Handling Hamas

Handling Hamas

Rather than undermine Hamas, the Bush Administration should accept the results of the Palestinian election and pursue a policy of cautious engagement.


After it was conclusively determined that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Bush Administration announced that the most important purpose of its invasion was to further the cause of democracy in the Middle East. It declared that stable, democratic regimes were the best deterrent to terrorism and the best hope for peace. WMD, it seems, stands for We Meant Democracy.

A milestone in this march toward the open society was Palestine. The Administration supported the participation of Hamas in the recent parliamentary elections there, reasoning that the Islamist movement’s widely predicted new role as minority party in the Palestinian Authority’s legislature would help to tame its ideological rejectionism. But now, after Hamas’s stunning triumph, the Administration has changed course, threatening the PA with diplomatic isolation and a cutoff of all aid unless Hamas recognizes Israel, renounces violence and agrees to abide by previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. It has been reported that Washington and Tel Aviv are planning an economic destabilization campaign to force a collapse of the new government, though the Bush Administration has denied it.

Such a hard line is shortsighted and dangerous. Respect for the United States in the Muslim and Arab world, already at dismal levels, will plummet further if Washington refuses to accept the results of what were, after all, remarkably free and fair elections. US attempts to isolate and demonize Hamas will only increase public support for it among Palestinians. A cutoff in aid to the PA, whose salaries are the life support for several hundred thousand people, could cause both a humanitarian catastrophe and widespread violence. Threats to isolate the PA will only throw Hamas into the arms of other rejectionists like Iran.

A policy of cautious engagement, while not without risks, is much more likely to strengthen Hamas’s pragmatic tendencies. The movement has made clear that it wants to concentrate on improved governance and continue the cease-fire with Israel, which it has held to with commendable discipline for a year. Hamas won the elections not because Palestinians want Islamist rule and the destruction of Israel but because of widespread public disgust with Fatah’s corruption and mismanagement. Polls consistently show that a large majority of Palestinians want a two-state solution to the conflict. If the Bush Administration truly supports democracy in the Middle East, it will give Hamas a chance to fulfill these reasonable desires, and to succeed or fail on its own merits. That’s the best hope for peace.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy