected. Far more than Fatah, Hamas has proved a disciplined adherent to the ceasefire, and Israeli military officers readily credit this for the sharp decline in violence. In recent statements, Hamas leaders have not ruled out changing their movement’s charter, negotiating with Israel, or accepting a long-term truce on the basis of an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines. Today, their electoral platform is in these respects closer to Fatah’s outlook than to Hamas’s founding principles.

There is a less encouraging side. Hamas continues to straddle its public and clandestine wings, subject to competing views from different leadership elements, and at least partially susceptible to Syrian and Iranian pressures. Most Israelis, and not a few Palestinians, are worried about its armed potential, and there is widespread suspicion in Israel that the organisation simply is biding its time, waiting for the post-electoral period to launch a new wave of attacks with a replenished and improved arsenal. Perhaps most significantly, it has neither renounced violence, nor accepted Israel’s existence.

All this suggests that integration is a work in progress, neither a sure thing nor the safest of bets. But what is the alternative? The PA is not in a military, let alone a political, position forcibly to disarm Hamas. Since taking office, Abbas has been paralysed by a sclerotic political system, and he has more than once staked his political future on successful, inclusive elections. Without the prospect of political incorporation, and in the absence of a credible diplomatic process, Hamas – and, along with it, most other armed organisations – is likely to resume sustained attacks against Israel. What remains, for now, is the possibility that by incorporating Hamas more deeply into local and national governance, its stake in overall stability and the political costs of a breakdown gradually will steer it away from the military path.

Confronted with the challenge of a newly emerging Palestinian reality, the international community has, for the most part, taken a pass. While there are important differences in policy, both the U.S. and EU avoid (and in the American case, bar) contacts with the Islamist organisation, deny funding to projects with Hamas-run municipalities, and have threatened to halt assistance to the PA if Hamas joins it. This attitude has had several, essentially negative, results: estranging Palestinians from Western donors; losing touch with an increasingly large segment of the population; jeopardising project sustainability; and reducing accountability. Meanwhile, Hamas has gained strength from a nationalist backlash against perceived foreign interference and is participating in elections without having to fulfil any prior condition.

Western countries have not done the one thing that might have had a positive impact: try to shape Hamas’s policies by exploiting its clear desire for international recognition and legitimacy. There is every reason for the West to withhold formal dealings at a national level, at least until it renounces attacks against civilians and drops its opposition to a two-state solution, but the current confused approach – boycotting Hamas while facilitating its electoral participation; facilitating its participation without seeking through some engagement reciprocal concessions – makes no sense at all.

Without conferring immediate legitimacy on Hamas, engaging its national officials or removing it from the terrorism list, the EU in particular – which has more flexibility than the U.S. in this regard – should encourage the Islamists to focus on day-to-day matters and facilitate a process of potential political integration and gradual military decommissioning. With Prime Minister Sharon’s sudden incapacitation, an already impossibly perplexing situation has become more confused still. Using Western economic and political leverage to try to stabilise the Palestinian arena would be far from the worst possible investment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Palestinian Authority:

1. Within 100 days of the formation of the next cabinet, submit the draft Political Parties Law to the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) for ratification, providing for the formal registration of all political organisations that pursue their objectives through lawful and peaceful means.

2. Within 100 days of the formation of the next government, submit a Basic Security Law to the PLC, providing for:

• de-politicisation of the Palestinian security sector and full parliamentary supervision of all security forces and intelligence agencies, including their budgets; and
• phased decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, commencing with cessation of the acquisition, development, and testing of new weaponry, and including in subsequent stages decommissioning of weaponry that most threatens an Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire; and integration or demobilisation of members of all armed groups not part of the Palestinian security forces, all in coordination with verifiable international supervision.

3. Ensure the equitable distribution of municipal and reconstruction funds, including donor funds disbursed to PA accounts, so that local authorities are not the subject of discrimination on the basis of the political composition of their governing councils.

To the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas):

4. Renew the unilateral ceasefire (tahdi’a) for six months, and respond positively to efforts by Egypt, the Quartet, and other third parties to achieve a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire.

5. Support ratification by the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) of the Political Parties Law, and register the Reform and Change Bloc as a distinct and separate political party.

6. Participate in the drafting and support ratification by the PLC of a Basic Security Law, and declare readiness to cooperate with a newly formed decommissioning authority on gradual implementation of the following measures, in the case of (c) – (e) subject to a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire and independent international verification:

• immediate and unconditional ban on the public display of weapons;
• permanent cessation of attacks against civilian targets;
• cessation of the acquisition, manufacture, and testing of weaponry;
• decommissioning of weaponry that most threatens the ceasefire, including rockets and weapons laboratories; and
• unification of all armed elements under central government authority.

7. State that it will accept and honour a negotiated two-state settlement that is properly endorsed by Palestinian national institutions and the Palestinian people.

To the Government of Israel:

8. Reciprocate an extension of the tahdi’a by Palestinian armed groups by:

• a moratorium on assassinations, incursions into Palestinian population centres, house demolitions, and arrest sweeps where there is no evidence of imminent military necessity; and
• beginning a process of meaningful release of prisoners belonging to groups that are party to the tahdi’a commencing with political leaders, including Islamists, who have not been charged with involvement in armed activities.

9. Respond positively to efforts by third parties to achieve a comprehensive ceasefire.

To the European Union and its Member States:

10. Subject to Hamas extending the tahdi’a,

• resume normal developmental and diplomatic contact with Hamas-run municipalities;
• renew funding of municipalities through the Municipal Development fund, subject to auditing measures that ensure disbursements benefit only intended recipients; and
• agree to engage in relations with any political party, including the Hamas-affiliated Reform and Change Bloc, but only if it is properly registered under the Political Parties Law and verifiably independent of any armed wing.

11. If Hamas violates the truce, suspend contacts both with its parliamentary faction and local officials, and if Hamas-affiliated politicians are part of the cabinet at the time, also suspend contacts with and assistance to the PA.

12. Remove Hamas from their list of proscribed terrorist organisations, subject to Hamas formally renouncing all violence against civilians and taking initial steps in a verifiable process of decommissioning.

13. Undertake normal dialogue with the organisation subject to Hamas dropping its opposition to a two-state solution and indicating it will honour a properly endorsed Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

To the Government of the United States:

14. Give serious consideration to adopting policy responses toward Hamas recommended for the European Union and its member states if they prove effective.

Amman/Brussels, 18 January 2006

To View the Full Report as PDF (526 KB)