Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A New Political Landscape in Palestine

by SAMAR ASSAD

Palestinians overwhelmingly voted for the Islamic movement Hamas in yesterday’s 25 January 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections, giving it absolute power to form the next Palestinian government. The vote also served to marginalize Fateh, the historically dominate party in Palestinian politics.

Wednesday’s vote is seen as a “wake-up” call for the current Palestinian leadership, which has been unable to deliver on its promises to improve the lives of Palestinians at both domestic and international levels. Local expectations abound that Hamas will carry out a stalled reform agenda within the Palestinian Authority (PA) institutions, specifically within the judicial branch and on the issues of government mismanagement, corruption and performance.

However, when Hamas enters the fray of international politics, the difficulties and impediments will differ little from those that plagued Fateh and President Mahmoud Abbas, specifically in relation to political action from Israel and the United States. Notably, Israel’s unilateralism, dictates toward the Palestinian leadership and race to create facts on the ground before negotiations together led to Fateh’s downfall and continue to hinder the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.
The Power of the People

Preliminary results released today by the Palestinian Central Elections Committee (CEC) show that Hamas won 76 of the 132 seats in the legislature as compared to Fateh’s 43 seats (33 percent). This is a blow to the party, which formerly held 62 of the 88-seat legislature over the past ten years (70 percent). Four independent candidates have announced that they will join Hamas, raising the group’s control to 80 seats (61 percent).

According to the CEC, 77 percent of the 1.3 million registered voters cast their ballots in 1,100 polling stations throughout sixteen districts yesterday. Voter turnout reached 74 percent in the West Bank, 82 percent in the Gaza Strip and 46 percent in the suburbs of East Jerusalem. Some 13,000 Palestinian security personnel were assigned to polling stations, along with 47,000 election workers, international and local observers and party representatives. Final results are expected no later than Friday, January 27.

The CEC reports that Mustafa Barghouthi’s “Independent Palestine” slate won two seats in the legislative vote, as did Hanan Ashrawi’s “Third Way” slate and the “Alternative” slate, a coalition of leftist groups. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) won three seats.

Fateh has said it will not join a government led by Hamas and that it will hand over all cabinet positions. This leaves Hamas, which has no experience in running national institutions—especially those that function through cooperation with Israel—responsible for the governing of every aspect of Palestinian life.
How did we get here?

Israel and the United States have said that they will not deal with Hamas unless the group recognizes Israel’s right to exist, disarms its personnel, and renounces what they call “terrorism.” Hamas does not seem to have any immediate plans to act on those demands. Hamas’ holdout gives Israel the international seal of approval it has sought for continuing its unilateral policies toward the Palestinians. Israeli officials have already said that Hamas’ new dominance of the Palestinian legislature means their government will accelerate construction of the separation Wall. This action, which is in direct contradiction to international law, will make permanent a de facto border that deprives Palestinians of their land, natural resources and the contiguity needed for a viable state and puts any international attempts to revive a peace process on hold.

Israel and the United States must consider what role they have played in Hamas’ victory. Israel has undermined Abbas’ power by disregarding its obligations under the Road Map and Sharm el-Sheikh understanding and by pursuing a policy of unilateralism, military might and territorial expansion. On its part, the United States allowed the weakening of Abbas and his government despite warnings that such action would push the Palestinian people to choose a different leadership.
What the Coming Steps Are

For Fateh, the defeat is a lesson that its mistakes can no longer be ignored out of loyalty or deference to its history of a decades-long struggle for Palestinian liberation. Fateh must reinvent itself, remove those persons or circumstances responsible for its corruption and rebuild the party by reexamining its membership, leadership and political strategy. Fateh officials have acknowledged that issues of corruption and internal party divisions over leadership were the primary causes of their declining support and ultimate defeat in yesterday’s tight race.

For Hamas, the road ahead is difficult. Now adding legislative representation to its resume of public services, the group needs to prove that it can effect change that Fateh could not if it is to be a sufficient alternative to the Fateh-led PA. To do so, it will need to balance its religious and political ideology and bring itself closer to the reality of the political situation in terms of its means of challenging occupation, improving Palestinian daily life and creating a viable Palestinian state.

Rising support for Hamas in the months leading up to the election shows that it has proven itself astute in its challenge to Fateh. The question remains whether it has grasped the need for political moderation at an international level. Its campaign platform projects a party that is somewhere in the political center and wants to attract international powers. Hamas will soon realize that there are realities that if it chooses to ignore, it will find itself equally unable to implement domestic campaign promises such as its economic development projects. The implementation of such projects will require negotiation with Israel on the issue of borders and the movement of Palestinian people and goods and funding from the international community.

One way or the other Hamas’ victory brings a new political reality in the region. The test for the international community is its dedication to democracy and the changes that it brings.

SAMAR ASSAD is Executive Director of the Palestine Center.

 

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyon
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]